Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

Originally posted by RipCurl
Nice to show a pic of AFTER collapse. how about pics BEFORE collapse?

Are you claiming that after the roof collapsed, they ran around hiding all the plane parts that are supposed to be littering the lawn in front of it? I believe the point of the pic was the lack of plane parts. Why do you suppose there would have been more plane parts prior to the collapse and none right after?

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Lillydale

 

I see that you have relapsed and are calling me names again. I forgive you. I promise not to latch on to any more of your anecdotal phrases if you promise to stop whining about it.

Calling you names? You mean liar and coward?

Let me see, you have been more than dishonest so that would make you a liar.

You have been asked to explain yourself and instead of even giving it a try, you spend post after post trying to deflect onto something else instead of standing behind your own words.

That makes you a coward. I am sorry if you have behaved like a liar and a coward in this thread and I pointed it out. Unfortunately, I can prove you are a liar and a coward. Have any names you think you can prove I am?

You lied. You have since refused to stand up for your own words. What would you call that?

I am here looking for the truth and you have proven that you are willing to lie here. Please explain why that should not be significant to the discussion.

Latch on to anything you like, I am not the least bit afraid of having my own words thrown back in my face. If I said something, I am either behind it 100 percent or adult enough to admit I was wrong. You instead have chosen to lie and deflect. I will latch onto your lies and cowardly deflection and you can latch onto anything you like.

[edit on 12/2/09 by Lillydale]

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by RipCurl
Nice to show a pic of AFTER collapse. how about pics BEFORE collapse?

Are you claiming that after the roof collapsed, they ran around hiding all the plane parts that are supposed to be littering the lawn in front of it? I believe the point of the pic was the lack of plane parts. Why do you suppose there would have been more plane parts prior to the collapse and none right after?

Here's a supposed "early pic" - Notice the red fireball and then the dark smoke coming from the construction equipment fenced area.







picture source: www.physics911.net...

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Lillydale

 

Have any names you think you can prove I am?

Redundant. Maybe obtuse, too, but certainly redundant. "Unimaginative" also comes to mind as you refuse to propose a testable theory of Pentagon events on 911. As it is with many other folks who lack imagination, you are just "questioning inconsistencies" and railing against an ill-defined "OS." But you know that. Maybe you are afraid to commit to an theory because you might be wrong.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by JPhish

 

Once again, you disregard witnesses that say things that go against your personal beliefs and you seek reasons to reject them.

appeal to motive (31) show me one witness that I dismissed because their testimony went against my personal beliefs.

You claim Penny Elgas is not a good witness because you don't like the website.

appeal to motive (32) “Penny Elgas” MUST BE DISMISSED as a witness because there is no evidence that she even exists, save for the unprofessional website “her” testimony appears on. It has nothing to do with me liking or not liking the website. The website is not reliable.

This is convenient for you, isn’t it?

appeal to motive (33)

Her statement and those of others are on 911research.wtc7.net...

That website simply pulled “her” “testimony” off of the bogus website.

You “claim to be knowledgeable and able to interpret information logically.”Then you state “If you’re referring to Mike Walter (who I presented), he is an unreliable witness because he claims that the wings folded back which is physically impossible. The wings are the heaviest part of a plane. The wings on a 757 would NEVER fold back unless the engines impacted something and the fuselage did not.”

Correct. Amongst many other valid reasons for why his testimony is invalid.

You also stated that “An aluminum alloy plane is 100% incapable of penetrating 1, let alone 3 steel-concrete reinforced walls.” How do you know these things? It would be good for you to check your sources.

shifting the goalpost (34) Considering I wasn’t using that statement to dismiss any witness, I won’t waste our time. 100% discount that one statement I made if you like. It makes no difference because it has no bearing on the validity of the witnesses in regards to the flight path and poles, which is what we are discussing.

From what you write, your technical skills have been assimilated from Hollywood disaster movis and video games.

bare assertions (35)

The fact that aluminum is relatively soft and of low density does not mean what you think it does. Read about “kinetic energy” and “sectional density” in your physics book. If you have the technical ability to reject witnesses based on physical impossibilities then you should provide argument why the wings would not fail on impact or an aluminum alloy plane is incapable of penetrating a concrete reinforced wall. If you are unable to do so, your reasons for rejection are unsupported and you must then accept the witness statements you rejected.

shifting the goalpost (36) Misquoted me slightly, but regardless as to whether or not I am correct (which I believe I am) I didn’t dismiss any witnesses based on my claim that an aluminum alloy plane is incapable of penetrating a steel-concrete reinforced wall. Again, it has no bearing on the validity of the witnesses in regards to the flight path and poles, which is what we are discussing.

Affirming the consequent

If P, then Q.
Q.
Therefore, P.

If a plane penetrated the Pentagon, then it is possible for a plane to penetrate the pentagon
it is possible for a plane to penetrate the pentagon
Therefore a plane penetrated the Pentagon

Even if a plane could penetrate the Pentagon, it is not proof that one did.

Keep seeking the truth, JPhish.

I never claimed to have found it.

[edit on 12/3/2009 by JPhish]

reply to post by JPhish


You rejected Penny Elgas as a witness because you didn't like the website. Is there a formal logic criterion for website approval?

You rejected Mike Walter as a witness because he claims that the wings folded back which you say is "physically impossible. The wings are the heaviest part of a plane. The wings on a 757 would NEVER fold back unless the engines impacted something and the fuselage did not.”

I challenged you to support your statement and you did not. Then you said that there were "many other valid reasons for why his testimony is invalid."

How do you know, from your knowledge of structural and aeronautical engineering, that you statements concerning the plane are correct? What are the "many other valid reasons for why his testimony is invalid?"

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by JPhish

 

Based on your post you must not subscribe to the CIT theory of a flyover.

How so?

You have ignored all the witnesses that saw an impact because you determined them to be unreliable.

bare assertion (23) I have not ignored any witnesses.

Where are the statements of the hundreds of people who were all around the Pentagon on the freeways, bridges, in the Pentagon parking lots?

How is this relevant? Simply because someone was present at an event does not mean they witnessed something. That’s common sense. Look up the definition of ignore. You seem to not understand what the word means. I have not ignored anything.

As always, you're way behind, JPhish:

Pentagon View Shed Analysis
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by JPhish

 

You rejected Penny Elgas as a witness because you didn't like the website. Is there a formal logic criterion for website approval?

appeal to motive (37) Are you serious? I just proved in my previous post that it had nothing to do with me liking or disliking the website and had everything to do with the website being unreliable.

How many times must I link you to THIS POST ?

I’ve linked to this post at least 3 times now. Have you read it at all?

It’s a VERY simple concept.

If a website accepts ANY testimony without verification that the person is even real, much less telling the truth, the website is unreliable.

I’m not trying to insult you, but this is common sense at this point . . .

You rejected Mike Walter as a witness because he claims that the wings folded back which you say is "physically impossible. The wings are the heaviest part of a plane. The wings on a 757 would NEVER fold back unless the engines impacted something and the fuselage did not.”

Untrue, I rejected Mike Walter for other reasons as well.
Refer to

Exhibit: SATSQMT

I challenged you to support your statement and you did not.

You’re demanding negative proof (37) again. There’s no proof that wings of a 757 have ever folded back in the manner the Mike Walter described; and the only person who has ever claimed that they did is Mike Walter.

It is the equivalent of Mike Walter claiming
“I saw a man walk on water”.
Me replying
“It’s impossible for a man to do that; perhaps he was walking in a shallow puddle and you are mistaken? Unless the man was walking at an inhumanly fast speed (which is a stretch) it’s impossible.”
And you demanding “Prove it’s impossible.”

Do I need to prove that a man can not walk on water?
No, because there is no evidence that a man has ever walked on water in the first place.

Now I could propose ways in which a man might be able to walk on water, the same way I proposed ways that the wings on a 757 might fold back; but essentially . . .

The burden of proof would fall on you to prove that a man walked on water.
The same way the burden of proof falls on you to prove that a 757’s wings would fold back in mid flight for apparently no reason as Mike Walter claimed.

Then you said that there were "many other valid reasons for why his testimony is invalid."

Refer to

Exhibit: SATSQMT

How do you know, from your knowledge of structural and aeronautical engineering, that you statements concerning the plane are correct?

Concerning what?

What are the "many other valid reasons for why his testimony is invalid?"

Exhibit: Stop Asking The Same Question Multiple Times

The reasons Mike Walter is an unreliable witness

1. He described the plane traversing the OS flight path.
2. He claimed to see the plane knock down the infamous light poles.
3. He has a conflict of interest

I find it ironic that you have seemed to ignore THIS POST .

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by JPhish

 

Based on your post you must not subscribe to the CIT theory of a flyover.

How so?

You have ignored all the witnesses that saw an impact because you determined them to be unreliable.

bare assertion (23) I have not ignored any witnesses.

Where are the statements of the hundreds of people who were all around the Pentagon on the freeways, bridges, in the Pentagon parking lots?

How is this relevant? Simply because someone was present at an event does not mean they witnessed something. That’s common sense. Look up the definition of ignore. You seem to not understand what the word means. I have not ignored anything.

As always, you're way behind, JPhish:

Pentagon View Shed Analysis
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Are you dense? Your weak inductive reasoning proves my point, simply because someone was present at an event, does not mean they witnessed something.

Thanks for proving my point.

PS: i read that post of yours around a year ago. It was weak inductive reasoning then, it is weak inductive reasoning now, and it will continue to be weak inductive reasoning.

[edit on 12/3/2009 by JPhish]

Originally posted by JPhish
How is this relevant? Simply because someone was present at an event does not mean they witnessed something. That’s common sense. Look up the definition of ignore. You seem to not understand what the word means. I have not ignored anything.

You write comedy - right? Your messages are a parody of upside-down Truther Logic?

But I get the creepy feeling you actually believe what you type.

With your Logic 101 notes in hand at your home you dismiss volumes of testimony from people who stood there on the day and saw what happened or were involved in the clean up. The multiple corroborating testimonies, photographs, forensic evidence, DNA results, of Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon.

But fall into a swoon for a handful of confused conflicting manipulated statements put together by some video making clowns who roll in from California cashing in on popular conspiracy denial.

You obviously have not done even the most preliminary review of all the information on the Pentagon attack. You have no qualification to make a statement on anything related.

You might want to go to the trial of Khalid Shekh Mohammed, one of the planners and co-ordinators of the 9/11 attacks. He's supplied endless details. You can inform him that the 5 hijackers he personally trained never showed up for work and that instead the US government faked their own attack.

He's had a rough few years and can use a good laugh.


[edit on 3-12-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael
With your Logic 101 notes in hand at your home you dismiss volumes of testimony from people who stood there on the day and saw what happened or were involved in the clean up. The multiple corroborating testimonies, photographs, forensic evidence, DNA results, of Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon.

Please elaborate.

Who witnessed the crash?
What multiple corroborating testimonies?
Photographs of...?
What forensic evidence?
DNA results from what lab done from what found remains?

You just filled in all the missing information with your own little imagination. Cute.

reply to post by JPhish

“Penny Elgas” MUST BE DISMISSED as a witness because there is no evidence that she even exists, save for the unprofessional website “her” testimony appears on.

No evidence that she even exists? I sure wish that the "truth" movement would standardize their beliefs. I mean, I found a few dozen sites that attack her as a witness because she sits on an FDIC committee with the spouse of George HW Bush's chief of staff.

Which is it? She is unreliable because she does not exist or she is unreliable because she sits on a committee with the CoS's spouse????

Originally posted by Alfie1

I think your physics are somewhat awry. Can you shoot a lead bullet (soft metal ) through a tin (steel) can ( hard metal ) ? Of course you can.

Reason, energy of the speeding bullet.

Seriously?

The reason is the MASS OF THE BULLET. The mass of the lead bullet far 'outweighs' the mass of the side of a tin can.

Have any of you even taken high school physics at least?

I will give you a hint: Inertia.


[edit on 12/3/09 by Lillydale]

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by Alfie1

I think your physics are somewhat awry. Can you shoot a lead bullet (soft metal ) through a tin (steel) can ( hard metal ) ? Of course you can.

Reason, energy of the speeding bullet.

Seriously?

The reason is the MASS OF THE BULLET. The mass of the lead bullet far 'outweighs' the mass of the side of a tin can.

Have any of you even taken high school physics at least?

I will give you a hint: Inertia.


[edit on 12/3/09 by Lillydale]

That doesn't make sense. An anti-tank round will penetrate a tank will it not. Are you saying the mass of the anti-tank round "outweighs" the mass of the side of the tank ?

reply to post by Alfie1


I realized that, while what you bring up certainly deals with 9/11, it doesn't deal with the pentagon attack, so I created a new thread with my response, here:

WTC construction manager speaks of the resilience of the twin towers


[edit on 3-12-2009 by scott3x]

reply to post by scott3x


Yes, yes, yes, the WTC was designed to handle being hit by a plane...

And the Titanic was designed to be virtually unsinkable...

The Tacoma Narrows Bridge was a unparalleled feat of engineering...

The Space Shuttle was a low cost, safe way to access space...

The F-117 will never be lost in combat because it is radar invisible....

Do you have any idea how many times an engineered structure has failed to live up to its designer's claims?

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


I've responded to your post in the aforementioned thread I created, as I realized this subject is off topic here...

Originally posted by scott3x
reply to post by Alfie1

 

I realized that, while what you bring up certainly deals with 9/11, it doesn't deal with the pentagon attack, so I created a new thread with my response, here:

WTC construction manager speaks of the resilience of the twin towers

Hope you also provide context with a few hundred videos of car ads and manufacturer claims for all the vehicles later recalled due to the discovery of them being safety hazards.

Or check the online databases for all the buildings, homes, condos, etc that have collapsed despite conforming to building codes, city ordinances, inspections, architectural specs, etc.

With 8+ years of finding no evidence of their dreamed controlled demolitions and hidden bombs Truthers are becoming desperate to keep their fantasies alive.

Originally posted by Alfie1


That doesn't make sense. An anti-tank round will penetrate a tank will it not. Are you saying the mass of the anti-tank round "outweighs" the mass of the side of the tank ?

Uh...yes. Are you trying to claim that the round is going up against the entire tank? I am not sure you know what mass means.

reply to post by JPhish


Your arguments are ludicrous. Because you don't believe what the man witnessed, he could not have witnessed it. This sounds like a numbered fallacy to me. I give it a (43). Structural failures do not violate any physical laws other than the ones you invent on the spot. (44) You also stated “The same way the burden of proof falls on you to prove that a 757’s wings would fold back in mid flight for apparently no reason as Mike Walter claimed.” Are you serious?(45) He claimed that the wings folded as the aircraft was colliding with the Pentagon.
You referred to your previous post which said Mike Walter
“Says he saw the “plane” down the infamous light poles (OS flight path)”
“Says without a doubt it was an American Airlines 747/737. (OS plane)”

Then came the illogical capper “Since it is an impossibility that the plane clipped the infamous light poles and taking into account his other testimony where he describes the wings folding back (which is also impossible, refer to my previous post). I must conclude that Mike Walter is either brainwashed, lying or has been threatened.” (46)Why would you conclude that it is impossible that the plane clipped the light poles and that the wings folded on impact? You are using your unfounded conclusion to reject testimony. (47)You are being illogical. (48, 49, 50)

Your rejection of Penny Elgas is just as whimsical. You said “Penny Elgas” MUST BE DISMISSED as a witness because there is no evidence that she even exists, save for the unprofessional website “her” testimony appears on.” You determined the website was unreliable and then you questioned her existence. How do you know any of the CIT witnesses exist? Those could have just been actors in those videos.(51)

The really amusing part is that you wanted the thread to be left "to people who are logical." When are you leaving?