turbonium Posted October 28, 2012 #2576 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Why Threads Die The Anti-Post raises its ugly head. This is a vile post that offers nothing of value to the thread, and wastes everyone's time reading, We see the Anti-Post in the last two examples above. One Anti-Post says nothing, That immediately sends another Anti-post into action, playing the role of 'Anti-Post cheerleader', by a liberal sprinkling of 'smiley-face' icons. The Anti-Post can spread out over a whole page, if left untreated. Soon the entire thread is diluted with poisoned posts, and everyone else leaves it to die. It's quite horrible. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted October 28, 2012 #2577 Share Posted October 28, 2012 its ok that you think it was a terrorist attack, but it doesnt take too much research and hearing the testimonies of people that were at these sites (WTC) to see what the truth is.. this is the thing with this world we live in.. people are blind.. they just believe whatever the govt tell them.. i believed it all too.. it was awful.. but the facts are the facts.. and the outcome is that it was a false flag.. sorry.. the truth is ugly.. Nahhh. No debris at all. It's getting even harder to locate debris at the Pentagon site... Yes, there was no debris...other than the tons found and recovered. No bodies (perhaps you expect the graphic evidentiary photos posted here???) I just remember all kinds of fire, all kinds of pieces of airplane, lots of burning stuff of varying types, and uh....lots of human parts and things I'd rather not have to see. But I suppose there will always be that faction of people who will refuse to see the actuality, and will make up convenient fiction--to somehow make their minds clear and have some peace(???) Definitely doesn't look like wreckage from a cruise missile in those photos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czero 101 Posted October 28, 2012 #2578 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Why Threads Die The Anti-Post raises its ugly head. This is a vile post that offers nothing of value to the thread, and wastes everyone's time reading, We see the Anti-Post in the last two examples above. One Anti-Post says nothing, That immediately sends another Anti-post into action, playing the role of 'Anti-Post cheerleader', by a liberal sprinkling of 'smiley-face' icons. The Anti-Post can spread out over a whole page, if left untreated. Soon the entire thread is diluted with poisoned posts, and everyone else leaves it to die. It's quite horrible. . So your solution is to post your own "anti-post" that itself adds nothing to the topic...? Ignorant irony and Hypocrisy... the true hallmarks of a Turbonium post of late.... Cz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MID Posted October 28, 2012 #2579 Share Posted October 28, 2012 You'd have to present evidence first. So far all you have is a woefully uninformed and apparently biased opinion. Cz Uh, yep Cz. I can't, nor should I enter anything more to that. However, you've got yourself a hell of a poster there to teach. Good luck and all the help you may need is right here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crumar Posted October 29, 2012 #2580 Share Posted October 29, 2012 At the end of the day you guys can claim there is 757 wreckage there and it might very well have been placed there but the fact still remains even if a 757 crashed into the Pentagon parts of the tail section along with the many engine parts would still be visible and not destroyed. I read some of the responses and I understand where some of you would think that this was from a 757 but it is not. Like I said either some of you are a part of the cover-up or just are so skeptical and do not want to believe that you refuse to see the evidence before you. Again there may very well have been a plane crash but not from a 757 because if there was you would see regardless if it was a bunker proof structure a large part of the tail section, large part of both engines, along with large parts of wing sections which is NOT found there. Only little pieces dug up here and there a plane that big will not turn into a little jig saw puzzle you can claim otherwise but it just will not happen. Look at all the other plane crashes that crashed into mountains and still have large parts of the plane showing. So again show me your evidence of a Large tail section, wings or engine and I mean LARGE not some turbine and very little pieces of debris and I will cease saying a 757 did not crash into the building. If you can't show me that then whatever you write is refuted because these things must survive in order for it to have happened. Jet fuel and re-enforced concrete will not destroy every single large part of a plane it just will not happen end of story. Finally if you can please explain to me why the FBI and other law enforcement agencies refuse to release to the public other video evidence along with the black box recording that would and should be found at the crash site please enlighten me as to why to this day they refuse to release any of these evidence. A black box is made to withstand the fire and impacts caused by such an accident and out of all the 100’s of plane crashes that occurred while these were installed only on 9/11 were they not able to supposedly recover them. The chances of them all being destroyed is absurd as almost always a black box is recovered. As you know firefighters at the crash site of the world trade center have said that 3 out of 4 black boxes were recovered by the FBI so we know they are out there and although I have not been at the Pentagon crash site I am sure at least one of the two black boxes in that plane should have survived even that impact. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MID Posted October 29, 2012 #2581 Share Posted October 29, 2012 It was meant to be a sarcastic post. I assumed you wouldn't take "liquified cheese" literally. Besides the fact that you're supposed to be quiet now, it is worth reading such a sentence from you, as laughter is a good thing! You don't expect anyone to take your comment about liquified cheese literally....(don't worry, I'm sure the majority of us didn't... But you do expect people to take your moronic statements that we never landed on the Moon, and that NASA faked the whole massive program....you expect us to take that nonsense literally? Of course you do... It's just an amazing thing to see! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
booNyzarC Posted October 29, 2012 #2582 Share Posted October 29, 2012 At the end of the day you guys can claim there is 757 wreckage there and it might very well have been placed there but the fact still remains even if a 757 crashed into the Pentagon parts of the tail section along with the many engine parts would still be visible and not destroyed. I read some of the responses and I understand where some of you would think that this was from a 757 but it is not. Like I said either some of you are a part of the cover-up or just are so skeptical and do not want to believe that you refuse to see the evidence before you. Again there may very well have been a plane crash but not from a 757 because if there was you would see regardless if it was a bunker proof structure a large part of the tail section, large part of both engines, along with large parts of wing sections which is NOT found there. Only little pieces dug up here and there a plane that big will not turn into a little jig saw puzzle you can claim otherwise but it just will not happen. Look at all the other plane crashes that crashed into mountains and still have large parts of the plane showing. So again show me your evidence of a Large tail section, wings or engine and I mean LARGE not some turbine and very little pieces of debris and I will cease saying a 757 did not crash into the building. If you can't show me that then whatever you write is refuted because these things must survive in order for it to have happened. Jet fuel and re-enforced concrete will not destroy every single large part of a plane it just will not happen end of story. Finally if you can please explain to me why the FBI and other law enforcement agencies refuse to release to the public other video evidence along with the black box recording that would and should be found at the crash site please enlighten me as to why to this day they refuse to release any of these evidence. A black box is made to withstand the fire and impacts caused by such an accident and out of all the 100’s of plane crashes that occurred while these were installed only on 9/11 were they not able to supposedly recover them. The chances of them all being destroyed is absurd as almost always a black box is recovered. As you know firefighters at the crash site of the world trade center have said that 3 out of 4 black boxes were recovered by the FBI so we know they are out there and although I have not been at the Pentagon crash site I am sure at least one of the two black boxes in that plane should have survived even that impact. Good Lord... Rarely is there so much ignorance displayed in a single post. You really don't know much of anything at all about this do you? The Flight Data Recorder (FDR) and Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) for Flight 77 WERE BOTH recovered, though the CVR was too badly damaged to be used. The data extracted from the FDR fully supports the conclusion that it was in fact Flight 77 and that it did in fact crash into the Pentagon. The speed of the aircraft at the time of impact removes any possibility of there being large portions like tail sections and intact wing sections remaining. But you don't have to take my word for it. One of the strongest 9/11 conspiracy proponents here, Q24, has suggested that you review some information he once presented in this post. Go have a look at the reasons he is convinced that a plane impacted the Pentagon. See if you can refute the information that he provides there. There is a lot of information out there Crumar. You can educate yourself on these questions if you put in the time and effort. Based on the completely incorrect information that you have rattled off so far, it is clear that you haven't taken the time to actually look into any of these details. Don't sell yourself short. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MID Posted October 29, 2012 #2583 Share Posted October 29, 2012 At the end of the day you guys can claim there is 757 wreckage there and it might very well have been placed there but the fact still remains even if a 757 crashed into the Pentagon parts of the tail section along with the many engine parts would still be visible and not destroyed. I read some of the responses and I understand where some of you would think that this was from a 757 but it is not. Like I said either some of you are a part of the cover-up or just are so skeptical and do not want to believe that you refuse to see the evidence before you. Again there may very well have been a plane crash but not from a 757 because if there was you would see regardless if it was a bunker proof structure a large part of the tail section, large part of both engines, along with large parts of wing sections which is NOT found there. Only little pieces dug up here and there a plane that big will not turn into a little jig saw puzzle you can claim otherwise but it just will not happen. Look at all the other plane crashes that crashed into mountains and still have large parts of the plane showing. So again show me your evidence of a Large tail section, wings or engine and I mean LARGE not some turbine and very little pieces of debris and I will cease saying a 757 did not crash into the building. . GIVEN THAT YOUR ENGINEERING DEGREE ISN'T SPECIFIC..OR ADVANCED AT ALL ( ), it would perhaps benefit you to actually look at the data, and at the recovered aircraft remains and human parts that were spread all over the area. Perhaps I'd be interested in how you figure a piece of the 757s vertical stabilizor, and the engines (!) would have survived an impact valued at 8,000,000,000 lbf...8 BILLION POUNDS of FORCE, let alone huge hunks of these huge parts??? I think it might be ALOT better for people like you to remember what happened. show you this :picture: In case you're wondering, you're looking at dozens of people in the upper floors of the North Tower. The impact below them vaused the fire you see, and that would of course, cause that tower to crumble in a short while, but not until after so many of these people jumped about 1300 feet to their deaths below, rather than burn up in the fires that were causing them to hang out those windows. A hundred people from this fire jumped to their deaths rather than endure incineration inside those floors. I just get a little tired of morons posting about this stuff s if they actually know something, when they know nothing. I bet you can't even place any real consciousness in that place on that day. Look at that, and think about, what some morons did that day, and what some people endured on that terrible day. Then...be quiet, and honor these people with the respect they deserve, and stop trying to look foolish by questioning the engineering facts surrounding the events of that day. I'm not interested in your expertise, because it speaks for itself! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted October 29, 2012 #2584 Share Posted October 29, 2012 (edited) At the end of the day you guys can claim there is 757 wreckage there and it might very well have been placed there but the fact still remains even if a 757 crashed into the Pentagon parts of the tail section along with the many engine parts would still be visible and not destroyed. Look at photos of WTC1 and WTC2 and tell us why there are no tail sections visible in the aftermath of aircraft strikes. Afterward, review photos taken at the Pentagon of engine parts from American 77. I read some of the responses and I understand where some of you would think that this was from a 757 but it is not. The parts definitely didn't come for a P700 anti-ship cruise missile. Like I said either some of you are a part of the cover-up or just are so skeptical and do not want to believe that you refuse to see the evidence before you. Again there may very well have been a plane crash but not from a 757 because if there was you would see regardless if it was a bunker proof structure a large part of the tail section, large part of both engines, along with large parts of wing sections which is NOT found there. Only little pieces dug up here and there a plane that big will not turn into a little jig saw puzzle you can claim otherwise but it just will not happen. Look at all the other plane crashes that crashed into mountains and still have large parts of the plane showing. Look at this photo and point out a tail section from a Tu-154. So again show me your evidence of a Large tail section, wings or engine and I mean LARGE not some turbine and very little pieces of debris and I will cease saying a 757 did not crash into the building. Since we have videos of American 11 striking WTC1 and United 175 striking WTC2, show us the tail sections of those aircraft and then, I will show you the tail section of American 77. If you can't show me that then whatever you write is refuted because these things must survive in order for it to have happened. Well, go head and show us the tail sections of Amercan 11 and United 175 and then, we can go from there. Jet fuel and re-enforced concrete will not destroy every single large part of a plane it just will not happen end of story. Which is why we have photos of B-757 wreckage that were taken at the Pentagon. Finally if you can please explain to me why the FBI and other law enforcement agencies refuse to release to the public other video evidence along with the black box recording that would and should be found at the crash site please enlighten me as to why to this day they refuse to release any of these evidence. What difference will that make? We have videos of American 11 and United 175 striking the WTC buildings and yet, there are those who've claimed that no aircraft struck those buildings. Despite videos of B-767s striking WTC1 and WTC2, and yet, there are those who continue to claim that missiles, not aircraft, struck those buildings. On another note, how many aircraft accidents have been video taped over the past few decades? Is video evidence required to prove that an aircraft crashed? Of course not! B-757 wreckage and FDR data from American 77 were recovered from the Pentagon and that is enough evidence. A black box is made to withstand the fire and impacts caused by such an accident and out of all the 100’s of plane crashes that occurred while these were installed only on 9/11 were they not able to supposedly recover them. The chances of them all being destroyed is absurd as almost always a black box is recovered. As you know firefighters at the crash site of the world trade center have said that 3 out of 4 black boxes were recovered by the FBI so we know they are out there and although I have not been at the Pentagon crash site I am sure at least one of the two black boxes in that plane should have survived even that impact. Black box data is not required to prove that American 11 struck WTC1, United 175 struck WTC2, American 77 struck the Pentagon, and that United 93 crashed near Shanksville because we know why they crashed. Black boxes are used to determine why an aircraft crash and were installed on aircraft after an incident involving the collision of a TWA Constellation and a United Airlines DC-7 over the Grand Canyon. On another note, radar data can also be used in aircraft accident investigations. Edited October 29, 2012 by skyeagle409 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MID Posted October 29, 2012 #2585 Share Posted October 29, 2012 That, sir, was an exceptional post. :nw: :nw: My thanks, Sir! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kludge808 Posted October 29, 2012 #2586 Share Posted October 29, 2012 Wow, getting replies a month later. Wheee! Looks like A Certain Antagonist has finally given up only to be replaced by two more. The wards must have gotten full again. Oh, well. Y'know, MID, my degree ain't all that advanced either nor is it all that recent (Archimedes was teaching ME at the time.) but it's enough to have a clue what happened on 9/11 from an engineering standpoint as well as that of a pilot. It's also enough to know that truthers' "proofs" only serve to complicate what is already complex enough rather than simplify it as they claim they do. The conspiracies within conspiracies within conspiracies encompass so many people and highly unlikely if not impossible associations that every child born since then has to be part of it. The amusing part is that they can't even agree among themselves which version is the right one. They provide no verifiable evidence that hasn't already been debunked a zillion times over if they provide any at all but rather fall back on "free thinking," "common sense" and "anyone can see that" plus their myriad "experts" who also can't agree on what happened. All of this against the Official Version that stands on its own merit without all that smoke & mirrors, arm waving and yelling, "Liar, liar, pants on fire." 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kludge808 Posted October 29, 2012 #2587 Share Posted October 29, 2012 Oh, yeah. I'm not really back but I saw one of my old posts being quoted and I figured I may have to defend myself. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MID Posted October 29, 2012 #2588 Share Posted October 29, 2012 (edited) Y'know, MID, my degree ain't all that advanced either nor is it all that recent (Archimedes was teaching ME at the time.) but it's enough to have a clue what happened on 9/11 from an engineering standpoint as well as that of a pilot. I think you're fine, and the standpoint of a pilort trumps that of an engineer anyday, from my point of view. It's also enough to know that truthers' "proofs" only serve to complicate what is already complex enough rather than simplify it as they claim they do. You see...you've got yourself pretty well together there, Kludge! It doesn't require a PhD in engineering! I've flown with pilots who were militarily trained engineers. They flew like they were born in that pilot's seat. I've flown with others who received big engineering degrees from colleges they or their parents paid for, and ran out and got a civilian pilot's license. They flew like they weren't born in a pilot's seat, like they were needing to go potty badly, and made the mistakes and got the nerves going when challenged that limited their ability, and had the potential to cause trouble in their futures in a cockpit. Edited October 29, 2012 by MID Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
booNyzarC Posted October 29, 2012 #2589 Share Posted October 29, 2012 Oh, yeah. I'm not really back but I saw one of my old posts being quoted and I figured I may have to defend myself. Good to see you back Kludge, if even for a short visit. Always a pleasure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crumar Posted October 30, 2012 #2590 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Thanks for pointing out my ignorance on the black boxes I appreciate it. That is what the FBI might want you to believe that they were from flight 77 but I have my doubts because of two things that still have yet to be pointed out. You still haven't shown me evidence of any large pieces of plane wreckage nor told me why the FBI and other enforcement agencies have not released other video evidence that was taken during the crash to the public. I do not have an engineering degree but I have read up on plane crashes and have witnessed testimony on why there should be large plane wreckage still visible at the Pentagon by those who have aviation background with degrees in engineering and many concluded that in fact that wreckage should have larger parts present. Why has the FBI not released footage answer that one I don't want to read "what difference will that make?" as an answer you are using deflection by answering a question with a question. It will make a huge difference if the FBI would just release footage of the plane crashing from other angles. The fact that the only footage at the Pentagon gatehouse shows a large stone blocking the actual picture of whatever hit the Pentagon as it was flying in is a clear indication that something is being covered up. Release other footage and I will shut up about this if indeed it was a 757 that did crash into the Pentagon. As for showing you evidence of the World Trade Center wrecks I would love to but the problem is thousands of tons of steel, glass and concrete smashing it into the ground and pulverizing the debris would make that next to impossible as well as it was too high to get a level vantage point like we have at the Pentagon. The debris was inside the building and I am sure there was large pieces in tact prior to the collapse but again I have no proof so I can't really make that claim can I. But you knew that by answering my question with a question didn't you? The difference between the plane crashes at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon can not be equal because the Pentagon did not have thousands of pounds of debris falling onto plane parts. Again based on engineers testimony not my own have clearly said that the fuel and impact itself of the 757 into the Pentagon would not be enough to destroy large parts of the plane. You can dance around this issue all you want those are the facts. There is no other footage and no large plane sections. Also for those who keep bringing up Q24 and his evidence his own quote at the end of his argument clearly sums up what I have been saying all along. "I think the question is not whether a plane did or did not impact the Pentagon, but rather the identity of that aircraft which has never been proven." All I am saying is show me proof that a 757 crashed into the Pentagon no one is able to do so. You show me pictures of where wings impacted the structure and one little auxiliary turbine part and a crumpled mess of debris as evidence. The FBI refuse to release recordings from the black box because it will emotionally scar family members is a cop out and the fact they still refuse to release video footage of other angles from the Pentagon and surrounding area because they say "it doesn't show the plane crash" should be proof enough that they are hiding something. If they were not hiding anything and nothing showed they would release it but they don't do they? The FBI must really think the public is stupid and they may have a case for some people but not all. I can keep going on and on but stop answering my questions with questions and start answering them with evidence. Had you guys showed me this link http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1 I may have bought your entire argument but then I realized things could be photo shopped to show proof like this guys evidence of the footage of the plane going toward the building. Somehow his is clear enough to show an actual 757 while other people can barely make out the footage from that pillar blocking the plane crossing the lawn to impact the Pentagon. He has people fooled but not me. I don't doubt for a fact the wheel and landing gear came off of a plane but I do doubt it was the 757 in question. But don't take my word for it here is some further evidence that you can glean over and discuss as fake and disprove I can't wait to read your guys response to this. Links here: http://www.prlog.org/10322926-independent-investigation-into-pentagon-attack-yields-alarming-information.html Please note the expert pilot testimony found here: http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/praise.html The website to the video I am about to post here: http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/ Finally the video itself describing what I have been trying to say all along can be viewed here: But again like I have said anything can be photo shopped and video edited to fit what a person wants you to believe so this evidence goes both ways. But my opinion is that the video I posted above has truth to it because they have no motive to lie about the events that took place where as the FBI and other government agencies seem to be hiding evidence for whatever reasons. Please explain my ignorance to me I wait to see how you will answer my questions with more questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kludge808 Posted October 30, 2012 #2591 Share Posted October 30, 2012 I think you're fine, and the standpoint of a pilort trumps that of an engineer anyday, from my point of view. Well, the pilot sees how the airplanes got to where they did. The engineer sees what happened afterward. Neither can quite understand where the truthers get their ... ummm ... [phrase that would cause my beloved, the wondrous and exquisitely beauteous DotNM, to furrow her lovely brow]. You see...you've got yourself pretty well together there, Kludge!It doesn't require a PhD in engineering! An undergrad degree and some real common sense can manage most of it. The rest, the grad and post grad types can handle since us poor undergrads aren't that smart and stuff. I've flown with pilots who were militarily trained engineers. They flew like they were born in that pilot's seat.I've flown with others who received big engineering degrees from colleges they or their parents paid for, and ran out and got a civilian pilot's license. They flew like they weren't born in a pilot's seat, like they were needing to go potty badly, and made the mistakes and got the nerves going when challenged that limited their ability, and had the potential to cause trouble in their futures in a cockpit. All of my flying was as a civilian (except the 20 minutes or so of KC-135 time but I wasn't in the right service so in that respect I was still a "civilian") but I had been around airplanes since I was a small kine kid and my instruction all down the line had been intense. As a result, I was good enough that the Air Force let me fly their T-37s (and the Reserve a T-33) after which I got time in US Air's DC-9 & B737 simulators which is also kind of tough to do. Taking my total combined actual and simulator time ... about 15% - maybe more - has been in jets and a good portion of the rest wasn't in your common everyday Pipers & Cessnas. At the same time, I was taught early on to "fly the airplane, not the book" which made a huge difference. The Nervous Nellies you mentioned never learned that part so, yeah, they were in search of a farm to buy. All the degrees in the world won't help you one bit if you're stuck on top of an overcast without 1.) the knowledge of how to get down through it, and 2.) the confidence in one's self to manage it. Confidence but not overconfidence since that's a killer too. "Know thy self" is good advice here but equal to that is "Know thine airplane." Anyone can fly in the middle of the performance envelope and that's where most learn how to fly and, in fact, wind up flying most of their flying life. But things can go frightfully wrong without warning that can put you on or past the edge of that envelope so knowing what the airplane is going to do there is just as important. Maybe more so unless one is into being just another statistic. "Know thine airplane" is how I was taught from the git go but that's what happens when your instructor is not only an MS AE but also your father. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted October 30, 2012 #2592 Share Posted October 30, 2012 (edited) Thanks for pointing out my ignorance on the black boxes I appreciate it. That is what the FBI might want you to believe that they were from flight 77 but I have my doubts because of two things that still have yet to be pointed out. You still haven't shown me evidence of any large pieces of plane wreckage... Check out that photo of the crash site of that Caspian Airlines, Tu-154. You don't see a large tail section nor intact wings, but then again, you cannot expect to find large pieces of an aircraft that struck a building at over 500 mph, which is why I challenged you to post photos of the tail sections of American 11 and United 175, which you failed to do. In addition, check out this crash site of PSA 1771, and tell us why you do not see large sections of aircraft at its crash site. ....nor told me why the FBI and other enforcement agencies have not released other video evidence that was taken during the crash to the public. Do you really think the Pentagon is going to release the full capabilities of its surveillance systems on the Internet? Think again! But then again, videos are not required to determine what aircraft crashed at the Pentagon. I do not have an engineering degree but I have read up on plane crashes and have witnessed testimony on why there should be large plane wreckage still visible at the Pentagon by those who have aviation background with degrees in engineering and many concluded that in fact that wreckage should have larger parts present. Anyone who thinks that a large tail section should have survived impact with the Pentagon at over 500 mph don't know what they are talking about. . It will make a huge difference if the FBI would just release footage of the plane crashing from other angles. As I have mentioned before, videos are not required to make a determination as to what aircraft crashed at the Pentagon. How many videos recorded the tragedy of TWA 800? In the absence of videos, how is the indentity of an aircraft determined? The fact that the only footage at the Pentagon gatehouse shows a large stone blocking the actual picture of whatever hit the Pentagon as it was flying in is a clear indication that something is being covered up. Not fully blocking the aircraft by any means. I have identified the vertical stabilizer as that of a B-757. As for showing you evidence of the World Trade Center wrecks I would love to but the problem is thousands of tons of steel, glass and concrete smashing it into the ground and pulverizing the debris would make that next to impossible as well as it was too high to get a level vantage point like we have at the Pentagon. Wrong again. Check it out. Wreckage of United 175 But you knew that by answering my question with a question didn't you? The difference between the plane crashes at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon can not be equal because the Pentagon did not have thousands of pounds of debris falling onto plane parts. Again based on engineers testimony not my own have clearly said that the fuel and impact itself of the 757 into the Pentagon would not be enough to destroy large parts of the plane. You can dance around this issue all you want those are the facts. There is no other footage and no large plane sections. Also for those who keep bringing up Q24 and his evidence his own quote at the end of his argument clearly sums up what I have been saying all along. "I think the question is not whether a plane did or did not impact the Pentagon, but rather the identity of that aircraft which has never been proven." Apparently, you have been ignoring the evidence recovered at the Pentagon. American 77 Wreckage B-757 Wheel Hub Edited October 30, 2012 by skyeagle409 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
booNyzarC Posted October 30, 2012 #2593 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Thanks for pointing out my ignorance on the black boxes I appreciate it. That is what the FBI might want you to believe that they were from flight 77 but I have my doubts because of two things that still have yet to be pointed out. You still haven't shown me evidence of any large pieces of plane wreckage nor told me why the FBI and other enforcement agencies have not released other video evidence that was taken during the crash to the public. I do not have an engineering degree but I have read up on plane crashes and have witnessed testimony on why there should be large plane wreckage still visible at the Pentagon by those who have aviation background with degrees in engineering and many concluded that in fact that wreckage should have larger parts present. Why has the FBI not released footage answer that one I don't want to read "what difference will that make?" as an answer you are using deflection by answering a question with a question. It will make a huge difference if the FBI would just release footage of the plane crashing from other angles. The fact that the only footage at the Pentagon gatehouse shows a large stone blocking the actual picture of whatever hit the Pentagon as it was flying in is a clear indication that something is being covered up. Release other footage and I will shut up about this if indeed it was a 757 that did crash into the Pentagon. As for showing you evidence of the World Trade Center wrecks I would love to but the problem is thousands of tons of steel, glass and concrete smashing it into the ground and pulverizing the debris would make that next to impossible as well as it was too high to get a level vantage point like we have at the Pentagon. The debris was inside the building and I am sure there was large pieces in tact prior to the collapse but again I have no proof so I can't really make that claim can I. But you knew that by answering my question with a question didn't you? The difference between the plane crashes at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon can not be equal because the Pentagon did not have thousands of pounds of debris falling onto plane parts. Again based on engineers testimony not my own have clearly said that the fuel and impact itself of the 757 into the Pentagon would not be enough to destroy large parts of the plane. You can dance around this issue all you want those are the facts. There is no other footage and no large plane sections. Also for those who keep bringing up Q24 and his evidence his own quote at the end of his argument clearly sums up what I have been saying all along. "I think the question is not whether a plane did or did not impact the Pentagon, but rather the identity of that aircraft which has never been proven." All I am saying is show me proof that a 757 crashed into the Pentagon no one is able to do so. You show me pictures of where wings impacted the structure and one little auxiliary turbine part and a crumpled mess of debris as evidence. The FBI refuse to release recordings from the black box because it will emotionally scar family members is a cop out and the fact they still refuse to release video footage of other angles from the Pentagon and surrounding area because they say "it doesn't show the plane crash" should be proof enough that they are hiding something. If they were not hiding anything and nothing showed they would release it but they don't do they? The FBI must really think the public is stupid and they may have a case for some people but not all. I can keep going on and on but stop answering my questions with questions and start answering them with evidence. Had you guys showed me this link http://www.abovetops...thread79655/pg1 I may have bought your entire argument but then I realized things could be photo shopped to show proof like this guys evidence of the footage of the plane going toward the building. Somehow his is clear enough to show an actual 757 while other people can barely make out the footage from that pillar blocking the plane crossing the lawn to impact the Pentagon. He has people fooled but not me. I don't doubt for a fact the wheel and landing gear came off of a plane but I do doubt it was the 757 in question. But don't take my word for it here is some further evidence that you can glean over and discuss as fake and disprove I can't wait to read your guys response to this. Links here: http://www.prlog.org...nformation.html Please note the expert pilot testimony found here: http://www.citizenin...com/praise.html The website to the video I am about to post here: http://www.citizenin...gationteam.com/ Finally the video itself describing what I have been trying to say all along can be viewed here: But again like I have said anything can be photo shopped and video edited to fit what a person wants you to believe so this evidence goes both ways. But my opinion is that the video I posted above has truth to it because they have no motive to lie about the events that took place where as the FBI and other government agencies seem to be hiding evidence for whatever reasons. Please explain my ignorance to me I wait to see how you will answer my questions with more questions. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted October 30, 2012 #2594 Share Posted October 30, 2012 (edited) I don't doubt for a fact the wheel and landing gear came off of a plane but I do doubt it was the 757 in question. You show me pictures of where wings impacted the structure and one little auxiliary turbine part and a crumpled mess of debris as evidence. I hope you didn't mean this wheel, which is NOT a wheel from an auxiliary power unit {APU}. It is from the jet engine that powered American 77. Just goes to show what happens when you rely of 9/11 conspiracy websites that are notorious for spewing disinformation and misinformation. As far as the approach north of the gas station is concerned, that has been debunked by the physical evidence and the path of destruction leading to,and inside the Pentagon. Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon http://www.oredigger61.org/?p=3190 Edited October 30, 2012 by skyeagle409 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crumar Posted October 30, 2012 #2595 Share Posted October 30, 2012 (edited) Check out that photo of the crash site of that Caspian Airlines, Tu-154. You don't see a large tail section nor intact wings, but then again, you cannot expect to find large pieces of an aircraft that struck a building at over 500 mph, which is why I challenged you to post photos of the tail sections of American 11 and United 175, which you failed to do. In addition, check out this crash site of PSA 1771, and tell us why you do not see large sections of aircraft at its crash site. Yes you can expect to see large sections of a plane. So I gave you an entire you tube film at the start of it shows two crashes where large sections of airplane parts exist even though they crashed into the mountain case in point the Greece Airliner tail section. Oh here is another you tube clip of the Caspian Airlines TU-154 crash you love to keep bringing up. Notice at the start an intact large section of an engine and wing. Keep reaching I can do this all day here is the YouTube clip. Do you really think the Pentagon is going to release the full capabilities of its surveillance systems on the Internet? Think again! But then again, videos are not required to determine what aircraft crashed at the Pentagon. Yes they should release footage if they did it for the gate house they can sure as hell do it for other parts that face OUTSIDE of the pentagon and not inside I don’t see how that would be a breach of security. Let’s forget about the Pentagon for a moment and concentrate on other video footage that was confiscated outside of the Pentagon why was that not released either? Did you even watch the video I posted? Again eyewitness testimony clearly shows that what the official report of what occurred by the government vs. what is said by their own government employees contradicting the story is there in plain site to see. Yet I will take their word over what happened over yours because they were there when it happened. Anyone who thinks that a large tail section should have survived impact with the Pentagon at over 500 mph don't know what they are talking about. Either I was not clear enough or you lacked reading comprehension of what I wrote. I said any part of the airplane please go re-read what I wrote. It could be the engine, any part of the wing or tail section yet you are focused on that one piece. As I have mentioned before, videos are not required to make a determination as to what aircraft crashed at the Pentagon. How many videos recorded the tragedy of TWA 800? In the absence of videos, how is the indentity of an aircraft determined? Eyewitness testimony along with video and picture evidence will give you a clearer understanding of what took place in and around the crash site. In the absence of that you rely on what the evidence shows at the scene of the crash. Now that you mention TWA 800 lets take a look at what was found at that crash site. http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/images/800cpit.jpg Here is a large part of the upper part of the plane of TWA 800. Along with intact gears and a number of other parts that were large enough to identify. As you can see something always tends to survive these crashes. I will not go into the conspiracy surrounding this crash let us shift back to the other evidence you brought forth. Not fully blocking the aircraft by any means. I have identified the vertical stabilizer as that of a B-757.Wrong again. Check it out. Wreckage of United 175 [/font][/size][/font][/color] Apparently, you have been ignoring the evidence recovered at the Pentagon. American 77 Wreckage B-757 Wheel Hub Thank you for proving my point with the first two pictuers. Even though the building collapsed indeed there is still a section of an engine almost intact found at the site. I applaud you for helping me with some of the evidence that I should have provided earlier. As for the wings at the Pentagon I did not see the wing section being pulled by cranes that indeed is interesting thank you for providing the photos. As for the shriveled up wreckage that you claim spells out American Airlines I don't buy that picture at all. The landing gear along with the auxiliary turbine could have come from another plane. I did not refute that a plane did not crash into the Pentagon what I am saying maybe not so clearly which I alluded to earlier in my previous posts is that I do not believe that it was a 757 that crashed into the building but some other plane that may very well have the same characteristics of some of the 757 parts that can be seen and found at the site. That small piece of debris with the markings of a serial number can be clearly planted and duplicated to cover up what really happened. Finally if the auxiliary turbine survived along with the landing gear and wheels made out of metal there should be at least one of the two engines visible like you see at the world trade center. I am no engineer or an expert in this field but I have read and seen reports that if you take a close look at the turbine provided in the picture above it does not have the same dimensions consistant with one found on a 757. In addition, the combuster case is not from a 757 you can clearly see that the rings although deformed do not conform with the dimensions of the actual picture of the Rolls- Royce combuster case housing. The metal on the right side of the rings (and not between the rings) is to thin there should be some indication of more metal passed the right side of the rings. You can see this by counting from the top of the picture to the 4th ring on the right side of that ring you will see a hole where a bolt would have gone into that portion of the housing. On the scimatics you provided there is no bolt but a continuation of metal on the Rolls-Royce diagram. Just to be clear I am talking about this picture: I give you props for showing the section of the wings I can agree with you that indeed there is a large portion of wreckage visible and could be an indication that a large plane crashed into the Pentagon but I have not seen any engineer come out and say that those indeed belong to a 757. The fact that eyewitness accounts say the plane proceeded to pull up and over the Pentagon right when the fireball hit is a clear indication that something is amiss. Further more although we have some evidence of a turbine and combustion casing along with some parts of a wing section we do not have any large identifying marks of the plane nor have the engines and I to think that at least one of the engines should have partially survived the plane crash. So to sum up I appreciate you taking the time to refute the evidence I provided but it is clear that there was indeed a cover up based on eyewitness testimony from the YouTube video I clearly provided that I do not think you watched I can understand it is over 1 hour and 20 minutes long . The 9/11 case study video along with the Pentagon debris field you posted is refuted in the video I posted. There are large sections of pillars that should not have withstood the impact and you can clearly see in that video yet they are still standing from a structural standpoint gives you a good idea forensically of what they are saying to be true. I don't believe everything I read and see but these people had no reason to lie it was not in their best interest to do so. If they are please give me a reason for why they would fabricate this evidence I would be interested in hearing it. Added to the fact that the cab driver clearly says there was a cover up is a good indication he was in on something that is bigger hence the conspiracy theories out there. We are probably going to go in circles but lets agree to disagree on this one you think it was flight 77 that crashed into the Pentagon and I think that it was a plane crash that was not from a 757 because of what was reported and the lack of evidence by the FBI to disclose further information pertaining to this case. P.S. I did not purposly take out some of the pictures the forum would not allow me to fully quote the post because of picture count so that is why some of your pictures are missing. I saw them and understand where you are coming from. Edited October 30, 2012 by Crumar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MID Posted October 30, 2012 #2596 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Well, the pilot sees how the airplanes got to where they did. The engineer sees what happened afterward. Neither can quite understand where the truthers get their ... ummm ... [phrase that would cause my beloved, the wondrous and exquisitely beauteous DotNM, to furrow her lovely brow]. An undergrad degree and some real common sense can manage most of it. The rest, the grad and post grad types can handle since us poor undergrads aren't that smart and stuff. Yup. I'd say you have it pretty much understood there K.! All of my flying was as a civilian (except the 20 minutes or so of KC-135 time but I wasn't in the right service so in that respect I was still a "civilian") but I had been around airplanes since I was a small kine kid and my instruction all down the line had been intense. As a result, I was good enough that the Air Force let me fly their T-37s (and the Reserve a T-33) after which I got time in US Air's DC-9 & B737 simulators which is also kind of tough to do. Taking my total combined actual and simulator time ... about 15% - maybe more - has been in jets and a good portion of the rest wasn't in your common everyday Pipers & Cessnas. At the same time, I was taught early on to "fly the airplane, not the book" which made a huge difference. The Nervous Nellies you mentioned never learned that part so, yeah, they were in search of a farm to buy. All the degrees in the world won't help you one bit if you're stuck on top of an overcast without 1.) the knowledge of how to get down through it, and 2.) the confidence in one's self to manage it. Confidence but not overconfidence since that's a killer too. Copy and concur, K! " Know thy self" is good advice here but equal to that is "Know thine airplane." Anyone can fly in the middle of the performance envelope and that's where most learn how to fly and, in fact, wind up flying most of their flying life. But things can go frightfully wrong without warning that can put you on or past the edge of that envelope so knowing what the airplane is going to do there is just as important. Maybe more so unless one is into being just another statistic. "Know thine airplane" is how I was taught from the git go but that's what happens when your instructor is not only an MS AE but also your father. Yep, and being in one that's going in that negative direction is a great way to get a handle on how to get it out of that realm! That's why we stall and occasionally, spin one (shhhhh!). Always make the student poop himself to find himself beginning a spin, especially with the instructor in his ear: "Get out of this NOW! NOW!" Hey, you tend to not want to do it when you've done it, and you've learned how a) to get out of it) and b..) not to do it anymore! I was going to say, "It's always by the numbers," but, I'd say that if you never experience what happens when the numbers fall off the table, you may not live to fly much more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kludge808 Posted October 30, 2012 #2597 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Good to see you back Kludge, if even for a short visit. Always a pleasure. Thanks, Boony. You, Bade, Psyche and one or two others were the original cell that brought me into their fold. That was an "interesting" ceremony about which I hope my daughter never hears but it was worth it. :tsu: I'm still dealing with Demons and seeing the occasional cute nurse but, on the positive side, I'm not bouncing in and out of the ER anymore. Meli stops by when her studies & work let her (This is other than when the EMTs get called.) and Hoku occasionally comes after school - bicycles in and out from the bus stop at main gate. Her parents brought her a few times so they could vet this old haole their daughters had adopted as Papa. Guess I passed. Anyway, I'm not going to bother trying to keep up with Tantalizing Testimony (which ain't really) but who knows where or when I'll pop up next. Aside from here, of course. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted October 30, 2012 #2598 Share Posted October 30, 2012 (edited) Yes you can expect to see large sections of a plane. Not from an aircraft that struck a building at over 500 mph. So I gave you an entire you tube film at the start of it shows two crashes where large sections of airplane parts exist even though they crashed into the mountain case in point the Greece Airliner tail section. Oh here is another you tube clip of the Caspian Airlines TU-154 crash you love to keep bringing up. Notice at the start an intact large section of an engine... Time for a recap! Engine parts from American 77 ...and wing. From the wing of American 77. Yes they should release footage if they did it for the gate house they can sure as hell do it for other parts that face OUTSIDE of the pentagon and not inside I don’t see how that would be a breach of security. I do! And, there are tons of photos, so once again, no videos are required to prove that American 77 crashed at the Pentagon. After all, were there videos for the crash of that Caspian Airliner? How did they determine the aircraft was a Tu-154? Let’s forget about the Pentagon for a moment and concentrate on other video footage that was confiscated outside of the Pentagon why was that not released either? Did you even watch the video I posted? Yes I did! ... Again eyewitness testimony clearly shows that what the official report of what occurred by the government vs. what is said by their own government employees contradicting the story is there in plain site to see. The FAA and the NTSB can tell you that they usually run into conflicting eyewitness accounts during their investigations, which is another reason why they rely on viable data and physical evidence. Anyone who has dealt with eyewitnesses know how unreliable they can be in accidents. In the case of American 77 and the gas station, the downed light poles proved that the B-757 passed south of the gas station, while on the other hand, there are no downed light poles that suggest the aircraft passed north of the gas station. The physical evidence does not support claims that American 77 passed north of the gas station, and physical is what counts. There are no downed light poles that indicated American 77 passed north of the gas station, but there are downed light poles proving that American 77 passed south of the gas station. As you can plainly see, there was no way that American 77 passed north of the gas station. Yet I will take their word over what happened over yours because they were there when it happened. The physical evidence does not support claims of 9/11 Truthers. Either I was not clear enough or you lacked reading comprehension of what I wrote. I said any part of the airplane please go re-read what I wrote. It could be the engine, any part of the wing or tail section yet you are focused on that one piece. Go back and check again. I focused on a number of pieces that I am very familiar with. Eyewitness testimony along with video and picture evidence will give you a clearer understanding of what took place in and around the crash site. Looking at the surveillance video, it is clear enough to see that the B-757 did not take an approach north of the gas station. Question is: How did the 9/11 Truthers missed that?! In the absence of that you rely on what the evidence shows at the scene of the crash. In the absence of videos, you listen to what the physical evidence is saying. Now that you mention TWA 800 lets take a look at what was found at that crash site. TWA 800 did not strike a building at over 500 mph. Thank you for proving my point with the first two pictuers. Even though the building collapsed indeed there is still a section of an engine almost intact found at the site. You will notice that the engine part is that of a Rolls Royce RB11-535 series engine, which powered American 77, and the disk is no way from an auxiliary power unit despite what 9/11 Truthers have claimed, which goes to show why it is not prudent to use websites that are well-known for disinformation and misinformation as you have been doing. Edited October 30, 2012 by skyeagle409 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
booNyzarC Posted October 30, 2012 #2599 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Thanks, Boony. You, Bade, Psyche and one or two others were the original cell that brought me into their fold. That was an "interesting" ceremony about which I hope my daughter never hears but it was worth it. :tsu: I'm still dealing with Demons and seeing the occasional cute nurse but, on the positive side, I'm not bouncing in and out of the ER anymore. Meli stops by when her studies & work let her (This is other than when the EMTs get called.) and Hoku occasionally comes after school - bicycles in and out from the bus stop at main gate. Her parents brought her a few times so they could vet this old haole their daughters had adopted as Papa. Guess I passed. Anyway, I'm not going to bother trying to keep up with Tantalizing Testimony (which ain't really) but who knows where or when I'll pop up next. Aside from here, of course. Good to hear that things are looking up my friend! Whenever you have the time to visit, you are welcomed and appreciated around these parts. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted October 30, 2012 #2600 Share Posted October 30, 2012 (edited) So to sum up I appreciate you taking the time to refute the evidence I provided but it is clear that there was indeed a cover up based on eyewitness testimony from the YouTube video I clearly provided that I do not think you watched I can understand it is over 1 hour and 20 minutes long . The 9/11 case study video along with the Pentagon debris field you posted is refuted in the video I posted.font=Arial]P.S. I did not That video did is indicative of what I have said about disinformation and misinformation. Furthermore, all they had to do was to ask the operator of American 77, American Airlines, what happened to its B-757. And then, check the fleet history of American Airlines to make a determination what happened to American 77. http://www.planespot...an-Airlines.php http://www.planespot...erican-Airlines Report on American 77 http://aviation-safe...p?id=20010911-3 Why the airframe of American] 77 was deregistered http://registry.faa....Numbertxt=644AA To sum it up, you were duped by disinformation and misinformation, which were broadcasted by your videos and websites. Edited October 30, 2012 by skyeagle409 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now