Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 89 (8843 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-25-2018 3:39 PM
278 online now:
kjsimons, NoNukes, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), ringo (5 members, 273 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MrTim
Post Volume:
Total: 834,327 Year: 9,150/29,783 Month: 1,397/1,977 Week: 90/445 Day: 36/54 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
5678Next
Author Topic:   Conspiracy Theories: It's all in your mind!
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1767
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 46 of 110 (700179)
05-30-2013 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Dr Adequate
05-29-2013 1:44 PM


Re: How can you tell?
How plausible is it that;

- the released video from the pentagon is the best that they could do. The FBI admits to having 83 videos that captured the event.
- the FBI would arrive at a gas station across from the pentagon to confiscate video within minutes of the impact. (edit; I don't know how many minutes.)
- a 124ft wide commercial airplane fit through the 50ft hole in the pentagon
- there is absolutely no wing debris outside of the building
- there are intact windows where a wing should have impacted
- a training exercise that simulated an attack on the country was underway that morning
- it was the first day on the job for the head of the FAA
- a non pilot managed to execute a manoeuvre that even skilled pilots describe as nearly impossible.

There certainly may be legitimate explanations to all of these questions and coincidents happen all the time but I don't see how these concerns could be classified as signs of delusion or paranoia.

Again, I am not convinced that there is or was a conspiracy underway but I am convinced that there are answerable questions that remain unanswered.

Edited by Prototypical, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-29-2013 1:44 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-31-2013 1:34 PM ProtoTypical has responded

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1767
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 47 of 110 (700181)
05-30-2013 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by PaulK
05-29-2013 1:43 PM


Re: How can you tell?
PaulK writes:

Want to explain how you can look at that video and think that it's running at 24 frames a second ?

Obviously it is not. In fact it is running at a rate below the average CCTV camera that one would expect to find anywhere else in the world.
Look at these shots from a CCTV down by the Hudson river in New York at some loading dock. Odd that they should be vastly superior to the cameras at the most guarded building in the world. Not impossible but odd.

Edit Yes it is ten yrs later but still, one is the pentagon and the other is a loading dock down by the river.

Edited by Prototypical, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by PaulK, posted 05-29-2013 1:43 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by PaulK, posted 05-31-2013 12:55 AM ProtoTypical has acknowledged this reply
 Message 56 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-31-2013 2:02 PM ProtoTypical has responded

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1767
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 48 of 110 (700183)
05-30-2013 7:58 PM


Which facts are in fact factual?
It really becomes clear that you have to be scrupulous about which 'facts' you allow yourself to accept as fact.

This applies to both those who are predisposed to believe in conspiracies and those who are not. The confirmation bias works in both directions.


  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14022
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 49 of 110 (700199)
05-31-2013 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by ProtoTypical
05-30-2013 7:03 PM


Re: How can you tell?
quote:

Obviously it is not. In fact it is running at a rate below the average CCTV camera that one would expect to find anywhere else in the world.

I think that that would depend on the purpose of the camera. Certainly I've seen equally jerky footage from CCTV cameras.

If the point of the camera is to monitor cars coming into the base - which it does seem to be - then a lower frame rate might be acceptable (and appears to be adequate from the footage seen).

And let's not forget storage requirements.

More to the point, the plane does seem to be visible on one frame, although blurred by speed and out of focus and I can't see any reason to expect it to be more visible than it is on this footage. Simple incredulity that the video system might be the way that it seems to be doesn't really negate the fact that it shows pretty much all we should expect it to show.

quote:

Edit Yes it is ten yrs later but still, one is the pentagon and the other is a loading dock down by the river.

I can't see anything about the source of the video other than it was released by the Mayor's office.

Storage capacity has increased quite dramatically in that time, so a higher frame rate is much easier to support. And that's just dealing with the knowns - there could easily be unknown factors.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by ProtoTypical, posted 05-30-2013 7:03 PM ProtoTypical has acknowledged this reply

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10704
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 50 of 110 (700202)
05-31-2013 3:24 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by PaulK
05-29-2013 1:43 PM


Re: How can you tell?
Dumb repetition of stuff already covered.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by PaulK, posted 05-29-2013 1:43 PM PaulK has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 14679
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 51 of 110 (700245)
05-31-2013 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by onifre
05-30-2013 4:22 PM


Re: Conspiratorial Conspiracy Theory
Onifre writes:

There might be some kind of government agency who's job is it to flood the internet with conspiracy garbage.


Or the freemasons might have some kind of agency whose job is it to flood the Internet with claims about the government's agency to flood the Internet with conspiracy garbage.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by onifre, posted 05-30-2013 4:22 PM onifre has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Straggler, posted 05-31-2013 12:46 PM ringo has responded

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 190 days)
Posts: 10198
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 52 of 110 (700246)
05-31-2013 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by ringo
05-31-2013 12:33 PM


Re: Conspiratorial Conspiracy Theory
No no no. It's all part of the Babylonian Brotherhood's dastardly plan to bewitch us into being microchipped.

Link writes:

Icke argues that humanity was created by a network of secret societies run by an ancient race of interbreeding bloodlines from the Middle and Near East, originally extraterrestrial. Icke calls them the "Babylonian Brotherhood." The Brotherhood is mostly male. Their children are raised from an early age to understand the mission; those who fail to understand it are pushed aside. The spread of the reptilian bloodline encompasses what Norman Simms calls the odd and ill-matched, extending to 43 American presidents, three British and two Canadian prime ministers, various Sumerian kings and Egyptian pharaohs, and a smattering of celebrities such as Bob Hope. Key Brotherhood bloodlines are the Rockefellers, the Rothschilds, various European royal and aristocratic families, the establishment families of the Eastern United States, and the British House of Windsor. Icke identified the Queen Mother in 2001 as "seriously reptilian."[40]

The Illuminati, Round Table, Council on Foreign Relations, Chatham House, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group, the International Monetary Fund, and the United Nations, are all Brotherhood created and controlled, as are the media, military, CIA, Mossad, science, religion, and the Internet, with witting or unwitting support from the London School of Economics.[41] At the apex of the Brotherhood stands the "Global Elite," identified throughout history as the Illuminati, and at the top of the Global Elite stand the "Prison Wardens." The goal of the Brotherhood – their "Great Work of Ages" – is world domination and a micro-chipped population

Link

I am ashamed to say that I have actually attended a pay-for event featuring this guy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by ringo, posted 05-31-2013 12:33 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by ringo, posted 05-31-2013 1:42 PM Straggler has not yet responded

  
Aware Wolf
Member (Idle past 295 days)
Posts: 154
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 53 of 110 (700247)
05-31-2013 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by roxrkool
05-28-2013 12:02 AM


Another for the list
Being on my local school board in a district where we have instituted the International Baccalaureate program (www.ibo.org), I have had to fight long and hard against this one:

The IB program is a UN plot to spread socialism across the world


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by roxrkool, posted 05-28-2013 12:02 AM roxrkool has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16018
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.4


(6)
Message 54 of 110 (700250)
05-31-2013 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by ProtoTypical
05-30-2013 6:55 PM


Re: How can you tell?
How plausible is it that;

- the released video from the pentagon is the best that they could do. The FBI admits to having 83 videos that captured the event.

They have made no such claim. That is, if memory serves, how many videos they collected from the Pentagon, they don't claim that every such video captured the event.

- the FBI would arrive at a gas station across from the pentagon to confiscate video within minutes of the impact. (edit; I don't know how many minutes.)

No, you don't. How come I was born within minutes of the extinction of the dinosaurs. Lots of minutes, but still minutes.

And why would policemen collect evidence? I've got to admit, it's highly implausible that they would do their jobs.

- a 124ft wide commercial airplane fit through the 50ft hole in the pentagon

The hole was 75ft wide, and what do you expect, this is reality, not a cartoon, it should have left a perfect plane-shaped hole?

We know what should have happened by looking at other plane crashes, for example the one that hit the Empire State Building in 1945. The hole was 20ft in diameter, the wingspan of a B-52 is 185ft. Or at least, that's what They want you to think

- there is absolutely no wing debris outside of the building

Here's some debris on the Pentagon lawn.

More pics from the Pentagon:

Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

- there are intact windows where a wing should have impacted

"A blast-resistant window must be designed to resist a force significantly higher than a hurricane that's hitting instantaneously," says Ken Hays, executive vice president of Masonry Arts, the Bessemer, Ala., company that designed, manufactured and installed the Pentagon windows. Some were knocked out of the walls by the crash and the outer ring's later collapse. "They were not designed to receive wracking seismic force," Hays notes. "They were designed to take in inward pressure from a blast event, which apparently they did: [Before the collapse] the blinds were still stacked neatly behind the window glass."

- a training exercise that simulated an attack on the country was underway that morning

The military conducts training exercises all the time, and how in the world does that fit in with no-plane conspiracy theories?

- it was the first day on the job for the head of the FAA

Except that back in reality Jane Garvey was appointed head of the FAA in 1997.

- a non pilot ...

... who received his commercial pilot certificate in 1999 ...

... managed to execute a manoeuvre that even skilled pilots describe as nearly impossible.

Crashing?

The Pentagon is approximately 1500ft in diameter. A typical commercial runway (e.g. at LAX) is 150ft in diameter. A fortiori, someone who could perform the fairly skilled job of landing a plane on a commercial runway without destroying the plane or the runway could also crash one into the Pentagon, destroying the plane and killing himself and all his passengers. It can't be harder to do that than to set it down so gently that you don't even jolt the passengers on a target one-tenth the size.

There certainly may be legitimate explanations to all of these questions and coincidents happen all the time but I don't see how these concerns could be classified as signs of delusion or paranoia.

Well, they are certainly signs of being misinformed. For example, the date on which Jane Garvey became head of the FAA is not a secret.

As for paranoia, well, again take the date of Jane Garvey's appointment. Suppose that that was her first day, how on Earth would it fit in with a claim that there was no plane at the Pentagon? It is a mark of paranoia to shout "that can't just be a coincidence!" when neither is it remotely evidence for your conspiracy theory. It wouldn't even be a coincidence unless there was some context in which it could appear meaningful. If I tell you: "I said the word artichoke at exactly the same time as a fire broke out in an apartment building in the city of Hai Phong, Vietnam", then that is not even a coincidence. It's just two things happening at the same time. For it to be evidence of causality on the one hand, or a mere coincidence on the other, you have to put forward an argument that there was causality. If it turns out that you can put forward a cogent argument, and yet on investigation there was no causal connection between the two events, then that would be a coincidence. If all you can say is that the two things happened at the same time, then that is not even a coincidence.

Again, I am not convinced that there is or was a conspiracy underway but I am convinced that there are answerable questions that remain unanswered.

But they have been answered, you just haven't looked for an answer. You're like a creationist saying: "Evolutionists can't explain ..." something that is in fact explained in every biology textbook and was first explained in detail in The Origin Of Species. You could, for example, have tried to find out what sort of hole is made when a plane crashes into a building. Instead, you've gone all creationist on us ... "I haven't looked for an explanation, so I can't explain it, therefore you can't explain it, therefore there is no explanation, therefore you're wrong, therefore ... therefore something which I don't have to specify in any detail."

---

But let's hear from you. According to your version of the CT, They wanted you to think that terrorists had crashed a plane into the Pentagon. So instead of crashing a plane into the Pentagon, They did something else altogether, though you haven't explained what. They then obliterated all evidence of this whatever-it-was entirely, including, I presume, whacking any inconvenient eyewitnesses. They then managed to smuggle onto the Pentagon grounds (again without leaving any evidence) multiple large and heavy parts of a plane, and also the bodies of the passengers known to have boarded 9/11 (all but one of whom, an infant, were later identified by DNA evidence). But then They got lazy, and decided not to fake up CCTV footage that you personally would find convincing.

Why did they behave like this? Ah, right, because they must have behaved like this in order for a no-plane conspiracy theory to be true. Apart from that, their motives seem incomprehensible.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by ProtoTypical, posted 05-30-2013 6:55 PM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by ProtoTypical, posted 05-31-2013 10:38 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 14679
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 55 of 110 (700251)
05-31-2013 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Straggler
05-31-2013 12:46 PM


Re: Conspiratorial Conspiracy Theory
Straggler writes:

No no no. It's all part of the Babylonian Brotherhood's dastardly plan to bewitch us into being microchipped.


The Babylonian Brotherhood is a front for the Mafia, which is a front for the CIA.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Straggler, posted 05-31-2013 12:46 PM Straggler has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16018
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.4


(1)
Message 56 of 110 (700252)
05-31-2013 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by ProtoTypical
05-30-2013 7:03 PM


Re: How can you tell?
Obviously it is not. In fact it is running at a rate below the average CCTV camera that one would expect to find anywhere else in the world.

But where are you getting your expectations from about the frame rate of security cameras at the Pentagon back in 2001? If you just pulled them out of thin air, then I would point out that they are contrary to all the evidence that we have.

And what, exactly, is the conspiracy theory?

From what you're implying, it seems that you think:

* The Pentagon did have CCTV with a higher frame rate back in 2001.

* They have somehow silenced everyone who knew this, so that no-one has come forward and denounced the footage.

* They then faked up a video of the crash with a frame rate of less than 1 picture/second.

* They decided to to fake this slow-frame-rate video and silence all the witnesses rather than fake up a video with the true frame rate of the actual cameras at the Pentagon, because ... ?

Because ... ?

Because ... ?

Again, I want to hear what you think the dialog was amongst the conspirators. Because there seems to be no explanation for their actions except that they wanted to give conspiracy theorists something to talk about.

Evil #1 : And of course we should fake up footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon.

Evil #2 : Sure, since our budget is measured in billions, we can provide you with all the footage you like!

Evil #1 : No, don't do that. Footage from a couple of cameras will do.

Evil #2 : OK, fine. If you say so. So since the footage of the impact will only be a couple of seconds, and our cameras have a frame-rate of 24/pics per second, we'll have to make about 200 fake pictures.

Evil #1 : No, just make a couple of fake pictures and say the CCTV had a frame-rate of less than one picture per second.

Evil #2 : But ... but the frame-rate! All our security people, plus the people who installed the cameras, are well aware that they have a frame-rate of 24 pics per second.

Evil #1 : No problem, we'll just kill everyone who knows this.

Evil #2 : Ooh good, I like it when we do killing!

Odd that they should be vastly superior to the cameras at the most guarded building in the world.

Well, I'll accept your claim that it is "the most guarded building in the world". Then they hardly need security cameras, do they? 'Cos they have highly-trained soldiers with big fucking guns. Security cameras are a substitute --- a poor substitute --- for having your property guarded by the military. The more heavily guarded your property is guarded around the clock by actual guards, armed with guns and trained to kill, the less need you have for mere security cameras.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by ProtoTypical, posted 05-30-2013 7:03 PM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by ProtoTypical, posted 05-31-2013 11:41 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1767
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 57 of 110 (700289)
05-31-2013 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Dr Adequate
05-31-2013 1:34 PM


Re: How can you tell?
That is, if memory serves, how many videos they collected from the Pentagon, they don't claim that every such video captured the event.

You are correct. They don't claim that.

quote:
Special Agent Jacqueline Maguire of the FBI's Counterterrorism Division files a DECLARATION describing her search for records responsive to Bingham's FOIA request. Maguire admits to determining that 85 videotapes in the FBI's possession are "potentially responsive" the request, that she personally viewed 29 of the tapes, and that she located only one videotape that showed the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon.

Source

I guess 29 out of 85 is not too bad.

How come I was born within minutes of the extinction of the dinosaurs.

Well I suspected that you were wizened but... wow.

I am presuming that the gas station owner would have a finer sense of the appropriate words to use. It would be interesting to know how many minutes. I suppose if everything wasn't such a threat to national security we could find out.

We know what should have happened by looking at other plane crashes, for example the one that hit the Empire State Building in 1945. The hole was 20ft in diameter, the wingspan of a B-52 is 185ft.

The Mitchell 25D that hit the Empire state building had a wingspan of 67'7" and had a maximum take off weight of 35,000 lbs and cruises at about 180mph. The 757 has a wingspan of 124'10", has a max take off weight of 255,000lbs and cruises at about 500mph.

Here's some debris on the Pentagon lawn.

Well spotted!

Here is a picture of the wall that a 757 has just passed through at 500mph. (edit remember that the tail of the plane is 40ft tall.)

Don't you find it even a little odd for that glass to be there right in the middle of the impact hole?

Except that back in reality Jane Garvey was appointed head of the FAA in 1997.

My mistake. I meant to refer to Ben Sliney.

quote:
Ben Sliney, the national operations manager at the FAA's command center in Herndon, Va., was on duty at the center on Sept. 11.

And yes who cares if it was his first day in the position, he did an excellent job.

... who received his commercial pilot certificate in 1999 ...

If you read your source you will see that he was never a pilot.

I was taking my info from this NYT article.

quote:
Mr. Hanjour, who investigators contend piloted the airliner that crashed into the Pentagon, was reported to the aviation agency in February 2001 after instructors at his flight school in Phoenix had found his piloting skills so shoddy and his grasp of English so inadequate that they questioned whether his pilot's license was genuine.

Crashing?

No Doc. Very obviously not crashing. Instead it is placing your 500 mph 757 precisely where you intend it to be. Remember, 1500ft is 2.046 seconds at 500mph.

It can't be harder to do that than to set it down so gently that you don't even jolt the passengers on a target one-tenth the size.

Any chance that you are failing to consider the difference between a professional landing after a smooth approach and radical manoeuvres at more than twice the speed? Again if you read about Mr Hanjour you might also conclude that he had never flown a jet plane in his life.

But they have been answered

Answers certainly have been offered.

You're like a creationist saying:

Have I insulted you?

But let's hear from you. According to your version of the CT.....

I don't have a version. Just a few questions.

Germane to the thread then, are your beliefs less influenced by your amygdale than mine are?

Edited by Prototypical, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-31-2013 1:34 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-01-2013 1:04 AM ProtoTypical has responded
 Message 62 by Theodoric, posted 06-01-2013 9:27 PM ProtoTypical has not yet responded

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1767
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 58 of 110 (700293)
05-31-2013 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Dr Adequate
05-31-2013 2:02 PM


Re: How can you tell?
And what, exactly, is the conspiracy theory?
From what you're implying, it seems that you think:
* The Pentagon did have CCTV with a higher frame rate back in 2001.

I am only saying that it seems odd that of the 85 cameras the one that captured a blur is the best picture available. That is all I am saying.

The more heavily guarded your property is guarded around the clock by actual guards, armed with guns and trained to kill, the less need you have for mere security cameras.

Tell me, do you think that you could have walked up to the Pentagon from any direction on that day without an identifiable picture being taken of your face? How close do you think you would have to get before they could take that picture?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-31-2013 2:02 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-01-2013 1:27 AM ProtoTypical has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16018
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.4


(1)
Message 59 of 110 (700294)
06-01-2013 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by ProtoTypical
05-31-2013 10:38 PM


Re: How can you tell?
You are correct. They don't claim that.

Right. The one person you've found who makes any claim claims that there was one that she knows of. Rather than 85. There's a difference.

I am presuming that the gas station owner would have a finer sense of the appropriate words to use. It would be interesting to know how many minutes. I suppose if everything wasn't such a threat to national security we could find out.

Yes, the things you don't know about claims for which you can produce no primary source are awfully suspicious. No, wait, they're not.

The Mitchell 25D that hit the Empire state building had a wingspan of 67'7" and had a maximum take off weight of 35,000 lbs and cruises at about 180mph. The 757 has a wingspan of 124'10", has a max take off weight of 255,000lbs and cruises at about 500mph.

My mistake, it was indeed a B25 and not a B52. The fact remains that the hole it made in the building was less than one-third the size of its wingspan, suggesting that when planes crash into things they don't behave like you think they should.

Don't you find it even a little odd for that glass to be there right in the middle of the impact hole?

What I'm mainly seeing in the middle of the impact hole is fire.

If you read your source you will see that he was never a pilot.

But he did have a commercial pilot's license. So the quibble seems irrelevant. "How could he have driven the car? Sure, he had a driver's license, but he was never a chauffeur!"

No Doc. Very obviously not crashing. Instead it is placing your 500 mph 757 precisely where you intend it to be.

What in the world makes you think he did? He had to hit a building 1500 feet across and four stories high ... anywhere. Do you have evidence that Hani Hanjour declared jihad on the one particular part of the west side of the Pentagon that he actually hit, while saying that the rest of it was perfectly halal and it would be a shame to mess it up? No? Then what are you talking about?

(Consider, by the way, how suspicious conspiracy theorists would have found it if he'd missed.)

I don't have a version. Just a few questions.

Very well then. Which is more likely:

(1) A plane hit the Pentagon, as supported by multiple eyewitness accounts, by the plane wreckage found at the crash site, by DNA identification of the bodies found at the crash site, by phone calls made from the plane, by the presence on board of a suspicious number of radical Islamists, one of whom had a pilot's license, by the absence of any evidence showing that anything else occurred, and to a certain extent by the fact that that was pretty much the plane-crashiest day in history.

(2) Something else which you apparently can't even imagine, done for reasons you can't conceive of, as supported by the fact that you don't know how long it took for investigators to collect evidence from the Citgo gas station?

Another question ... if Flight 77 didn't crash into the Pentagon, what did happen to it? Is it still up there hiding behind a cloud? Somehow They had to make it disappear, while making something that looked exactly like it crashed into the Pentagon forty minutes later. Now if I was an Evil Mastermind, I could think of a very elegant way of making both those things happen. It involves crashing the plane into the Pentagon.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by ProtoTypical, posted 05-31-2013 10:38 PM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-02-2013 3:05 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16018
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 60 of 110 (700295)
06-01-2013 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by ProtoTypical
05-31-2013 11:41 PM


Re: How can you tell?
I am only saying that it seems odd that of the 85 cameras the one that captured a blur is the best picture available.

It doesn't seem that odd to me, you'd be surprised how few CCTV cameras are pointed at the sky.

Tell me, do you think that you could have walked up to the Pentagon from any direction on that day without an identifiable picture being taken of your face? How close do you think you would have to get before they could take that picture?

I'm thinking that would depend to a certain extent on whether I (a) entered the Pentagon Reservation by one of the gates in the perimeter or (b) fell on it out of the sky and then exploded.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by ProtoTypical, posted 05-31-2013 11:41 PM ProtoTypical has not yet responded

  
Prev123
4
5678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018