Jump to content
Unexplained Mysteries uses cookies. By using the site you consent to our use of cookies as per our Cookie Policy.
Close X
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
quillius

9/11

349 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

flyingswan

However, I have to ask whats the point of your most recent posts here?

I am not taking any position here about what the truth of the matter of bodies in seats is. I was just taking exception to Q24 accusing someone of "spreading sick lies" without actually establishing that what was said was indeed a lie.

If you want to suggest that a terrorist survived, you need more than "It could happen". "It could happen" is an obvious statement which doesn't support or disprove the claim, but "It couldn't happen" is a fact that needs to be firmly established as it would disprove the claim. I was objecting to Q24 using "It couldn't happen" about bodies in seats without establishing whether that was so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

Flyingswan, I hope Q24 returns to respond to you. However, I have to ask whats the point of your most recent posts here? Your argument seems to be on full tilt.

There is nothing to respond to.

Flyingswan thinks that a recognisable human body could survive still strapped to a seat in a 500mph impact with a steel reinforced concrete building that reduces the entire aircraft to it’s component pieces or less. His evidence for this is a single witness claim that he admits is “not from the most reliable of sources” and some non-comparable examples that he mistakenly thinks support his case.

I know that a human body cannot survive such an impact still strapped to a seat. The evidence for this is in the fact that steel, concrete and aluminium will fare exceedingly better in an impact than human tissue, the more comparable case of Flight 93 which I didn’t even get onto, plus the complete lack of photographic evidence for said discovery despite there being numerous photographs of the scene available.

The point of Flyingswan's posts is that the idea would support it was Flight 77 which impacted the Pentagon… but as he has demonstrated many times that he prefers faith based beliefs of which there is no room for reasoning, I’m more than content to accept our difference of opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
flyingswan

Flyingswan thinks that a recognisable human body could survive still strapped to a seat in a 500mph impact with a steel reinforced concrete building that reduces the entire aircraft to it’s component pieces or less. His evidence for this is a single witness claim that he admits is “not from the most reliable of sources” and some non-comparable examples that he mistakenly thinks support his case.

However, the report named the witness, a fireman, meaning that the very least you could do is contact him before dismissing his claim.

I know that a human body cannot survive such an impact still strapped to a seat. The evidence for this is in the fact that steel, concrete and aluminium will fare exceedingly better in an impact than human tissue, the more comparable case of Flight 93 which I didn’t even get onto, plus the complete lack of photographic evidence for said discovery despite there being numerous photographs of the scene available.

You are confusing two different cases. Flight 93 hit solid ground, Flight 77 hit a building which it penetrated for nearly 100 metres, giving a mean deceleration of around 30g. This is actually survivable (check John Stapp) and 20g is what some ejector seats give.

The point of Flyingswan's posts is that the idea would support it was Flight 77 which impacted the Pentagon… but as he has demonstrated many times that he prefers faith based beliefs of which there is no room for reasoning, I’m more than content to accept our difference of opinions.

Oh dear, more insults instead of arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quillius

Surely there are better points of discussion here....

Q24 can you please, name the three most relevant points in your eyes that lead you to believe it is not as the official story states.

thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

Surely there are better points of discussion here....

Q24 can you please, name the three most relevant points in your eyes that lead you to believe it is not as the official story states.

thanks

I agree there are better points of discussion.

To name only the three most relevant points is rather difficult - there are perhaps hundreds and everybody has their own idea of what should be top of the list.

If the points are intended only to show that the official story is incomplete/inaccurate this narrows it down slightly. For example, I think that the history of wars, false flag and intelligence operations, along with the political layout that existed, are absolutely vital in enabling one to understand 9/11… but these points are also open to interpretation at some level which is not what you are looking for.

You want facts that blatantly indicate areas of the official story which are not a true reflection of actual events.

I’ll just state the outline of three of the best (in no particular order) to keep it short: -

  1. The Dick Cheney “orders still stand” episode
    Fact: Witness testimony provided to the 9/11 Commission by Secretary of Transportation, Norman Minetta, tells that Vice President, Dick Cheney, was present at the Presidential Emergency Operations Centre (PEOC) on the morning of 9/11. From here, the Vice President received updates on the incoming aircraft that would impact the Pentagon. More crucially, he had an order in place specifically linked to the aircraft.
    Official story: The version of events told above never happened, there was no order in regard to the incoming aircraft, Norman Minetta’s testimony was omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report and the timeline was set to indicate that Dick Cheney did not enter the PEOC until after the Pentagon had been impacted, thus avoiding the question of the order in relation to the aircraft.
    The conviction of Norman Minetta’s account is apparent, there is no conceivable reason he would lie and unlikely that he could have been incorrect in so much detail. There are however quite obvious reasons why the Vice President and 9/11 Commission may not have wanted details of that order to become public.
    The only reasonable explanation for the conflicting accounts is that a deliberate cover-up has been attempted to protect Cheney.
  2. The Israeli intelligence agents
    Fact: On 9/11, five Israeli men were arrested in New York after reports described them celebrating whilst viewing the attacks from a distance. In their van were found thousands of dollars in cash and police sniffer-dogs reacted as though they had detected explosives. The Israeli employer of the men fled the country before questioning was completed – CIA agents believed the company was a front for an intelligence operation. It was found that two of the men’s names appeared in an intelligence database and one of them repeatedly failed lie detector tests. After ten weeks, the investigation was shutdown after high-level negotiations between the Israeli and U.S. governments. A former CIA counter-terrorism officer stated this was to avoid the men being implicated with 9/11.
    Official story: The men were visiting the United States, happened to document the 9/11 event and their only crime was a VISA violation.
    You are not detained for ten weeks, surrounded by deep suspicion from CIA officers and receive high-level discussions to secure your release all due to a VISA violation. Neither do you fail multiple lie detector tests with your employer closing the company and fleeing the country.
    There is clearly far more to this one than the official story has revealed.
  3. Support to the hijackers
    Fact: Two of the hijackers were known to the CIA and yet allowed to enter the U.S. unhindered. There they met with a Saudi government official and lived with an FBI informant who assisted them in setting up a bank account. It was reported that the source of the hijackers’ funding was an operative linked to both Al Qaeda and Western intelligence. All of this occurred a short time after a CIA cell had begun infiltrating agents close to Osama bin Laden.
    Official story: Failure to prevent the two known hijackers entering the country was an administrative error, the Saudi who met the hijackers was a nice chap and so couldn’t have been involved in the 9/11 operation, the source of the hijacker funding was deemed of “little practical significance”, investigation of the FBI informant has been blocked and ignored. In other words, after direction from Osama bin Laden, the hijackers carried out the operation under their own steam.
    Not only would the level of coincidence in these interactions be absurd but anyone can see there was involvement from foreign government officials and close contact with Western intelligence linked operatives – the official story is incomplete; a whitewash of the workings that guided the hijackers and led to 9/11.

That’s the basics of just three points which lead me to believe 9/11 is not as the official story states, though as said there are many more. Of the more commonly discussed points, it would appear that due to the weight of evidence, the shoot down of Flight 93 and the demolition of WTC7 are nailed on – the official position has become untenable and I really would like to add these to the list of relevant points, but I’ve had my three.

I would be interested as to your opinion on any of the above and if you would like me to expand or provide links to the information please let me know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quillius

I agree there are better points of discussion.

To name only the three most relevant points is rather difficult - there are perhaps hundreds and everybody has their own idea of what should be top of the list.

If the points are intended only to show that the official story is incomplete/inaccurate this narrows it down slightly. For example, I think that the history of wars, false flag and intelligence operations, along with the political layout that existed, are absolutely vital in enabling one to understand 9/11… but these points are also open to interpretation at some level which is not what you are looking for.

You want facts that blatantly indicate areas of the official story which are not a true reflection of actual events.

I’ll just state the outline of three of the best (in no particular order) to keep it short: -

  1. The Dick Cheney “orders still stand” episode
    Fact: Witness testimony provided to the 9/11 Commission by Secretary of Transportation, Norman Minetta, tells that Vice President, Dick Cheney, was present at the Presidential Emergency Operations Centre (PEOC) on the morning of 9/11. From here, the Vice President received updates on the incoming aircraft that would impact the Pentagon. More crucially, he had an order in place specifically linked to the aircraft.
    Official story: The version of events told above never happened, there was no order in regard to the incoming aircraft, Norman Minetta’s testimony was omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report and the timeline was set to indicate that Dick Cheney did not enter the PEOC until after the Pentagon had been impacted, thus avoiding the question of the order in relation to the aircraft.
    The conviction of Norman Minetta’s account is apparent, there is no conceivable reason he would lie and unlikely that he could have been incorrect in so much detail. There are however quite obvious reasons why the Vice President and 9/11 Commission may not have wanted details of that order to become public.
    The only reasonable explanation for the conflicting accounts is that a deliberate cover-up has been attempted to protect Cheney.
  2. The Israeli intelligence agents
    Fact: On 9/11, five Israeli men were arrested in New York after reports described them celebrating whilst viewing the attacks from a distance. In their van were found thousands of dollars in cash and police sniffer-dogs reacted as though they had detected explosives. The Israeli employer of the men fled the country before questioning was completed – CIA agents believed the company was a front for an intelligence operation. It was found that two of the men’s names appeared in an intelligence database and one of them repeatedly failed lie detector tests. After ten weeks, the investigation was shutdown after high-level negotiations between the Israeli and U.S. governments. A former CIA counter-terrorism officer stated this was to avoid the men being implicated with 9/11.
    Official story: The men were visiting the United States, happened to document the 9/11 event and their only crime was a VISA violation.
    You are not detained for ten weeks, surrounded by deep suspicion from CIA officers and receive high-level discussions to secure your release all due to a VISA violation. Neither do you fail multiple lie detector tests with your employer closing the company and fleeing the country.
    There is clearly far more to this one than the official story has revealed.
  3. Support to the hijackers
    Fact: Two of the hijackers were known to the CIA and yet allowed to enter the U.S. unhindered. There they met with a Saudi government official and lived with an FBI informant who assisted them in setting up a bank account. It was reported that the source of the hijackers’ funding was an operative linked to both Al Qaeda and Western intelligence. All of this occurred a short time after a CIA cell had begun infiltrating agents close to Osama bin Laden.
    Official story: Failure to prevent the two known hijackers entering the country was an administrative error, the Saudi who met the hijackers was a nice chap and so couldn’t have been involved in the 9/11 operation, the source of the hijacker funding was deemed of “little practical significance”, investigation of the FBI informant has been blocked and ignored. In other words, after direction from Osama bin Laden, the hijackers carried out the operation under their own steam.
    Not only would the level of coincidence in these interactions be absurd but anyone can see there was involvement from foreign government officials and close contact with Western intelligence linked operatives – the official story is incomplete; a whitewash of the workings that guided the hijackers and led to 9/11.

That’s the basics of just three points which lead me to believe 9/11 is not as the official story states, though as said there are many more. Of the more commonly discussed points, it would appear that due to the weight of evidence, the shoot down of Flight 93 and the demolition of WTC7 are nailed on – the official position has become untenable and I really would like to add these to the list of relevant points, but I’ve had my three.

I would be interested as to your opinion on any of the above and if you would like me to expand or provide links to the information please let me know.

Hi Q24, firstly apologies for delayed response. I have given this some thought and would like to ask a few questions, I am struggling with time to give this the response it deserves, so I will post one very soon with questions on your three points plus also my opinions...for what its worth. As you can tell I am no where near as knowledgable as some of you guys on the subject but am keen to keep learning...

speak soon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
flyingswan

I have seen the report.

An incredible claim for obvious reasons and “not from the most reliable of sources”.

.

.

.

… you don’t then find a recognisable human body still strapped to a recognisable passenger seat.

It is a lie.

Yet another report for you to explain away:

When Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their seats. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/sept01/2001-09-14-pentagon-usat.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

Yet another report for you to explain away:

When Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their seats. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/sept01/2001-09-14-pentagon-usat.htm

Where an incredible claim is made it doesn’t matter if you can find one or even a whole two reports, more is required in the way of evidence. Aside from the possibility the section you have repeated is journalistic licence (at the least, the statement is not supported by the words actually quoted in the article), you don’t seem to understand the insignificance of these type of reports.

Why don’t you explain away this account and then perhaps you will understand: -

Cleveland County man reports encounter with Bigfoot

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/06/15/1502384/cleveland-co-man-reports-bigfoot.html#

Does this make Bigfoot real?

There are plenty of eyewitness reports on the Loch Ness monster, aliens and ghosts too if you’re not convinced.

Then we can’t forget the numerous eyewitness accounts that, if correct, would necessarily mean a flyover occurred at the Pentagon… and we aren’t going to start giving them credence now are we?

It is well accepted that eyewitness evidence is unreliable, which puts you in a very weak position here.

Anyhow, where’s quillius gone…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quillius

Where an incredible claim is made it doesn’t matter if you can find one or even a whole two reports, more is required in the way of evidence. Aside from the possibility the section you have repeated is journalistic licence (at the least, the statement is not supported by the words actually quoted in the article), you don’t seem to understand the insignificance of these type of reports.

Why don’t you explain away this account and then perhaps you will understand: -

Cleveland County man reports encounter with Bigfoot

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/06/15/1502384/cleveland-co-man-reports-bigfoot.html#

Does this make Bigfoot real?

There are plenty of eyewitness reports on the Loch Ness monster, aliens and ghosts too if you’re not convinced.

Then we can’t forget the numerous eyewitness accounts that, if correct, would necessarily mean a flyover occurred at the Pentagon… and we aren’t going to start giving them credence now are we?

It is well accepted that eyewitness evidence is unreliable, which puts you in a very weak position here.

Anyhow, where’s quillius gone…

Hello Q24, I am still around :), I am trying to keep up with a large number of threads....along with work and children I seem to have very little time for long thought out posts. I have actually been looking into the three most relevant points you highlighted a few posts back. I will only respond and enter the debate there once I am more educated on the points raised. In the meantime I am having to accept your stance as a possible scenario until I can argue it otherwise, seeing as no one else has countered it.

I believe in aliens by the way! I believe that mathematically they must exist elsewhere in the universe, however i am on the fence regarding visitation. Simply because I do not think the government could hide something so big, although it is possible, which would then make 911 conspiracies also possible.

:tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quillius

Hi Q24, I just remembered one other point that keeps bothering me. You say another full investigation needs to be done, IF the government were really involved at any level and managed to cover it up then why would they not do the same with a second investigation? I am guessing they would use all their influence to keep such a secret therefore we would end up in the same place wouldnt we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
flyingswan

Where an incredible claim is made...

I noticed you failed to respond to my calculation that the actual g-force involved was technically survivable. The claim is "incredible" to you because you don't want to believe it. That's why you were so quick to make accusations of "sick lies".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

I noticed you failed to respond to my calculation that the actual g-force involved was technically survivable. The claim is "incredible" to you because you don't want to believe it. That's why you were so quick to make accusations of "sick lies".

I don’t have time for your strawman arguments.

It’s not the g-force per se that is the problem but the impact.

John Stapp would have worse than impaired vision and a few fractured bones had the test used a steel-reinforced concrete building to stop the rocket rather than hydraulic brakes.

Hi Q24, I just remembered one other point that keeps bothering me. You say another full investigation needs to be done, IF the government were really involved at any level and managed to cover it up then why would they not do the same with a second investigation? I am guessing they would use all their influence to keep such a secret therefore we would end up in the same place wouldnt we?

If a repeat investigation were performed then we would end up in the same place. The current situation would have been like allowing the Nazi party to preside over the Nuremburg Trials… findings would have been that Operation Himmler did not exist, Hermann Göring acted in self defense and so on.

A new investigation would need subpoena power, no preconceived conclusion and to be independent of the U.S. government (at very least, independent of the legislative and executive branches) or otherwise detached by time from the current order of U.S. thinking. Realistically such an investigation does not seem possible at the moment, though this is the requirement to bring out the full story of 9/11.

For the time being perhaps the best that can be done is supporting the thousands of independent professionals who have spoken out and spreading the message to raise public awareness… until the day comes that the nature of 9/11 is accepted as self-evident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
el midgetron

If a repeat investigation were performed then we would end up in the same place. The current situation would have been like allowing the Nazi party to preside over the Nuremburg Trials… findings would have been that Operation Himmler did not exist, Hermann Göring acted in self defense and so on.

.......

For the time being perhaps the best that can be done is supporting the thousands of independent professionals who have spoken out and spreading the message to raise public awareness… until the day comes that the nature of 9/11 is accepted as self-evident.

Why did Bush and Cheney need to testify together (to 911 commision), and not under oath?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

Why did Bush and Cheney need to testify together (to 911 commision), and not under oath?

I guess it can be difficult under questioning to keep a fabricated story straight; by testifying together, Bush and Cheney were able to answer for each other and present a single version of events.

Why ever wouldn’t anyone testify under oath if there was nothing to hide? There are probably legal implications here where if evidence arose that contradicted the Bush and Cheney version of events they could not be held to their word, i.e. it gives them an escape route to step-back from what they said.

I understand why the session was held behind closed doors and testimony was not allowed to be made public, there are national security issues here. But then why were even the Commission not allowed to electronically record or transcribe the testimony?

Altogether the process was secretive and worth very little – Bush and Cheney did not commit to the evidence they gave and there is no complete record of it. The only reason for this is that they know their story is not the truth, and so it should be obvious to us too. Their showing for the Commission was more a token gesture so it appeared they had played their part in assisting the investigation.

It was all the complete opposite of what should be done in a criminal investigation where you interview those involved separately and record everything for future evidence.

This is just one example showing that what the Commission were allowed to put together isn’t worthy of the name ‘investigation’.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
plutonium16

Another US govt conspiracy about9/11?

Maybe the Catholics were involved.

Perps: serious pyscho dudes, anti US.

Motive: need to get a life.

Means: living in the US and getting what they needed from the US.

It just sucks, don't you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
flyingswan

I dont have time for your strawman arguments.

Its not the g-force per se that is the problem but the impact.

John Stapp would have worse than impaired vision and a few fractured bones had the test used a steel-reinforced concrete building to stop the rocket rather than hydraulic brakes.

You still don't get, do you?

Not every single part of the aircraft will have hit at full flight speed. Parts of the aircraft structure act like car crumple zones to cushion the impact for other parts. That is why it is not unusual in crashes for there to be "freak" survivors such as the cases that I linked to. That is why so many pictures of crashed aircraft include a practically undamaged tail section.

Edited by flyingswan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

You still don't get, do you?

Not every single part of the aircraft will have hit at full flight speed. Parts of the aircraft structure act like car crumple zones to cushion the impact for other parts. That is why it is not unusual in crashes for there to be "freak" survivors such as the cases that I linked to. That is why so many pictures of crashed aircraft include a practically undamaged tail section.

Well go right ahead and link us to pictures of the undamaged tail section at the Pentagon....

:rolleyes:

Ive never known anyone bring up points so irrelevant/desperate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
flyingswan

Well go right ahead and link us to pictures of the undamaged tail section at the Pentagon....

Pathetic attempt at humour to hide refusal to understand basic physics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

Pathetic attempt at humour to hide refusal to understand basic physics.

No.

This is humour :lol:

This is disdain :rolleyes:

You are babbling on about intact tail sections like it means anything in regard to the Pentagon crash. I’m showing how irrelevant your argument is by pointing out the obvious - there was practically nothing left of the aircraft, certainly no tail section.

The basic physics that dictate the rear of the aircraft will impact at somewhat less force than the front therefore have no bearing on the case at hand. Neither do examples of previous air crash survivors who were thrown clear of the main impact or g-force tests or an eyewitness description of a traumatic event, all of which you have tried to use.

You’re scraping the barrel and have nowhere left to turn except trying to pass off my request as humour.

Come up with something relevant for once or admit you have nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
el midgetron

I am not taking any position here about what the truth of the matter of bodies in seats is. I was just taking exception to Q24 accusing someone of "spreading sick lies" without actually establishing that what was said was indeed a lie.

Three weeks later and you are still going on about this? unsure.gif

If you want to suggest that a terrorist survived, you need more than "It could happen". "It could happen" is an obvious statement which doesn't support or disprove the claim, but "It couldn't happen" is a fact that needs to be firmly established as it would disprove the claim. I was objecting to Q24 using "It couldn't happen" about bodies in seats without establishing whether that was so.

"It could have happened" is what you have been arguing for weeks now. You won't even take a position either way on it, which reduces your weeks long line of discussion into what appears to be a troll-esq grudge against Q24.

As far as I know, you have one "eye-witness" claiming they saw bodies in seats. I don't know how many times on this forum I have seen eye-witness accounts of anomalies in the 911 attacks written-off as insubstantial, uncorroborated, unreliable or simply as being kooky nuttery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
flyingswan

The basic physics that dictate the rear of the aircraft will impact at somewhat less force than the front therefore have no bearing on the case at hand.

Why? Because you don't want them to.

The aircraft penetrated a long way into the building, giving plenty of opportunity for a few parts of it to experience survivable g-forces. You haven't shown a shred of evidence to refute this. You are just repeating the same old claim with nothing to back it up, because you can't admit that you accused someone of spreading "sick lies" without any basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
flyingswan

"It could have happened" is what you have been arguing for weeks now. You won't even take a position either way on it, which reduces your weeks long line of discussion into what appears to be a troll-esq grudge against Q24.

It's Q24 who resorts to insults.

As far as I know, you have one "eye-witness" claiming they saw bodies in seats. I don't know how many times on this forum I have seen eye-witness accounts of anomalies in the 911 attacks written-off as insubstantial, uncorroborated, unreliable or simply as being kooky nuttery

Two witnesses now, one of whom Q24 said he was aware of but obviously couldn't be bothered to check on before making his accusations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

Why? Because you don't want them to.

Because the rear of the aircraft was blatantly destroyed in this case regardless that the impact force was less than at the front.

Two witnesses now, one of whom Q24 said he was aware of but obviously couldn't be bothered to check on before making his accusations.

One witness – there is no quoted corroboration from the second source.

The aircraft penetrated a long way into the building, giving plenty of opportunity for a few parts of it to experience survivable g-forces. You haven't shown a shred of evidence to refute this. You are just repeating the same old claim with nothing to back it up, because you can't admit that you accused someone of spreading "sick lies" without any basis.

I’ve known for a long time that you don’t actually read my posts before responding but you do like to keep proving it.

I already said that the ‘g-force is survivable’ argument is a strawman – there is nothing to refute. It is very obviously the impact that does the damage, not the g-forces involved. They are two separate issues.

The bottom line of this is there was barely anything recognisable of the aircraft left - only the very strongest pieces, the landing gear and an engine core, are known to have survived.

In your opinion, on the basis of an unreliable eyewitness report to a traumatic event and some completely incomparable instances, in amongst all that small aircraft debris may have been whole intact passenger seats with recognisable bodies of passengers still strapped to them.

In my opinion, when an aircraft dives into a steel-reinforced concrete building at hundreds of miles per hour entirely breaking it down to component pieces then human tissue will be reduced to a bloody smear at the point of impact.

It’s a kind of miracle of all miracles that you want to believe in (I wonder why photographers who documented the scene missed this miracle? I wonder how the same miracle didn’t occur for Flight 93?) but being more realistic than yourself I’m going to call it out as untrue.

We will have to leave it at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
flyingswan

Because the rear of the aircraft was blatantly destroyed in this case regardless that the impact force was less than at the front.

Now what was that about strawman arguments? I wasn't claiming that the basic structure was intact in this case, I just gave the fact that in many cases the tail structure remains as confirmation that g-loads are less at the rear. However, we're not talking about the basic structure, just a row of seats.

One witness – there is no quoted corroboration from the second source.

Quibble. You didn't check, period.

I already said that the ‘g-force is survivable’ argument is a strawman – there is nothing to refute. It is very obviously the impact that does the damage, not the g-forces involved. They are two separate issues.

Once again you demonstrate that strange Q24-physics. The g-forces are due to the impact, the g-forces determine how badly damaged a part gets, and I've provided numbers to show that for parts of the aircraft they were a lot less than you claimed.

The bottom line of this is there was barely anything recognisable of the aircraft left - only the very strongest pieces, the landing gear and an engine core, are known to have survived.

What do you expect? Even if the witnesses had taken pictures you would be unlikely to see them. Or do you think pictures of charred or dismembered corpses are always published after an aircrash?

In my opinion, when an aircraft dives into a steel-reinforced concrete building at hundreds of miles per hour entirely breaking it down to component pieces then human tissue will be reduced to a bloody smear at the point of impact.

That is what all this boils down to - your opinion. All the evidence you've produced is the fact that you personally can't believe it. That "Argument from personal incredulity" gets into the list of top-20 logical fallacies:

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

Quibble. You didn't check, period.

How pompous you are to presume what I did or did not do.

I spend hours searching and checking facts.

Of course I checked, that’s how I know there is only one confirmed eyewitness.

Once again you demonstrate that strange Q24-physics. The g-forces are due to the impact, the g-forces determine how badly damaged a part gets, and I've provided numbers to show that for parts of the aircraft they were a lot less than you claimed.

Sorry but you are talking rubbish - I have not made a specific claim in the way of numbers and neither have you provided any evidence relative to the Pentagon impact discussed.

What do you expect? Even if the witnesses had taken pictures you would be unlikely to see them. Or do you think pictures of charred or dismembered corpses are always published after an aircrash?

Such pictures of the Pentagon victims are exactly what have been made public.

Clearly, you didn’t check.

That is what all this boils down to - your opinion. All the evidence you've produced is the fact that you personally can't believe it. That "Argument from personal incredulity" gets into the list of top-20 logical fallacies:

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx

That’s rich considering the majority of your complaints to the 9/11 false flag attack are based on incredulity. For example, you argued that thermite could not cut the WTC columns until a real engineer actually tested the theory and proved you incorrect.

But no, in this case there is more than opinion: -

Eric Thompson after watching a WTC jumper’s body strike the pavement: -

“There was no human resemblance whatsoever”.

James Logozzo, witnessing the same as above: -

“When she hit, there was nothing left”.

Wally Miller, coroner at Flight 93 crash site: -

“I stopped being coroner after about 20 minutes because there were no bodies there.”

So you see, it is documented fact that aircraft and especially human bodies do not fare well in head on, high speed impacts with solid objects.

As said, I accept your personal opinion that recognisable passenger bodies still strapped to seats were found sitting intact amongst the small debris after the Pentagon impact.

Oh quillius come back and save me from this foolishness. :hmm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.