Military Professionals Dispute 911

reply to post by Sean48


Indeed Sean. I have added you to my friends BTW I have seen you posting on multiple threads and can say I agree 99.9 percent of what you post (very informed member :up. I don't think you will get many of the regular debunkers on here they seem to have gone into hiding?

They have performed crash tests of planes. At speed the planes are pulverized:



But the those jets full of fuel would have made one heck of an explosion:



When I compare the pics of the site pre-collapse I have a hard time believing a big jet crashed... looks more like the small jet.

So I see both sides of this argument, the jet might have been pulverized and thus less remaining debris, but it still does not look like a big jet crash/explosion on the pre-collapse building.

I am trying to look at both sides and have not reached a conclusion so don't call me a truther or OS persion.

My biggest question remains... WHERE ARE THE BLACK BOXES?

edit - fix link

[edit on 31-1-2010 by pianopraze]

reply to post by Sean48

Where are the usual 5 or 6 OS peeps , that attend all new threads ,

and try to shoot them down ?

They haven't made 1 peep in this thread .

That's very telling by itself.....

Some of the "peeps"

Some more "peeps"

Might be busy, some of them....

U.S.S. Liberty
Third line...

[edit on 31-1-2010 by 1SawSomeThings]

reply to post by Sean48

" In all my years of direct and indirect particapation, I never witnessed or even heard of a aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft

The really interesting part about Col. Nelson, is that he is retired and had absolutely NOTHING to do with the investigation at the Pentagon. No access the the crash site, no access to the reports, no access to anything OTHER than what he read on the Internet. His quote above, has absolutely no relationship to Flight 77 since the investigators had all the information they needed to identify the plane involved. He is just upset that he wasnt asked to help investigate.

Great thread, however there are many spelling errors in the OP.


Fix that.

Originally posted by Sean48
reply to post by WarloriousCreed

 

The FBI confiscated film from a total of 80 camera's ,80.

What we got shown was nothing, better CGI in the UFO section.

Well that in and of itself is pretty hardcore evidence. Thats worse than David Kelly's knife not having any fingerprints on it.

Originally posted by Sean48
Major General Albert Stubblebine, US Army (ret)
Interviewer : " So , on Sept 11 2001 , What hit the Pentagon ?"

Stubblebine : " I don't know exactly what hit it , but I do know, from the photographs that I have analyzed , and looked at very, very carefully, it was not a airplane ."

"Up until the time I looked at the photographs, I accepted what was being said, After I looked at the Photographs...NO WAY.."

. patriotsquestion911.com...

Swampy

He clearly says "I looked at the photographs."

Kinda lame for you to assume where he got his information from.

Thomas kuhn supposed that all scientific investigation takes place with in a paradigm or theoretical framework that determines the questions that are worth asking and what methods are used to answer it.

Basic approach
Kuhn's approach to the history and philosophy of science has been described as focusing on conceptual issues: what sorts of ideas were thinkable at a particular time? What sorts of intellectual options and strategies were available to people during a given period?
en.wikipedia.org...

My idea is that just because a military person was interviewed that couldn't fly that way doesn't mean that it is not possible. Without knowledge of conceptual issues of flying, how could anyone even agree or disagree?

Originally posted by bookreader

My idea is that just because a military person was interviewed that couldn't fly that way doesn't mean that it is not possible. Without knowledge of conceptual issues of flying, how could anyone even agree or disagree?

I'm all for science , and different approaches.

But we are talking about a guy , who his flight school instructor called,

"a nice guy , but a terrible pilot" THIS on a Cessna, CESSNA

Now , guy who was a TOP GUN on fighters, trained fighter pilots.

Then spent 6000 hrs on 757, 767 saying he couldn't do the manover's.

I think the Science is ok on this one.

reply to post by sciemus

I'm saying in those pictures you simply can't see it because it is mostly inside the Pentagon, and I didn't provide any really good photos from inside the Pentagon.

Don't bother. 9/11 was a long time ago. All of those pictures have been seen before. Furthermore, I've seen the pictures from the impact itself. Not enough debris. AT ALL.

f the plane, say, impacted the ground before it hit the Pentagon, it would be reasonable to expect debris outside the Pentagon. But it didn't, so there's no reason any significant amount of debris should have been found outside the Pentagon.

You see, your argument falls flat on its face.

If the aircraft didn't hit the ground before the impact in the pentagon, that means that ALL of the "aircraft" hit pentagon, thus, it's impossible to have just a few pieces of debris.

Plus, they call you stupid by showing you their staff picking up the debris. I mean, one side you say "oh, there are no debris because they were all melted in the blast, and the momentum was so massive that all the fuselage disappeared inside the Pentagon".

So, let me ask you this: If the impact was so strong that made the aircraft VANISH, why the hell do we have OUTSIDE pieces of the fuselage, conveniently identifying the company (one logo, colors, etc), WITH NO EVIDENCE of burn marks?

You see, I have an airliner pilot license and have some(years) experience, and we study this kind of stuff while on the course, and when we study when a aircraft hits the ground (for example, for controlled hard landings) we also study how the aircraft reacts to the impact.

Funny that the debris showed in the pictures, have nothing to do with the type of impact that the OS claims to be.

A small amount might be a short distance behind the point of impact. No matter has disappeared. It is simply not visible in commonly cited photos.

Wrong. There are pictures of the entry point, pictures taken aiming at the center of the hole, and pictures of the exit hole. NONE of which show significant debris. Not even for a jet fighter, let alone an airliner (I think you are dismissing too quickly the size of this things).

And I never said nor gave a picture of the (not) fact that all the debris was able to be picked up by hand. There were fairly complete sections of a turbofan, not something you could just pick up, even in part.

fairly complete sections of a turbofan?

This is a turbofan:



What they are showing is this:



and this:



Are you getting the joke? Not only it doesn't resemble to the model used in the aircraft in question, but it is also showed with parts showing that are not supposed to be visible.

Those things are MASSIVE, they can keep an aircraft up in the air alone, and they can handle that pressure and stress. All over the world airplanes crash and the engine is almost intact, even with tremendous impacts. Yet, this is what appears in photographs.

i was reading that some credible sources (intelligence agency's vet's) were at first skeptical of the inside job stuff....and then they (being pro's) looked closely at the alternative theory's and investigated them and TRIED to disprove them but they couldn't....and they slowly but surely became believers of the conspiracy

reply to post by sciemus

All that said,then,why did they omit to mention BDG 7?
Why omit the collapse?
Unimportant,perhaps? Coinciden-cie?

reply to post by bookreader

The pros quibble.''Was the door closed the entire time?"or"What was the barometric pressure,etc?"That sort of thing.We mehumes have little to add to that.
When a thing is flat out impossible,beyond the bounds of reason by factors of magnitude,even a person who has only heard a plane land nearby can have a say.
"That thing is HUGE!" or "Look at how that wind from the engines is really blowing stuff"Then a little reading tells of ground effects and it becomes even more beyond the pale.Or a Miracle.Do you give the credit,then to ALLAH?

reply to post by Sean48


Photographs he got off the internet. Kinda lame for you to assume he had access to any of the official investigation.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Sean48

 

Photographs he got off the internet. Kinda lame for you to assume he had access to any of the official investigation.

Although you can't say for sure where the photo's came from, we could go
back and forth forever.

I'm going to say with his Expertise, it doesn't matter if they came from
the internet , or Rumsfield's Photo Album.

The man says NO PLANE.

He is the EXPERT, Military Trained.

This is an amazing thread.. I appreciate you bringing this topic to our attention. It is wonderful to see people looking for answers.

Originally posted by Tifozi
You see, your argument falls flat on its face.

If the aircraft didn't hit the ground before the impact in the pentagon, that means that ALL of the "aircraft" hit pentagon, thus, it's impossible to have just a few pieces of debris.

Plus, they call you stupid by showing you their staff picking up the debris. I mean, one side you say "oh, there are no debris because they were all melted in the blast, and the momentum was so massive that all the fuselage disappeared inside the Pentagon".

They immediately after the crash began collecting debris as evidence. Again, you're not really thinking about the timeline of the photos, but since you seem to want to discount them as valid pieces of evidence, I think we've reached an impasse at this part of the argument.

Originally posted by Tifozi
So, let me ask you this: If the impact was so strong that made the aircraft VANISH, why the hell do we have OUTSIDE pieces of the fuselage, conveniently identifying the company (one logo, colors, etc), WITH NO EVIDENCE of burn marks?

Because not every piece of metal was involved in the fire? It's quite possible and has happened at many other crashes. Japan Airlines 123, for example, crashed into the side of the mountain and caught fire, but if you look through the photographic evidence, there are many pieces that weren't touched by fire.

Originally posted by Tifozi
You see, I have an airliner pilot license and have some(years) experience, and we study this kind of stuff while on the course, and when we study when a aircraft hits the ground (for example, for controlled hard landings) we also study how the aircraft reacts to the impact.

Funny that the debris showed in the pictures, have nothing to do with the type of impact that the OS claims to be.

I can't argue against this, but you don't give me anything to argue about.

Originally posted by Tifozi
Wrong. There are pictures of the entry point, pictures taken aiming at the center of the hole, and pictures of the exit hole. NONE of which show significant debris. Not even for a jet fighter, let alone an airliner (I think you are dismissing too quickly the size of this things).

Again, I think you're not giving enough credit to the timing of the pictures.

Originally posted by Tifozi
fairly complete sections of a turbofan?

This is a turbofan:



What they are showing is this:



and this:



Are you getting the joke? Not only it doesn't resemble to the model used in the aircraft in question, but it is also showed with parts showing that are not supposed to be visible.

You're implying that that first piece has to be the very front of the tubrofan, the fan, and not a component part, like a rotary disk. Because it looks an awful lot like a rotary disk, rather than any kind of fan that is visible in an assembled turbofan. See: www.aerospaceweb.org...