The Sensible Doubt - Danish 911

Boston

Active Member
I understand you think your "rabbit" analogy is extremely clever, so much so that you repeat it over and over, long after the joke has lost its giggle.

What are you here for? Just to ask questions? Just to point out "anomalies" you see? Why do you keep telling us you don't see damage on the lawn after it's been explained to you numerous times that the plane did not hit the lawn. Why do you keep repeating yourself?

The rabbit analogy is perfect, in this case the rabbit just doesn't fit the hat let alone do we ever see it pulled out, and reassembled like in any other aircraft disaster

Someone simply stating that "the landing gear wasn't down" when no one mentioned landing gear is an entirely disingenuous argument when the question didn't involve landing gear in the first place. I believe I mentioned that the body of a 757 is about 12 feet in diameter and the engines about 7 feet in diameter with a small bit of overlap, call it a 16 maybe 17 foot tall object assuming this variant had the smaller engines on it, thats supposedly disappeared into an area about 14 feet tall, without something dragging on the ground. Just doesn't get it.

So I guess I'm here to figure out why anyone would believe such an entirely implausible magic trick. The likelihood that I'm being lied to, again, by my illustrious leaders is extremely high. Particularly likely when things like random people are seen immediately picking up and carting off the evidence, never to be seen again. except for of course a few, what appear to be carefully staged photos. Or when the security camera evidence is declared a matter of national security, and withheld from public viewing. But my fave is that the hole isn't just a little to small to fit a 757, but wildly so, particularly when there's a discrepancy of at least 4 feet in height just in the fuselage and about 25 feet in height in the craft overall. Angle or no angle that height should fit. Engines fuselage and tail section are all quite substantial and would have most definitely left at least a mark.

Why do I repeat myself, why do you repeat the governments entirely inadequate magic trick ? Why did Mick actually take the time to notice the screen shot that replaced the real view in the elephant gag ? The answer is obvious, inquiring minds want to know.
 

Boston

Active Member
So now you've switched from a rabbit to an elephant? When are you going to get to a jumbo jet? What happened to all the people on that jet? Where are they?

PS: Your story has more holes than swiss cheese.

actually I was reacting to having been shown a short video of a jet flying into the back of a massive concrete block. I figure if we're going to be ignoring the actual event and instead be shown half a video of what happens if you run a jet into a blob of concrete instead of a blast resistant chunk of 1/4 inch glass, then I could start in with the rabbits and elephants. ;-) Seemed about if not a lot more relevant.

I've sold my share of blast resistant film and bullet proof glass, no way its going to stand up to a 757 flying into it.

Oh and while I do like me some swiss cheese every once in a while, I'm not the one with the story here, I'm the guy pointing out that the story, no matter how well contrived, just doesn't fit what little physical evidence remained after the scrubbing.
 

Boston

Active Member
Boston is another in a long line of visitors who cannot point out what is obvious to him and plays coy. Or maybe it is a long line of different names with the same person behind them.

SPIT IT OUT BOSTON! What is wrong with the landing gear. I'm not drinking beer watching TV or waiting to get [ahem]. I'm going to work. What is so obvious to you that no one else can see?

post 234 in response to the photo's I was given as "proof" a 757 hit the pentagon. Clearly shows a rim that doesn't match, just count the cut outs. I was then of course shown one that did, which begs the question, just how many rim types were used on the 757 and just how many other airplanes used the same, or roughly the same type ? The engines argument is about the same. We have a few difficult to identify parts, that were whisked away asap into never never land, never to be seen again. No reconstruction, no rational explanations, its aaaaaaalllll a matter of national security.

You might also enjoy post 212

Cheers
B
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
And still no answers as to an alternative to it being the jet.

No evidence of something else, and lots of evidence including multiple eyewitnesses to it being the AA jet. I will go with what there is evidence of, instead of 'it had to be something else'.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
post 234 in response to the photo's I was given as "proof" a 757 hit the pentagon. Clearly shows a rim that doesn't match, just count the cut outs. I was then of course shown one that did, which begs the question, just how many rim types were used on the 757 and just how many other airplanes used the same, or roughly the same type ?

No it doesn't. It simply shows that the photo is consistent with a 757. It is not proof that a 757 hit the Pentagon.

The lack of furrows from the engines just mean that the engines did not hit the ground in any place that's visible on the photos you have seen.

I've given you two links that fully explain every objection you've raised so far. Yet you seem determined to ignore them.
https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/pentagon_performance-pdf.1341/
pentagon_performance.pdf.jpg

pentagon_performance.pdf-1.jpg

pentagon_performance.pdf-2.jpg


You are just wasting time by regurgitating old stories which you could very easily debunk yourself.

Please stop, or go and do it elsewhere.
 
Last edited:

Boston

Active Member
And still no answers as to an alternative to it being the jet.

No evidence of something else, and lots of evidence including multiple eyewitnesses to it being the AA jet. I will go with what there is evidence of, instead of 'it had to be something else'.

I gotta admit its kinda interesting that you are so dead set on answers to, just like myself and a majority of others in this country, what exactly happened that day and why a proper investigation was never done. You might want to check the polls concerning just what answers some people are willing to accept and what they are not. I might also point out that fully ~50% of people polled in the US believe the US government had foreknowledge of the events and wanted the president and vice president investigated by congress if not fully impeached.

Yup we all have questions. Nothing wrong with asking questions, right ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polls_about_9/11_conspiracy_theories#United_States
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
I gotta admit its kinda interesting that you are so dead set on answers to, just like myself and a majority of others in this country, what exactly happened that day and why a proper investigation was never done. You might want to check the polls concerning just what answers some people are willing to accept and what they are not. I might also point out that fully ~50% of people polled in the US believe the US government had foreknowledge of the events and wanted the president and vice president investigated by congress if not fully impeached.

Yup we all have questions. Nothing wrong with asking questions, right ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polls_about_9/11_conspiracy_theories#United_States
People are entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts. Opinions are like..... you know the rest.
 

Boston

Active Member





I see massive problems with this diagram. First would be that the port engine is clearly below ground level, where's the furrow ? the tail section is well into the fourth floor windows, which shows absolutely zero damage, the starboard wing also would be striking an area of building that shows zero impact damage and multiple intact windows. If any or all areas of the plane in question were somehow severed before impact, where are they ?



If your position cannot tolerate an informed debate, then it must not be a very strong position.

I'll bail out if I'm not welcome, but by refusing to engage in a honest debate regarding the visible damage to the pentagon and the presumed angle of attack of the presumed airliner is highly suspicious that you in fact have inadequate answers which have proven themselves unable to rationally explain the obvious

You can bend and twist that plane till your blue in the face, it doesn't fit that hole. Particularly if you line up the one obvious hole where the gubment explanation claims the port engine entered the building, and the obvious lack of damage immediately below that hole indicating that if the engine was still on the plane, which the gubment is claiming, then it did not strike at below ground level, as the gubment is also saying. Story doesn't add up. Investigation wasn't conducted. I'll remain highly skeptical of the gubment BS
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I see massive problems with this diagram. First would be that the port engine is clearly below ground level, where's the furrow ?

Let's look into that in detail then.

Where would you expect the "furrow" to start, and why?

Can you show a photo of the area that you think the furrow should be in that lacks this furrow?
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
I gotta admit its kinda interesting that you are so dead set on answers to, just like myself and a majority of others in this country, what exactly happened that day and why a proper investigation was never done. You might want to check the polls concerning just what answers some people are willing to accept and what they are not. I might also point out that fully ~50% of people polled in the US believe the US government had foreknowledge of the events and wanted the president and vice president investigated by congress if not fully impeached.

Yup we all have questions. Nothing wrong with asking questions, right ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polls_about_9/11_conspiracy_theories#United_States


No, I know what was done. You don't seem to know. It is you whose answers I am awaiting.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
Eyewitness saw the plane.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_pentagon_eyewitnesses.html

 

Mendel

Senior Member.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DR. MORGAN REYNOLDS, on behalf of :The United States of America :
Plaintiff, : ECF CASEvs. :: 07 CIV 4612 (GBD)SCIENCE APPLICATIONS :INTERNATIONAL CORP., et al : January 28, 2008Defendants. :
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF NEVADA :COUNTY OF CLARK :JOHN LEAR, of full age, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
Today, someone asked whether John Lear's affidavit (referred to above) had any legal significance. It doesn't, the case was dismissed back in 2008. Which case?
SmartSelect_20211029-152758_Samsung Notes.jpg
You can look case number 1:2007cv04612 up on PACER if you register, see https://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nysdce/1:2007cv04612/307018 .

Or you can go to Morgan Reynolds's website where he has posted John Lear's affidavit and his own as "legal filings", and see him describe the dismissal:
Article:
On June 26, 2008, Judge George B. Daniels dismissed three 9/11 law suits with prejudice, including my “no planes crashed at the WTC” lawsuit against NIST contractors.

It didn't go anywhere.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Graham2001 Aulis article uses NASA documents to cast doubt on the reality of Apollo Conspiracy Theories 26

Related Articles

Top