The Sensible Doubt - Danish 911
- Thread starter Mat
- Start date
I believe it was an airplane. As evidenced by the light poles that were taken out by the wings. If a missile had hit a pole like that, it would have gone off course.
Of course, the images of the landing gear assemblies/engines and fuselage parts at the site had a hand in convincing me it was an airplane.
Thanks for the grainy video though...
Of course, the images of the landing gear assemblies/engines and fuselage parts at the site had a hand in convincing me it was an airplane.
Thanks for the grainy video though...
cheeple
Member
You were able to get a video or a photo of the wreckage? can you post it
And the dead bodies of the passengers? And the bits of plane? Come on cheeple, read something other than truther web sites. You think it was something like this:
Then how did it make such a big hole? How did it make the (still quite large) exit hole AND do all that damage elsewhere? Think about it. A missile would have either penetrated, then exploded, or it would have flown though and exploded in the rotunda.
Last edited:
cheeple
Member
Was there any wreckage at the explosion sight? I cant find a pic, nor can I find a pic of a plane actually hitting the pentagon, and it was recorded!And the dead bodies of the passengers? And the bits of plane? Come on cheeple, read something other than truther web sites. You think it was something like this:
Then how did it make such a big hole? How did it make the (still quite large) exit hole AND do all that damage elsewhere? Think about it. A missile would have either penetrated, then exploded, or it would have flown though and exploded in the rotunda.
Last edited by a moderator:
Steve
Senior Member.
Even Rense believes that a plane hit the Pentagon...
http://rense.com/general32/phot.htm
http://rense.com/general32/phot.htm
I think the problem with the "pentagon pilot was too good" theory is that it assumes the pilot did exactly what he was intending to do, that he actually intended to do this maneuver.
Really all he was trying to do was hit the pentagon. He very nearly missed it and ended up short in the ground.
The light poles are indeed good solid evidence it was a plane - but the standard no-plane response to that is that the light poles were "staged" in advance.
Truther mythology can get pretty annoying.
Really all he was trying to do was hit the pentagon. He very nearly missed it and ended up short in the ground.
The light poles are indeed good solid evidence it was a plane - but the standard no-plane response to that is that the light poles were "staged" in advance.
Truther mythology can get pretty annoying.
cheeple
Member
thats it? was the blackbox recovered?
SR1419
Senior Member.
"thats it?"- classic.
According to this report the black box(s) was/were found:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/september01/wash_9-14.html
farbot
New Member
hmmm... I did do a search if any of this was mentioned in the 911-report but nothing. And since so many question marks have been raised because apart from flight 93 no content of any of the black boxes was made available (or as I've stipulated mentioned by the commission who would be an interested party in the event that there may have been a reasonable explanation why nothing has come out of the content of these black boxes) one could argue that a lot of dissenters would be silenced on this point by giving the information of these tapes free.
This is in no way proof of any large 911 conspiracy claims, but something that can be found very often in these cases. Again, it is no proof of 'guilt' but the 'hush hush' mentality is an ideal breeding ground for suspicion.
'Beware of those that would seek to withold information from you, for in their heart they dream themselves your master' (quote from a game I played in my youth...so no 'big name' to give it that extra cachet as most people who mention quotes like to do...but nevertheless, feels fitting for the subject of secrecy)
This is in no way proof of any large 911 conspiracy claims, but something that can be found very often in these cases. Again, it is no proof of 'guilt' but the 'hush hush' mentality is an ideal breeding ground for suspicion.
'Beware of those that would seek to withold information from you, for in their heart they dream themselves your master' (quote from a game I played in my youth...so no 'big name' to give it that extra cachet as most people who mention quotes like to do...but nevertheless, feels fitting for the subject of secrecy)
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I think all three were "too good" . . . and seems as presented above there are experienced pilots who feel the same . . .
Spongebob
Active Member
Some.
Lady Dianna being murdered. Armstrong on the moon. I believe these conspiracy theories did not happen. Though new information could always come along....
Please try not to be reactive combative if you want to chat with me. Its so booooring!
Diana murdered? Why?
Armstrong never landed on the moon? Why do you believe that?
What about the Queen being a 7ft tall shapeshifting lizard? And GW Bush for that matter?
Do you believe there is an alien base on the moon?
But this is the old "a few nominal experts" fallacy. You can ALWAYS find a few people who seem on paper qualified to give an opinion. When they group together is give the illusion that LOTS of experts agree there's a problem. Really though it's always a very small number (<1%) and they are either not particularly expert (like Richard Gage) or they are making assessments of the situation without all the facts (like people who say that WTC7 looks like a controlled demolition, which it does, visually).
Flight 77 cockpit voice recorder:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_77
The flight data recorder had data on it. There's theories around that too.At around 3:40 a.m on September 14, a paramedic and a firefighter who were searching through the debris of the impact site found two dark boxes, about 1.5 feet (46 cm) by 2 feet (61 cm) long. They called for an FBI agent, who in turn called for someone from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). The NTSB employee confirmed that these were the flight recorders ("black boxes") from American Airlines Flight 77.[86] Dick Bridges, deputy manager for Arlington County, Virginia, said the voice recorder was damaged on the outside and the flight data recorder was charred. But he said the FBI still was confident the data can be recovered from both. Bridges said the recorders were found "right where the plane came into the building."[87]
Officials at both American Airlines and United Airlines said the black boxes aboard their destroyed aircraft were modern solid-state versions, which are more resistant to damage than the older magnetic tape recorders.[88] The cockpit voice recorder was quickly transported to the NTSB lab in Washington, D.C., and its data was downloaded. Soon afterward, the FBI took charge of the box and its data.[89] CBS News reported that "Preliminary information shows there is nothing that appears to be useful on the cockpit voice tape. The tape appears to be blank or erased."[90] In its report on the CVR, the NTSB identified the unit as an L-3 Communications, Fairchild Aviation Recorders model A-100A cockpit voice recorder; a device which records on magnetic tape. The NTSB reported that "The majority of the recording tape was fused into a solid block of charred plastic." No usable segments of tape were found inside the recorder.[91]
http://www.cesura17.net/~will/Ephemera/Sept11/Software/
Last edited:
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
If the two pilots in the two videos are who the say they are . . . I don't think they are nominal by any measure . . . not knowing all the facts . . . Hmmmmm . . . does anyone???
Spongebob
Active Member
The FDR data from the Pentagon was independently decoded by Dr. Frank Legge and Warren Stutt:
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Calibration of altimeter_92.pdf
It matches the radar data and eyewitness accounts.
and the downed poles...
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Calibration of altimeter_92.pdf
It matches the radar data and eyewitness accounts.
and the downed poles...
Rob Balsamo, the founder of PFT, does not seem to be the most credible of people, there are suggestions that he's been posting on ATS and other places as TiffanyInLA:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/profile.php?member=TiffanyInLA&display=posts
I'd not normally post rumors like that, but it does seems to be backed up by the content of the posts, him faking a Vg diagram, then using "Tiffany" to defend it, and him eventually being banned from ATS for sock puppet use.
Last edited:
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Hmmmm . . . I don't know how they proved he used a sock puppet . . . I have had that charge leveled at myself . . . which was total nonsense . . . as far as the Vg diagram . . . I can't evaluate, my question is did he lie about the simulator failures . . . ???
Last edited by a moderator:
Proving of sock puppetry is done by comparing IP addresses. Usually the person logs on from the same computer, so will usually have the same IP address. That's how I could tell "lee h oswald" was also "sapphire" here, and there were a few cases of unregistered people pretending to be multiple people.
cheeple
Member
Rookies.....lol
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Dynamic or shared IPs through a common mobile carrier can appear to have the same IP can it not??? How would you know . . . ?
Sure, but it's VERY unlikely. Kind of like DNA evidence. Of all the other people on the board lee (and the unregistered socks) was the only one with a shared IP. (plus he used the same email address when registering sapphire, but it was a sure thing even without that).
Dynamic IPs for home use are generally static for days or months. If a person uses the same ip for months, and nobody else is using it, then someone is using it at the same time for a while, then it's pretty much guaranteed they are using the same internet connection.
In addition, vistors have a "footprint" which their browser supplies, that tells you various things about them: the browser, the operating system, and the screen resolution. You can use this to confirm that it's likely the same computer.
And in theory you could also leave a cookie across login sessions which would prove it 100%, if the 99.9999% is not enough.
Spongebob
Active Member
The FDR data from the Pentagon was independently decoded by Dr. Frank Legge and Warren Stutt:
http://journalof911studies.com/volum...timeter_92.pdf
It matches the radar data and eyewitness accounts.
And accounts for the previously undecoded last few seconds.
The recent complete decoding of the FDR file has enlarged and clarified the information available and has thereby enabled resolution of the contradictions. It is clear that this file supports the official account of the course of flight AA 77 and the consequent impact with the Pentagon. The file thus also supports the majority of eyewitness reports.”
and the downed poles...
Pentagon -- Exterior Impact Damage:
http://911review.com/articles/stjarna/eximpactdamage.html
http://journalof911studies.com/volum...timeter_92.pdf
It matches the radar data and eyewitness accounts.
And accounts for the previously undecoded last few seconds.
The recent complete decoding of the FDR file has enlarged and clarified the information available and has thereby enabled resolution of the contradictions. It is clear that this file supports the official account of the course of flight AA 77 and the consequent impact with the Pentagon. The file thus also supports the majority of eyewitness reports.”
and the downed poles...
Pentagon -- Exterior Impact Damage:
http://911review.com/articles/stjarna/eximpactdamage.html
Mat
Member
No, I am saying I do not believe those conspiracy theories. I think Diana died in an accident and Armstrong landed on the moon.
Can you, third time asking, tell me which conspiracy theories you believe?
I suspect you are a conspiracy denier?
Mat
Mat
Member
I have the Popular mechanics book in my office. I have done all I care to to try to delve into the answer to your question, not of late, but years ago.
That in the side seems small to me, even after the collapse. The bended lamps I cant explain without more conspiracy. The lack of footage is undeinably odd. The submitted handful of frames is odder still. The singular round hole on the inside, I am not scientist, but I cannot see how any passenger plane impact could have caused that, especially when the plane disintegrated. I do not know.
I do not know at all. And if you do, if you are sure it was all as described then in my mind you are being as paradigmatic as the hard-core closed minded truths.
False certainty is not a sweetening thing, however good the smug may feel at the time
We both know that you know full well that is not what I said at all.
But, for the sport of the debate, to reiterate, with a poem:
I believe in that which thrice you have failed to see,
And as many times ignored the ask to answer me:
Some things are, some ain't and some some may be,
The colluded wrong of a grand conspiracy.
Be a smiler bob
Here's one theory.
Remember that wall was very weak (compared to the other walls), just infilled brick.
This isn't about smug, false, certainty. It's about looking at the evidence.
Of course if you can't understand the evidence (and I'm not judging here, we all have limits of understanding in different areas), then you've also got to figure out how do you know who is more likely to be telling the truth.
Generally I come down on the side of peer reviewed science, as opposed to individuals selling DVDs and holding signs.
Mat
Member
That seem's totally convincing to my layman's eyes but so would a cruise missile animation, or an alien death ray... etc etc.
I know that I do not know the answer here.
I assure you that I know many who are smug about their false certainty. Of course it is about the evidence... well the evidence and the reasoning
In this kind of case that is a meaninglessly circular question, because of the suppression hypothesis.
For example, it seems reasonable to me to hold that:
A: If this is a grand conspiracy then we should not trust the "official experts".
B: If this is not a grand conspiracy we should trust the experts.
And because I do not know I know it is A or B I must sensibly abandon that decision until new evidence comes, if it ever does.
Perhaps this is a distinction between the conspiracy skeptic and the conspiracy denier?
I absolutely agree, "Generally" we should. But in the case of deeply controversial conspiracy theories (As opposed to mistaken woo claims, for example) the suppression hypothesis prevents me from raining my way away from a wide and general doubt.
Truely, I think many skeptics are simply not skeptical enough, just like the truthers.
Mat
B is not reasonable at all. Each claim needs to be judged in context. Each expert (or group, or journal, or TV show) needs to be given appropriate weight and consideration.
A is also entirely unreasonable. If it's a "grand conspiracy", you should trust NOBODY! Don't trust Neil deGrasse Tyson, don't trust Alex Jones, don't trust Bill Nye, don't trust Rand Paul, don't trust Mick West, don't trust your friends - they are all part of the conspiracy.
Do you trust anyone to be telling the truth as far as they know? Any science type person?
Mat
Member
No, B is very reasonable, it is the antithesis of the negative clause of the suppression hypothesis.
You can see this easily by trying to apply the suppression hypothesis to, say, homoeopathy. Because homeopathic claims do not involve the claim of a grand conspiracy we cannot easily make sense of the suppression hypothesis, ergo we should not assume the experts on either side have been compromised etc
Again, no, I think you are mistaken: we do not yet know if it a grand conspiracy, that is the theory under question. Sure, if we know it is, we should trust nobody involved, but unless you are a self-convinced truther, you do not believe this.
Um, I certainly don't trust Alex Jones at all and trust my freinds lots.
Of course. You misunderstand me.
I am saying that IF 911 is a Grand conspiracy then we should expect information to be suppressed by the conspirators and that we must take this into account when reasoning judgements about evidence provided by the conspirators.
Do you see that? It is not saying there are conspirators, it is saying that the possibility should be included in our reasoning.
If you don't agree with that please spell it out why, as I think we would have a profound differenced of reasoning methods
Cheers
Mat
The problem is that you are saying that if there's no conspiracy then "we should trust the experts."
While evidence of a "grand conspiracy" is a good reason to not trust people, the lack of evidence for a grand conspiracy is not by itself a reason to trust experts. We still need to apply additional criteria for judging who actually IS an expert, and then apply additional criteria for how trustworthy they are.
Without these additional criteria, your A/B presents an unrealistic choice between "trust no one" and "trust everyone" - or at least a meaningless "trust the official source" (what makes them official? Is Bill Nye official?).
Science works in part as a web of tested trust.
While evidence of a "grand conspiracy" is a good reason to not trust people, the lack of evidence for a grand conspiracy is not by itself a reason to trust experts. We still need to apply additional criteria for judging who actually IS an expert, and then apply additional criteria for how trustworthy they are.
Without these additional criteria, your A/B presents an unrealistic choice between "trust no one" and "trust everyone" - or at least a meaningless "trust the official source" (what makes them official? Is Bill Nye official?).
Science works in part as a web of tested trust.
Mat
Member
OK, let me tighten that up. I am saying if the theory does not involve a conspiracy the truth of which would imply the information about the theory would be suppresed then we should trust the experts to whatever degree we thing is reasonable.
Suppose the conspiracy theory is that (I am making this up as I go):
Theory: Cigarettes are actually the global panacea for humanity but this information is suppressed because it would end the medical dictatorship that has controlled the worlds medicals for the last century.
That is the theory.
Now, implicit in this grand conspiracy theory is the control of the medical information by the conspirators to the masses so and thus our investigation of this conspiracy theory would need to take that into account fundamentally in our reasonings. The suppression hypothesis is central to the conspiracy.
This is not true of most conspiracies but it is true or the Nicotean wonder drug conspiracy I just made up and I think it is true of the grand 911 conspircy that seduces the truthers.
Do I make sense now?
if not, much as you said I just dont understand the maths in the other chat I would be forced to conclude the same for you here Mick; that you havent yet understood the suppression hypothesis. But unlike me getting the maths, I am very sure you can get this in seconds if you try to engage it rather than debunk it. It is a methodological principle, not a speculated conjecture about the world.
Absolutly agree. I am not saying the suppression hypothesis is excluding, in fact I don't even think it is that signifigant to debunking - except where we are trying to weight the opinion of experts.
Tell that to Copenicus and Tesla
But seriously,this isn't just about science, it is about reason outside of science as well.
Mat
Spongebob
Active Member
You have read this:
http://journalof911studies.com/volum...timeter_92.pdf
You need "more conspiracy" to help you explain the lamp posts? mmmmm...
Mat
Member
You have read this:
http://journalof911studies.com/volum...timeter_92.pdf
You need "more conspiracy" to help you explain the lamp posts? mmmmm...
Bob I don't think we share the same chat here.
JRBids
Senior Member.
Pull means pull the responders out of the building. Call off any rescue attempt. Where do you live, cheeple?
JRBids
Senior Member.
Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision
"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John Skilling, head structural engineer. "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much."
You do understand that when the towers were designed to withstand an airplane hitting them, 767s did not exist, don't you?
"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John Skilling, head structural engineer. "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much."
How do you think Mr Skilling would have answered if told by the journalist?
Actually, under an hour after they will hit by a jet planes—an incident they were specifically designed to withstand—they'll completely collapse, in around 15 seconds, that's roughly seven floors per second, in a classic pancake collapse (minus the stack of pancakes once collapsed). That's both of them by the way.
I think Mr Skilling would have looked at the journalist thus so:
You do understand that when the towers were designed to withstand an airplane hitting them, 767s did not exist, don't you?
JRBids
Senior Member.
Originally Posted by cheeple 
No way that was an airplane that hit the Pentagon, that was a missile.
Many people agree with you . . . I think a full sized civilian airliner would have much trouble accomplishing the feat myself . . .
Really? A missile? What happened to all the people who were on the plane? THis is getting too silly.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
