An antidote for the bullshit of the "truth movement"

[SDuderstadt]

http://richarddawkins.net/article,3986,RDF-TV---The-Baloney-Detection-Kit,Michael-Shermer-The-Richard-Dawkins-Foundation-Josh-Timonen

[rollingrock]

1. You just disproved the official fairy tale

beyond all doubt. Congrats.

[SDuderstadt]

2. Only a :"truther" could watch that and...

come to that conclusion.

[loslobo]

3. Where is the antidote for your bullshit?

:nuke:

[SDuderstadt]

4. I had a question on the table....

Are you a "no-planer"?

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

6. Umm, you mean THIS hole?

Do you see the larger rectangular hole below the circular hole, dude? That wasn't caused be a cruise missile, dude. Do you see how the circular and rectangular holes taken together match up with the dimensions and shape of a 757? Or, does the "truth movement" not allow you guys to see such heresy? face it, dude, you've been duped. With all due respect, your posts read like a 9/11 CT website blew up within them.



I'm invoking "Lared's Rule". I don't waste time on "no-planers", dude.

[loslobo]

7. Before the collapse brainiac...

Do you really believe the BS you spew? Show a picture before the top collapsed. I know you can't because you are intellectually bankrupt.

[SDuderstadt]

8. That IS a picture before the top collapsed, dude...

This is a picture after the roof collapsed. Do you see the difference between the two pictures?



If the first pic isn't good enough for you, here's another:

http://undicisettembre.blogspot.com/2007/12/pentagon-hole-revealed-by-composite.html

Scroll down to the black and white photo and click on it to enlarge it.


What's funny here is watching you try to lecture me, when you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

22. That's funny...

the pics you supply all have the view obstructed. Hmm. How dishonest of you.

[Realityhack]

27. Are you seriously claiming...

that the red box in the first image encompasses all the damage to the front of the building.
Despite the fact that even though there is a huge amount of the front obscured you can STILL see damage outside that box?

[rollingrock]

16. Once again, you disproved the official story

- the cable spools are undamaged and in perfect condition.
- a 757 has a 124 feet wingspan, but there's no continuous area in that photo that's even close to being that wide. the orange and purple highlighted areas shows the highlighted rectangular area has no continuity.

no 757 could have fit into the highlighted area, and you proved it.

[SDuderstadt]

23. Dude...

Are you honestly claiming there should be some cartoon-like outline while the plane struck?

[rollingrock]

37. You should be in comedy.

Lamest strawman I ever heard.

[SDuderstadt]

41. Read your post again, dude.

n/t

[rollingrock]

51. You're right

only in a cartoon a 757 airplane could fit into that hole.

[SDuderstadt]

53. Dude...

Do you think the construction of the building was uniform, so there should be a plane-shaped hole of precise dimensions? I can't believe we're having this discussion. Did it ever occur to you that it's your inability to think rationally that makes you a "truther"?

[rollingrock]

You've been watching too many Roadrunner cartoons

I suggest you take some classes in logical thinking, but I won't hold my breath.

[SDuderstadt]

67. Dude....Roadrunner cartoons would show a cut-out where the plane hit...

that's YOUR argument, not mine.

[rollingrock]

83. Laughable

I can see why the Cartoon Network is your favorite channel.

[SDuderstadt]

86. Dude....I asked why you would expect a perfectly dimensioned cut-out of the plane...

when the construction of the building was what it was. The damage and shape of the hole is perfectly consistent with a 757.

[lovepg]

19. delete

[lovepg]

20. Here is something i wonder about...

The hole the plane made goes to the ground on the first floor. Which means no clearence and no margin for error.
Siince the engines extend below the plane and behind the nose which of course hit first. How did the engines avoid hitting the ground outside the pentagon leaving damage marks or taking out the spools at least?

[vincent_vega_lives]

24. close but no cigar

goes to the ground because the wall and many of the structual I beams were knocked out by the wing. The walls were not structural, so they broke at where they meet structual supports, at the second floor above.

The right engine struck the generator trailer and took out the chain link fence around it (note the hole in the fence and the big dent in the trailer). The trailer could not occupy the same point in space with the spools.

[lovepg]

33. Ok but the fence is sheared to the ground..

where is the evidence on the lawn of the engine dragging on the ground? Furthermore at 500 plus miles an hour how does the wing stay attached to the plane as it starts hitting objects and drags on the ground?

[Realityhack]

44. I do not see evidence there that...

the fence was hit at ground level. Rather it looks like it was more likely hit a foot or more off the ground.
So if the engine is a foot off the ground why would you expect the grass to be significantly disturbed?

[vincent_vega_lives]

59. I don't think the engine "dragged" on the ground

I would say it was pretty damd close just before the plane struck the building though. How close it would be hard to say without actually examining the scene.

Apparently the wing/engine struck several objects (light poles, fence, generator trailer) and would have suffered serious damage if not for the bulding getting in the way.

I wouldnt be surprised if the engine had come off the mount, or at least part of it, and continued into the Pentagon at 500mph.

[rollingrock]

185. Collision with the light poles had no effect?

It's amazing how the collision of the wings of the plane with several light poles could have no effect on the trajectory of the plane. The wings of the plane are made out of thin lightweight ALUMINUM, so the wings should have been sliced off of the plane as they struck the very rigid metal light poles.

[vincent_vega_lives]

200. The poles are designed to break way on impact

with a half ton automobile.

[rollingrock]

207. The safety light poles are designed to save the driver

not to save the car.

After a high-speed collision with one safety light pole, this police car was totaled. So imagine what happens after colliding with 5?

[SDuderstadt]

208. Truther logic...

a 757 is kinda like a car.

[rollingrock]

210. The wings of a 757 are considerably weaker

aluminum wings vs. the iron and steel of a car.

[SDuderstadt]

211. Bullshit....

prove it.

[rollingrock]

212. You don't know the difference?

between steel, iron and aluminum?

[SDuderstadt]

216. When your challenged for proof of your goofy claim...

coming back with a rhetorical question doesn't make youe case, dude. I knew you couldn't prove your claim.

[rollingrock]

220. If you don't know the difference

no amount of explaining is going to help you. Mr. Goofy.

[SDuderstadt]

221. Dude....YOU made the fucking claim.....

when pressed for proof, you're forced to try to shift the burden of proof and look silly in the process. Why can't you prove your claim, dude?

[rollingrock]

222. You want me to prove

aluminum is weaker than steel and iron?

talk about your goofy questions.

:rofl:

[SDuderstadt]

223. No, dude...

you're trying to prove that a car is stronger than a huge jetliner and failing miserably. It'd probably be easier for you just to admit defeat. Of course, you'd rahter just lash out and flounder some more.

[vincent_vega_lives]

226. Iron?

Iron? WTF kind of car do you drive? Steam powered?

[jberryhill]

25. Did you ever watch this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8

The damage to the corner of the generator, and to the retaining wall, REQUIRE missing the cable spools.

[lovepg]

38. Thanks for the link that was a good video..

But I am bothered by the engine hitting the fence then the trailor at 500 miles an hour plus with no slowing of the planes momentum AT ALL!!!
Plus since the fence is sheared to the ground the engine should of been dragging on the ground from that point on. Where are the marks on the lawn?
How does the wing stay on the plane after hitting a close to a one ton trailer and dragging an engine on the ground?

[SDuderstadt]

40. How do you think a wing keeps a plane up in the air?

Do you think it's just glued on or something?

[lovepg]

43. Oh come on..

You can do better than that. Why do they bother clearing trucks off runways if planes do not need to worry about hitting objects on the way in?

[SDuderstadt]

45. Because they don't want the planes to hit them

Duh.

[lovepg]

48. Now that was actually pretty funny , good one..

Now come up with a real answer

[SDuderstadt]

50. Dude...your question is stupid

Do you honestly think if they don't move trucks out of the way, a wing will hit it and just fall off? Or, do you think, perhaps that:

1) They move things out of the way because collisions, in general, are to be avoided?
2) They want to avoid damage to an especially sensitive part of the plane. Would you want to take off with a damaged wing?
3) Why don't you get a fucking schematic of a plane and figure this out yourself?
4) I thought you had me on ignore, dude.

[lovepg]

58. You wish..

Objects are to be avoided in flight in general. Birds have caused crashes.
Ask any commercial piot if he wants to shear off a lampost , run into a trailor or a chainlink fence on takeoof or landing and I bet you know what they would say.
Yet this plane did all three. The video one of you linked says the damage from the lampost alone started the right engine to smoke. Thats before it hits the trailor knocks it out of the way and hits the fence.

[SDuderstadt]

60. Then it hit the fucking Pentagon, dude...

It was on a collision course. What is hard to understand about that? Asking stupid questions doesn't negate the physical evidence and eyewitness testimony that a 757 hit the fucking Pentagon.

[Realityhack]

66. Um... so what?

News flash. The plane crashed hard core a few hundred feet (at most) from there. It isn't like the plane struck all that stuff and few fifty miles to the closest airport. It didn't exactly have to be seriously airworthy to smash into The Pentagon.

[Realityhack]

47. You do understand...

that this plane crashed a few hundred feed after this at most right?

Your silly comparison to vehicles on a runway is just childish. If you want to discuss this at least attempt to do logically.

[lovepg]

49. The point was a trailor is not equivilant to a lampost....

It is a significant object of mass. How does the plane hit an object at 500 miles an hour and the flight trajectory not get affected?
All the models show the plane continuing on in on a straight line. or how does the engine drag the ground and leave no marks ?
How does the engine stay on ? Which means it should have been on the lawn.

[SDuderstadt]

55. Or, it could have continued on the same trajectory as the plane...

and continued into the building. Dude, your inability to understand this is mind-boggling.

[Realityhack]

56. So let me guess...

you calculated the energy involved in the impact, figured out the stress it would apply to the wing box, and determined that it vastly exceeded the breaking point.
They you determined what new trajectory the engine would be on and calculated how far off that would put it traveling at 500mph towards the pentagon wall and compared that to the damage.
Right? No?

You claim
The engine is dragging on the ground.
Proof: Lacking at best. Contradictory evidence exists.

The collision with the tailor would knock the jet off course (read make a significant change in it's trajectory)
Proof: None

The collision would knock the engine off
Proof: None

This is why I am unconvinced. You are not providing any evidence. And for the one claim we can easily check it looks like you are ignoring contradictory evidence to support your pet theory.

[lovepg]

70. Hey I am asking questions for you guys to answer if you can...

Stop getting all defensive. You gotta admit its more tha a little strange that when you view the security camera video of the Plane? Or something hitting the pentagon there is no slowing of the objects momentum as it is crashing into a fence and trailor. I am not saying it should not have hit the pentagon but straight in with no change in trajectory defies logic.
And how does an engine shear a fence to the ground but not drag the lawn?

[vincent_vega_lives]

72. EACH instance of evidence

might seem strange if taken individually. The key thing is to take all the instances and see how they piece together into evidence that a 757 did indeed crash into the Pentagon.

[Realityhack]

76. No it isn't strange at all because...

you are characterizing the situation. Allow me to go through your post and try to explain.

"Stop getting all defensive."
Funny I don't feel defensive. I just think your ideas are not founded on evidence. If they were I would be a lot more interested.

"You gotta admit its more tha a little strange that when you view the security camera video of the Plane? Or something hitting the pentagon there is no slowing of the objects momentum as it is crashing into a fence and trailor."
The security camera footage is not nearly high enough frame rate to show minor changes in velocity (momentum isn't what you see on video) so you can not state that one is not present nor does it make any sense to claim it is strange that we do not see one.
Assuming a perfect impact in which the plan picked up and carried the weight of an entire 2,000lb traitor and assuming a speed of 500mph (for simplicity) what change in velocity would we expect from the plane?

"I am not saying it should not have hit the pentagon but straight in with no change in trajectory defies logic."
How large would the change in trajectory need to be for it to be noticeable over that distance? Can you show evidence that such a change is not negligible? That it did not take place?

"And how does an engine shear a fence to the ground but not drag the lawn?"
Please show the fence was sheered at the ground and not above.
Then please explain to me why you think it is impossible to a fence post a few feet up and have it bend over or break off at the ground. I simply do not comprehend why you think that is not possible.

[lovepg]

89. I know no change in trajectory occured because all the video models ..

And the official story show no trajectory change occurring. Right?
So that leaves us with figuring out WHY no observable change occured.
There are two choices. 1. the plane hit a 2000lb trailor and moved it sideways out of the way after hitting a fence and it had no observable effect or 2. the models are incorrect.
Which is it?

[Realityhack]

94. Well strictly speaking...

we KNOW the models are incorrect. The are quite imperfect. But that does not mean they are not close enough to be useful.
You still have not suggested what kind of trajectory change you expect.
If the change is negligible the models are still quite usable.

As for an "observable" change... how would we observe it? Exactly what measurement could we make that would show such a change and what is the limit on the accuracy of that measurement?

[lovepg]

106. If they are incorrect then why do you guys offer them up as proof?

[Realityhack]

117. OMFG

You seriously can't understand why an imperfect model is used?
And you think you understand this enough to provide 'peer' review?

Seriously dude. Time to stop making a fool out of yourself and leave the thinking to people who can follow along.

[Name removed]

162. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jberryhill]

122. I don't think you understand the point of a model

A model is a model.

This model shows that the rounded gouge in the retaining wall and the rounded gouge in the generator (and the scrape across the top of the generator) are exactly the distance between the rounded engine cowlings of the airplane in question, and that the lamposts knocked down are exactly those lamposts which would be knocked down by that aircraft on that trajectory leading to the pentagon.

Your assertion that the fence is 'sheared off at the ground' is unsupported. When things are violently knocked over, they are violently knocked over. You might as well insist that the lamposts were 'sheared off at the ground' because they too were knocked over.

Now, I can't tell if that was the gate there or not, but you have a chain link fence with barbed wire topping that was hit by a large object moving at high speed. Would that pull up the fence posts? Maybe. Would they snap at ground level? Maybe. They are not free-standing posts, but are connected by a web of chain link and barbed wire. How that system of interconnected elements acts when a plane hits it at 200 mph or whatever is not something I profess to know. What the fence looked like immediately after impact and before rescue equipment and other things were going on there - like clearing a hazardous obstruction for a hose line - is also something I do not profess to know.

But the point is that in order to duplicate the gouges on the retaining wall, and the gouge and top scrape on the generator, using a 757, you end up with a path that knocks down those light posts, makes those gouges, and misses the spools without dragging on the ground.

A missile will not make that damage pattern. A bomb in the building will not make that damage pattern.

So, what is your alternate theory for something that tears through a chain link fence and "shears off the posts at ground level"?

Here is a former chain link fence after a hurricane:



Are those two posts "sheared at ground level"?

[lovepg]

163. No those are not but then THATS A DIFFERENT PICTURE !!!

If you actually look at the picture from post 24 you can see the screen from the fence is taken out from the section that has the bend over post.
Thats the section that was taken out by the engine. According to your story.

[jberryhill]

168. My goodness, you are right, it is a different picture

And if you look at it, you will note that the chain link screen is also missing from an entirely different picture in which a hurricane knocked over a chain link fence, leaving behind posts that were entirely bent over.

"you can see the screen from the fence is taken out from the section that has the bend over post"

Yes, you are correct, that feature of these two ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PICTURES is the same.

From them, one might be inclined to include that an event which is powerful enough to rip the chain link screen off of a chain link fence is powerful enough to bend the posts, and they will apparently bend at or near the location from which they are supported - i.e. the ground.

In all of about 30 seconds of wide ranging research using the words destroyed and chain link fence, I came up with a photograph of an event which ripped off the screen and bent the posts. Imagine what one would find in the archives of the Institute For Chain Link Fence Collision Dynamics.

[lovepg]

169. Ummm But at the pentagon all the OTHER POSTS WERE JUST FINE!!!!!

And the screen was on all the other posts otherwise its just exactly the SAME.
Come on I am not questioning IF THE PLANE COULD HAVE DONE THAT DAMAGE.
Catch up really.
My point is that the engine was so close to the ground it bent the posts over very close do the ground and took off the screen all the way to the ground.
Given that Pentagon lawn slopes up slightly and that the engine was that close to the ground its simply amazing there is no sign of the engine dragging in the lawn between the fence and the the wall.
So much commotion over such a small observation.
NEET NEET NEEET!

[jberryhill]

78. "how does the engine drag the ground"

It doesn't "drag the ground". It clips the upper left corner of that generator (or whatever it is) - which demonstrates that it wasn't "dragging along the ground".

As far is it "affecting the trajectory", there is not much "trajectory" left there. By the time the engine clips the generator, the nose is pretty much hitting the building.

But I don't see your explanation for a missile taking out the light poles, clipping the generator, taking the chunk out of the retaining wall OR taking out the tree on the other side.

It is demonstrated how all of that damage, in that pattern, fits the geometry of the plane in question, so your missile theory has to account for the same pattern.

[lovepg]

93. Look at the picture the fence in front of the trailor has a hole in it...

According to the official story this was caused by the right engine before it hit the trailor. The fence is shorn just above the ground. The pentagon lawn slopes up for Drainage so the engine would have had to hit the lawn before it hit the wall of the building.

[Realityhack]

97. Not proven.

I seen no math on the angles involved.
I don't even see any proof from you as to what height the engine was at when it struck the fence.

[lovepg]

109. If the hole was made by the engine according to the official story..

Judging by the fact there are inches between the lowest part of the ground and the hole if the engine made that hole could you not surmise the lowest part of the engine was just off the ground?

[Realityhack]

113. I don't think you can from that image.

I think you would need to get some much better images.
We are talking about chain-link fencing and very very high speeds. It is hard to predict what could happen.

Certainly it is possible that the engine was just off the ground at that point. But I don't think it is entirely proven.

[lovepg]

172. Fair enough a lot of stuff is not proven....

Which is kind of my point.

[Realityhack]

181. No your point was...

that you thought you had proof that the engine should have been dragging on the ground of found on the lawn. Which is utter BS.

[SDuderstadt]

114. Dude...you can go round and round with your observed minutia and your stupid questions...

but you cannot overcome the 100+ eyewitnesses that saw the fucking jet slam into the building. It's exchanges like this that result in you not being taken seriously.

[lovepg]

171. This is my favorite one of yours SD its really endearing...

You so totally do not take me seriously which is why you take the time to answer every post I write.
Its like the little boy at school pulling the girls pigtails to prove how much he does not like her.
AWWWWWWW.

[jberryhill]

125. "shorn just above the ground"

Dude, if I push on the top of a chain link fence hard enough, it's going to break at ground level.

Even strong wind will do that:

[lovepg]

170. For heaven sakes now I have a missle theory????

Show me where i said anything like that???
Man you people do ALL the same stuff you decry in the "TRUTHERS".
Wow this forum is a huge projection exercise and nothing more.

[lovepg]

46. Also remember the engine is now DRAGGING ON THE GROUND.....

You can clearly see the fence is sheared down to the ground.

[Realityhack]

52. Look.

What evidence do you have that the engine was dragging on the ground?

Now I am willing to consider the possibility that it did. But you need evidence.
A bent over fence post that is not sheered off at ground level certainly isn't going to do it. And a fence post sheered off at ground level or even slightly below won't either because it could just break that way.
So if one or both of those exist but no 'scuffing' of the ground is present it seems to me that we must conclude that the engine was not in fact actually dragging on the ground.

[lovepg]

Look at the picture of the fence in front of the trailor..

It is sheared to the ground. According to the official story that was made by the engine before it struck the trailor.
That means the engine was on ground level and should of been dragging on the lawn.

[Realityhack]

62. Are we talking about the images in post 20?

Those are not sheared off at ground level.
Nor would a post being broken at round level necessarily indicate it was hit at that level.

You have simply not proven your assertion that the engine should be dragging.

[lovepg]

95. No not the lamposts the fence in front of the trailor.

[Realityhack]

99. Sorry my bad Meant post 24.

Is that the fence you are talking about?

[lovepg]

103. Yeah thats the picture.

[Realityhack]

110. That fence isn't even sheared off...

never mind at ground level. It is bent over.

[vincent_vega_lives]

65. Are you suggesting somthing OTHER

than a 757 created that damage? This dancing around is tiresome.

[Realityhack]

68. +1 n/t

[lovepg]

100. Consider this peer review. Any story should be able to stand scrutiny...

And that goes for truthers who claim to know what happened and how.
I do not claim to know anything other than the official story has a hell of a lot of holes in it.
If you can explain it all good for you.

[vincent_vega_lives]

102. Somthing you can't get you head around

Does NOT a hole in the official story make.

[lovepg]

111. You could be right you could be wrong...

[Realityhack]

115. No. That statement is 100% fact.

The fact that you can't get your head around something does not in any way demonstrate a hole in the theory.

[SDuderstadt]

116. Typical "truther" tactic....

Don't offer proof or evidence of your claim, just keep trying to create doubt about the "official story"

[lovepg]

121. I asked questions you cannot answer in any satisfactory manner...

I made no claims, you are the guys with the story that you need to back up.

[Realityhack]

129. WRONG!!!

He can not answer to YOUR satisfaction. As several people have pointed out the fact that YOU don't understand something does not mean it is a hole in the story/explanation.
You have demonstrated you are quite unable to understand the issues involved. The fact that YOU are not satisfied with the explanation does NOT make it unsatisfactory or mean the claims are not backed up. In the same way as an explanation of evolution that Ken Hovind does not find satisfactory may be perfectly reasonable and satisfactory. The issue is with Ken or in this case YOU.

[SDuderstadt]

143. Bullshit...

You trying to "shift the burden of proof" yet once more

[rollingrock]

57. Think

the fence is as high as the 1st floor. if the engines only grazed the top of the fence, then they would have made two big holes on the 2nd floor. but other than where the fuselage allegedly entered the building, there are no big holes or significant damaged areas above the 1st floor.

[lovepg]

61. Still does not explain how engine shears fence to the ground hits trailor and does

not drag on lawn nor cause any interruption of the planes momentum?

[SDuderstadt]

63. What do you think the plane should have done, dude?

n/t

[Realityhack]

64. Look.

Fence breaking off at ground level != Fence was struck at ground level.

And the photos posted up thread do not even show the fence broken off at ground level. Just bent over a foot or so above the ground.

As for the momentum... what did you calculate it should have done? Or what would you expect to see?

[lovepg]

73. O k you guys are all asking at once slow down....

What would i expect the plane to do?
If the engine on the right strikes a significant object of mass i would expect the plane to start leading with the left wing. In other words start rotating so that the plane was not traveling straight into the pentagon wall but moving sideways. Now i realise it did not have far to travel but it should have at least starting in that direction don't you think?

[vincent_vega_lives]

77. Read them one at a time

It might have started veering. The engine might have eventually fallen off. What makes you think it didn't?

What is the point of your questioning? Are you saying a 757 did not hit the Pentagon? What would have caused the damage you see there?

I can argue that nothing at the Pentagon fits the signature of any bomb or missile armed with High Explosives.

[SDuderstadt]

79. Dude...a trailer is no match for a fucking 757...

as I said, your questions, as well as your assumptions, are stupid.

[Realityhack]

80. What constitutes a 'significant mass'?

For a jetliner?

Assuming the engine didn't just break off and the plane rotated as you suggest... how much rotation do you expect with the plane starting out at 500mph?

[lovepg]

119. I think a 2000lb trailor frigging qualifies...

Come on are you guys seriously gonna say that would not cause significant changes to the event as portrayed?

[Realityhack]

131. Ok.

Now show your math for why you think that is significant.

[SDuderstadt]

144. Not when it gets hit by a 757, dude...

Your arguments are preposterous...

[lovepg]

120. assuming the engine broke off as i suggest it would have been found intact on the lawn.

[lovepg]

123. More logical that it should have broken off .....

I agree.

[vincent_vega_lives]

127. OK

This is just getting ridiculous. What Newtonian law may I ask would alow a massive object like a RB211 moving at some 733 feet per second come to rest within a few yards and remain intact?

[lovepg]

173. I guess the same one that would allow it to hit a 2000lb object and be totally unaffected.

Show me in any report where the effect on the plane of hitting this truck is discussed?
One thing for sure it had some effect. I would feel better about models and scientific reports that took the effect of this event into account.
Especially since one could if one was inclined make the point it would alter the path of the flight which would change the damage profile.
Its these kind of holes in the investgation that allow "idiots" like me to say how come at least one engine was not found on the lawn?
Its sloppy work people. I know who am I to talk?
But still....

[vincent_vega_lives]

177. Good question

who are you to talk?

[lovepg]

189. Just saving you the post you are all extremely predictable....

In your responses.

[Realityhack]

193. As are you.

Old saying:
Professionals are predictable.
Being predictable does not make you a professional.

You keep asking the same thing. We give you the same answer. WTF did you expect?

[lovepg]

196. Realization your answer that a 8ooo lb object hitting a 2000lb object at

500 miles per hour creates a significant event that is entirely ignored in the NIST report.
Nada ziclch nothing....
Now there is science working!!!!

[Realityhack]

198. Please state in your own words (not cheating)

what the scope of the NIST report you are referring to was?

[Realityhack]

179. Why the hell would you think one engine would be on the lawn?

Even if it DID break off which I do not think we would expect given the scale of the impact.
You need to address the question VV posted rather than evading it.

Your inability to answer coherently shows exactly why you are confused. You do not understand physics in the least.

[lovepg]

188. Neet Neet Neet,,,

[Realityhack]

132. What?

Man you really don't get physics at all do you.

Conservative estimate of the engine weight 7,000lb not counting the airplane or force required to sheer the connection at all.
Traveling 500mph (approx. for simplicities sake)
Hits a 2,000lb stationary object.

And you expect it to STOP within WHAT distance?

And that is giving you the benefit of conservative engine weight and ignoring the fact that the tailor wasn't exactly meshed perfectly into the plane and carried as far as possible.

Honestly you are just embarrassing yourself at this point.

[lovepg]

164. Man do you guys crack me up. You really do, your like the Knights that

say neet from the Holy Grail movie.
Again my position is a plane flying at roughly 500 miles an hour hits a 2000 LB trailor with a 7000 lb engine and the engine stays on and the wing stays on and the planes course is not altered.
You say the models are only rough but you should be able to calculate the path of the plane accurately from the debris it left behind. The light poles, where it hit the fence and trailor ect. I am sure until today if challenged on those models from the videos you give out links for you all would have got in your little circle and neeted to high heaven. In fact there is only one angle the plane could take and still account for the debris field and the damage to the building. That angle allows for no deviation of the planes flight path after striking the trailer.

[SDuderstadt]

165. Well, at least you managed to spell "trailer" right once.

n/t

[Realityhack]

178. 'no deviation'

Could you please show your work?
How are you calculating for example that the damage to the Pentagon wall would be different if the plane turned 1 degree on impact with the trailer?
I hope you can begin to see the issues here. Though I think it will be easier if you drop the snarky bullshit.

[lovepg]

187. How did you choose 1 degree? Why of course to make it seem like such a small

amount it would not make any difference. Alright if thats your claim show it was 1 degree and not more and show your work since your the guy defending the official story.
Your NIST report should have dealt with the results of that engine hitting the trailer even if it was to prove it had no effect at all. It shows a sloppy science went into that report.

[Realityhack]

191. NO. YOU claimed that there was no deviation.

I don't think you can prove there was none. It was your claim. I was giving an example of a deviation that I bet you can not show would be detectable.

[lovepg]

213. Exactly. why would i care about an undetectable deviation when the whole

point was it WOULD be detectable. Its just your disinformation script. Find some arguable point that you can side track the post over.

[SDuderstadt]

145. Bullshit...

why do you think something attached to a plane going that fast would hit the ground and just stay there? Can you offer mathematical evidence of your claim?

[vincent_vega_lives]

69. why is it

that every issue to do with 9-11 is based on you NOT understanding somthing, and not a single issue has to do with you having some evidence of somthing?

[lovepg]

74. Why is it you get all threatened and start insulting when someone challenges..

your idea?
If you are right your answers will be correct so calm down.

[SDuderstadt]

82. It's not being threatened, dude...

it's frustration with your utter inability to understand the topics you're discussing.

[Realityhack]

84. It can be legitimately aggravating...

to have someone repeatedly ask you to explain something that is very basic and which the refuse to listen to the explanation of. Especially when they keep accusing you of jumping to conclusions, being wrong etc.

[Name removed]

214. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[vincent_vega_lives]

87. I am calm

and I asked you a valid question. It was not an intended insult, rather an observation.

[rollingrock]

75. No, it doesn't

the engines should have slammed into the ground.



The damage at the Pentagon is more consistent with a missile or a Globalhawk than a 757,
with its small wings and no engines under the wings. And only something like a
Globalhawk could have pulled off those incredible maneuvers.

[vincent_vega_lives]

81. No it is absolutely does NOT

Not when you take into account:

1. The size and scope of the damage to the building facade, light poles, and generator trailer,

2. the debris found in and around the Pentagon to include HUMAN REMAINS of the passengers,

3. eyewitness, FAA, and airline testimony.


ALL of the evidence points to flight 77.

[SDuderstadt]

85. Then explain why the witnesses saw a 757 and NO witnesses....

saw a Globalhawk. This is getting stupid.

[rollingrock]

91. Do you think any human being

would be capable of recognizing a GlobalHawk traveling at 500 mph?

or that most people would even know what a GlobalHawk is if they saw one?

[vincent_vega_lives]

96. They would CERTAINLY know it was not an AIRLINER!!!

[SDuderstadt]

105. Dude...have you read the fucking eyewitness accounts as to what they saw>

Start there. This continues to be stupid.

[lovepg]

124. You mean like the FBI agents at the CITCO who saw the plane approach..

From the north. while the official story has the plane coming in from a different direction?
I suppose they are to be discredited simly because they do not fit your story?

[vincent_vega_lives]

128. which different direction?

coming in from the north in relation to the Pentagon or north of them?

This sentence makes little sense.

[eomer]

133. Passed by on the north side of the Citgo station.

They were Pentagon police officers, not FBI. They were at the Citgo getting gas. They say they saw the plane pass by on the north side of the Citgo. The official story has the plane passing to the south of the Citgo. The downed lightpoles would have required the plane to pass to the south of the Citgo.

If the plane passed on the north side of the Citgo, allegedly it could not have caused the damage at the Pentagon. The angle would have been wrong.

See www.thepentacon.com for details.

[Realityhack]

134. There were a LOT of witnesses.

A few were off quite a bit from the majority on this detail or that. But for the most part they agree.
So does the physical evidence, the video footage, the evidence from ATC etc.

So with all due respect to these two officers it seems logical to assume they are mistaken given all the other eye witnesses.

It also seems illogical to think that two pentagon cops would be the only people out of hundreds of random individuals telling 'the truth'(tm). While it may seem unlikely that they would be confused it would hardly be the first time such a thin has happened and it is by far the more likely scenario.

[eomer]

135. They're not the only two.

You must have just assumed that.

[Realityhack]

136. Which does not change the fact that...

their testimony contradicts:

1. The vast majority of witnesses
2. The physical evidence found on the scene
3. The video evidence
4. The off scene evidence such as the ATC records

If every single witness said the exact same thing I would be very very suspicious. People never get events like this perfect. However, from many witnesses we see a general consensus that is supported by other evidence.

[eomer]

138. Lots of witnesses who definitively place the plane passing to the south of the Citgo?

Can you point to testimony specifically on that point?

[Realityhack]

139. Why don't you do your own research?

It has been YEARS. Don't you think that is enough time for me to expect you to have found some of these. It isn't like it is hard.

You can start here:
http://emptv.com/research/loose-change-2#eyewitness-accounts

[eomer]

141. It's your claim. Substantiate it if you'd like.

I have already read through a good bit of Pentagon eye witness testimony and haven't seen any that make a strong case for the south side of the Citgo. Not in the same way that the CIT interviews make the case for the north side of the Citgo.

So, essentially, I've already done that and didn't find any. You produce them if it is so easy and that will settle it.

[Realityhack]

146. See link in post.

Then you can work on the physical evidence, video evidence, etc.

[lovepg]

215. Gee when one of us makes a claim your all PROVE IT RIGHT NOW..

In fact you were in someones grill about not typing out the whole NIST press conference video because your sound was off on your computer.
Now your just throwing links at people telling them to do the research. WHAT UP???

[Bolo Boffin]

137. Eomer, you believe the CIT bullshit???

And here I was almost taking you seriously.

[eomer]

142. It's a dilemma, as I see it.

The witnesses for the north side of the Citgo form a pretty strong case, which has nothing to do with how anyone feels about the CIT guys. CIT has opened up the full unedited video of their interviews so it is the interviewees and their testimony that can be evaluated, irrespective of the interviewers.

I have a hard time believing that all these north side witnesses could be mistaken about north or south because it was such a drastic difference (180 degrees difference) from their vantage point. All the background they would have seen behind the plane, the side of the Citgo they would have been on, the other objects they saw the plane pass by -- all that detail would have to be drastically mistaken for the plane to have actually passed to the south instead of to the north.

I don't believe that there are a bunch of eye witnesses who contradict the specific point of passing on the north side of the Citgo. If there are I'd be interested in being pointed to them.

[jberryhill]

161. He apparently does..... "North of the Citgo" doesn't come from nowhere....

But notice how he's now admitting a plane...

[eomer]

190. Are you confused?

I don't recall ever saying that there wasn't a plane at the Pentagon.

Regarding what I believe, as I said, I see it as a dilemma. It's difficult to believe that these witnesses could be mistaken about the plane passing on the north side of the Citgo. On the other hand, a conclusion that it passed north of the Citgo has very significant implications for the explanation of what happened there that day. So I don't consider it a settled question.

[vincent_vega_lives]

183. Pentagon Eyewitnesses

http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/witnesses.htm

[SDuderstadt]

147. No one is talking about the plane approach here, dude....

We're talking about eyewitnesses who saw it hit the fucking Pentagon.

[Realityhack]

150. We did kindof go off in that direction...

but we should focus back on the fact that it did hit the building despite anything lovepg wants to claim.

[lovepg]

166. Hey I never SAID it did not hit the building..... For guys with a bug up your butts

about getting every little detail right on my side you sure are lax on your end.

[SDuderstadt]

167. Then what is your fucking point, dude?

Do you have one?

[lovepg]

217. Hey this is YOUR STORY REMEMBER? When I ask legit questions like how do

757s going five hundred miles an hour hit four lamp posts one fence and a two ton truck and continue on a straight path to a collision into the pentagon only to continue thru three levels to punch out the third level wall on the other side still retaining enough mass to perform that stunt while simultaneously exploding and dissolving so completely only small parts of the plane are found?
Well MR its your job to have an answer. Your story your answer!

[SDuderstadt]

218. Dude...we've been over this repeatedly....

enough of your "truther" rope-a-dope bullshit.

[eomer]

151. I entered in to clarify this tangential question:

lovepg
124. You mean like the FBI agents at the CITCO who saw the plane approach..

From the north. while the official story has the plane coming in from a different direction?
I suppose they are to be discredited simly because they do not fit your story?

vincent_vega_lives
128. which different direction?

coming in from the north in relation to the Pentagon or north of them?

This sentence makes little sense.

So, the point I chose to jump in and discuss *was* about the approach of the plane.

[Realityhack]

88. If you ignore enough of the evidence...

even a nuclear weapon fits what remains.

That does not make it a reasonable conclusion. If you include all of the evidence the global hawk is downright ruled out and the 757 is the logical clear conclusion.

[rollingrock]

98. If you ignore all the evidence, or lack thereof

then yes, a 757 crashed into the 1st floor of the Pentagon without touching the ground.

[vincent_vega_lives]

104. Evidence

1. The size and scope of the damage to the building facade, light poles, and generator trailer,

2. the debris found in and around the Pentagon to include HUMAN REMAINS of the passengers,

3. eyewitness, FAA, and airline testimony.


ALL of the evidence points to flight 77.

[Realityhack]

108. Please elaborate.

What evidence is missing exactly that proves a 757 did not hit The Pentagon?
What evidence is present that proves this?

So far after years of discussions like this I have seen only a hand full of recycled ignorant arguments that completely ignore the facts. If you have some serious evidence, or a serious question about things missing... please let us know.

[hack89]

126. Small wings? It's wingspan is only 8 feet less than a 757.

It has huge wings to enable high altitude flight. It is more of a glider than anything else - it is very light weight designed for high altitude, low stress flying - high speed, low altitude, high stress maneuvers would have ripped it apart.

Are you saying that there is evidence that an airplane with a 116 foot wing span hit the Pentagon?

[vincent_vega_lives]

182. Eyewitness testimony

http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/witnesses.htm

Take them all together they point to one thing.

[Subdivisions]

184. That image has more stitches than the quilt my grandmother made for me.

Is there a version that isn't all stitched together?

[SDuderstadt]

203. Maybe you should look up the definition of the word...

"composite", then ask yourself the simple question, "if all the sections of the composite line up perfectly with the individual component pictures, why would we give a fuck?". Then, if you still think it's nefarious, ask yourself what the odds would have been that someone would have wondered by with a panoramic camera between when the plane struck and when the roof collapsed.

Then you might begin to comprehend why the stupid questions asked ad nauseum by the "truth movement" are generated by their basic inability to understand how the world works, so they bore us all to death with inane questions.

[AZCat]

17. I certainly hope you're not looking for evidence of a 747 at the Pentagon.

American Airlines Flight 77 was a Boeing 757, not a 747. There is a considerable difference between the two aircraft.

[lovepg]

9. Hey SD does this post qualify for what was that quaint name you had?...

FLAMEBAIT!!!!!!!

[SDuderstadt]

10. That was someone else, dude...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=258411&mesg_id=258596

you're not too observant, are you...

Funny, I thought you had me on "ignore".

[lovepg]

11. It stops when I resign in. How do I get it it to Ignore you all the time?

[Bolo Boffin]

12. Well, you have to get donor status.

Then you can stop us from turning your Ignore off.

[lovepg]

14. Hey that was almost a joke wasn't it? There is hope for you yet!

[SDuderstadt]

13. Easy...

press and hold ctrl + alt + del

[lovepg]

15. I would respond but I have you on fake ignore.

[greyl]

21. Too bad the dose must be self-administered. nt

[Realityhack]

26. More of these videos should be made with subtitles availible.

No sound on this machine. Plus it turns out there are deaf people.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

29. If you ever actually want to join in the discussion...

let us know.

[whatchamacallit]

30. What's to discuss?

You obviously lack the tools to detect the irony of your post. The video's "question authority" and "challenge orthodoxy" message applies directly to the OCT.

[Realityhack]

31. It applies to all points of view.

The issue is that while many so called 'OCTers' are willing to question the government many so called 'Truthers' are unwilling to truly question their pet theories.

I think you will find most 'OCTers' actually question the governments conduct with respect to many aspects of the attacks and question government in general on many issues. They also have questioned various collapse theories and this has resulted in a change over time in what we understand about the collapse and how they came about.

OTOH I find most 'Truthers' completely unwilling to admit to well established facts never mind evenly apply the same standards to all arguments.

You are prepared to question the government and that is good. But questioning basic facts after they have been established and making up and clinging to unsupported, disproved, and downright silly theories that fly in the face of evidence and often physics is just stupid.

[SDuderstadt]

32. And you're assuming that those of us that provisionally regard the so-called "OCT"...

as the best explanation of the events of 9/11, do so without questioning authority and without challenging orthodoxy. Funny how you left out the other parts about falsifiability, etc. Dude, if you actually had proof of your goofy claims, you'd be overrun with new converts, including me. It's this lack of evidence that defeats your cause, Sorry, dude.

[whatchamacallit]

34. One Trick Pony

Again, I'm not a member of any "movement". I'm an individual who, believe it or not, had reservations about the official story well before there was a "truth movement". It's obvious your favorite trick is to pretend anyone who challenges the OCT is a de facto member of a monolithic, yet conveniently vague, movement. This way you can tar ALL doubters with the sins of ANY. It's a cheap tactic, but then consider the source.

[SDuderstadt]

35. Read your last three lines...

then try to deny you do the exact same thing to "us". You come across like no one should dare disagree with you or they must be some sort of "Bush tool".

Again, are you a "no-planer"?

[whatchamacallit]

36. Respect is a two way street

maybe you and your ilk should stop the truther = birther bullshit.

[SDuderstadt]

39. I don't recall saying all truthers are birthers, dude....

I also have a hard time taking someone who uses the word "ilk" seriously.

Again, I'm going to ask you politely to quit making false accusations.

[whatchamacallit]

90. Ask any way you like

I'll still call it as I see it.

[SDuderstadt]

107. And make a false accusation in the process...

either show where I made such a claim or quit making false accusations, dude. I'll ask politely one more time.

[whatchamacallit]

140. Then what happens?

The veiled threats are lame. Look man, while it may be true you never personally wrote "all truthers are birthers", you have nonetheless pushed that notion in multiple posts. Never in these posts, by you or others, is there a qualifier like "the worst truthers are like birthers", it's always truthers period. Intent counts.

[SDuderstadt]

148. Please find a single post where....

I pushed that notion. I'm going to ask you politely once more to quit making false accusation, dude.

[whatchamacallit]

152. One of them I can't provide because

it was rightfully locked and removed in record time. Remember? It was a cross-post from another DU forum you gleefully brought here to make the point you are now trying to deny. I didn't ask for it to be removed, I only found out when I couldn't post my response. Don't be so slippery.

[SDuderstadt]

153. How the fuck am I being so slippery, dude?

If I remember correctly, the post was something like which LW group most resembles birthers. Nowhere there did I state or imply that "truthers" are "birthers", dude. My reason for posting it was because "truthers" often claim that DU generally supports them. I was pointing out that other segments of DU are embarrassed by "truthers" here in the dungeon. That's nowhere near your false accusation.

So, again, I'm challenging you for proof that I ever said anything such thing. Since you can't, I will politely ask you to quit with the false accusations. I think that's a fair request, don't you?

[whatchamacallit]

154. Yes it is a fair request

and the greatest thing is, at this point you have sooo claimed to have never gone there, you'll never be able to.

[SDuderstadt]

156. Now you're continuing the false accusation by other means...

essentially what you're saying is, "I know you would say that, but you can't because you deny you have said it". Except I wouldn't have said it anyhow, dude.

I'm sure you were hoping I'd forget I challenged you to prove your false accusation by finding any post in which I've said. I also haven't forgotten that you've been completely unable to.

[Realityhack]

42. Sure. And in your *indivitual* case...

you have demonstrated a complete inability to think critically or even stay on topic.
You have show you are much more interested in trying to make a counter point than actually discussing the legitimate merits of any particular piece of evidence in even a remotely rational way.

There are plenty of people who question various aspects of the official accounts and even some aspects of the technical reports whom I have great respect for. You are not one of them. And that is for very good reasons.

[whatchamacallit]

92. Right...

Up your dose.

[Realityhack]

118. Wow...

That really proved me wrong.

[Craiguy]

54. the obvious

It's so easy to discredit the ("Official Conspiracy
Theory" = "OCT"?) --that I mostly worry what's
going to happen after some skillful media-splash savvy person
does it --and the wheels start coming off of the established
order of things. For those of us bent upon so forging ahead,
it's best to avoid technical evidence (as convincing and ample
as it might be) and focus on in-your-face stuff --like: Yahoo
search on "BBC + WTC-7", watch the videos and just
think a little; consider the extraordinary delays in getting
intercept fighters to respond, or consider that no such
buildings have so collapsed before or since.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PufPuf23]

101. An antidote for the magical thinking and/or propaganda OCT

fundies and/or apologists that believe the 9-11 Commission Report is adequate.

Gödel's first incompleteness theorem states that:

Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory.

BTW I liked Dawkin's video. The logic regarding the Egyptians and the pyramids is analogous to the fact that to date there is no archaeological evidence of a Hebrew First Temple. The archaeological digs find artifacts on the Temple Mount that date from the time of Solomon reflect an unabated continuation of Canaanite material culture and do not show a magnificent Hebrew empire nor Hebrew cultural development. Supposed artifacts have been proven as fake. Fundies of another sort should have exploding heads with some Truth sermons.

Unfortunately, I am aware no conclusive forensic studies of any of the 9-11 sites (WTC, Pentagon, Shanksville)that should have been standard procedure. Instead we have going on eight years of obvious dis-info from all perspectives and a novel. Ah the fog of war!

These new picture composites from an obscure web site show me nothing conclusive but Don Rumsfield did slip and say a missile hit the Pentagon. Oopsy.

[SDuderstadt]

112. The composite picture shows that the 757...

did not create a small hole.

[PufPuf23]

130. The composite shows that there was not a small hole

after an explosion and before the collapse.

Do you accept the 9-11 Commission Report as adequate and complete?
Some Commission members do not.

Do you agree that adequate forensic investigations should have been completed and provided to the public?

Why do you think that comprehensive forensic investigations did not occur?
I admit my bias in that IMO terrorism is best considered a law enforcement matter focused on perpetrators and their material support and not wars on countries. Thorough forensic investigations would have addressed and documented most of the arguments in this 9-11 forum.

Why did Don Rumsfield say a missile hit the Pentagon?

[SDuderstadt]

149. Dude....anything flying through the air and striking something is a "missile"...

If I threw a baseball as hard as I could at you and hit you, you could properly refer to the ball as a missile. This is getting stupid.

[PufPuf23]

155. I don't think you are stupid and I am certified non-stupid

and apparently more the skeptic.

I would refer to the baseball as a baseball and would call you a dirty name. lol

If you crashed a car into me or hurled a spear, I would say I was hit by a car or a spear.

One would think an official in the position of Mr. Rumsfield would be precise and say hijacked jet or whatever rather than missile (or big big flat baseball full of kerosene for that matter).

What about the 9-11 Report? How do you feel that it is weak?

How do you explain why there is no detailed forensic work for some of the biggest crimes in our history?

[SDuderstadt]

157. "How do you explain why there is no detailed forensic work for some...

of the biggest crimes in our history?"

I don't agree with your premise. Sorry.




From dictionary.com:

mis·sile (mĭs'əl, -īl')
n.

1. An object or weapon that is fired, thrown, dropped, or otherwise projected at a target; a projectile.

I'm confident that an airliner would qualify as a projectile in the circumstances of 9/11.

[PufPuf23]

158. Are you saying that the 9-11 events did not warrant forensic

examination or is your premise that standard forensic examinations of the events did occur and are on record?

I agree that airliners, baseballs, and missiles can all be described as projectiles.

My favorite Rumsfield saying was the one about the unknown unknowns.

What do you think about Condi Rice lying about saying the idea that using hijacked airliners as missiles was never considered?

What do you think about Rumsfield lying about knowing specifically where there were WMDs in Iraq?

Again what do you think are the weak points of the 9-11 Commission Report?

[SDuderstadt]

159. Dude...

I hated the Bush administration, so I don't think I really need to answer any questions about what they did or did not do.

I do believe that adequate forensic examinations were done. There is always room for improvement in anything, however, there is also the law of diminishing returns and I don't believe further forensic examination is necessary.

I hope that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others are indicted, prosecuted and convicted. I don't think I need to say anything else.

[PufPuf23]

160. I was just working at boosting my post count anyway. nt

[lovepg]

176. WE finally agree on something SD!

Orange jumpsuits all around!

[JuniperLea]

192. "adequate forensic examinations were done"

I think this is the basic problem in the dungeon. When I read your post, I get mixed messages. You don't want to respond to direct and specific questions about the Bush/Cheney regime, and feel it's obvious you hated them and know full well lies were told. Yet you choose to believe there was adequate investigation. That makes no sense.

They are liars, I hate them, they need to go to jail. But on this one issue, I believe they did good.

:shrug:

How is that not cherry picking? And how does that make any sense at all?

[Craiguy]

194. red herring syndrome

Why not wind this discussion up and get on to the really
telling (and obvious) aspects 911? It should be damning enough
that a number of area parking ramp and 7-11 filling station
type videos were confiscated and never made public. It appears
that the FBI/intelligence community got every one --apparently
within hours. How was that accomplished? What could be the
only possible motive for keeping those videos (not to mention
the dozens of cameras running around the Pentagon itself)
classified?

The alleged plane took a very difficult approach and turn
--only to strike in the least occupied space. The Pentagon has
near-automatic missile defense. 

Discussions like this serve mainly to keep interested citizens
from thinking about the really incriminating,
plain-as-the-nose-on-your face, already on record evidence.

Enough said. (Or am I just being a party pooper?)

[JuniperLea]

195. I generally refuse to discuss details...

Based on the fact we have none. We have nothing whatsoever that might be deemed reliable information by anyone with healthy and currently active thought processes fully functioning.

I don't know what happened; all I know is the Bush regime has lied consistently. To think they told anything close to the truth about this incident is naive at best.

Therefore, anything they have said about this is suspect, and most probably a lie, series of lies, or baldfaced lies. Why haggle the imagined details?

[lovepg]

201. Well you nailed it the purpose of this forum is really to keep people from..

bringing up stuff about 911 by having a cadre of seemingly always on the ready posters able to ridicule and mock anyone who does bring something up .
Actual discussion is to be avoided at all costs. Just look at how fast the posts devolve into pissing contests.
Its how its done. Distract, offend ,ridicule,high jack.

[SDuderstadt]

202. Dude....

considering you jabber on and on about the plane hitting the light pole, totally without a fucking clue that, for safety reasons, light poles are DESIGNED TO BREAKAWAY, why shouldn't we mock your ignorance of the way the world actually works?

[lovepg]

175. A sqaudron of russian baseball bats was seen heading toward NY city..

RUN FOR THE HILLS!

[lovepg]

174. Thank you!

Is it too much to ask the greatest crime in US history be given the BIGGEST BEST investigation?
Clintons BJ got 40 million people. 911 got a measly 4 million.

[SDuderstadt]

180. See, this is why you're not taken seriously, dude...

Are you honestly claiming that only $4M in total was spent investigating 8/11? Really? You'd better check your numbers.

[PufPuf23]

186. The 9/11 Commission Spent $15 million and was limited in scope,

time, and stacked with biased members and staff. GWB and Cheney would not testify alone nor under oath much less face the American citizens under oath.

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/about/faq.htm#q5

I could not find $ figures for the Starr investigations and Clinton impeachment; however, the impeachment trial alone in the Senate took 37 days. There is little doubt that the Whitewater/Lewinsky/impeachment mess took far more resources in research, media, time, Congress, etc. and was blatantly political in motive. Whitewater was about a loan for $300,000. Lewinsky was about a blow job.

Thats 9/11 not 8/11, how soon we forget.

How can one even compare these two events and consider themselves rational (or be considered serious)?

Why were not standard and professional forensic studies taken of the 9/11 event sites?

DDuderstadt - Did you defend the ridiculousness of the Clinton persecution as steadfast as you debunk sans skepticism unanswered questions about 9/11?

[SDuderstadt]

199. It's really stupid to think...

I would have supported the Clinton impeachment.

[PufPuf23]

204. Its deflecting to say that I said that - below is the question asked:

"Did you defend the ridiculousness of the Clinton persecution as steadfast as you debunk sans skepticism unanswered questions about 9/11?"

I think it horribly naive to trust the GWB administration in just about area and have no skepticism about the events of 9-11 and a flawed 9-11 Commission Report.

I think is odd that you accept that no standard forensic studies occurred nor were documents and our POTUS and VP refused to testify under oath on public (when we know they are serial liars, you say yourself you want prosecuted).

Why do you need to put words in my mouth and call you stupid? I am not stupid, neither do I think you stupid -- just really odd that one could be so steadfast and consistent of an apologist for known liars.

[SDuderstadt]

205. Dude...I don't agree with your claim that

"standard forensic studies" weren't done. I also never said that you called me stupid and I'd love for you to point out where I did. "Truthers" can't seem to understand the distinction between noting that someone's idea is stupid and calling them stupid. They aren't at all the same.

Frankly, I don't give a fuck what you think and it's more than absurd to label people who disagree with you as "apologists for known liars". We've been through this and through this and you can't quite seem to get it. I don't see the point of continuing this further.

[PufPuf23]

206. Where are the standard forensic studies?

I never called you stupid, in several posts I said you are smart.

Why label me a Truther? I am a skeptic which you are not, rather magical or apologetic thinking of federally provided fiction in my view.

I won't opine on motive. You sure do like to call people stupid often I have noticed.

One would think you would like a debate with a certified non-stupid person?

Explain how you are not an apologist for known liars nearly every day at DU?

I am sure you do not have a care because you have refused to answer any direct question.

I want to talk in the big picture not detail none of us will ever know.

I can see why you do not want to continue this discussion further. I get it.

Explain how your are not an apologist for known serial liars?

I could call you a coward but would rather have an honest and intelligent and friendly conversation.

Perhaps even find holes in the official narrative of mutual curiosity.

[SDuderstadt]

209. Please find one example where I have called a single person stupid....

just one.

This conversation is over.

[PufPuf23]

224. 50. Dude...your question is stupid

I get it now -- the poster is not stupid but the statemenst are stupid. How slow of me!!!

Why are we all Dudes in your world?

Here is what I requested:

I would rather have an honest and intelligent and friendly conversation.

Perhaps even find holes in the official narrative of mutual curiosity.

I did not post #219 nor see what was posted.

Can someone/the poster PM me so I can see an example of a broken rule in the Dungeon?

SDude -- Can you direct me to professional standards for either fire and forensic investigations and to the investigations themseleves or documentation that they occured? I do not think you will but I bet you can't even if you would try. Think of the credibility you would build for yourself in the Dungeon and reasons for apologizing for serial liars! This might move me from Skeptic and off the fence to accept the official narrative. I would rightly defend your positions even!!!


Again Dude, I would rather have an honest and intelligent and friendly conversation.

Perhaps even find holes in the official narrative of mutual curiosity.

[SDuderstadt]

225. Dude....YOU'RE the one who's claiming that no standard forensic investigations took place...

Don't ask me to prove your claim for you. Why don't you take the time to actually READ the fucking reports and answer your own stupid questions? BTW, if you haven't even bothered to read the reports, how the fuck would you even know whether standard forensic investigations were undertaken or not? Do you see why this appears stupid? And, whether you know it or not, referring to someone's idea as stupid is not nearly the same thing as referring to them as stupid, unless you're claiming that only stupid people can have stupid ideas. Also, could you please point to anywhere I have REMOTELY "apologized for serial liars"?

As for the DU rules, why don't you fucking read them like everyone else has? Jesus.

[PufPuf23]

227. I know the DU rules

and do not curse when I am serious as my deceased Dad told me that one is listened to more if one does not swear and be crass.

You do not know what I have read nor my ability to parse and understand complex documents. The Dungeon threads that go into minute details we can never know and outlandish ideas are a waste of time.

Find me a link to professional court-ready standard fire and forensic investigations or a link that such investigations occurred but are not in public distribution.

I do not think you can, I cannot.

My questions are not stupid; questions about comprehensive and professional standard forensic and fire investigations are basic.

I mentioned removed post #219 mainly because I did not make nor want the impression that I made post #219 (that broke DU rules) to one of your posts plus I am curious as to what was said.

I am serious about having an honest and intelligent and friendly conversation.

Perhaps even find holes in the official narrative of mutual curiosity. New thread perhaps? What in the official narrative in the 9-11 Commission Report do you question or find incomplete or somesuch. Maybe in the spirit of bipartisanship we can illuminate?

[SDuderstadt]

228. With all due respect...

could you decipher this for me?

Find me a link to professional court-ready standard fire and forensic investigations or a link that such investigations occurred but are not in public distribution.

I'd love for you to point to an specific example of a "professional court-ready standard fire and forensic investigation" that you believe should have been done but was not, otherwise your question is just nonsense. And, to be frank, I don't give a fuck what your dad taught you about swearing.

[PufPuf23]

229. Geez Dude- Don't pick on my Dad, he was a wonderful and wise man

Here's the decipher.

I worked 16 years (resigned 1986) for a Federal Agency that had Fire Investigators that performed investigations to recognized standards and that could be accepted in a court of law or for insurance or liability purposes. I am not qualified as a Fire Investigator nor were the fires steel-framed high rises, military buildings, nor planes crash sites but had regular contact and was at times supervisor of some of these work creatures.

Since that time I have been an Expert Witness in civil courts for $ damage appraisal and insurance claim purposes to attach blame where Fire Reports were prepared by Fire Investigators approved by the court as Expert Witness . In some cases the question was whether the Fire Investigator over stepped their own expertise as to the cause and expansion of the fire in their report.

There are numerous fire reports in court and insurance files.

Unfortunately, none of the 9-11 sites was treated as a crime scene nor to the best of my knowledge had a comprehensive fire report suitable for use ina court setting.

I think this is analogous to how the courts treat the testimonies derived by torture or how our then POTUS and VP would not testify open to the public, under oath, or alone.

Are you capable or willing to find some common ground for civil discourse that is illuminating rather than dismissive and insullting?

Edit to add: This is on topic as this is the heart of "An antidote for the bullshit" of the "truth movement" or any other faction for that matter. I am a Skeptic and member of no Tribe.

[SDuderstadt]

230. "Unfortunately, none of the 9-11 sites was treated as a crime scene"

Dude, I don't know where you're getting this bullshit, but your claim is patently untrue.

http://www.policeone.com/evidence-collection/articles/87577-NYPD-Crime-Unit-Case-Study-Evidence-Collection-at-Ground-Zero/

http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache%3AqEyUa_xrRuoJ%3A911digitalarchive.org%2FREPOSITORY%2FMISC_COLLECTIONS%2Fnational_guard_bureau%2FCRRDB%2Fdata%2Fdocuments%2F2867.pdf+pentagon+crime+scene&hl=en&gl=us

http://911review.org/Wiki/Flight93.shtml

http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/wtc/recovery/freshkills.html

ALL three of them were crime scenes, dude, but you couldn't be bothered to ascertain that on your own. BTW, the Fresh Kills recovery site was also declared a crime scene. Simple question: Why should I waste time trying to "find common ground" with someone who can't even manage to get basic facts straight. I'll pass, thanks.

[PufPuf23]

231. From the policeone site

"Normally, investigators from the Crime Scene Unit would employ photography to help document a crime scene, recording evidence starting from the outside of the scene, and then working inward to the core area. Numerous photographs would be taken from each aspect of the crime scene – from distant, mid-range, and close-up perspectives. However, Ground Zero was no ordinary crime scene, and the traditional rules could not be applied"

If one reads your link, one realizes that the investigators were focused on recovery of bodies and personal effects and investigation of cause of collapse is not considered.

[Name removed]

232. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

233. "The pictures I have seen of the Pentagon and Shanksville show crowds of people trampling..."

You obviously don't know what a grid search is. I'm not wasting any more time on your nonsense, dude.

[Name removed]

219. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PufPuf23]

197. Kick nt