Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

reply to post by pteridine


So after asking you -SEVERAL TIMES- to produce the 100s of witnesses, you continually ignore that but take the time to argue that TWO people are reliable witnesses. Why even bother? Toss them aside and grab two of the other hundreds of witnesses.

reply to post by Lillydale

Actually, it is not inertia but rather kinetic energy. There is also a concept called "sectional density" that comes into play for projectiles penetrating objects which is the total mass divided by the frontal area. See, for example, "Behavior of metals Under impulsive Loads" by Rinehart and Pearson.
The aircraft, a frangible projectile, had more than enough energy to punch through the Pentagon walls. Note how the WTC aircraft quickly cut through steel beams.

reply to post by K J Gunderson


Because Phish claims to be using logic when he is using belief as a basis for his reasoning. I am pointing out to him the error of his ways.

Originally posted by pteridine
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?

Logical Fallacy (57634) The assumption that anything CIT has shown in it's videos represents the true memories of it's subjects.

How do we know if CIT didn't just ask, pay, offer inducement to so-called witnesses to point in every direction in the sky and just edit in the takes they wanted? Maybe Lloyde England got, drunk, stoned, was slipped a few bucks, when he makes his conflicting statements.

We have all sorts of professionals who work and live in Washington giving consistent testimony of Flight 77 flying over and crashing into the Pentagon. Fully corroborated by DNA of the passengers on the flight found in the remains.

Questioning their testimony years later is a 39 year old software salesman and part-time rock band guy in California with a camcorder. He pushes an implied story that no plane hit the Pentagon and the US government faked the crash. He provides zero tangible evidence of this operation, no witnesses to it, no whistleblowers.

Luckily for him there is an audience online desperate to buy into any whacko conspiracy theory trying to disprove the US was attacked by hijacked planes. They delude themselves into believing they are anything other than gullible fools incapable of critical thinking.


[edit on 3-12-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael
We have all sorts of professionals who work and live in Washington giving consistent testimony of Flight 77 flying over and crashing into the Pentagon. Fully corroborated by DNA of the passengers on the flight found in the remains.

WHERE???????????

All sorts? List them. List a couple. Where are alllllll these professionals that saw AA77 crash into the pentagon????

I am pretty sure I have already asked this. Can you even point us in the direction of all these witnesses at the very least?

As for your DNA corroboration...According to the OS, every single person on the plane was identified by DNA. None of the supposed hijackers are listed on the flight manifest. If everyone was identified, and these men were not listed as being on board...were they hiding down in storage?

Can you please stop just asserting lies and try to prove some of this?

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

Because Phish claims to be using logic when he is using belief as a basis for his reasoning. I am pointing out to him the error of his ways.

So this is how you weasel out of producing these witnesses this time around? If only you could man up and stand behind your words with...proof of some kind.

reply to post by K J Gunderson


I never said that there were hundreds of witnesses who saw the impact. The CIT crowd loves to play with that. There were hundreds who saw the effects of the impact. There were many witnesses who saw a plane headed toward the Pentagon, saw a fireball, and did not see a plane fly away.
Do you ask because you believe the CIT fantasy? There are many things that they cannot explain away. The fuel fire, the lack of a flyaway, the type of damage, the lack of witnesses to planting of evidence, etc.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Lillydale

 

Actually, it is not inertia but rather kinetic energy. There is also a concept called "sectional density" that comes into play for projectiles penetrating objects which is the total mass divided by the frontal area. See, for example, "Behavior of metals Under impulsive Loads" by Rinehart and Pearson.
The aircraft, a frangible projectile, had more than enough energy to punch through the Pentagon walls. Note how the WTC aircraft quickly cut through steel beams.

Actually, you are trying so hard to come across as more informed than you are. It simply boils down to inertia as to whether or not an object will overtake a colliding object and impose it's force or be taken by the colliding object. It really is that simple. If you want to discuss specifics of tin cans and then specifics of tanks then there is a lot more to discuss than sectional density.

Please try and follow along. The question is about a plane + building, bullet + tin can, tank + round. The only thing that each example shares completely is the fact that inertia is the first force involved and the deciding force in a collision.

It is cute that you are trying so hard to play expert physicist but you really just pulled a weedwhacker and rambled on for no reason. If you want to discuss the specifics of a specific incident then fine. What we are talking about is the simple fact or two objects colliding and what determines whether one can impose itself onto the other. An aluminum plane has so much less mass than the wall section it collided into along with the floor cross sections and supports as well as the fact that it supposedly pierced MANY walls and not just one.

The problem here is that sectional density has only been applied by completely ignoring the entire structure of the Pentagon that was impacted and just pretend it was a plane and a wall and that was it. Or do you think you can really explain it in depth - without ignoring all the actual structural components being impacted. It was not just a plane and a wall.

Oh yeah, and after you get through all of that...please actually read some of this stuff you are trying to pass off. What is the principal force guiding sectional density?

INERTIA.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

Because Phish claims to be using logic when he is using belief as a basis for his reasoning. I am pointing out to him the error of his ways.

So this is how you weasel out of producing these witnesses this time around? If only you could man up and stand behind your words with...proof of some kind.

Real easy to step in here after 100 pages. Names, testimony, links to witnesses, sources of further detailing, provided again and again.

Truthers avoid real evidence and testimony strenuously. Not sure what they require. Witnesses to come to their homes, swearing on stacks of bibles, bringing photographs, plane parts, body parts?

That's only if the evidence supports what they like to call the "Official Story"

Otherwise, if it supports some wild theory, anything said on an amateur conspiracy site, a Youtube video with dramatic music, slowed down frames and red arrows, is considered "Proof"

The Truther thing is no longer about finding the truth. It's about finding arguments to avoid the the hard reality there is no evidence for the
'Big Bad Government Did It' fantasy they've been carrying for 8 years.

Originally posted by pteridine
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.

Well, I called you a liar and a coward and I backed it up with proof that you lied and then so far have done every cowardly thing you can to NOT back up your own words.

Can you please PROVE that I am redundant, obtuse, unimaginative? Or are you just calling me names because you are an angry little boy that hates to have his lies pointed out?

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.

You really are a special kind of person. Um...yes I am questioning inconsistencies.

Yes I am. Good job.

Ill defined? Are you unclear as to what the OS is? I would be happy to explain the entire thing to you. I had it explained to me by Donald Rumsfeld and G.W. I cannot believe that after all this time, you are still out of the loop on that.

I am not afraid to commit to a theory. I am not afraid of anything.

Get something straight. YOU are here JUST TO PLAY THEORIST.

I am actually looking for the truth. I can make guesses all day long but that will not get me any closer to the truth. Instead I am looking at the evidence and proof available and letting the story form itself.

You can do all the theorizing you like. I actually care what really happened...but then again we have already had this conversation. You just like to pull a Jthomas and talk in circles to avoid having to actually answer any of the questions posed to you.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

I never said that there were hundreds of witnesses who saw the impact. The CIT crowd loves to play with that.

OK. Perhaps it was MMMMMichael that said it and not you. You said this

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

How many is all? Can you provide them? Remember, it has to be more than a couple since you are able to subtract "a few" and still have witnesses left over.

Originally posted by mmiichael
Real easy to step in here after 100 pages. Names, testimony, links to witnesses, sources of further detailing, provided again and again.

I did not just step in. I have been here reading all along. Sorry, princess but I call BS. If you had any of this anywhere, you would have just linked to it all to make me look really stupid.

You do not have it. All you have is your lie and then the angry assertion it is true. I wish I could at least say nice try but

reply to post by K J Gunderson


I provided a link, earlier, to witnesses that saw a plane hit the Pentagon. I looked for a list of witnesses to a flyover but didn't find one. Do you happen to have a link to a flyover witness list?

Originally posted by Lillydale

What is the principal force guiding sectional density?

INERTIA.

Inertia is a principle. It is the tendency of a body to resist acceleration.

Sectional density has no force term. It is total mass divided by the cross sectional area.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by mmiichael
Real easy to step in here after 100 pages. Names, testimony, links to witnesses, sources of further detailing, provided again and again.

I did not just step in. I have been here reading all along. Sorry, princess but I call BS. If you had any of this anywhere, you would have just linked to it all to make me look really stupid.

You do not have it. All you have is your lie and then the angry assertion it is true. I wish I could at least say nice try but

I don't believe you at all.

Have you checked out the testimonies reproduced here and the links to names and organizations provided half a dozen times?

Last line to you. It gets tiresome replying to conspiracy moonies too lazy to read anything longer than a video title.

Originally posted by mmiichael

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?

red herring (12) What I said is 100% valid. You can’t refute it which is why you are changing the subject.

Your messages are a parody of upside-down Truther Logic?

loaded question (13)

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

unlike you because you’re simply trolling? Haven’t you had enough? Or have you forgotten about that post where you gave up because you could not fight logic with your lies and insults?

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.

bare assertion (14) volumes of testimony? Where are these witnesses? Surely if there were so many witnesses you would have presented at least ONE in this thread to support your case. You haven’t presented anyone so how could I dismiss them? I’ve presented more witnesses for your case than you have.

The multiple corroborating testimonies,

What corroborating testimonies? All of the testimonies presented in this thread thus far; and there’s been over 20 of them; support a flyover and NOT a plane crash.

photographs,

There are photographs of flight 77 crashing into the pentagon? I think not. There are plenty of photographs that suggest that a 757 did not penetrate the pentagon though.

forensic evidence,

What forensic evidence? The light poles which prove a plane didn’t crash into the pentagon? Any other “forensic evidence” such as DNA could have been planted or doctored ex post facto.

DNA results,

There’s no evidence to suggest that the “DNA evidence” was procured from where they claim as a result of a plane crash in the first place. Don’t get ahead of yourself.

of Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon.

bare assertion (15) Waiting for you to present these reliable witnesses, photographs and forensic evidence you claim to have.

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.

bare assertion (16) what statements are conflicting or manipulated? You’ve provided no evidence for this.

appeal to motive(17) stop insisting that CIT is trying to make money off this, it’s making you look incredibly foolish. All of their videos are free for download on their website.

You obviously have not done even the most preliminary review of all the information on the Pentagon attack.

raising the bar (18) not relevant or necessary. It’s really simple.

If the plane did not knock down the light poles;
Which is proven by the 15 + corroborating reliable eyewitness accounts in this thread;
Then the plane could not have crashed in to the Pentagon;
No other information is necessary unless you have information which refutes this claim;
Which you don’t, because if you did, you would have presented it.

You have no qualification to make a statement on anything related.

appeal to authority (19)

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.

red herring (20) we’re discussing the impossibility of a plane crashing to the pentagon if it did not knock down the light poles and instead approached the Pentagon north of the citgo gas station. (Which has been proven beyond reasonable doubt)

Regardless of the fact that you are diverting this thread; someone claiming they did something is not proof that they did; nor is it proof that someone else didn’t help them or was complicit.

Originally posted by JPhish

we’re discussing the impossibility of a plane crashing to the pentagon if it did not knock down the light poles and instead approached the Pentagon north of the citgo gas station. (Which has been proven beyond reasonable doubt)

The NOC approach has not been proven at all. (79) CIT and their theory have little going for either. Their story reeks of inconsistency and poor logic and you are perpetrating their fantasy. You assume that it is true, reject all witnesses and physical evidence to the contrary and claim that it is proven. (147) Bad logic. Aquinas tried it and it didn't work for him either.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
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.

bare assertion (1) still waiting on that evidence.

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????

loaded question (2) I never said she didn’t exist. I claimed that pterdine and the unreliable website he referenced her from, presented no reliable evidence that she was a real person.

If you do provide evidence that she is in fact a real person (which I don’t doubt), she is now undoubtedly an unreliable witness for having a conflict of interest as I alluded to in a previous post.

wait, you're claiming that the SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTE's American History section as an UNRELIABLE website?



Are you serious?

The Smithsonian houses the biggest collection of 9/11 testimonies as well as debris from that day.

americanhistory.si.edu...

Penny Eglas' story is part of the collection. YOU dismiss her testimony because she worked for the Federal govt and that is all? How pathetic. YOU do realize what damn city this event took place in right? WASHINGTON D.C. Throw a stone into any crowd at DC and you will hit a person who works for some area of the government.


[edit on 3-12-2009 by RipCurl]

Originally posted by JPhish

red herring (12)

bare assertion (15)

appeal to motive(17)

raising the bar (18)

red herring (20)

You must realize a lot of us just hang around here in sheer awe and disbelief that people who can turn on a computer and type can be
unaware of the world around them.

The Pentagon was struck by a hijacked airliner Sept 11, 2001.

8 years later there are some people who were not there, who have not looked at material gathered on this event, but like to argue there is no proof.

They will continue to disbelieve. Just as there were people who once believed the Earth was flat, the world was created in 6000 BC, alien bodies were recovered in Roswell, New Mexico in 1947, there are demons hiding under their beds.

To try to carry on an intelligent exchange with these people is a sheer waste of time.

A scary aspect of this willful ignorance is knowing that if these people are ever in a serious situation involving the destruction of property, threat of injury, loss of life, they will lack the basic self-awareness to protect themselves or others.

If you're a hard core Truther lock your doors and stay out of bad neighbourhoods.

You never know when those government agents will try to get to you because you know what thy did.






[edit on 3-12-2009 by mmiichael]