The strangest Coincidence regarding the Pentagon attack on 9/11

a reply to: D8Tee

So I give you the source and you don't even have a comment on the content?

What sources?

What kind of game are you playing in here? Do you believe the casual ATS reader cannot see what you are doing?

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: D8Tee

So I give you the source and you don't even have a comment on the content?

What sources?

What kind of game are you playing in here? Do you believe the casual ATS reader cannot see what you are doing?

Seriously man, what is wrong with you?

Three posts previous to this I gave you the sources.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: D8Tee
So I give you the source and you don't even have a comment on the content?

What a waste of time you are.

Anyways, hope you learned something about Waterboy and don't consider him any kind of expert in the metallurgical field any longer. Glad I could help you along and show you how you have been conned and burned by the truth movement.

I'm bamboozled here. Why is whether Ryan is a credible expert in Metallurgy stuff relevant to the Pentagon? I could understand if we were talking WTC. I am so lost here!

a reply to: D8Tee


Oh, aren't you a clever one!

edit on 18-5-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)

Seriously man, what is wrong with you?

Three posts previous to this I gave you the sources.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 18-5-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)

You just went back and edited your post, and put a source in it. You are "dishonest" and I am done with you!

a reply to: Informer1958

You just went back and edited your post, and put a source in it. You are "dishonest" and I am done with you!

I never did that. The source was in that post from the initial posting.

a reply to: auroraaus

Because some individuals cannot come to terms a large jet actually hit the pentagon. Instead of actually facing the fact jet strike deniers are wrong, they want to change the subject by injecting straw men arguments. Anything to get out of answering what caused the damage at the pentagon and how the flight crew and passengers of flight 77 ended up dead at the pentagon. Why family members conducted funerals to lay their dead to rest.

Yet, jet strike deniers claim to be here for honest debate.......

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: D8Tee

So I give you the source and you don't even have a comment on the content?

What sources?

What kind of game are you playing in here? Do you believe the casual ATS reader cannot see what you are doing?

Seriously man, what is wrong with you?

Three posts previous to this I gave you the sources.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Coming from a jet strike denier that based a whole argument the pentagon was staged because of orange jail suits, then goes on to post that he/she never made a post on orange jail suits?

Sorry D8Tee that people that cannot remember what was posted cause you so much trouble.

a reply to: neutronflux

Yet, jet strike deniers claim to be here for honest debate.......

As I have said before facts have no place in a conspiracy theory.
Pseudoscience and conjecture are the nectar of conspiracy theories.

As we have seen over the years wild theories have set the web on fire but die out in the end.
Remember the space bean powered by a hurricane? And yet many believed it.
Silent nukes that cannot blow out windows ?

It's the same mentality that we see on the evening news from inner city mothers.
"My boy would never kilt no body." "He be a good boy."

a reply to: samkent

Sad it isn't about honest debate. Just pushing a faith.

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Salander

Look what happened to Kevin Ryan early on. He worked for Underwriters Laboratory which works closely with the insurance industry. He knew instantly that the story of fires weakening the steel to cause free fall collapse could not possibly be true, and said so publically. He was fired for his heresy.

Kevin Ryan has a BS in chemistry.

He worked in the water testing section and had nothing to do with testing the steel from 911.

Pure propaganda, thank you.

No matter what his degree is in, he understands how the fire code and building codes work and what they mean. Common Sense tells me that the story is pure poppycock, and NIST formally demonstrated that with its sophist report.

Attention!

Members would be wise to not ignore staff requests regarding posting behavior......please read:

------FORUM GUIDELINES------


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

a reply to: auroraaus

Not to worry, you'll feel much better after your coffee!



The FDR data provided by the government, supposedly from AA77, was clearly bogus, according to analysis by Dennis Cimino, an expert in such matters. It was not even assigned to an airframe, a clear sign of deception.

Moreover, the maneuver supposedly flown by the airplane exceeded many limitations of the aircraft, some by huge margins, and was supposedly flown by a pilot with a very bad reputation amongst his flight instructors from the school in Florida.

It is a bogus story.

a reply to: Salander

Are fire codes part of a college chemistry degree? Why would he need to know fire code and building structures for water treatment. There are huge differences in chemistry. Example. A petroleum chemist vs water chemistry vs biochemistry vs nuclear chemistry.

Prove why and that he was educated on fire code and ratings!

a reply to: Salander

This has been posted before.....

Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon
Frank Legge, (B.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D.) and Warren Stutt, ( B.Sc.(Hons.) Comp. Sci.) January 2011

www.journalof911studies.com...

Summary and Conclusion
In response to FOIA requests the NTSB provided a CSV file and a coded FDR file. All contradictions between the official account of the course of flight AA 77 and these files appear to be traceable to missing data. In the case of the CSV file the data stopped about four seconds short of the impact. In the case of the FDR file the final frame was not initially decoded. Some researchers recognized that data was missing, while others claimed that the files proved the official account was false, as it appeared the flight terminated at a point too high to have created the observed damage trail on the ground.
Previous analyses were further confounded by uncertainty of the position of the last data point; failure to consider possible calibration errors in the pressure altimeter data, caused by high speed and low altitude; and false information in the NTSB flight animation.
The recent complete decoding of the FDR file has enlarged and clarified the information available and has thereby enabled resolution of the contradictions. It is clear that this file supports the official account of the course of flight AA 77 and the consequent impact with the Pentagon. The file thus also supports the majority of eyewitness reports.

a reply to: Salander

The FDR data provided by the government, supposedly from AA77, was clearly bogus, according to analysis by Dennis Cimino, an expert in such matters. It was not even assigned to an airframe, a clear sign of deception.

So you are certain that this Dennis examined the data first hand from the same computers that the government used?
Or is he using data that has been redacted and published for public consumption?

Why would the gov publish data that other experts would say is clearly false?
Do you think the gov is that stupid?

Moreover, the maneuver supposedly flown by the airplane exceeded many limitations of the aircraft, some by huge margins

As you have been told many times before:
Manufacturers do not publish figures that indicate when parts will break off.
Only safe operational limits.

All of you beliefs are grounded in emotions not facts.
If any of the facts were found to substantially different from the OS, then there would have been new investigations.
This is why this conspiracy has gained no ground in 16+ years.

Your neighbor can glue a paper towel tube to a ponies head and call it a unicorn.
But at some point you have to grow up and realize you have been duped.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: [post=22249442

Why would the gov publish data that other experts would say is clearly false?
Do you think the gov is that stupid?

I've made this point before, and none of these fantasy believers can answer.

I can see only 2 scenarios-

1- the fantasy believers are right and the guv has lied to us and have had many years and an unlimited budget to falsify evidence that matches their lie. So every call to see another video of the Pentagon plane, another examination of the fdr, etc, is a waste of time cuz they will supply false evidence to match their lies to a "T".

2- the fantasy believers are wrong and the existing evidence is already in the public domain and it can be misrepresented to appear that the guv is lying cuz in the real world, there will always be some discrepancies, such as north of citgo/ south of citgo.


I'd be willing to read from truthers why it would be logical for a lying guv - for it could be argued that they are lying for national security reasons and there aren't ANY dishonest people in the guv - would supply ambiguous evidence.

I predict pure hilarity if anyone tries.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: D8Tee

The tests were far outside his area of expertise,

Your "opinion"

Nope, debate doesn't work like that.

YOU presented his paper as something worth considering. By implication, this means that YOU believe it is correct.

We ask for you to provide evidence that he is qualified enough for us to believe what he writes is worth looking in to. Indeed, others have pointed out that he doesn't appear to have the credentials.

Show us that he does.

Bet you can't.

As far as YOUR "opinion", the fact that you said that the victims at the Pentagon were wearing orange jump suits says that your personal judgement is suspect. Combine that with your denial of saying it, it's quite apparent that your "opinion" is virtually useless, cuz it appears that you have both poor judgment and a willingness to lie.

IOW, you have zero credibility as to your assessment of Ryan's paper and you need to provide evidence for us to consider it.