Lack of foundation damage puts an end to 757 impact debate at the Pentagon

This thread has gotten way interesting, I always like it when new evidence is argued. Thanks for starting this Craig. We've just had a giant explosion in the neighborhood so I will have to check it out. I think it's the foundry about 15 blocks from here.

reply to post by seanm


I am not Craig, I am am JP. I have been posting here for years.

and what i say holds true, like it or not. the plane cant have come in at both a descending angle and parallel to the ground. part of the official story claims that it does, part of it does not. since this anomaly exists, it proves the official story cannot be right.

you can read as deeply into that as you want, and while it raises more questions that it answers, it is iron clad evidence of fraud.

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by seanm

 

I am not Craig, I am am JP. I have been posting here for years.

and what i say holds true, like it or not. the plane cant have come in at both a descending angle and parallel to the ground. part of the official story claims that it does, part of it does not. since this anomaly exists, it proves the official story cannot be right.

you can read as deeply into that as you want, and while it raises more questions that it answers, it is iron clad evidence of fraud.

Unfortunately, you don't want to deal with the facts or reality. No investigator in his right mind would ever resort to the fallacious reasoning that you and Craig do.

It could not be any clearer that post-event photos compared with FDR data, whether the two appear to contradict each other or not, have absolutely nothing to do with determining IF the event happened or not. Now, tell us what part of that FACT still confuses you, JP? Are you so prejudiced to your desired conclusion that you dispense with all evidence and reality to promote a patently absurd claim that an event could not have happened because data that is irrelevant to whether the event happened or not appears to contradict each other?

Man, talk about being 9/11 Truthers like you and Craig being blinded by your own prejudice and ignorance.

this is a conspiracy debate forum.

the official story is wrong.

the official story is why we went to war with (so far) 2 countries.

what part of that dont you understand?

something caused the damage at the pentagon. whatever hit it wasnt traveling at a downard angle, and the FDR says it was. I dont need to look at ALL of the evidence to know that some of it is corrupt. If some of it is corrupt (which is not up for debate) that proves the official story wrong.

maybe you are reading too deep into what i think happened, but i can only cite what the evidence shows. all i am doing is illustrating the contradicitions in said evidence.

Originally posted by LaBTop
Seanm, are you implicating that Truth4hire is Craig, or have you lost track of who in fact you are communicating with?

Why do you use hollow rethorics, instead of well researched subjects with multiple references, to prove your points.

You missed the salient fact that I am not here trying to prove anything. Graig and others are here claiming that no 757 hit the Pentagon. In so doing, they are making unsupported claims and assertions and adamantly refuse to abide by any standard of the rules of evidence. They dismiss everything that does not support the conclusion they desperately want to be true. I am here to point that fact out, call them on it, and illustrate the types of evidence they refuse to address.

The burden of proof remains on Craig and other no planers. It is not on me as much as everyone wants to try to shift it to me.

You clearly try to provoke some of our long term members into a flame war.

By pointing out the facts?

Try me.

Answer the question Craig has consistently refused to answer: what wreckage did the hundreds of firemen, rescue workers, and wreckage recovery workers see and recover from the Pentagon?

Originally posted by jprophet420
this is a conspiracy debate forum.

the official story is wrong.

As you should know by now, there is no "official story." There is ONLY the evidence from hundreds of different sources that converges on the conclusion that all four flights were hijacked and crashed on 9/11, with AA77 hitting the Pentagon.

The burden of proof remains on you all to refute that evidence. You haven't.

the official story is why we went to war with (so far) 2 countries. what part of that dont you understand?

You don't understand that you just committed a post hoc fallacy: "Event C happened immediately prior to event E. Therefore, C caused E."

www.fallacyfiles.org...

You cannot claim because Bush took advantage of 9/11, therefore he caused 9/11. You HAVE to have evidence. You don't.

something caused the damage at the pentagon. whatever hit it wasnt traveling at a downard angle, and the FDR says it was. I dont need to look at ALL of the evidence to know that some of it is corrupt. If some of it is corrupt (which is not up for debate) that proves the official story wrong.

What part of the fact that the FDR data is NOT used to determine IF a 757 crashed into the Pentagon do you not understand???

maybe you are reading too deep into what i think happened, but i can only cite what the evidence shows. all i am doing is illustrating the contradicitions in said evidence.

When you finally admit that the FDR data is not used to determine IF AA77 crashed into the Pentagon, you will have solved your problem. Until then, you are just denying the obvious to protect your story.

Originally posted by seanm

Originally posted by jprophet420
this is a conspiracy debate forum.

the official story is wrong.

As you should know by now, there is no "official story."
the president of the united states of america claimed flight 77 hit the pentagon. thats official enough for me.
There is ONLY the evidence from hundreds of different sources that converges on the conclusion that all four flights were hijacked and crashed on 9/11, with AA77 hitting the Pentagon.
why is the FDR wrong then?
The burden of proof remains on you all to refute that evidence. You haven't.
all im saying is that the FDR information was released by the government and is inconsistant with the video also released by the government.

the official story is why we went to war with (so far) 2 countries. what part of that dont you understand?

You don't understand that you just committed a post hoc fallacy: "Event C happened immediately prior to event E. Therefore, C caused E."
it was in fact the exact reason cited for invading afghanistan by the people who authorized the invasion. I am not saying this, the united states government is.

www.fallacyfiles.org...

You cannot claim because Bush took advantage of 9/11, therefore he caused 9/11. You HAVE to have evidence. You don't.
i didnt. nice conjecture (again).

something caused the damage at the pentagon. whatever hit it wasnt traveling at a downard angle, and the FDR says it was. I dont need to look at ALL of the evidence to know that some of it is corrupt. If some of it is corrupt (which is not up for debate) that proves the official story wrong.

What part of the fact that the FDR data is NOT used to determine IF a 757 crashed into the Pentagon do you not understand???
nothing, because the evidence does not support it. but it was released. if it was released and wrong that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt it was tampered with in some way

maybe you are reading too deep into what i think happened, but i can only cite what the evidence shows. all i am doing is illustrating the contradicitions in said evidence.

When you finally admit that the FDR data is not used to determine IF AA77 crashed into the Pentagon, you will have solved your problem. Until then, you are just denying the obvious to protect your story.

my story? what is my story? what i have posted is undeniably true, and you have not refuted it. The FDR is misinfo, or the video and pictures are misinfo. both come from the same source.



[edit on 7-10-2007 by jprophet420]

Originally posted by seanm
Answer the question Craig has consistently refused to answer: what wreckage did the hundreds of firemen, rescue workers, and wreckage recovery workers see and recover from the Pentagon?

This has been answered over and over again.

Noone denies that pieces of wreckage were found, this is documented.

What you fail to accept is that those pieces could have easily been planted plus the fact that the rescue workers who recovered those pieces from the Pentagon where mostly Pentagon employees themselves.

Are you denying that evidence like this could not have been planted?

Scenarios have been brought forth which clearly show that it could have.
Hence, if this evidence could be contaminated it should be discarded entirely. You are trying to steer focus away of evidence which cannot be refuted, like the lack of damage to the foundation.

Putting your fingers in your ears and screaming "refute all the evidence" is not helping the quest for truth here.

"They who cannot distinguish between a gas and a liquid should exercise extreme caution with regards to natural exhaust". Book of Quotes (c)Truth4hire

Originally posted by jprophet420

the president of the united states of america claimed flight 77 hit the pentagon. thats official enough for me.

The President based his statement on the evidence. The evidence is NOT an "official story." It is the evidence.

why is the FDR wrong then?

Who said it was wrong?

The FDR is not used to determine IF AA77 hit the Pentagon or not. Why do you continue to deny that? The burden of proof remains on you all to refute that evidence. You haven't.

all im saying is that the FDR information was released by the government and is inconsistant with the video also released by the government.

If that were true, I would still ask, so what?

Even though it is irrelevant, that is just your claim. But you drew conclusions from it, didn't you.

the official story is why we went to war with (so far) 2 countries. what part of that dont you understand?

There is no official story. What part of that still confuses you?

You cannot claim because Bush took advantage of 9/11, therefore he caused 9/11. You HAVE to have evidence. You don't.

i didnt. nice conjecture (again).

Do you want to go on the record then that Bush did not cause the 9/11 attacks?

something caused the damage at the pentagon. whatever hit it wasnt traveling at a downard angle, and the FDR says it was. I dont need to look at ALL of the evidence to know that some of it is corrupt. If some of it is corrupt (which is not up for debate) that proves the official story wrong.

What part of the fact that the FDR data is NOT used to determine IF a 757 crashed into the Pentagon do you not understand???

nothing, because the evidence does not support it. but it was released. if it was released and wrong that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt it was tampered with in some way

So you think the government released faulty data so that it could contradict the evidence and prove it was an inside. I just LOVE Truther logic.

You haven't shown anything was wrong nor tampered with nor relevant.

Now, let's come back down to earth, shall we? A)There is no evidence that the FDR data is wrong OR tampered with. B) The FDR was recovered from the wreckage from inside the Pentagon. C) The FDR data is NOT used to determine if AA77 hit the Pentagon; that evidence already exists. It is used to research the flight parameters including the flight path.

Why do you insist on denying the facts, JP?

my story? what is my story? what i have posted is undeniably true, and you have not refuted it.

Yes, your story.

The FDR is misinfo, or the video and pictures are misinfo. both come from the same source.

No, you just claim it is. You claim that the FDR is inconsistent with the photos. You haven't demonstrated that or how it is misinfo. And you refuse to acknowledge the fact that NEITHER the FDR NOR any photos are needed to determine that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

So, in the end, what is your point, JD? Do you have any point about 9/11 or not?

reply to post by jprophet420


It is what I was trying to say in my previous post. Multiple sources are saying different things, with different amounts of evidence saying the same thing. It seems so far that the only thing supporting the official story, is the official story. Obviously that makes the official story wrong, whatever the correct story might be.

seanm

why is the FDR wrong then?

Who said it was wrong?

The FDR is not used to determine IF AA77 hit the Pentagon or not. Why do you continue to deny that? The burden of proof remains on you all to refute that evidence. You haven't.

The FDR is not "wrong", but it isn't right, either. Primarily, it has been tampered with. At the risk of another thread derailment - there is NO reason WHAT SO EVER to tamper with ANYTHING, if it supports what really happened. The fact it needed tampering/editing or whatever is alarming in its own right. The question is what and why. If AA77 did hit the Pentagon, nothing needs to be edited. If it overflew however - this is where we have a problem.

Don't ignore the fact it has been tampered with. It fundamentally undermines the story of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. If it really happened that way, the FDR would be unedited.

[edit on 7-10-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by Truth4hire

Originally posted by seanm
Answer the question Craig has consistently refused to answer: what wreckage did the hundreds of firemen, rescue workers, and wreckage recovery workers see and recover from the Pentagon?

This has been answered over and over again.

No, it never has. The question has been repeatedly evaded since 2002. I know.

Noone denies that pieces of wreckage were found, this is documented.

What you fail to accept is that those pieces could have easily been planted plus the fact that the rescue workers who recovered those pieces from the Pentagon where mostly Pentagon employees themselves.

Are you denying that evidence like this could not have been planted?

I accept that for exactly what is: the exact same evasions offered up since 2002.

1) It is unacceptable for you to offer instead of evidence a claim that something could have happened. That is NOT evidence.

2) Those who were in the Pentagon and saw and recovered the wreckage were hundreds of non-government employees from firemen to rescue crews and recovery workers.

Scenarios have been brought forth which clearly show that it could have.
Hence, if this evidence could be contaminated it should be discarded entirely. You are trying to steer focus away of evidence which cannot be refuted, like the lack of damage to the foundation.

Scenarios are NOT evidence. Lack of damage to the foundation based only on what you claim you think ought to have happened is NOT evidence.

Let me repeat so it sinks in. "Could have", scenarios, and conjecture do not constitute evidence.

Putting your fingers in your ears and screaming "refute all the evidence" is not helping the quest for truth here.

Maybe you would like to explain to us all here just why it is you have absolutely NO evidence to support your claims.

Maybe you would like to explain to us all here just why it is you have absolutely NO evidence to support your claims.

So what do you say to my post above, then? Curious how you don't respond (although I'll cut some slack if you didn't read it or it hadn't appeared yet - I know some forums seem to be a bit slow on the update).

[edit on 7-10-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

So you think the government released faulty data so that it could contradict the evidence and prove it was an inside. I just LOVE Truther logic.

you need to take a time out untill you can learn not to call people names.

the FDR information does not prove that flight 77 did not hit the pentagon, but it proves conspiracy. since you asked me to post proof, here:

Originally posted by jprophet420

The pysical evidence and the video show the plane hitting perfectly parallel to the ground, the official report and the FDR show a decent.

It cant be both, which one was it?

Since the video is part of the official story, it proves there is a cover up of some sort.

Contradictory statements on how AA 77 approached the Pentagon do not automatically indicate a cover-up. They are irrelevant to the fact that all of the evidence conclusively demonstrates that a 757, AA 77, did in fact hit the Pentagon.

Craig's unwillingness or inability to address all of the evidence, including what wreckage was seen and recovered from the Pentagon by hundreds of recovery workers, renders his claims and "theory" meaningless.

contradictory statements dont. contradictory evidence does.

what evidence conclusively proves flight 77 hit the pentagon?

The parking lot damage could be from the resulting fires burning over it. Asphalt is almost flammable, and fuel tend to melt it on its own.

Wouldn't high explosives cause more ground penetration?

Your observation is incredible in any case CIT.

[edit on 7-10-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
reply to post by jprophet420

 

It is what I was trying to say in my previous post. Multiple sources are saying different things, with different amounts of evidence saying the same thing. It seems so far that the only thing supporting the official story, is the official story. Obviously that makes the official story wrong, whatever the correct story might be.

Since there is no "official story", what's your point?

seanm

why is the FDR wrong then?

Who said it was wrong?

The FDR is not used to determine IF AA77 hit the Pentagon or not. Why do you continue to deny that? The burden of proof remains on you all to refute that evidence. You haven't.

The FDR is not "wrong", but it isn't right, either. Primarily, it has been tampered with.

As always, your claim requires actual evidence. A "claim" is not evidence.

If AA77 did hit the Pentagon, nothing needs to be edited. If it overflew however - this is where we have a problem.

No data exists whatsoever that AA77 did anything but hit the Pentagon. Again, do you have a point?

Don't ignore the fact it has been tampered with. It fundamentally undermines the story of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. If it really happened that way, the FDR would be unedited.

One cannot ignore or accept anything that doesn't exist. If you have evidence of "tampering" or that no 757 hit the Pentagon, the onus is on you to present that evidence, not beat around the bush.

Originally posted by jprophet420

what evidence conclusively proves flight 77 hit the pentagon?

We're waiting for your evidence that it didn't hit the Pentagon, remember?

Do you understand what that really means, JP?

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
The parking lot damage could be from the resulting fires burning over it. Asphalt is almost flammable, and fuel tend to melt it on its own.

Wouldn't high explosives cause more ground penetration?

Your observation is incredible in any case CIT.

The explosives would have been strategically placed within the walls etc during the "renovation" in order to mimic the flight plath and the crude plane shaped hole that they created in the facade.



I can't imaging that they would be damaging to the foundation especially compared to a 90 ton jet slamming into it.

Regardless of how much damage we should expect to see clearly there should be some with the plane entering as indicated in all official reports.

There is a detailed analysis of the Pentagon in Peter Tiradera's book entitled 9-11 Coup Against America! The Pentagon Analysis.

"About the Author

Peter Tiradera is a physician and ex-USAF officer, who had served in the engineering unit of the Air Force. As part of his job responsibilities, he was involved in surveying the debris fields of military jet crashes. After discovering the many fallacies inside the official explanation, he had embarked on his own analysis of the Pentagon and Flight 77's crash debris. Additionally, he explored the important happenings that led up to the September 11 event. This book is the account of his investigative journey."

I had not spent a great deal of time on the Pentagon or Pennsylvania crash sites. Instead, I concentrated on the WTC and how those buildings defied physics according the "official" version. I found Dr. Tiradara's book to be highly informative while briefly tying in NYC in various chapters.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

The explosives would have been strategically placed within the walls etc during the "renovation" in order to mimic the flight plath and the crude plane shaped hole that they created in the facade.

We're not interested in conjecture.

from seanm:

Amateur research like yours is fun but you need to learn the subject matteDoubt all you want, but what you imagine should have happened is different than what hundreds of people who know better know what happened.

from Alien:
Prove us wrong, seanm--- get the Gov't to release any and all video surveillance tapes from 'anywhere' around the Pentagon from 9/11/01. I have been involved in Aviation for 40+years - and I know a 757 when I see one. So far, I have not seen, that a 757 hit the Pentagon. The mere fact that the Gov't holds this evidence "is a cover-up'. They can end this overnight if they release the original tapes to a Blue Ribbon panel to view them...and report back to the American public. All I need is one look at any 'real' and not doctored video surveillance tape from 9/11/01 - and I will be the first to admit your were right all along - if a 757 is on any of those tapes--So-get the tapes for us - not doctored - but original tapes - and then we'll see who is correct...!!!

If there is no jet visible on any of those tapes - then why can't they be released.....................????? I feel, they have something to hide.

SEA Alien