Please stop with the crazy claims!

Originally posted by InSaneTK
Open mind, you shouldn't call any theory to far fetched or unrealistic because it doesn't match your basic beliefs or what is possible and not. I thing i do know is that truth are many times stranger then fiction. I would never say holographic projections are impossible. I have that theory in question and i do keep and open mind about it.

Why dont we just delete the phrase "far fetched" from our vocabulary. Then everything that is said or written down is true. Because its true in the writer/storytellers mind?

Originally posted by InSaneTK I thing i do know is that truth are many times stranger then fiction.

This depends on what you think is the truth or fiction.
Just for the record, could you give me an example on where truth is stranger than fiction? Based on facts or evidence..

I mean no disrespect at all to either side of the argument, however this thread to me exemplifies what is wrong with the 9/11 truth "movement".

Exotic weaponry, holograms, no planes, controlled demo, missiles, planes shot down....... does any of it really matter? Regardless of which theory you choose to believe, you all have one thing in common, you believe the official story is incomplete and has left you with more questions than answers.

This in-fighting of theories is completely counter productive. It seems so pointless, especially when what you have in common is the most important part of the equation. This type of in-fighting makes all "truthers" look ridiculous and this is what stops the "movement" before it ever really gets moving. Instead of wasting time and energy proving which theory is correct, why not use that energy to show why the official story is incomplete and why a new truly independent investigation is needed? That should be the goal regardless of what you believe happened on 9/11. As long as "Truthers" continue to stand divided, nothing will ever get accomplished. What makes it worse is your division is self inflicted, it does not have to be that way. In the end "Truthers" all have the same goal, yet you allow your pettiness to consume you. For what? Because you want your theory to be correct? Shame on you.

This is how I believe things should happen here:

First, someone brings an idea to a group.
That person has the responsibility for explaining whether his/her idea is just an opinion or supported by evidence.
If there is evidence, the person has a responsibility to post the evidence.

If the person states his/her idea as an opinion, the person has a responsibility to explain how he/she arrived at his opinion.

At this point, the opposite side of the argument should come in and show contradictory evidence or contradictory opinion.

Here's a good example of how this should NOT work:
Person A: Planes did not hit the WTC, they were holograms.
Person B: Could you post some evidence that holograms of this sophistication are even possible?
Person A: NO
Person B: OK well here is a bunch of info showing limitations of holograms.
Person A: You're wrong.
Person B: OK Show me how I'm wrong.
Person A: NO

This of course is just my opinion about how a good debate should start and run.

I've posted a few times in the "no plane" threads.

I even posted a trash-binned parody of them to make a point.

The fact is that the simplest answer is usually the correct one.

I saw two planes hit the towers in news footage. I also saw the Whitehouse get blown to pieces in Independence Day.

The difference being that thousands of other people on the ground and watching live news feeds saw the same thing on 9/11.

As far as I can recall no one has seen a 15 mile wide Alien Spaceship trash the Whitehouse...yet.

You can credit Star Trek with many things in the modern age such as cell phones, portable medical equipment etc but the projection of substantial three dimensional holograms into bright sunlight that cast shadows and reflect light is, to be frank, pushing way beyond the streches of imagination.

So instead of indulging in the realms of fantasy, lets indulge in the realms of science.

If you are a competent mathematician, you can work out the impact force of a plane travelling at, say 450mph, providing you know its weight. - Here, I'll do it for you. The basis of the maths here is taken from this page on the internet;

How do I calculate....

Which deals with a smaller object hitting a wall at 40mph. However the basic premise here is the same, so here goes.

According to Wikipedia Boeing 767 a Boeing 767-200 has a maximum takeoff weight of 315,000lb. I'm going to drop that slightly because I have no idea of the actual takeoff weight, so we'll run with 280,000.

The plane was, according to reports, travellling at 466mph

The force of the impact is mass x acceleration.

The acceleration in this case is the time taken for the plane to go from speed to a full stop. Thats hard to figure out , so lets use 3/10ths of a second.

So , Force = mass x acceleration

Force = 280,000 x (466/0.3) x .0455

(The 0.0455 figure is a conversion used on the page I "borrowed" this calc from - and it converts pound-miles per hour per second into straightforward pounds of impact force.

The Force of the impact was 19789466.67 pounds.

Divide that by 2000 to get imperial tons and that makes the impact force

9894.73 tons

or, in metric flavour, 8978.88 tonnes is what was punching through the towers at impact point.

Which kind of explains why there wasn't much left of the aircraft that did it, don't you think?

Originally posted by jfj123
First, someone brings an idea to a group.
That person has the responsibility for explaining whether his/her idea is just an opinion or supported by evidence.
If there is evidence, the person has a responsibility to post the evidence.

Yes, that is how things should be debated. Problem is several people who believe the official story state that they do not have to show eviednce becasue they know what happened. (what they have benn told by the media)

So the only way for this to work is that both sides have to show evidence.

jfj123 i love yu reply to wizard in the woods paris hilton must be a succsessful buisness woman, classic

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by Skyfloating
I doubt if your call "Please stop with the crazy claims" is going to stop anyone stating his opinion. Whats the point?

I think the idea is not to stop people from posting OPINIONS when stated as OPINION but rather get them to stop posting OPINION as FACT. When someone irresponsibly posts an OPINION as a FACT, it spreads incorrect information and dilutes what is happening throughout the thread(s).

jfj is completly right, and this is why john leef gets on my nerves

Originally posted by open mind
jfj is completly right, and this is why john leef gets on my nerves

Thats funny since most of the people that believe the official story state opinion as fact.

When are the people that believe the official story going to post evidence instead of opinions?

reply to post by ULTIMA1


When thousands of people see two planes crash in WTC and many of them see the debris fall down on to the street ( home.att.net... )
We state that as a fact. When you, the no plane theory people state other solutions, you need to show facts .. Is that so hard to comprehend ?

Originally posted by tep200377
When thousands of people see two planes crash in WTC and many of them see the debris fall down on to the street (

But thousands of people could not agree on what they saw. We need real evidence.

Does the debris match the planes? Evidence please !

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
When are the people that believe the official story going to post evidence instead of opinions?

The fact is that the majority don't believe what you are saying. You're positing a theory that goes against what the investigation on the matter has shown. So you can quibble about showing proof and what-not, but at the end of the day, when what is practical is all that matters, the burden on proof is on the people going against the official story because you're the one trying to do the convincing.

Furthermore, if you reject anything that is put forward as evidence, then, necessarily, no one will ever post evidence. Unfortunately, I wasn't at ground zero on 9/11, nor did I have force meters on the inside of the towers, so I have to go with what the government and academics concluded. What would you accept from me as evidence, accepting that, as a student, the economic cost of finding facts myself is prohibitive at this time?

reply to post by ULTIMA1


I would posit that it is impossible for thousands of people to see the same thing even under ideal conditions. Isn't this a necessary proposition?

Double post. I think it's time for a new router.

[edit on 11/12/2007 by Togetic]

To me, the "No-Plane" theory seems... likely as relating to the Pentagon, ...at least possible regarding Flight 93, and very unlikely as it pertains to WTC 1 and WTC 2.
Surely, if any of the many FBI confiscated tapes of the object that hit the Pentagon actually showed that object to be a passenger plane, then the tapes would have been released immediately!. The Government would not hide video evidence corroborating their "official theory". The few frames of the tape they did release show nothing of value, of course. Also, the impact site at Shanksville showed no evidence of any passenger plane wreckage whatsoever.
I would suggest a study of the U.S./C.I.A./F.B.I. sponsored false-flag events of the past; the '93 WTC bombing, the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, just to name a couple. 9/11 reeks of U.S. Intelligence agency involvement.

Originally posted by Togetic
You're positing a theory that goes against what the investigation on the matter has shown.

Please show me the the facts and evidence you have on the investigation, because as far as i know tthe FBI and NTSB has not released any reports on the crime scenes or the hijackings.

So how can what i post go against something that has not been proven?

I will be waiting for you to show any evidence to support your theory or the official report.





[edit on 12-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 12-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by jfj123

This is how I believe things should happen here:
First, someone brings an idea to a group.
That person has the responsibility for explaining whether his/her idea is just an opinion or supported by evidence.
If there is evidence, the person has a responsibility to post the evidence.

If the person states his/her idea as an opinion, the person has a responsibility to explain how he/she arrived at his opinion.

At this point, the opposite side of the argument should come in and show contradictory evidence or contradictory opinion.

This is exactly what I was trying to say,thank you.

That's right...it's the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

Well jsobecky,I'm not American and sadly your Constitution is being turned into window dressing,but that's another topic.

If I insulted you, it was not my intent and the above comment is NOt a jab.

Again, you try do make this personal and try to lower the impression of my intelligence by saying "you don't have a solid understanding!"

I was not trying to make this personal and if seemed that way,I apologize.If I
insulted your intelligence I apologize for that as well.
I'll move to another area of the board where BOTH sides of a debate rationalize their 'theories' with external sources.
Thanks jfj123 for saying what I was trying to say.
Have fun.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by tep200377
When thousands of people see two planes crash in WTC and many of them see the debris fall down on to the street (

But thousands of people could not agree on what they saw. We need real evidence.

Yes, they agreed. We've known that since 9/11.

I am not sure why you don't like real evidence.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Togetic
You're positing a theory that goes against what the investigation on the matter has shown.

Please show me the the facts and evidence you have on the investigation, because as far as i know tthe FBI and NTSB has not released any reports on the crime scenes or the hijackings.

We don't need FBI and NTSB "reports" to know what happened.

So how can what i post go against something that has not been proven?

I have no idea why the preponderance of evidence seems so elusive to you.

I will be waiting for you to show any evidence to support your theory or the official report.

What facts and evidence don't you understand?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
First, someone brings an idea to a group.
That person has the responsibility for explaining whether his/her idea is just an opinion or supported by evidence.
If there is evidence, the person has a responsibility to post the evidence.

Yes, that is how things should be debated. Problem is several people who believe the official story state that they do not have to show eviednce becasue they know what happened. (what they have benn told by the media)

The NIST, FEMA, and ASCE reports did not come from the media. Neither have the the vastly overwhelming number of the world's structural engineers ever contested those reports.

That leaves you alone in having the responsibility of refuting the evidence and conclusions of those investigations if you don't believe them.

Otherwise you won't be getting anywhere.

Originally posted by jthomas
We don't need FBI and NTSB "reports" to know what happened.

I have no idea why the preponderance of evidence seems so elusive to you.

What are you using for facts and evidence of what happened, what you were told by the media? In case you did not know the FBI and NTSB are the main investigation agencies, without their reports we do not know what happened. You are only stating opinions and theories not facts and evidence.

What facts and evidnce do you have, since the FBI and NTSB have not releaseed the official reports?

Again, all you are stating is opinion or theory you have no actual facts or evidence to suport any of it.

Originally posted by jthomas
The NIST, FEMA, and ASCE reports did not come from the media. Neither have the the vastly overwhelming number of the world's structural engineers ever contested those reports.

Do you mean the NIST and FEMA reports that contridict each other all the time and keep changing thier story?

Also again NIST and FEMA are not the main investigators for 9/11.

By law the FBI with help from the NTSB are the main investgators for 9/11.






[edit on 12-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]