Czero 101 Posted July 11, 2012 #176 Share Posted July 11, 2012 (edited) Maybe because ot is not a fact, only wishful thinking? Did you make it to General? Does being a General somehow make one an expert in damage assessment and accident investigation...? We certainly know it doesn't make one an expert in becoming invisible or in walking through walls... Stubblebine himself proved that every time he hit his nose on the wall he was trying to walk through. Cz Edited July 11, 2012 by Czero 101 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bee Posted July 11, 2012 #177 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Does being a General somehow make one an expert in damage assessment and accident investigation...? you didn't watch the video did you....or you would know the answer to that... We certainly know it doesn't make one an expert in becoming invisible or in walking through walls... Stubblebine himself proved that every time he hit his nose on the wall he was trying to walk through. and that's ALL you've got? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted July 11, 2012 #178 Share Posted July 11, 2012 (edited) Maybe because ot is not a fact, only wishful thinking? Did you make it to General? I do not need to be a general to know more about aircraft structures and jet engines than the general. In fact, the Air Force and Raytheon Aerospace sent me to Pensacola, Florida to develop a new technical repair manual for the inlet of the TF-39 engine that power the Air Force's C-5 transports. That manual is now used by the Air Force.. Edited July 11, 2012 by skyeagle409 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lliqerty Posted July 11, 2012 Author #179 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Does being a General somehow make one an expert in damage assessment and accident investigation...? We certainly know it doesn't make one an expert in becoming invisible or in walking through walls... Stubblebine himself proved that every time he hit his nose on the wall he was trying to walk through. Cz Weird way to discredit somebody. If you had any interest in this you would have listened to the video and known that HE IS an expert in damage assessment based on pictures. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lliqerty Posted July 11, 2012 Author #180 Share Posted July 11, 2012 He was unaware that parts from the wings of American 77 were found and wing impact points noted on the wall of the Pentagon. For someone who is suppose to know something, why didn't he know that? Maybe because ot is not a fact, only wishful thinking? Did you make it to General? Still no reply to my first question? You do not need to be General for most things, but it's a rather lame attempt to discredit him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted July 11, 2012 #181 Share Posted July 11, 2012 (edited) Still no reply to my first question? I am not a general, but I am in a position to know much more about aircraft and jet engines than that general. You do not need to be General for most things, but it's a rather lame attempt to discredit him. He didn't need my help because he discredited himself in the video. He first mistake was to claim no aircraft was involved, which was silly to do when there is aircraft wreckage inside and outside the Pentagon, and he second mistake was to claim that there were no wing marks on the wall of the Pentagon. Edited July 11, 2012 by skyeagle409 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bee Posted July 11, 2012 #182 Share Posted July 11, 2012 (edited) I think the reason he comes off as a nutter, even ignoring the 'Staring at Goats' thing and just going from the interview up above, is the certainty he has about his own conclusions about what he insists did not happen without really providing any evidence that he is equipped skill-wise to do that type of analysis. He's a general and he's spent a lot of time analyzing pictures, that's about all we know and have to go on. Generals have different job descriptions than architects and structural engineers and accident investigators and thus a different set of skills. I would think that in his no doubt extensive experience analyzing intelligence photos he's analyzed troop movements and strengths and evidence of camouflaged weaponry and the like; that's a whole different set of skills than analyzing what happens when a plane hits a building and what the effect would be. Let's put it this way, I doubt that anyone would give much credence to the General's analysis of a photo of a bacterial cell or a chest xray just because he's looked at a lot of pictures in his life; same general principle is at work here. for him to come out and say what he did publically....I think we can be sure that HE is very sure. hugest evidentiary holes speaking of holes....... the one on this link is from very soon after what-ever-happened happened.... http://www.flickr.co...N04/3390807906/ and I think they must have cropped it from this one..... which I got from here....... http://www.physics911.net/omholt edit to say......nice tidy lawn..... . Edited July 11, 2012 by bee 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lliqerty Posted July 11, 2012 Author #183 Share Posted July 11, 2012 KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX Sky, you have an amazing number of proofs, that the official story cannot be true, I really admire you. Tose wing parts are not from a Boeing 757. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lliqerty Posted July 11, 2012 Author #184 Share Posted July 11, 2012 for him to come out and say what he did publically....I think we can be sure that HE is very sure. speaking of holes....... the one on this link is from very soon after what-ever-happened happened.... http://www.flickr.co...N04/3390807906/ and I think they must have cropped it from this one..... which I got from here....... http://www.physics911.net/omholt edit to say......nice tidy lawn..... And supposedly, the plane was flying at a 45 degree angle.... Was the gap that collapsed the samme size or was it bigger than this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted July 11, 2012 #185 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Sky, you have an amazing number of proofs, that the official story cannot be true, I really admire you. Tose wing parts are not from a Boeing 757. Oh yes they are!! They are the wing flaps of a B-757. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+and-then Posted July 11, 2012 #186 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Pretty impressive that the Jet fuel could produce such a clean cut. I'm certainly no expert but that looks like a weld that failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bee Posted July 11, 2012 #187 Share Posted July 11, 2012 And supposedly, the plane was flying at a 45 degree angle.... Was the gap that collapsed the samme size or was it bigger than this? don't know.... but I have a little theory about the collapse.....that it was done by the military on purpose to obscure the business of the too small 'hole'...etc. to contaminate the scene. If you look at the last pic I posted ....you will see that the building looks pretty solid at that point.... Some time ago I saw a video about people reporting hearing an explosion (or explosions) some time AFTER what-ever-happened happened... but I can't find it at the moment... . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.United_Nations Posted July 11, 2012 #188 Share Posted July 11, 2012 For people who do not trust the official story, why don't you go out and go to these places and question the witnesses and see damage and see photos first hand instead of posting some random videos that the person has no clue on what's happened of what's going on. If you want to prove something then go to places instead of one forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.United_Nations Posted July 11, 2012 #189 Share Posted July 11, 2012 don't know.... but I have a little theory about the collapse.....that it was done by the military on purpose to obscure the business of the too small 'hole'...etc. to contaminate the scene. If you look at the last pic I posted ....you will see that the building looks pretty solid at that point.... Some time ago I saw a video about people reporting hearing an explosion (or explosions) some time AFTER what-ever-happened happened... but I can't find it at the moment... . You weren't there so therefore you do not know everything. People saw a plane hit the building, therefore a plane hit the building Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bee Posted July 11, 2012 #190 Share Posted July 11, 2012 (edited) You weren't there so therefore you do not know everything. People saw a plane hit the building, therefore a plane hit the building correction...people SAID they saw a plane hit the building. and of course, I don't know everything. Neither do you.... But I wouldn't be surprised if my speculations were true. cheers . Edited July 11, 2012 by bee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bee Posted July 11, 2012 #191 Share Posted July 11, 2012 For people who do not trust the official story, why don't you go out and go to these places and question the witnesses and see damage and see photos first hand instead of posting some random videos that the person has no clue on what's happened of what's going on. If you want to prove something then go to places instead of one forum. forums are for talking about THINGS....and that's what we're doing.....if that's ok with you....lol . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+and-then Posted July 11, 2012 #192 Share Posted July 11, 2012 227 passengers died that day. In 11 years not ONE family member has ever said their loved one was still alive. In 11 years not one book has been written proving a conspiracy. I'm sure that hundreds of people would have been required to orchestrate such a conspiracy. Every detail would have had to work flawlessly. In the intervening years not a single person has confessed on their deathbed that they were part of a conspiracy. The same motivations that drive people to believe in all powerful, nefarious force which controls and subjugates the common man also would cause at least one person to spill the beans and PROVE it was a real conspiracy. I think the truth is that 19 guys with box cutters changed history and started a war by getting lucky. It really goes against the grain to admit it but luck, fate, Providence plays it's part in human existence. I remember in the days following the attacks hearing a video or seeing a transcript that showed even the terrorists were surprised at how well it had gone off: "we have more planes!" one was heard to say over radio. People who cannot accept any answer except that our government is the root of all evil in this world are kind of sad imo. I think it's a form of paranoia. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bee Posted July 11, 2012 #193 Share Posted July 11, 2012 . @ and then......as you have made your post after mine....I want to,,,for the record, state that I don't think it was an Inside Job. I think the terrorists did 'get lucky' (as you put it)...with the twin towers anyway. But I do believe there is a cover up about what happened that day. In fact...my Cover Up Theory gives the US military more respect than the Official Account !!!!!! . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenat Posted July 11, 2012 #194 Share Posted July 11, 2012 (edited) Wow, what an excuse. That should make everybody feel save! Invading our privacy online, strip searching passengers. Your statement is perfect proof that the "war against terrorism" is nothing but a pretext. No, it is perfect proof that you don't know what you're talking about. Cameras are not the answer to everything regarding security. Cameras are most effective for constant security if constantly monitored (which takes manpower) and when security people are available to respond to what might be seen on the camera (which takes more manpower). Gates at military installations have live armed guards. Why would you need cameras then? Parking lots are inside the gates. The security they have is more than adequate and can be increased (though not with cameras) at a moment's notice. Edited July 11, 2012 by frenat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
booNyzarC Posted July 11, 2012 #195 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Weird way to discredit somebody. If you had any interest in this you would have listened to the video and known that HE IS an expert in damage assessment based on pictures. Not this kind of damage I'm afraid. And if you had read LG's post #171, that would have been clear. It also would have been clear if you had taken the time to actually digest the information provided in a link I posted a while back. The visual record clearly shows that an aircraft impacted the Pentagon. And that record is available for anyone to review, including Generals who can walk through walls. Based on the good General's statements I can only assume that he has not seen all of the images and most likely came to his conclusions after being influenced by Truth Movement media of some kind. He doesn't show us the pictures he used for assessment, doesn't give us an indication of how he arrived at his conclusions, what methods he used to determine what he believes to have happened. You don't have to take it from me though. Perhaps you'll listen to one of UM's strongest proponents for 911 conspiracy theory? Read the following post from Q24. Radar Data The FAA, PEOC and Secret Service accounts all note an unidentified aircraft approach the Pentagon, but not leave the area. Eyewitnesses There are well over a hundred eyewitnesses to the aircraft approach and/or impact. Of those: - Four perceived it was a 'small' plane. Zero saw a 'flyover'. Over forty specified it was a 'large' plane. Over one hundred believed the aircraft impact.http://sites.google....?attredirects=0 Light Pole Damage Five (well-spaced out) light poles were damaged or knocked down when clipped by the aircraft in front of the Pentagon. Generator Damage A generator was damaged by the aircraft in front of the Pentagon. Pentagon Damage This is a composition of various photographs which show the full damage: - Remember that the Pentagon building (blast-proof steel-reinforced concrete) is completely unlike the WTC structures (relatively lightweight steel columns at the exterior with aluminium cladding) and we should not expect to see similar results in each case. Clearly at the Pentagon the aircraft would break-up more rapidly and the building damage be less severe. The distance of the long red arrow is approximately 90ft, meaning that the width of the damage is acceptably consistent with the dimensions of a Boeing 757. The large hole in the centre is where the fuselage impacted and damage at ground level on either side is where the engines/wings hit. I have previously scaled and superimposed an image of a Boeing 757 over the picture and found it fits the damage well – try it for yourself. Alignment of Damage The light pole damage, the generator damage and internal damage to the Pentagon as documented by the ASCE are all in perfect alignment indicating the aircraft came through that way. Wing Impact Marks The superimposed lines are a guide as where to look. If you follow the line you can see gouges, deeper than the surrounding damage, in the masonry. These run adjacent to the central impact location with consistent width and depth. It therefore appears a linear object was attached to whatever impacted the Pentagon - otherwise known as 'a wing'. Aircraft Debris There is more than appears at first glance. Please see my post here: -http://www.unexplain...dpost&p=3380928 Security Camera Footage The plane is visible. Please see my post here: -http://www.unexplain...dpost&p=4051722 Common Sense/Risk Assessment If the operation requires a large aircraft impact in an area packed full of eyewitnesses, you provide a large aircraft impact. You do not risk the entire operation by unnecessarily doing something completely different. You are unlikely to find a more focused and organized proponent of the Truth Movement than Q24, and yet he is of the opinion that a plane did impact the Pentagon. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Commander Travis Posted July 11, 2012 #196 Share Posted July 11, 2012 And this isn't directed at you, bee, but it's amazing how often some 'proponents of alternative theories' (that's for you, lliqerty) just provide the thinnest gloss over some of the hugest evidentiary holes that require explanation if what they specifically dispute is true. The General above just waves his magic wand and utters the spell, 'the media will say whatever the government tells them to', and this objection is just poofed out of existence. Yea sure, the media will say whatever the govt tells them... well except in the Lewinsky case, Watergate, Iran-Contra, those pesky missing WMDs, etc. Not to mention the Media in Russia, China, France, Australia, and all those other countries that aren't under the thumb of the U.S. Govt. Some of whom would be very glad to find some proof that the U.S. Govt. is at the very least lying, if not directly responsible for the greatest atrocity of the century. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babe Ruth Posted July 11, 2012 #197 Share Posted July 11, 2012 LG I have a feeling you did not watch the entire statement by STubblebine. He gave a fairly detailed description of much of his career in the intelligence field, along with a few definitions. Most rare, for a government official. Sky I get the feeling that the pictures you show of the wing flaps is very much like the faked video you showed here about the F-18. Once bitten, twice shy. Nobody else anywhere has posted that photo, and it seems very much 'out of context', in the same way your earlier fake video was. I'm sympathetic, because it's tough defending a fable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
booNyzarC Posted July 11, 2012 #198 Share Posted July 11, 2012 LG I have a feeling you did not watch the entire statement by STubblebine. He gave a fairly detailed description of much of his career in the intelligence field, along with a few definitions. Most rare, for a government official. I can't speak for LG, though I'd be surprised if he commented on a video without having watched it first. As for the good General's career and its relation to his analysis, I don't see the correlation. To blindly accept his word as Gospel is to fall victim to an Appeal to Authority. If he truly wanted to convince, he would provide the evidence which he claims to have reviewed and deliver his full analysis for all to confirm. He hasn't done so. All he's provided is a sound bite. Others who have argued for the reality that an aircraft impacted the Pentagon have given their evidence in excruciating detail. Any objective person should be able to review that evidence and provide honest feedback regarding its assessment and the veracity of the arguments provided. I'm sympathetic, because it's tough defending a fable. Perhaps that is why you never bring anything substantial to the table in defense of yours? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
booNyzarC Posted July 11, 2012 #199 Share Posted July 11, 2012 I'm certainly no expert but that looks like a weld that failed. It's actually an intentional cut as part of the cleanup at ground zero. The following video might help clear up any other questions you have about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babe Ruth Posted July 11, 2012 #200 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Oh that's rich Boo! An Appeal To Authority? And in your argument, and your comments and beliefs, what exactly are YOU appealing to? Or taking solace in? AUTHORITY, sir. Your view is based entirely upon the government story. Kettle, meet pot. LOL 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