The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

Discussions on 9/11, moon landing etc.

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#81  Postby aspire1670 » May 10, 2010 12:53 pm

PJG wrote:I stopped reading some people's posts long ago, but I did just notice this:

uke2se wrote:Nano-thermite isn't nano-technology. It's thermite with smaller particles.


:lol: Made my day this did! When I come back in the future, may I quote it in my signature please?


Only if you want to be laughed at.
psikeyhackr wrote: Physics is not rhetorical pseudo-logic crap.

I removed this signature at the request of another member.
aspire1670
 
Posts: 1454
Age: 71
Male

Country: UK
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#82  Postby aspire1670 » May 10, 2010 12:55 pm

Galaxian wrote:
PJG wrote:I do not think, for example, that there is any more evidence to support the claim that a plane hit the Pentagon than that it did not - my position is the default - I don't know. You on the other hand, are 100% convinced by the evidence you have seen that a plane hit. We have different standards regarding the evidence we need for us to accept a claim. I hope, and I cannot think of an exception to this, I do not accept a claim without evidence - when I do not have the evidence I say "I don't know", I don't just make up something that fits or accept what someone else tells me - unless I have found them very reliable in the past - and I haven't found governments to be very reliable in the past! :mrgreen:

:clap: THAT ^ is the scientific process, little do they know it! We either KNOW something, in which case we say so. Or we do NOT know something, in which case we say so. Or we are UNsure, in which case we say so.
No, PJG, you don't have to leave (for now) on a civil note. [b]You beat the crap out him fair & square!
:beercheers[/b]:


Bolded for the unintentional irony and the lulz.
psikeyhackr wrote: Physics is not rhetorical pseudo-logic crap.

I removed this signature at the request of another member.
aspire1670
 
Posts: 1454
Age: 71
Male

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#83  Postby PJG » May 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Please could someone who accepts the official claim explain to aspire what nanotechnology is. He won't believe me - and he is clearly somewhat confused!

Galaxian - I am not sure that I entirely agree with your statement - though I appreciate the support. My only criticism is that I might say I "know" that two planes hit the twin towers. However, strictly speaking, I "accept" that two planes hit, or I am "satisfied" that two planes hit. If I was absolutely pushed, I would have to admit that I could be deluded to the point that 9/11 never happened at all - no planes hit and the twin towers are still standing!!

Of course, on a day to day basis, we say we "know" things - what we really mean is that we have sufficient evidence to determine them. Econ and some of the others claim to "know" that a plane hit the Pentagon or that WTC7 came down because of fires. In fact, almost all their "evidence" is basically an argument from incredulity. If you look back, many, many posts are variations on "I don't see where the plane went if it didn't go into the Pentagon therefore it went into the building" or "I don't see how accelerants could have been placed in the buildings, therefore it couldn't have happened" and so on. With the exception of Econ, just about everyone has tried to knock down evidence against their belief rather than put forward evidence supporting their belief... and many of the "methods" have been logical fallacies and ad homs.

I like to think I "know" that two planes went into the twin towers - I like to believe my own eyes and there does seem to be other evidence that this occurred. It is supported by so many things, so many witnesses and other evidence that I might even be pushed to say "I know". My problem - and the reason I stuck my neck out to ask questions about this in the first place is that so many people claim they "know" other aspects - and then use "evidence" that is inconclusive or circumstantial - or an argument from authority. So far as 9/11 is concerned - that means almost all of it. If you remove everything stated as "fact" by the government, how much of what happened on 9/11 do we really "know" and how much evidence do we have for it?

Best wishes
:cheers:
User avatar
PJG
 
Posts: 204
Female

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#84  Postby aspire1670 » May 10, 2010 8:44 pm

PJG wrote:Please could someone who accepts the official claim explain to aspire what nanotechnology is. He won't believe me - and he is clearly somewhat confused!

Galaxian - I am not sure that I entirely agree with your statement - though I appreciate the support. My only criticism is that I might say I "know" that two planes hit the twin towers. However, strictly speaking, I "accept" that two planes hit, or I am "satisfied" that two planes hit. If I was absolutely pushed, I would have to admit that I could be deluded to the point that 9/11 never happened at all - no planes hit and the twin towers are still standing!!

Of course, on a day to day basis, we say we "know" things - what we really mean is that we have sufficient evidence to determine them. Econ and some of the others claim to "know" that a plane hit the Pentagon or that WTC7 came down because of fires. In fact, almost all their "evidence" is basically an argument from incredulity. If you look back, many, many posts are variations on "I don't see where the plane went if it didn't go into the Pentagon therefore it went into the building" or "I don't see how accelerants could have been placed in the buildings, therefore it couldn't have happened" and so on. With the exception of Econ, just about everyone has tried to knock down evidence against their belief rather than put forward evidence supporting their belief... and many of the "methods" have been logical fallacies and ad homs.

I like to think I "know" that two planes went into the twin towers - I like to believe my own eyes and there does seem to be other evidence that this occurred. It is supported by so many things, so many witnesses and other evidence that I might even be pushed to say "I know". My problem - and the reason I stuck my neck out to ask questions about this in the first place is that so many people claim they "know" other aspects - and then use "evidence" that is inconclusive or circumstantial - or an argument from authority. So far as 9/11 is concerned - that means almost all of it. If you remove everything stated as "fact" by the government, how much of what happened on 9/11 do we really "know" and how much evidence do we have for it?

Best wishes
:cheers:

Image
psikeyhackr wrote: Physics is not rhetorical pseudo-logic crap.

I removed this signature at the request of another member.
aspire1670
 
Posts: 1454
Age: 71
Male

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#85  Postby econ41 » May 10, 2010 9:05 pm

aspire1670 wrote:
PJG wrote:I stopped reading some people's posts long ago, but I did just notice this:

uke2se wrote:Nano-thermite isn't nano-technology. It's thermite with smaller particles.


:lol: Made my day this did! When I come back in the future, may I quote it in my signature please?


Only if you want to be laughed at.

Could it be that she really doesn't know?

...anyone who watches TV commercials should comprehend that "scientific sounding words" are often used to mislead by inference.

... and, to be pedantic, I suppose that nano-thermite is a "nano-technology" if you take a very broad literal meaning of the terminology.
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1283
Age: 79
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#86  Postby uke2se » May 10, 2010 9:07 pm

PJG wrote:I stopped reading some people's posts long ago, but I did just notice this:

uke2se wrote:Nano-thermite isn't nano-technology. It's thermite with smaller particles.


:lol: Made my day this did! When I come back in the future, may I quote it in my signature please?


I think it's telling that you don't reply to the rest of the post.
User avatar
uke2se
 
Posts: 641

Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#87  Postby econ41 » May 11, 2010 8:48 am

PJG wrote:Econ - I think you are still not understanding but I am stunned if you do not and that I have to spell this out. However, I will do so but I thought that my meaning was clear right from the start of the old thread.
...I am not "denigrating" NIST because I am saying that maybe there is another explanation for their poor report. Of course there is only a "black and white" scenario - i.e. NIST must be incompetent or dishonest, IF the official story is correct. If the official story is NOT correct, then there are lots of OTHER possible explanations but I DON'T KNOW what they are/could be ....e.g. the scientists could have been "leaned on", the fact that they were not given access to physical evidence (and that evidence was destroyed) could have been deliberate, they may have been given a predetermined conclusion to work towards rather than giving themselves that "challenge" ... the list could go on and on and may include a hundred "explanations" - but none of THOSE can fit if those paying the piper are NOT calling the tune - i.e. don't have anything to hide. Do you understand this? I thought it was self-evident. I apologise if I should have stated what I thought was the obvious....
...well if that is not denigrating simply suggest another word for a persistent tirade of negative comments about the work of a group of professionals. Clearly your use of English language is different to mine.

...The idea that NIST or anyone else must provide a report that satisfies my own personal requirements is another completely irrelevant statement - of course they do not and I would be being unbelievably arrogant - and/or stupid - to state such a thing as an individual....
..well it aint irrelevant - it simply reflects the standards you keep insisting on. Which you espouse personally whether or not you choose to stand alone OR put yourself forward as a representative of some broader based group of like thinking persons as per your following statement...
...However, grass-roots movements have often started when someone asks a question and finds others are asking the same questions. Most disappear over time, but some develop and grow. You are satisfied with the official story - you feel that the evidence supplied to support their story is adequate. I do not - and some others do not either....
..and, for the umpteenth time, will you please stop "verballing" me as satisfied with the official story as a global claim. I grow tired of your repeated use of false generalisations. I have been explicit that I neither agree with nor disagree with the "official story" in globo. I have formed my own opinions on certain key facts where my opinions happen to agree with the official version. Those "own opinions" include, but are not limited to, my opinion that there was no demolition at WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7. I have read little of the three out of four parts of the NIST reports, my focus having been on the one part of four which deals with mechanisms of collapse. So I do not appreciate your repeated false statements that I support or am satisfied with the "Official Story". Given your own demonstrably false claims to being agnostic on certain issues it is ridiculous that you falsely accuse me of being partisan on issues where I genuinely have made no claims and when my position is demonstrable agnostic.
...I do not think, for example, that there is any more evidence to support the claim that a plane hit the Pentagon than that it did not - my position is the default - I don't know. You on the other hand, are 100% convinced by the evidence you have seen that a plane hit. We have different standards regarding the evidence we need for us to accept a claim....

...well and truly said. "We have different standards regarding the evidence we need for us to accept a claim." :clap: Yes we do. I look at the total evidence and form an opinion based on that evidence, the logical relationship between the parts and the question under consideration. In contrast you take one element - look at recent pages of nano-thermxte and/or "microspheres" discussion - on the unexplained possibility of how such an item of dubious evidence, if true, could change key questions you are prepared to dismiss/avoid/evade the overwhelming mass of contrary evidence. Including my positive statements as to why either deliberate use or accidental use of nano-thermxte was not likely. So you are not prepared to drop an issue which suits your pre-set bias whereas I am. Well said therefore that "We have different standards regarding the evidence...." I am glad that we do.

....but you go further to "frame" your statement:
...I hope, and I cannot think of an exception to this, I do not accept a claim without evidence - when I do not have the evidence I say "I don't know",...
...wow! Call that a sidestep? Totally ignoring that it is not the lack of evidence that underpins your stated views on recent discussions. It is the existence of evidence which you ignore/disregard/evade.

...Look, there really isn't any point continuing this....
Correct though your following reasons are not why I agree with you.

.... You are 100% certain that a plane hit the Pentagon, the three towers collapsed because of fires and damage and that the plane in Shanksville crashed and was not shot down....
Yes - with the expected provisos about the non-professional use of "100% certain". There is no reasonable doubt that all three of those matters are true.

...I do not see how you can possibly know this, let alone be 100% certain of most of it. That you accept it 100% - good for you.
...setting aside your loose terminology claims of 100% certainty I can "know" this because the evidence is conclusive to any person:
  • who will look objectively at evidence;
  • Who does not have a pre-set agenda to support; AND
  • Is not prepared to ignore any evidence which does not support that pre-set agenda.

...We seem to agree that our standards of evidence are different....
...too true.

...I hope we can end this on a civil and respectful note and just say that we agree to disagree. OK? :cheers:
...I don't think I have ever departed from the Forum Rule which, colloquially stated, says "Argue as hard as you want against the topic, avoid personal attacks." I have no problem entering discussion with you the person. But your approach to logic and consistency of position is a different matter.
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1283
Age: 79
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#88  Postby ConnyRaSk » May 11, 2010 9:02 am

bookmarking (am away from my normal abode and so, cannot use internet much)
Literature, fiction, poetry, whatever, makes justice in the world. That’s why it almost always has to be on the side of the underdog. ~Grace Paley
User avatar
ConnyRaSk
 
Posts: 4828

Country: Austria
Austria (at)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#89  Postby Dudely » May 11, 2010 1:33 pm

PJG wrote: With the exception of Econ, just about everyone has tried to knock down evidence against their belief rather than put forward evidence supporting their belief... and many of the "methods" have been logical fallacies and ad homs.


I resent that remark.

You have reams and reams of evidence at your disposal. You seem to give this particular incident a much greater burden of evidence than any normal theory (say, evolution, or gravity, or the fact that princess Diana was killed in a car accident, or the fact that benazir bhutto was killed by terrorists), and in conjunction, give much higher importance to minor technical details which have yet to even be confirmed ("nano-particle" thermite, as an example).

I don't know, people just seem to be way too over-zealous about all this. Quit using your limbic brain!
This is what hydrogen atoms do given 15 billion years of evolution- Carl Sagan

Ignorance is slavery- Miles Davis
User avatar
Dudely
 
Posts: 1450

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#90  Postby Morien » May 12, 2010 11:35 am

This discussion is going nowhere. We're stuck at some people refusing to explain their position in a way that would let them be proven wrong, and with PJG comparing people who don't agree with her to creationists.

I have already realized that the truth-movement is stuck in 2006 - the year they were at their strongest. The problem is, all their points have been debunked by both professionals and amateurs time and time again, but they don't learn from this. Instead, they just reiterate all their already debunked positions. It's really frustrating for someone trying to present a rational argument to be met by a wall of diffuse claims and youtube videos.


...(Emphasis mine) This is quite clearly untrue, and a rash generalisation. No one seems to be able to answer the following;


Back to Pennsylvania. Offering justification for my suspicions is quite easy, as I mentioned the wreckage was strewn over quite a large area (larger even, than I initially claimed above) totally contradicting the assertion that it was a 'crash'.



The following map summarizes the location of the most well-documented debris fields:

The primary crash site, centered at the impact crater
The location of an engine: ~ 2000 feet away
The Indian Lake marina, ~ 3 miles away
The New Baltimore, ~ 8 miles away


Image

Using the scale indicated on the map, the engine can be seen to be fully a quarter mile away from the 'crash'. This is well-nigh impossible in what was said to have been a 15 mile per hour breeze on that day.

Also, we have the 'Freudian slip' by Donny Rumsfeld, shortly afterwards:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNT61h5_P60[/youtube]


If memory serves me correctly, it was ignored because the the utterly ridiculous insistence that an alternative explanation be provided was revealed for the logical fallacy that it was..
Morien
 
Posts: 236
Male

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#91  Postby Jumbo » May 12, 2010 11:55 am

The primary crash site, centered at the impact crater
The location of an engine: ~ 2000 feet away
The Indian Lake marina, ~ 3 miles away
The New Baltimore, ~ 8 miles away


Wasn't the stuff in New Baltimore mainly paper and the like? Similarly wasn't the debris at Indian Lake also small items? (Thus in any crash they are the most likely to travel a significant distance.)

The engine being 2000 ft away doesn't seem all that odd. The plane was inverted and hit the ground at over 500mph. That's quite a bit of energy there. The engine being 7-10,000 lbs in weight with that kind of impact could mean it gets thrown some distance. Why would it be directed there by 'breeze' surely the impact itself is more likely the cause.
The Feynman Problem-Solving Algorithm

1. Write down the problem.
2. Think very hard.
3. Write down the answer.
User avatar
Jumbo
 
Posts: 3599
Age: 41
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#92  Postby uke2se » May 12, 2010 11:59 am

Morien wrote:
This discussion is going nowhere. We're stuck at some people refusing to explain their position in a way that would let them be proven wrong, and with PJG comparing people who don't agree with her to creationists.

I have already realized that the truth-movement is stuck in 2006 - the year they were at their strongest. The problem is, all their points have been debunked by both professionals and amateurs time and time again, but they don't learn from this. Instead, they just reiterate all their already debunked positions. It's really frustrating for someone trying to present a rational argument to be met by a wall of diffuse claims and youtube videos.


...(Emphasis mine) This is quite clearly untrue, and a rash generalisation. No one seems to be able to answer the following;


Back to Pennsylvania. Offering justification for my suspicions is quite easy, as I mentioned the wreckage was strewn over quite a large area (larger even, than I initially claimed above) totally contradicting the assertion that it was a 'crash'.



The following map summarizes the location of the most well-documented debris fields:

The primary crash site, centered at the impact crater
The location of an engine: ~ 2000 feet away
The Indian Lake marina, ~ 3 miles away
The New Baltimore, ~ 8 miles away


Image

Using the scale indicated on the map, the engine can be seen to be fully a quarter mile away from the 'crash'. This is well-nigh impossible in what was said to have been a 15 mile per hour breeze on that day.

Also, we have the 'Freudian slip' by Donny Rumsfeld, shortly afterwards:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNT61h5_P60[/youtube]


If memory serves me correctly, it was ignored because the the utterly ridiculous insistence that an alternative explanation be provided was revealed for the logical fallacy that it was..


Umm, we dealt with that earlier. I'll post the link again.

http://www.911myths.com/html/missing_engine.html
User avatar
uke2se
 
Posts: 641

Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#93  Postby uke2se » May 12, 2010 12:00 pm

Jumbo wrote:
The primary crash site, centered at the impact crater
The location of an engine: ~ 2000 feet away
The Indian Lake marina, ~ 3 miles away
The New Baltimore, ~ 8 miles away


Wasn't the stuff in New Baltimore mainly paper and the like? Similarly wasn't the debris at Indian Lake also small items? (Thus in any crash they are the most likely to travel a significant distance.)


Correct.

Jumbo wrote:
The engine being 2000 ft away doesn't seem all that odd. The plane was inverted and hit the ground at over 500mph. That's quite a bit of energy there. The engine being 7-10,000 lbs in weight with that kind of impact could mean it gets thrown some distance. Why would it be directed there by 'breeze' surely the impact itself is more likely the cause.


The engine was about 300 yards from the main crash site. You'll have to work out how many fee that is as I'm useless with that. I'm a metric system guy.
User avatar
uke2se
 
Posts: 641

Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#94  Postby Morien » May 12, 2010 12:00 pm

If memory serves me correctly, it was ignored because the the utterly ridiculous insistence that an alternative explanation be provided was revealed for the logical fallacy that it was



This is the gist of the approach offered by those who believe the Official rubbish. Unable and/or unwilling to defend their beliefs, they instead insinuate the madness of those who question them;



Truther

A crazy person who believes the US government committed 9/11. Truthers get their inspiration from a moronic documentary called "Loose Change" which provides no facts whatsoever and has been thoroughly debunked. People who disagree with the truthers are repeatedly called government shills since truthers have no logical argument to counter the evidence.



http://tinyurl.com/6fmqkl
Morien
 
Posts: 236
Male

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#95  Postby Moridin » May 12, 2010 12:06 pm

When you fly a plane at around 500 miles miles per hour (700-800 feet per second!), crashing it into the ground, parts will fly all over the place, even landing several kilometers away (for smaller debris). This is entirely consistent with the data we have. This has to do with wind, but also very much to do with the velocity of the plane on impact and Newton's first law.

The engine fan was one of the largest surviving pieces of the plan. Most of the aircraft was obliterated on impact, shattering into tiny pieces that were driven as much as 30 feet into the ground. Creg Feith, a former senior investigator with the NTSB says this is a typical outcome when a plane hits the ground at high speed. Most crashes occur at takeoff or landing, when the speed of the plane is relatively slow. You can liken crash debris to an egg. At a slow speed, dropped from your hand, the impact with crack the egg and you will have large pieces of shell. Take the egg and drop it from 20 stories up and t will have smaller fragments of shell and spread out by the impact.

This scenario of heavy items being propelled ahead of the wreckage is not unusual, it also occurred when the landing gear and black box of Flight 77 were found deep inside the Pentagon, far from their original position in the aircraft.

The above two paragraphs taken from the excellent book "Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories can't Stand up to the Facts" (edited by Dunbar and Reagan, pp. 86-90)

In my opinion, this is on of the easiest 9/11 truther claim to debunk.
User avatar
Moridin
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 810
Male

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#96  Postby Moridin » May 12, 2010 12:08 pm

Morien wrote:
If memory serves me correctly, it was ignored because the the utterly ridiculous insistence that an alternative explanation be provided was revealed for the logical fallacy that it was


This is the gist of the approach offered by those who believe the Official rubbish. Unable and/or unwilling to defend their beliefs, they instead insinuate the madness of those who question them;


No, that claim has been debunked several times already, showing it to be false on its own merits.
User avatar
Moridin
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 810
Male

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#97  Postby Morien » May 12, 2010 12:08 pm

Jumbo wrote:
The primary crash site, centered at the impact crater
The location of an engine: ~ 2000 feet away
The Indian Lake marina, ~ 3 miles away
The New Baltimore, ~ 8 miles away


Wasn't the stuff in New Baltimore mainly paper and the like? Similarly wasn't the debris at Indian Lake also small items? (Thus in any crash they are the most likely to travel a significant distance.)


No, they weren't . Please provide evidence of such if you believe it was...and I will counter appropriately.

The engine being 2000 ft away doesn't seem all that odd. The plane was inverted and hit the ground at over 500mph. That's quite a bit of energy there. The engine being 7-10,000 lbs in weight with that kind of impact could mean it gets thrown some distance. Why would it be directed there by 'breeze' surely the impact itself is more likely the cause.



It was a fuckin' airplane, not a meteor. The fact that pieces of the plane (not lightwight paper, and such) debris landed 8 miles away, doesn't imply a 'crash' as described.

The plane was inverted and hit the ground at over 500mph


Evidence, please. I have provided such to back up my suspicions, you have provided very little (if anything) to refute them....
Morien
 
Posts: 236
Male

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#98  Postby aspire1670 » May 12, 2010 12:18 pm

Morien wrote:
Jumbo wrote:
The primary crash site, centered at the impact crater
The location of an engine: ~ 2000 feet away
The Indian Lake marina, ~ 3 miles away
The New Baltimore, ~ 8 miles away


Wasn't the stuff in New Baltimore mainly paper and the like? Similarly wasn't the debris at Indian Lake also small items? (Thus in any crash they are the most likely to travel a significant distance.)


No, they weren't . Please provide evidence of such if you believe it was...and I will counter appropriately.

The engine being 2000 ft away doesn't seem all that odd. The plane was inverted and hit the ground at over 500mph. That's quite a bit of energy there. The engine being 7-10,000 lbs in weight with that kind of impact could mean it gets thrown some distance. Why would it be directed there by 'breeze' surely the impact itself is more likely the cause.



It was a fuckin' airplane, not a meteor. The fact that pieces of the plane (not lightwight paper, and such) debris landed 8 miles away, doesn't imply a 'crash' as described.

The plane was inverted and hit the ground at over 500mph


Evidence, please. I have provided such to back up my suspicions, you have provided very little (if anything) to refute them....



And this is evidence that WTC was brought down by controlled explosions, how?
psikeyhackr wrote: Physics is not rhetorical pseudo-logic crap.

I removed this signature at the request of another member.
aspire1670
 
Posts: 1454
Age: 71
Male

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#99  Postby Moridin » May 12, 2010 12:27 pm

Morien fails basic physics.

A plane with the weight of, say around 100 metric tons (220 462 lbs), hits the ground with a velocity of around 800 kilometers per hour (500 miles per hour), and you will have things flying. It will not just hit the ground at an angle and stop. Things will go flying, sometimes several kilometers. Denying this forces you to deny basic physical principles such as Newton's first law (law of inertia) and the principle of conservation of energy.

This is entirely consistent with the data.

Wallance Miller, Somerset Country coroner says that no body parts were found in Indiana Lake. Human remains were confined to a 70 acre area directly surrounding the crash site. Paper and tiny scraps of sheet metal, however, did land in the lake. Very light debris will fly into the air, because of the concussion. Indian Lake is less than 1.5 miles southeast of the impact crater as the crow files. This is easily within the range of debris blasted skyward y the explosion form the crash (from the book "Debunking 9/11 Myths" edited by Dunbar and Reagan).

You are anomaly hunting for an anomaly that isn't even there.
User avatar
Moridin
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 810
Male

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#100  Postby Morien » May 12, 2010 12:30 pm

uke2se wrote:
Morien wrote:
This discussion is going nowhere. We're stuck at some people refusing to explain their position in a way that would let them be proven wrong, and with PJG comparing people who don't agree with her to creationists.

I have already realized that the truth-movement is stuck in 2006 - the year they were at their strongest. The problem is, all their points have been debunked by both professionals and amateurs time and time again, but they don't learn from this. Instead, they just reiterate all their already debunked positions. It's really frustrating for someone trying to present a rational argument to be met by a wall of diffuse claims and youtube videos.


...(Emphasis mine) This is quite clearly untrue, and a rash generalisation. No one seems to be able to answer the following;


Back to Pennsylvania. Offering justification for my suspicions is quite easy, as I mentioned the wreckage was strewn over quite a large area (larger even, than I initially claimed above) totally contradicting the assertion that it was a 'crash'.



The following map summarizes the location of the most well-documented debris fields:

The primary crash site, centered at the impact crater
The location of an engine: ~ 2000 feet away
The Indian Lake marina, ~ 3 miles away
The New Baltimore, ~ 8 miles away


Image

Using the scale indicated on the map, the engine can be seen to be fully a quarter mile away from the 'crash'. This is well-nigh impossible in what was said to have been a 15 mile per hour breeze on that day.

Also, we have the 'Freudian slip' by Donny Rumsfeld, shortly afterwards:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNT61h5_P60[/youtube]


If memory serves me correctly, it was ignored because the the utterly ridiculous insistence that an alternative explanation be provided was revealed for the logical fallacy that it was..


Umm, we dealt with that earlier. I'll post the link again.

http://www.911myths.com/html/missing_engine.html



Ummm...and if you recall correctly, the Popular mechanics propoganda was dismissed;

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/
Morien
 
Posts: 236
Male

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracy Theories

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest