3292 replies to this topic

[skyeagle409]

lliqerty, on 07 July 2012 - 04:31 PM, said:

The stuff you are saying has already been proven to be wrong.

What stuff in particular? We have eyewitness accounts, data, and other evidence placing American 77 at the Pentagon and nowhere else.

[MID]

lliqerty, on 07 July 2012 - 03:08 PM, said:

I find it is very strange that there is one relatively small entrance hole, no signs of wings, the second row I have seen no damage, possibly because the angle of view, and the third row there are 3 tiny exit holes which suggest 3 different trajectories, but it's not the one in the middle that corresponds to the "offical" flight approach.

That entrace hole corresponds to the mass of the aircraft piercing the building.
There is evidence of wing contact all along the structure to either side of the main fuselage hole.  Understand that the wings are the most flexible, lowest mass items on the airplane, and they were impacting an area of the building supported by 6 re-enforced columns on either side of the main hole area. The evidence of wing damage is there, but thwey were largely shredded when they hit. There is fuel in them, of course, but they in and of themselves are not structured with pressure hulls and tubular bodies like the main section is.

The wings and things were in small pieces all over the place.

What does it mean, "It's not the one in the middle that corresponds to the official flight approach"?

[booNyzarC]

lliqerty, on 07 July 2012 - 04:51 PM, said:

Yeah, shaterred windows and fires inside but the wall is still standing, duh. Are you saying it flew through the windows?

Willful ignorance is a wonder to behold sometimes.

[Coffey]

booNyzarC, on 07 July 2012 - 02:37 PM, said:

I'm alright with agreeing to disagree on this point.

Well fair enough but what I'm saying comes from experience.

booNyzarC, on 07 July 2012 - 02:37 PM, said:

As for Charlie's public video, are you really so surprised that Obama didn't respond to it?

If he had responded to it, what kind of precedent would that set?  Public videos about peoples' pet topics would come out of the woodwork.

As for answers, there are plenty of answers for CT claims.  You don't need Obama or any other president to deliver the answers, they are readily available for anyone willing to put in a few hours of honest investigation online.

Are you joking? The Goverment should ask ANY question ANY person asks. The goverment is supposed to be there FOR the people, the people are NOT there for a goverment.

People should not fear the Goverment, the Goverment should fear it's people. <--- This right here is the problem with the whole world right now.

He should have publicaly responded to him.

Edited by Coffey, 07 July 2012 - 05:38 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

Government is a necessary evil, according to Jefferson and others.  Right they are.

And so it is that we live under the rule of law, or so we're told, and it is the rule of law that constrains the necessary evil government.

Good post Coffey.

[booNyzarC]

Liquid Gardens, on 07 July 2012 - 04:42 PM, said:

Wow, those earlier reposts of yours from the post above are excellent, especially when you do the compare between those two frames of the Pentagon video.  I hadn't really paid that much attention to this video and had always thought that this video just showed an indiscernable white blob.  But I think my perspective has been entirely off on where the camera position is and what I was expecting to see.  Am I correct that it appears that you can see the entire plane in one of the shots?  There are a few features I see:  you can see a purplish horizontal line running down a wider lighter horizontal line which is the entire fuselage with the AA red, white and blue stripes, what looks like the vertical stabilizer, and then a whiter portion that seems to continue of the right side of the frame which I assume is smoke or something; the point being, it appears that the entire plane is in the shot and part of it is not off frame?  I've been totally thrown-off, I was expecting the plane to be much larger in perspective relative to the pentagon, but I think it's because in the video I can't tell exactly how far down the pentagon outer wall the plane hits, there's just an explosion.  But from the camera's perpective because of the distance the plane looks smaller, and I also realize thinking about it that I don't know how much taller the Pentagon is relative to the height of AA77.  And the plane I think didn't hit at a straight perpendicular and was coming in at an angle.  Regardless, good post and great evidence and analysis, my perspective was way off.

Thanks LG, I appreciate that.  

The fish-eye lens on that camera does make it difficult to accurately measure the size of the aircraft, but it clearly is an aircraft, and I agree that the features we can make out from the low quality image appear to be consistent with AA77.  A higher quality image would do a lot to put this particular conspiracy theory to rest, but I honestly don't think there are any.

Which really begs the question...  if the government truly did conspire in some way, why the hell wouldn't they have produced some fake images to quell any possible suspicion in the first place?  The irony of that is lost on most conspiracists despite how blatantly obvious it is.

[Babe Ruth]

Why wouldn't they?

Because they are not as smart as you?

[Coffey]

Babe Ruth, on 07 July 2012 - 05:53 PM, said:

Government is a necessary evil, according to Jefferson and others.  Right they are.

And so it is that we live under the rule of law, or so we're told, and it is the rule of law that constrains the necessary evil government.

Good post Coffey.

Agreed and thank you.

booNyzarC, on 07 July 2012 - 05:54 PM, said:

Which really begs the question...  if the government truly did conspire in some way, why the hell wouldn't they have produced some fake images to quell any possible suspicion in the first place?  The irony of that is lost on most conspiracists despite how blatantly obvious it is.

So you can put exactly what you just did....  

[booNyzarC]

Coffey, on 07 July 2012 - 05:37 PM, said:

Are you joking? The Goverment should ask ANY question ANY person asks. The goverment is supposed to be there FOR the people, the people are NOT there for a goverment.

People should not fear the Goverment, the Goverment should fear it's people. <--- This right here is the problem with the whole world right now.

He should have publicaly responded to him.

No, I'm not joking at all.  Expecting the president of the United States to respond to a YouTube video is beyond ridiculous.

Investigations have been done.  The conclusions drawn have been reported.  It is termed the official version of events because it was born from official investigations.

Conspiracy theorists have tried for over a decade to poke holes, and the closest they can come to making a dent is pointing out a handful of ambiguities which have no answers.  All of this calling for a "new investigation" is nothing more than hand waving in response to the fact that conspiracy theorists have nothing of substance to base their conspiracy theories on in the first place.

[booNyzarC]

Coffey, on 07 July 2012 - 06:00 PM, said:

So you can put exactly what you just did....  

[Babe Ruth]

A new investigation ain't gonna happen, and I've been saying that for years.  It's obvious to anybody who studies government behavior over the decades and centuries.

Nor will the judiciary step in and save the day, as Madison had fondly hoped.

Nope.  The government is done with its investigation, we're in the Court Of Public Opinion because of it.

And in that court, the OCT is fairly well understood to be not exactly accurate.  Common Sense often prevails in the Court Of Public Opinion.

[Coffey]

booNyzarC, on 07 July 2012 - 06:05 PM, said:

I expected this response, it's very simple psychology. You see it's easy to read how people react to situations, facts presented to them and the reaction they give.

Easier to plan around this psychology so that the people in the different "stables" will go against each other. Divided is best, when controlling large herds. Divide them into pens for easier management.

You see if we all stood together and asked... Then they couldn't ignore us.

booNyzarC, on 07 July 2012 - 06:02 PM, said:

No, I'm not joking at all.  Expecting the president of the United States to respond to a YouTube video is beyond ridiculous.

Investigations have been done.  The conclusions drawn have been reported.  It is termed the official version of events because it was born from official investigations.

Conspiracy theorists have tried for over a decade to poke holes, and the closest they can come to making a dent is pointing out a handful of ambiguities which have no answers.  All of this calling for a "new investigation" is nothing more than hand waving in response to the fact that conspiracy theorists have nothing of substance to base their conspiracy theories on in the first place.

Wasn't jsut a youtube video, he sent the video to the president, it was then put on youtube so people knew what he was asking.

You know what is funny, this isn't jsut conspiracy theorists asking these questions. It's everyday normal people and people who where there.

Funny how nobody has still answered me about the woman who runs a brothel and had information who publically said she would not commit suicde and was later foudn dead in her shed.... They say it was suicide.

There is a lot of mysterious deaths involved with this.


Anyway the fact you hink he shouldn't respond to a youtube video is redicilous. he should respond to any form of question, no matter the media used to ask it.

That is his duty, the fact you think that is wrong sums up the whole problem with the system. It's not what it was meant to be and not working how it was meant to.

Edited by Coffey, 07 July 2012 - 06:13 PM.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

Coffey, on 07 July 2012 - 05:37 PM, said:

Well fair enough but what I'm saying comes from experience.



Are you joking? The Goverment should ask ANY question ANY person asks. The goverment is supposed to be there FOR the people, the people are NOT there for a goverment.

People should not fear the Goverment, the Goverment should fear it's people. <--- This right here is the problem with the whole world right now.

He should have publicaly responded to him.

You really think the President would have the time to respond personally to anyone who has any kind of axe to grind? How would he ever get the time to plan the next war?* And as was remarked previously, that would open the floodgates for allkinds of nuts with chips on their shoulder to expect the Leader of the Free World** to deal personally with whatever their particular obsession may be?  Anyway, I'm afraid that the truth Movement has largely brought it on themselves, that the response to any issue they bring up is most likely to be a rolling of the eyes.


* irony
** possibly irony again

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

Babe Ruth, on 07 July 2012 - 05:58 PM, said:

Why wouldn't they?

Because they are not as smart as you?

,... but I thought they were supposed to be the most ruthlessly efficient organisational geniuses the world has ever seen? To have planned an operation of this size in that kind of flawless detail, to dispose of four airliners and coordinate three different False Flag operations like that; surely they'd have to be pretty smart.

[frenat]

bee, on 07 July 2012 - 02:23 PM, said:

Soooooooooooo you're saying you don't think the mighty US had  in situ defence for it's Defence Headquarters........oooooooooooh  kaaaaaaaaay

Has ANYBODY ever seen these defenses?  One would think if they existed that somebody would see them especially as it is traveled over by thousands of people daily being in the direct landing path of a major airport.