Another look at the Doubletree video(s)!

Originally posted by SPreston
Perhaps this video did capture the flyover and the entire aircraft body and engines are already above the Pentagon roof which we cannot see in the video. Perhaps the slow-moving decoy aircraft turned to the north behind those trees or the 9-11 perps who had this video in their possession for years photoshopped the departing aircraft and 'tail' right out of the video.

Sigh. More PERHAPS from you. This means nothing. Zilch. Zero. Nada. You still have zero proof of your fantasy flyover.

Thank you Soloist for bringing this to our attention.

You're welcome. Enjoy.

reply to post by Soloist


Go right ahead. Flee to safety. Avoid those threads which demonstrate the self-destruction of the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY. You government loyalists are so transparent.

Perhaps the aircraft with the visible 'tail' you allude to in the video is already above the 77 ft tall roof of the Pentagon and does not need to pull up Soloist. Since the blocking elevated freeway is much closer than the Pentagon, it is likely the Pentagon roof is much lower in the video than you assume Soloist. The explosion flash and cloud rose hundreds of feet into the air according to eyewitnesses and the alleged official parking lot security videos.

Why is the 'blocked' view a lie Soloist? The elevated freeway is quite obviously 'blocking' the view of the Pentagon and the light poles from the camera eye at the Doubletree. Even the much higher Naval Annex (over 100 feet higher on a hill) which the decoy aircraft flew over is not visible in the video, is it Soloist?

It seems that maybe the PRIMARY SUSPECTS who had the Doubletree Hotel video in their possession for years did not realize that their opponents, the American people would notice that the aircraft apparently visible in the Doubletree video was far too high in altitude to be inches off the ground as officially scripted in the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY and as established by the official Pentagon Building Performance Report.

No lesser an expert than the great Soloist himself informed us that this was the 'tail' of the official Flight 77 itself as it flew into the Pentagon.

post by Soloist

 

posted by Soloist

Unfortunately SPreston has assumed too much by attempting to speak as to what I was referring to, there is that video BUT there is also the Doubletree vid which show the tail of the plane heading towards the Pentagon as it smashes into the building. What that video does NOT show is the plane at any point pulling up to "fly over" the building.

They will try and say the view is blocked, but you can see the plane is far to close and too low to pull up over the building anyhow.

They will also say that one has been "photoshopped" (LOL) if you don't believe their first (blocked view) lie.

Judicial Watch also wrestled the Doubletree Hotel Video from the 9-11 Perps as well as the photoshopped parking lot security videos. A court enforced FOIA defeated the traitorous Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) once again.

Of course this frightens Soloist and his fellow government loyalists and they will flee to more easily manipulated subjects. Cowards. Why are you so set on betraying the 3000 innocent victims of 9-11 and their families?

Originally posted by SPreston
aircraft apparently visible in the Doubletree video was far too high in altitude to be inches off the ground

There is no way it was "inches off the ground" on it's approach, the light pole damage proves that alone, as do the witnesses (you know the ones who you use to "prove" the "flyover"). If the plane were to fly over the Pentagon, it would not be inches from the ground either, so you're argument is once again totally bunk.


Stop trying to be deceptive, it won't work on me.

Of course this frightens Soloist and his fellow government loyalists and they will flee to more easily manipulated subjects. Cowards. Why are you so set on betraying the 3000 innocent victims of 9-11 and their families?

Oh, spare me. My family by marriage lost 4 people, how many did you lose? You don't care, you just hate the government and will try to obfuscate, twist, and flat out lie to serve your fantasy that you have no proof of. You and your ilk will follow the rabbit deeper down that never ending hole.

You and your kind make me sick. You are the definition of the word 'coward' as you sit there behind your keyboard posting the same pictures over and over, while ignoring the facts and pretending to care.

Please.

posted by SPreston
aircraft apparently visible in the Doubletree video was far too high in altitude to be inches off the ground

posted by Soloist
There is no way it was "inches off the ground" on it's approach, the light pole damage proves that alone, as do the witnesses (you know the ones who you use to "prove" the "flyover"). If the plane were to fly over the Pentagon, it would not be inches from the ground either, so you're argument is once again totally bunk.

So you do not believe the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY either? Surprise surprise surprise.

According to the official Pentagon Building Performance Report, the top of the fuselage was 20 ft above the lawn, which would place the engines mere inches above the lawn. Military Industrial Complex contractor Purdue University reflected that report in their simulation supporting the official fantasy.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c161d1e54ddd.jpg[/atsimg]

Besides, the aircraft would have to be mere inches off the lawn in order to fit into the 1st floor damage area and to avoid damaging the building foundation. This is the reason why they photoshopped the parking lot security videos.

Pentagon Building Performance Report

Originally posted by Soloist
There is no way it was "inches off the ground" on it's approach, the light pole damage proves that alone,

Soloist, I have yet to see where you have proven that any light poles were hit by a jet, as claimed?

Why don't you visit one of the threads that's desperately calling on any government loyalist to prove that any light poles (particularly Lloyde's pole) were hit by a jet? Here's a thread that's eagerly waiting for a government loyalist to prove the story true.

Seriously, all truthers want is to see ONE government loyalist prove that the light poles were hit by a jet.

Stop trying to be deceptive, it won't work on me.

The only person being deceptive is you. You're claiming that light poles were hit, without proof. That's deception and disinformation.

I also note that you have not shown any calculations for the speed of the alleged object, that you claim is the tail of a jet, in the Doubletree video. Why is that, Soloist? Why do you make a claim and not support it with facts or calculations?

Neutral readers of this thread should note that Soloist has not supported any of his claims about the alleged speed of the alleged plane in the Doubletree video, nor has he supported his assertion that light poles were hit by a jet plane.

Originally posted by Soloist
I see an extremely fast moving tail ending in an explosion right as it gets to where the Pentagon is.

You CT'ers believe what you will, there is no way I'm going to change your mind.

It's been 24 hours, Soloist. I'm wondering if you've managed to supply the calculations to show us all how fast that 'extremely fast moving tail' was going?

I'm eager to verify your work for you. Remember, when you've provided your estimate, you also have to include your margin for error. An estimate is useless without knowing the error tolerance.

You CAN do a lot to change my mind, if you can show me that 'extremely fast moving tail' was travelling around the 530 mph mark... Give or take a small error, of course.

Come on, Soloist, don't let the team down!

Originally posted by SPreston
posted by Soloist
There is no way it was "inches off the ground" on it's approach,

First of all see the above quote, I've bolded it to help you out.

According to the official Pentagon Building Performance Report, the top of the fuselage was 20 ft above the lawn, which would place the engines mere inches above the lawn. Military Industrial Complex contractor Purdue University reflected that report in their simulation supporting the official fantasy.

That was almost at impact where the plane was 20 feet above the lawn, at 320 feet out it was several feet off the lawn (0.42 seconds before impact) and descending. The whole point is the plane was heading down, not UP, and the video show this as it drops out of sight right before the explosion.

We still see no plane flying over, or pulling up as would be required to fly over the building.

Originally posted by tezzajw
Soloist, I have yet to see where you have proven that any light poles were hit by a jet, as claimed?

You are off topic and trolling. I have told you in the past I will not respond to your troll posts. If you are serious about the light poles, look at the pictures and eyewitness accounts in several threads here. Try the search function, it really helps.

Why don't you visit one of the threads that's desperately calling on any government loyalist to prove that any light poles (particularly Lloyde's pole) were hit by a jet? Here's a thread that's eagerly waiting for a government loyalist to prove the story true.

Sure is sad they are that desperate.

Seriously, all truthers want is to see ONE government loyalist prove that the light poles were hit by a jet.

Cool, let me know when you find a "government loyalist". That should be fun.

I also note that you have not shown any calculations for the speed of the alleged object, that you claim is the tail of a jet, in the Doubletree video. Why is that, Soloist? Why do you make a claim and not support it with facts or calculations?

Yawn. Why do you troll these forums again? Oh, let's play your reverse logic game, shall we? Why don't you show some calculations for the speed of the object, since you believe it isn't the plane? You guys are the one claiming the plane flew over the building (which goes against the eyewitnesses and physical evidence), and since you're so awesome, this shouldn't be a problem.

I eagerly await your calculations.

Originally posted by Soloist
Yawn. Why do you troll these forums again? Oh, let's play your reverse logic game, shall we? Why don't you show some calculations for the speed of the object, since you believe it isn't the plane?

It's right at this point that Soloist fails the logic test, like many others before him.

Null Hypothesis: Something appears to be moving on the Doubletree video.

Alternate Hypothesis: Soloist believes that the moving object is Flight AA77 with a speed of around 530 mph.

Soloist, YOU made the claim that the moving object is an 'extremely fast moving tail' - so PROVE it. Provide the calculations for the speed of the object.

Neutral readers to this thread will note that Soloist has chosen not to try and support his claim with facts or calculations. Instead he has tried to twist the logic and he's asked me to prove something that I never claimed happened.

I don't know what the moving object is on the Doubletree video, Soloist, that's why I'm not making claims about it that I can not support.

Originally posted by tezzajw
Neutral readers to this thread will note that Soloist has chosen not to try and support his claim with facts or calculations. Instead he has tried to twist the logic and he's asked me to prove something that I never claimed happened.

Neutral readers to this thread will note that tezzajw has chosen to not try and disprove that this is the jet by providing the same "facts and calculations" that he is asking for. Since the jet hit the Pentagon is the current accepted fact according to witnesses and physical evidence, we wait patiently for some piece of real evidence this fact can be proven false.

To date we have nothing from the CT camp.

Neutral readers to this thread will also note that to date neither tezzajw nor anyone else has proven the "flyover" conspiracy theory.

I don't know what the moving object is on the Doubletree video, Soloist, that's why I'm not making claims about it that I can not support.

When you figure out what it is, please share it with the rest of the class, m'kay? In the meantime myself and other people who are grounded in reality can see quite clearly what it is.

And it ain't flyin' over that there Pentagon, mate.

Originally posted by Soloist
Neutral readers to this thread will note that tezzajw has chosen to not try and disprove that this is the jet by providing the same "facts and calculations" that he is asking for.

Laughable.

Soloist made the claim that the object in the Doubletree video is an 'extremely fast moving tail'.

Yet, he has not ONCE attempted to prove the speed of the 'tail'. Soloist has made a claim that he REFUSES to support.

How does Soloist try to cover the fact that he doesn't prove his claim? He tries to make it look like that I am not disproving it! Laughable.

Neutral readers to this thread will also note that to date neither tezzajw nor anyone else has proven the "flyover" conspiracy theory.

Neutral readers to this thread will note that Soloist is trying to drag the thread off topic and continue to avoid his claim that the object in the Doubletree video is an 'extremely fast moving tail'.

Soloist, if you are not able to prove your claim, then it's a lot easier to retract it. Your diversionary tactics don't work. Your claim is bunk and you know it, otherwise you would have proven it by now.

Soloist has not given a speed for the 'extremely fast moving tail' in the Doubletree video. He has not supported his claim.

Perhaps you're suffering from a little consfearacy, Soloist? Whatever it is, you're sure not willing to support your claim.

(Warning: The link has some mildly offensive lyrics. Soloist knows them, he's a Slayer fan.)

[edit on 15-5-2009 by tezzajw]

Originally posted by tezzajw
Soloist, if you are not able to prove your claim, then it's a lot easier to retract it. Your diversionary tactics don't work. Your claim is bunk and you know it, otherwise you would have proven it by now.

It's not my claim, it is merely more evidence of the fact the jet impacted the building and did NOT fly over the building. It is obvious to the viewer that the aircraft is traveling far faster than the other traffic, and does not pull up over the building. It doesn't matter if the plane was going 500 mph or 100 mph, it still smashed into the building, and there is no proof at all that it didn't.

Still waiting on evidence of that "flyover", btw.

Originally posted by Soloist
It's not my claim, it is merely more evidence of the fact the jet impacted the building and did NOT fly over the building.

Off topic to this thread. This isn't a fly-over thread, it's the Doubletree video thread. Your attempt to derail is noted though.

It is obvious to the viewer that the aircraft is traveling far faster than the other traffic, and does not pull up over the building.

No, it's not obvious at all. Your on topic claim is that the object in the Doubletree video is an 'extremely fast moving tail'.

Please, define 'far faster' with a numerical quantity! PROVE your claim! You continue to post here, in complete avoidance of supporting your claim. You have not shown how fast that alleged tail is travelling.

It doesn't matter if the plane was going 500 mph or 100 mph, it still smashed into the building, and there is no proof at all that it didn't.

Neutral readers to this thread, please note that Soloist refuses to state the speed of the object in the Doubletree video. Now he has stated that the speed 'doesn't matter', as the plane allegedly hit the Pentagon!

Yes, Soloist, it DOES matter. The official story, that you subscribe to, shows an impact speed of around 530 mph. If you believe that an alleged impact speed of 100 mph is valid, then you're NO LONGER subscribing to your official story. You should be asking lots of questions about the validity of the FDR, if the true alleged impact speed was 100 mph, instead of 530 mph!

That's a fine mess that you've created for yourself with that sentence, Soloist! Not only have you failed to prove the speed of the 'tail' that you claim is travelling 'extremely fast', you have now conceeded that the official speed doesn't matter, as long as the alleged plane hit the Pentagon!

Can anyone else see the can of worms that Soloist has opened for himself?

Here's some advice for you: Think about what you're typing before you type it. You're really making your position look so weak right now by failing to provide a speed and then declaring that the speed 'doesn't matter'.

Still waiting on evidence of that "flyover", btw.

Then ask about it an appropriate thread, where it is not off topic like it is here. Ask the members who support a fly-over for their evidence. Your repeated attempt to derail, here in this thread, is noted.

Originally posted by tezzajw

No, it's not obvious at all.

Then you are incapable of seeing that it clearly outpaces the truck. I cannot help you if you refuse to see that simple fact alone.

Please, define 'far faster' with a numerical quantity! PROVE your claim!

There is no need for a "numerical quantity" at all, the video CLEARLY shows it outpacing the other traffic. It is proven. Just because you want to troll for arguments instead of opening your eyes is not even close to being my problem.

You continue to post here, in complete avoidance of supporting your claim. You have not shown how fast that alleged tail is travelling.

I never said how fast it was traveling, see above. You seem to have a problem with basic comprehension and once again I cannot help you with that. Perhaps seek out a tutor local to you?

Yes, Soloist, it DOES matter. *Argumentative drivel snipped*

I say it doesn't, so there.

That's a fine mess that you've created for yourself with that sentence, Soloist! Not only have you failed to prove the speed of the 'tail' that you claim is travelling 'extremely fast', you have now conceeded that the official speed doesn't matter, as long as the alleged plane hit the Pentagon!

That's right. Once again, it does not matter, the plane still ended up in the Pentagon, period. Arguing about the actual speed is pointless. But knowing you, it will continue.

Can anyone else see the can of worms that Soloist has opened for himself?

I'm looking around, man I really want to go fishing, when you find them pass them over please. Thanks.

Here's some advice for you: Think about what you're typing before you type it.

Here's some for you : THINK.

That is all.

Then ask about it an appropriate thread, where it is not off topic like it is here. Ask the members who support a fly-over for their evidence. Your repeated attempt to derail, here in this thread, is noted.

Glad you're taking notes, hopefully you gain some basic understanding soon. Whether or not you believe the "alleged object" as you say is the plane, this video, the Doubletree video, IS the topic of this thread, and it clearly shows no plane flying over the Pentagon which disproves that bunk theory.

If there is no "flyover theory" conspiracy why even talk about the video, eh?

Why don't you note that?

Originally posted by Soloist
There is no need for a "numerical quantity" at all, the video CLEARLY shows it outpacing the other traffic. It is proven.

Here, we see how Soloist has completely backed away from trying to prove his claim that the object in the Doubletree video is an 'extremely fast moving tail' of a plane.

He fails, again, to provide any estimate of the speed of the object and expects us to take on faith that his claim is 'proven'.

I never said how fast it was traveling, see above. You seem to have a problem with basic comprehension and once again I cannot help you with that.

You clearly stated that the object was 'extremely fast moving'. A subjective description like that is useless as evidence and nothing but baseless opinion, which does not constitute proof.

When pressed for a numerical estimate, you have shyed away from providing an estimate of the object's speed. Why? Is it that difficult for you to quantify the alleged speed?

That's right. Once again, it does not matter, the plane still ended up in the Pentagon, period. Arguing about the actual speed is pointless. But knowing you, it will continue.

What argument? You've lost. There is no need for me to try and continue an argument with you, when you've failed to estimate the speed numerically, and you've admitted that the speed doesn't matter.

You've admitted that you consider an impact speed of 100 mph being irrelevant and you can't see the problem with it.

That type of logic is about as screwy as can possibly be. There's no need for me to argue, as all I have to do is to frame your words for the casual readers of this thread to peruse.

Soloist, staunch believer of the official story, has stated that whether the plane hit at 100 mph or 530 mph is irrelevant. All that matters is the that the plane hit! Forget the fact that the alleged FDR showed an alleged speed of 530 mph, because if it hit at 100 mph, it still hit! There's no need to question a 430 mph error in the FDR, according to Soloist, as the plane hit!

Whether or not you believe the "alleged object" as you say is the plane, this video, the Doubletree video, IS the topic of this thread, and it clearly shows no plane flying over the Pentagon which disproves that bunk theory.

Your desperate attempt to derail the thread is again noted.

Yes, the Doubletree video is the topic of this thread, along with your illogical claims about the speed of an alleged 'tail' of a plane on that video. Not to mention your complete disregard for official story impact speeds and how you carelessly toss them aside at your own whim.

If there is no "flyover theory" conspiracy why even talk about the video, eh? Why don't you note that?

Take it to a thread that's discussing a fly-over. This thread is about the Doubletree video.

[edit on 15-5-2009 by tezzajw]

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by Soloist
There is no need for a "numerical quantity" at all, the video CLEARLY shows it outpacing the other traffic. It is proven.

Here, we see how Soloist has completely backed away from trying to prove his claim that the object in the Doubletree video is an 'extremely fast moving tail' of a plane.

Wow, you fail at basic reading comprehension also. I didn't back down from anything, you are either attempting (poorly) to lie, or have failed to understand what I wrote. Somehow, I doubt the latter.

He fails, again, to provide any estimate of the speed of the object and expects us to take on faith that his claim is 'proven'.

It is proven. Is it not going faster than the other traffic or not? Clearly it is, if you disagree then you're only fooling yourself.

You clearly stated that the object was 'extremely fast moving'. A subjective description like that is useless as evidence and nothing but baseless opinion, which does not constitute proof.

It is not subjective, it is a positive fact that it out paces everything else. To deny that is to be ignorant. Please review the motto of this site.

When pressed for a numerical estimate, you have shyed away from providing an estimate of the object's speed. Why? Is it that difficult for you to quantify the alleged speed?

I never made a claim of the numerical estimate, prove that I did, or retract that lie.

What argument? You've lost. There is no need for me to try and continue an argument with you, when you've failed to estimate the speed numerically, and you've admitted that the speed doesn't matter.

Ok, see ya!

There's no need for me to argue,

Alrighty then!

Soloist, staunch believer of the official story, has stated that whether the plane hit at 100 mph or 530 mph is irrelevant. All that matters is the that the plane hit! Forget the fact that the alleged FDR showed an alleged speed of 530 mph, because if it hit at 100 mph, it still hit! There's no need to question a 430 mph error in the FDR, according to Soloist, as the plane hit!

I said nothing about the FDR, you are making stuff up again. Please prove that I did. My comment was in the context of the topic of this thread (The Doubletree video), which you are now off topic in. God sometimes it's just plain fun to give people their medicine!

Yes, the Doubletree video is the topic of this thread, along with your illogical claims about the speed of an alleged 'tail' of a plane on that video. Not to mention your complete disregard for official story impact speeds and how you carelessly toss them aside at your own whim.

Please prove how the obvious speed difference in the "alleged tail" is an illogical conclusion.

Take it to a thread that's discussing a fly-over. This thread is about the Doubletree video

So, why don't you give us your take on the video and what it has to do with the alleged "conspiracy", then.

Originally posted by Soloist
It is proven. Is it not going faster than the other traffic or not? Clearly it is, if you disagree then you're only fooling yourself.

How much faster is it than the other traffic? How fast is the traffic going? Care to supply a speed, or just your baseless opinion?

It is not subjective, it is a positive fact that it out paces everything else. To deny that is to be ignorant. Please review the motto of this site.

I'd give you the same advice. You've made a subjective claim about the speed of the object, without trying to estimate the speed of the object. Why? Are you unable to do so?

Subjective statements are usually ok, however, in this instance when a proper professional analysis could be done to determine some parameters for the object's speed, we wouldn't lend much weight to a subjective analysis.

I never made a claim of the numerical estimate, prove that I did, or retract that lie.

Of course you haven't made a claim for the numerical estimate, you've shyed away from doing so. That's been my whole point over the last day - to see why you won't make a numerical estimate!

I said nothing about the FDR, you are making stuff up again. Please prove that I did. My comment was in the context of the topic of this thread (The Doubletree video), which you are now off topic in. God sometimes it's just plain fun to give people their medicine!

I stated the FDR. You believe that an alleged impact speed anywhere between 100 mph to 530 mph, based on the Doubletree video, is valid. You stated so yourself. Therefore the alleged speed of the FDR, around 530 mph is not relevant to your belief about the impact speed.

Please prove how the obvious speed difference in the "alleged tail" is an illogical conclusion.

Easy. You stated that you would accept an impact speed of 100 mph, which is an illogical position for you, based on an official story impact speed of 530 mph, from the FDR. You can't both accept an impact speed of 100 mph and also accept an FDR impact speed of 530 mph. They're mutually exclusive and illogical.

Once more, Soloist, why don't you wish to quantify the alleged speed of the object that you're seeing in the Doubletree video?

So, why don't you give us your take on the video and what it has to do with the alleged "conspiracy", then.

I'm not sure what to conclude from the Doubletree video. It shows a few different objects moving, some appear to be vehicles. That's about all I can determine.

Originally posted by tezzajw
Care to supply a speed, or just your baseless opinion?

It is a fact not "baseless opinion" that the object is going much faster than the rest of the traffic. Can you prove otherwise since you think it's just my "baseless opinion"?

I'm willing to bet not.

I'd give you the same advice. You've made a subjective claim about the speed of the object, without trying to estimate the speed of the object. Why? Are you unable to do so?

It's hilarious watching you flounder about with this! I could care less about the actual speed, it's painfully obvious to anyone that it's clearly going much faster, to try and twist this to be about the actual speed is merely a diversion tactic, and will not work on me. Sorry.

Subjective statements are usually ok, however, in this instance when a proper professional analysis could be done to determine some parameters for the object's speed, we wouldn't lend much weight to a subjective analysis.

Since you seem to be the one so concerned about it, then you're welcome to do a "proper professional analysis" that would answer your question.

I never made a claim of the numerical estimate, prove that I did, or retract that lie.
Of course you haven't made a claim for the numerical estimate, you've shyed away from doing so. That's been my whole point over the last day - to see why you won't make a numerical estimate!

So you did lie. Thanks for admitting that, in your own round about way.

I stated the FDR.

Then you are off topic.

You believe that an alleged impact speed anywhere between 100 mph to 530 mph, based on the Doubletree video, is valid. You stated so yourself.

No I did not. My exact quote was :

Originally posted by Soloist It doesn't matter if the plane was going 500 mph or 100 mph, it still smashed into the building, and there is no proof at all that it didn't.

Nowhere in there did I say I believe the impact speed was between 100 to 530 mph, but that it doesn't matter what the actual speed was since the plane clearly is not seen flying over the building, nor is this what the witnesses saw. It could have been going 540 mph and still not changed the fact that it crashed into the Pentagon. But then of course you would have all the CT'ers shouting - THEY LIED ABOUT THE SPEED< ZOMG!@!@!

Really, it's not that hard to understand.

Therefore the alleged speed of the FDR, around 530 mph is not relevant to your belief about the impact speed.

Therefore the above quote has no relevance or anything at all to do with reality.

Please prove how the obvious speed difference in the "alleged tail" is an illogical conclusion.
Easy. You stated that you would accept an impact speed of 100 mph, which is an illogical position for you, based on an official story impact speed of 530 mph, from the FDR. You can't both accept an impact speed of 100 mph and also accept an FDR impact speed of 530 mph. They're mutually exclusive and illogical.

I was talking about the speed difference with the traffic. Please if you are going to debate, let's at least get on the same page.

Once more, Soloist, why don't you wish to quantify the alleged speed of the object that you're seeing in the Doubletree video?

Once more, tezzajw, I don't care about the "alleged speed", that was never my point. It is yours, and since you seem to be the only one concerned about it I await your analysis should you decide to actually provide one.

I'm not sure what to conclude from the Doubletree video. It shows a few different objects moving, some appear to be vehicles. That's about all I can determine.

And your telling me that at least ONE of those objects is not moving a heck of a lot faster than the others right before and up to the impact and explosion???

If you honestly cannot see that, we have nothing more to debate, it's quite pointless.

Originally posted by Soloist
It's hilarious watching you flounder about with this!

I could care less about the actual speed, it's painfully obvious to anyone that it's clearly going much faster, to try and twist this to be about the actual speed is merely a diversion tactic, and will not work on me. Sorry.

Yes, you've consistently stated that you don't know what the speed is, or cared what it is, agreed.

You stated that the object in the Doubletree video is an 'extremely fast moving tail' and provided no basis on which to justify your assertion that it is moving extremely fast.

Nowhere in there did I say I believe the impact speed was between 100 to 530 mph,

Then why would you contend that it doesn't matter if the plane was travelling at 100 mph in the video, if you believe it hit at 530 mph, as per the official story?

You do believe in the official story, don't you? You're not trying to wriggle out of the official impact speed of 530 mph, are you?

If it's perfectly ok, by you, to state the object in the Doubletree video may have been travelling at 100 mph, then how do you reconcile an alleged impact speed of 530 mph?

Again, show the calculations, Soloist! Show how the plane can accelerate from 100 mph to 530 mph, within the bounds set by the Doubletree video.

but that it doesn't matter what the actual speed was since the plane clearly is not seen flying over the building,

There you go on your off topic diversions about a fly-over again! Of course the speed of the alleged plane matters. If it doesn't coincide with the official 530 mph, then you've got problems with your official story.

I was talking about the speed difference with the traffic. Please if you are going to debate, let's at least get on the same page.

Great!

So, show me your calculations for the speed of the traffic and then show me your calculations for the speed of the alleged plane!

Subjective opinion is not a valid scientific analysis, in this instance.

Once more, tezzajw, I don't care about the "alleged speed", that was never my point. It is yours, and since you seem to be the only one concerned about it I await your analysis should you decide to actually provide one.

The alleged speed has always been your point. You made a statement that the alleged speed was 'extremeley fast'. Yet, you failed to quantify the alleged speed with a number.

I've made no claims about the alleged speed of the object in the video, so there's no point asking me to perform a video analysis.

And your telling me that at least ONE of those objects is not moving a heck of a lot faster than the others right before and up to the impact and explosion???

I don't know, Soloist? Define 'heck of a lot faster' with a number, please.

It's interesting that you mention the impact and explosion here, as it contradicts your earlier claim that a speed of 100 mph is irrelevant. If you're stating the speed of the object up to the point of alleged impact-explosion is 'a heck of a lot faster' and you're claiming that the object was the tail of a plane, then you better try and fudge and some numbers to show the speed of 530 mph is valid.

Which is it, Soloist? Does the speed to the point of alleged impact-explosion matter if it is 100 mph, or not? Remember, that you've previously claimed that a speed of 100 mph doesn't matter.

If you honestly cannot see that, we have nothing more to debate, it's quite pointless.

Considering that you've tried every possible way to save your credibility in this thread, I guess you've got no other options, other than to concede or leave. Your logical contradictions are quite obvious.

[edit on 16-5-2009 by tezzajw]

Originally posted by tezzajw
You stated that the object in the Doubletree video is an 'extremely fast moving tail' and provided no basis on which to justify your assertion that it is moving extremely fast.

Yes I did. MY "basis" is the surrounding traffic, and the objects speed relative to that said traffic, period.

if you believe it hit at 530 mph

Ahh, there you go assuming.

If it's perfectly ok, by you, to state the object in the Doubletree video may have been travelling at 100 mph, then how do you reconcile an alleged impact speed of 530 mph?

I did not state that. You are a liar.

Originally posted by Soloist
It doesn't matter if the plane was going 500 mph or 100 mph, it still smashed into the building, and there is no proof at all that it didn't.

Here read it again, maybe it'll sink in :

It doesn't matter if the plane was going 500 mph or 100 mph, it still smashed into the building, and there is no proof at all that it didn't.