Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
I suppose what angers me isn't that someone like will is so convinced of his own reality that all the real experts can't convince him other wise. Lots of people have strong opinions which they use absurd 'facts' to justify having.
|
I guess you're unable to fight facts with facts. It's really too bad. I know that your smart, I've seen proof of that many times. You're unable to pull yourself from the realm of personal attacks long enough to actually discuss the subject at hand. I'm sure you're famailiar with the logical fallacy Ad hominem, where instead of arguing the facts, one replies to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. I'm also sure you know that a fallacy is a flaw in the structure of a deductive argument which renders the argument invalid.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Whats really disgusting, is that these lies and fabrications are being used against us by the enemies of the US to convince people that the US killed 3000 of its own people just to frame musslims. I expect terrorists and others who think of themselves as enemies of our country to lie. What I don't expect is for people in this country to help them by creating false yet plausable sounding theories for enemies of this country to use for their own agendas.
|
I'm not going to be drawn into an appeal to pity or guilt by assosication fallacy, either. You know that if I believe what I believe that I think that the true bombers are probavbly using American's racism towards muslims to fool people into believing a lie, and that is rather bad. To suggest that I am helping terrorism, and that Bush is hindering it is more than an absurd attack. It's down right untrue. If I'm right, then I am helping the US. Bush has started a war of aggression in the middle East to stop terrorism, and global terrorism is on the rise in response to it. I think that we all know that the war in Iraq has done more for terrorism than I can ever do, and we know that has little to do with this thread.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Will, just how does it feel being one of the tools used against the US?
|
I've never gone off on you the way you have gone off on me on numerous occasions.Questions like this show your true color. All I can say is that this is a classless move on your part. I'm not interested in getting into a war of personal attacks. If you have something usefull to add to this thread about the facts surrounding 9/11 and the individual's conclusions, be my guest. If not, then read the rules:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TFP POLICY AND GUIDELINES
Disagreement can take place without rudeness or disrespect. For your own sake, if you wish to continue enjoying the TFP, learn how to disagree respectfully.
|
If you feel the urge to attack me or anyone else, show some restraint and hit the back button.
moving on...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567
Yes dozens of columns were knocked out, but not in the front, the wings disintegrated virtually instantly after hitting (and went inside a bit) but the center of the plane did nock down support columns in its path deeper inside.
|
As stated before, look at frame 12 through maybe 22 of your .gif picture. The left wing (left from the front) goes into the building. This is in opposition to the pictures take before the collapse. There was only one small hole , and I doubt the wings or tail would have simply folded in before hitting the outer brick. While I understand that the wings and tail might not have breached the walls, they should have done a great deal of damage to the brick. I'm assuming that the brick on the outside isn't a superbrick, because it was always described as normal brick in the releases. If you do have information I've not found yet, which is entirely possible, I'd love to read it. I like to have all the information so that my conclusions can be correct (not for the sake of argument, but for my own edification).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567
Just because the administration used the aftermath to justify there goals, does not mean they orchestrated it.
|
No, but motive and ability should be taken into account in an investigation. They had a motive, and they would be the only ones who had the means. It's not conclusive evidence, sue, but it is important.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567
your twisting his words...
|
Not at all. The "actual" vs. "estimated" evidence topic had to be squashed. There exists actual evidence, but it is not available to the public. What the non-CIA people out there can and have done is to use math and science to figure out what happened.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567
Cynthetiq is saying there is a margin of error on the estimated path and the actual path, since we know where about the plane hit, we know about where it was going, however the plane could have theoretically been anywhere with in 5 to 20 feet (estimates pulled from arse, bottom line it is just an estimate, some where near the value given). A plane hitting a building is not as simple as a bullet hitting a paper target, on paper, you can see exactly where it hit, with a margin of error of less than a mm, when larger, malleable objects are involved, the error becomes larger, if the estimated path was off by a few inches, the window would have been missed, hell, the people estimating the path of the engine may be wrong, did they properly calculate the torque force applied by the deceleration of the plane as compared to the engine, since it was still attached, there would be one hell of a torsion force.
|
Considering the size of the hole, the margin of error is maybe a foot, which still puts the engine through the glass. Even if y some fluke the engine didn't hit the glass, there is not even a scratch on the wall outside that window. Airplane engine hits brick wall at 500+ mph and doesn't even scratch it? Highly doubtful.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567
Ustwo, wonderful quote, I like how they truncate
Where is the outrage on that gem? Oh I got some right here for all the web pages who quote Mike Walter as saying a cruise missile hit the pentagon, Do Some Fact Checking.
|
Please don't put yourself on the same page as Ustwo. Eyewhitness testimony at the Pentagon is quite varied (everything from "it was a bomb!" to "it was a transport aircraft!"), and thus should be considered unreliable. If it were to be determined that a missle of some kind hit the pentagon, it would be best to rely on evidence taken from the pictures, testimony of the fire fighters and emergency workers (their testimony reads as being more reliable because they see fires and debris all the time, they were closer to the crash zone longer, and hey helped in clean up).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
I've stated that the estimated flight path is just that, estimated. While they can do simulations on computers and theoretical discussions, it doesn't change the reality of the scene itself. Damage was done over a wider area than what would be for a flightpath of a cruise missle. The hole is too small, yet when I look at the gaping hole in the WTC it seems too small also. IMO that's my own mind trying to "understand" and wrap itself around the idea that a plane hit the building.
|
The holes created in the WTC towers are the size of planes. They are as long as the wingspan of the planes. The planes broke apart when hitting the WTC towers, of course, but they did manage to create perfect footprints on the outside of the buildings.
Much of the damage you see is due to a few things:
1)
the hole This was punched inward, and was done so by an airborn projectile. The hole was approximately 18' across.
2)
the outer walls Burned by fires, some windows broken outwards, probably by the explosion.
3)
the inside Don't know. There are almot no pictures of the inside, and they are hard to make conclusions from.
4)
the inner hole Created by the nose of the plane in the original report, then said to be the landing gear by Popular Mechanics. The firefighters and opther rescue workers have said they found no evidence of plane debris. That suggests that there wasn't a huge arm and wheel (rim) from an airplane, as that would be pretty obvious. It has also been suggested that the hole could have been created by a
backhoe to gain access to fires. That ascertion does not prove or disprove either side of this, but if it's true it should be taken into account to get the whole picture.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
I've witnessed a plane crash into a house, small 4-5 seater. House didn't look like anything hit it, but it was totally engulfed in flames. I know a plane hit it but there was little evidence of a plane hitting it and leaving a gaping hole. It was also damned hot standing across the street about 40 yards away. I visited the house again after they put out the fire and if I told someone that a plane hit it they would have called me a liar because there was no circumstantial evidence that ANYTHING hit it. It just looked like it was destroyed by a fire.
|
Do you think that hot fire was enough to melt a computer monitor?