9/11 Comprehensive Concise Evidence---please contribute

Originally posted by ipsedixit
This testimony and any other that indicates showers of debris or concussion waves from the "impact" are contraindicative of a plane crash, but rather evidence of an explosion. Fireball yes. Concussion wave no.

So your saying most explosions are preceded by witnesses seeing a jet, hearing the roar of jet engines and following the explosion being showered with plane debris?

That about right?

reply to post by Soloist

Re-read the part of my post that you quoted. Then you'll know what I was saying.

Edit: Look, I apologize for being snotty. (My dominatrix so happens to be a debunker, in fact she's an ex-Nazi. She doesn't think there was anything wrong with the Bush family aiding the Nazis during WW2 and she told me the next time I got out of line with a debunker, she was going to make me push a peanut up the road with my nose. So, I'm sorry, or as Crackhead Bob would put it "I am tarry.")

When a plane crashes there is no concussion wave unless the plane is carrying explosives. A concussion wave would indicate that something other than a plane crash occurred. Clear, . . . Sir?



[edit on 30-7-2010 by ipsedixit]

Originally posted by ipsedixit
When a plane crashes there is no concussion wave unless the plane is carrying explosives. A concussion wave would indicate that something other than a plane crash occurred. Clear, . . . Sir?

No, I'm afraid that is not clear at all.

From witnesses and survivors on the ground of PSA 182 Crash in 1978:

The initial impact sounded like a sonic boom. Moments later we felt the concussion of jet’s impact on the ground. It nearly blew out the apartment’s windows

He said the man had a high-pitched scream like a pig screech, He could actually hear that amongst the concussion and explosion. That sound and the sight put him in the hospital for almost six weeks due to mental issues. The flying man ended up impacting a car a couple houses down.

She was at the Salvation Army store on University Avenue, about a mile away, when the accident occurred. That close, the sound and the concussion were almost simultaneous

From the crash of a C-114 in Montana in 2007:

As the two separated, the third plane kind of nosed up, turned slightly on its wing and went straight down. We looked for a parachute; we didn’t see a parachute,” Dart said. “There was just a dull thud. There was a concussion wave that hit us

No explosives, and no reason for the witnesses to lie.

I'm appears your claim doesn't hold water.

Originally posted by Soloist
No explosives, and no reason for the witnesses to lie.

I'm appears your claim doesn't hold water.

There is no reason to say that David Copperfield walked through the Great Wall of China. There is no reason to say that Chris Angel put his hand right through the glass wall of an aquarium and pulled out something that was inside it. There is no reason to say that stage magicians have pulled thousands of dollars worth of quarters out of children's ears.

Oh wait a minute . . . there is a reason. People were fooled into thinking those things happened.

Sorry, I forgot about illusions and delusions.

That's what happened at the Pentagon. People were fooled into thinking there was an airliner crash there. But their own testimony of a "concussion wave" during the incident demonstrates that they were fooled. When planes crash they don't create concussion waves.

It's very simple and easy to prove by looking at any number of plane crash videos on YouTube. Lots of fireballs. No concussion waves. Conversely, videos of explosions often if not always show the concussion wave clearly if the camera is far enough away.

Anyone can prove this for themselves.

There are probably large numbers of people who believe the official version of the Pentagon incident but are actually witnesses to a different version and demonstrate it in their testimony.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
Sorry, I forgot about illusions and delusions.

That's what happened at the Pentagon. People were fooled into thinking there was an airliner crash there.

What you fail to realize is that for a magicians illusion to work properly he must be able to have control of his audiences field of view. This is not possible in the general public in a setting as large as the Pentagon, where many people from all sides of the event all report the same thing, the jet crashed into the building.

Not one person ever has seen the jet flying over the Pentagon, nor was it caught on the DoubleTree video.

This whole argument is illogical and totally bunk.

But their own testimony of a "concussion wave" during the incident demonstrates that they were fooled. When planes crash they don't create concussion waves. It's very simple and easy to prove by looking at any number of plane crash videos on YouTube.

Sorry, but I'll believe the testimony of witnesses to other plane crashes that I've quoted in the post above who disagree with you.

That means much more than your interpretation of some YouTube video.

Once again, your claim has been proven false.

If the 127 ton American Airline jet managed to hit the side of the Pentagon. I say "if" because you just can't trust anything these days. The Pentagon is reinforced concrete with cement pillars designed to be almost indestructible. It is more than possible that the plane disintegrated and their would very likely be a huge explosion due to the kinetic energy. And their would very likely be a concussion wave.

But many pilots are saying the OS just doesn't fit the Flight Data Recorder Analysis.

www.pilotsfor911truth.org...

[edit on 31-7-2010 by Doctor Smith]

reply to post by mikelee

Since you are bragging, yes I have seen plenty of heads buried in the sand, that is well demonstrated in here don’t you think. I love it, all these debunkers giving their opinions to what they think is true, yet they do not like to post sources to back their claims. The hateful insults are what I find so intriguing towards all the Truthers in here. Yet the debunkers want to call giving their opinions factual debating, what a joke.

reply to post by impressme


Not bragging, just stating the facts. Have a nice day.

reply to post by Soloist

I hate to be overly demanding, but could you please list your sources for the quotations that you have cited describing the other plane crashes? I want to subject them to a rigorous and withering probe for weakness.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
I hate to be overly demanding, but could you please list your sources for the quotations that you have cited describing the other plane crashes? I want to subject them to a rigorous and withering probe for weakness.

Pilot killed in Snowbirds plane crash

PSA Crash in 1978

It seems you have come to a pre-determined incorrect conclusion already. Witnesses at the Pentagon claim it happened, witnesses at the WTC claim it happened, and witnesses of other plane crashes claim it happened. Now above you have a truther saying that it would have happened. You seem to be the only one here claiming a plane crash will not cause a concussion wave, because you saw some youtube videos.

You have been clearly proven wrong in your statements.

The question is, will you stick with it, or admit your error?

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by Soloist
From witnesses and survivors on the ground of PSA 182 Crash in 1978:

The initial impact sounded like a sonic boom. Moments later we felt the concussion of jet’s impact on the ground. It nearly blew out the apartment’s windows

I'm trying to locate this quote. There are many blog entry style quotes on the page you cited and without the name of the person quoted it is difficult to find the ones you are using without reading every one.

My quote from "Irish" (near the end of this post), an NTSB investigator who was on this crash investigation explains a lot, perhaps including the experience of the person quoted above.

This crash, according to Irish, was highly unusual. One of your quotes also illustrates this.

He said the man had a high-pitched scream like a pig screech, He could actually hear that amongst the concussion and explosion. That sound and the sight put him in the hospital for almost six weeks due to mental issues. The flying man ended up impacting a car a couple houses down.

A lot of your quotes use the word "concussion" to mean the plane's impact with the ground, not a concussion wave and use the word explosion to mean break up on impact and ignition of the plane's fuel. They say that they could feel that process. I'm sure if they were close enough they could.

Some of the witnesses to this crash say they felt what they thought was an earthquake. Others, who were only a block or two from the crash don't report feeling any sort of impact. The reason for this might be found in the quote from "Irish" at the end of this post.

This witness (quote above) however, doesn't mention feeling those things. (Perhaps a completely understandable oversight.)

Anything heavy enough hitting the ground hard enough is going to shake the ground to a certain extent. The sudden ignition of a large spray of fuel is also going to cause some physical compression of the air, but not to the degree that is being testified to by witnesses at the Pentagon.

She was at the Salvation Army store on University Avenue, about a mile away, when the accident occurred. That close, the sound and the concussion were almost simultaneous

This person can't be using the word concussion in the sense that I mean it. Also, at a mile distant there is no way that a concussion (impact) would be nearly simultaneous with the sound.

She was "at" a store a mile away. She heard a sound. The sonic boom like sound of the collision in the air?

What exactly this person is referring to is not clear. Was she in the store? In front of the store?

This is not a useful testimony without clarification.

[From the crash of a C-114 in Montana in 2007:

ex]As the two separated, the third plane kind of nosed up, turned slightly on its wing and went straight down. We looked for a parachute; we didn’t see a parachute,” Dart said. “There was just a dull thud. There was a concussion wave that hit us

You did cite the source for a witness to the crash of a Snowbirds plane, who was parked by the highway and says he felt a concussion wave. (Apologies, I put this post together in a rush.) Are we sure he didn't feel the air turbulence of a truck passing him on the highway?

Here is his quote:

“There was just a dull thud. There was a concussion wave that hit us. You could feel it ... It’s like somebody just hit you with an air gun.

The "Tutor" is a small jet, which in this case had just "nosed up" then dropped out of the sky with a thud. This "concussion wave", so called would have to be caused by air compression caused by expansion of hot gases of burning fuel.

I find myself questioning the accuracy of what this witness is saying. I don't know how far he was from the crash but I suspect that many witnesses at distances from crashes where explosives were not involved, confuse the effect of radient heat first hitting them with an airborne concussion wave as one would have in an explosive detonation.

I'm not trying to be glib here. I think that the question of highway turbulence from traffic might also be reasonably be considered in this case.

Just to make it clearer where I am coming from, the ground at the Pentagon, including the floor of the building, at ground level, is virtually unscathed. That leads one to believe that, assuming an aircraft impact, the building seems to have taken the weight of the impact.

Any ground shaking felt would have been transmitted by the supports of the Pentagon into the ground. many of these supports, either were not impacted at all or were severed and would have dissipated force partially into the severed portion, much like a crashing racecar.

So where is the earth shaking impact coming from? Remember, this aircraft is supposed to have hit almost horizontally. Also, it is according to "witnesses" supposed to have been swallowed by the building, which would of necessity also swallow much of the air compression caused by expansion of the fireball.

If you accept the "five frames" of the Pentagon security camera photos released as genuine, you don't really see a gigantic fireball capable of generating the sort of air compression spoken about by witnesses.

If you accept that there was no hard impact with the actual ground, supported by no damage to the actual ground, then we are talking about an airborne dissipation of energy that should be discernable only within a very narrow radius directly facing the "impact" area. The building would either absorb or shield energy dissipating through at least fifty percent of a circle.

You need to be a technical expert on wave propagation to really discuss this sort of thing intelligently.

The PSA crash that you cite was an unusual one, though, and may not be typical of the normal sort of crash.

Here is "Irish" on the page you cited:

However, PSA 182 was eerily differnt on many levels. As a former NTSB investigator assisting in the disaster, albeit early in my career, we discovered a number of extraordinary occurences on several levels.

The aircraft impacted at a near 60 degree angle, nose to the right if you will, approximatley 30 feet to the left of Dwight Street, striking a house roof top. Disintegration began miliseconds later as the nose came into contact with the home’s concrete garage floor. This caused the lefy side of the airframe to “blow out” if you will like popping a plastic shopping bag. Passengers on that side of the airframe were distributed outward and upward across a 60 degree field of dispersion in excess of 200 miles per hours.

That would be highly unusual in a plane crash. It might well mimic the effects of the detonation of explosives in some aspects and last but not least is nothing like the Pentagon "crash".

My bottom line would be that even granting the existence of airborne concussion waves associated with crashes of airliners, (a point I don't grant except in special cases like the one described by "Irish"), citing that sort of thing as evidence of a plane crash at the Pentagon is at best ambiguous, since concussion waves are definitely associated with detonating explosives.

A statement like, "I know a plane crashed at the Pentagon because I felt the concussion wave." would have to be ammended as follows, " I know that either a plane crashed at the Pentagon or some explosive was detonated there, because I felt the concussion wave."

The idea that air compression caused by burning jet fuel at the Pentagon would cause a vehicle to rock on the highway nearby as one witness claims, is not believeable.


[edit on 2-8-2010 by ipsedixit]

Those are not my words, they are the accounts of witnesses who were there. As I said, I will take them all above a truthers belief in youtube videos.

You can try and twist it to fit your theory all you like, but you're still wrong.


The fact remains that people actually witnessed the jet from vastly different angles, and no one saw the jet "fly over" the Pentagon.

Not one.

Originally posted by Soloist
Those are not my words, they are the accounts of witnesses who were there. As I said, I will take them all above a truthers belief in youtube videos.

I'm trying to appreciate what these words mean. I don't take anybody's testimony for granted. There is a lot of variation in testimony regarding PSA 182 and according to the NTSB investigator the circumstances were highly unusual in that case.

You can try and twist it to fit your theory all you like, but you're still wrong.

When you light a match do you feel the compression wave as it ignites? or do you feel radiant heat? I'm not trying to twist anything. These are important questions.

The fact remains that people actually witnessed the jet from vastly different angles, and no one saw the jet "fly over" the Pentagon.

There is a lot of variation in what witnesses saw at the Pentagon. One witness saw an aircraft flying away from the building on the opposite side from the impact nowhere near where the "shadowing" C-130 flew.

Other witnesses, including one police officer who says there is no chance he was wrong about this, saw the plane approach north of the Citgo gas station and on a trajectory which would make the light pole damage and the building damage unattributable to this plane.

The fact that this took place a stone's throw from Washington National Airport would make the presence of a low flying aircraft leaving the scene of the crime an easily dismissable "coincidence" for most people, anyway.

This has already been argued up, down and sideways, but most people would have been looking at the smoke and fire and that in turn would have masked the departure of the overflying aircraft for people on the highway in front of the Pentagon.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
I'm trying to appreciate what these words mean.

No you're not. You're trying to argue because you've been proven wrong.

When you light a match do you feel the compression wave as it ignites? or do you feel radiant heat?

This has got to be one of the silliest comparisons a truther has made in a LONG time.

Does the match weigh over 250,000 lbs. ?
Is the match traveling at over 300 mph while it impacts a building?

If not, then it's not a comparison.

I'm not trying to twist anything.

It's quite obvious that you just did.

These are important questions.

They're not even valid questions, much less important ones.

There is a lot of variation in what witnesses saw at the Pentagon. One witness saw an aircraft flying away from the building on the opposite side from the impact nowhere near where the "shadowing" C-130 flew.

The only other plane in the vicinity, which has been caught on tape right after the crash while tailing the jet WAS the C-130.

Aldo: So you- you heard the explosion and ten seconds later you were outside and you were able to see that plane?

Roosevelt: Correct. You could see that plane just as clear as day. Couldn't miss it.

10 seconds. Think about that REAL hard. Was the plane just hovering over the Pentagon during those 10 seconds when he supposedly saw it over the Parking lot?

At a conservative estimate of roughly 300mph, the plane would have been almost a mile away in 10 seconds.

Roosevelt: Yes, sir, that's not what I think: I saw it. It was two aircraft. That's for sure.

He said it himself, he saw the second plane.

Other witnesses, including one police officer who says there is no chance he was wrong about this, saw the plane approach north of the Citgo gas station and on a trajectory which would make the light pole damage and the building damage unattributable to this plane.

The same officer that wasn't even sure where he was positioned that day?
Still, it's funny how they all say they are sure the plane impacted the building as well. Seems MUCH more likely they were focused on the tragedy unfolding then exact coordinates of the flight path.

but most people would have been looking at the smoke and fire and that in turn would have masked the departure of the overflying aircraft for people on the highway in front of the Pentagon.

Hmm, I think the witnesses disagree with your assessment. You have failed to explain how witnesses viewing the event from the opposite side of the smoke and fire still report the same thing.

Wow, that must have been some magic trick

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by ipsedixit
I'm trying to appreciate what these words mean.

No you're not. You're trying to argue because you've been proven wrong.

Don't cash in your chips just yet, Bud.

When you light a match do you feel the compression wave as it ignites? or do you feel radiant heat?

This has got to be one of the silliest comparisons a truther has made in a LONG time.

Does the match weigh over 250,000 lbs. ?
Is the match traveling at over 300 mph while it impacts a building?

If not, then it's not a comparison.

It is in your face though. It's an example of a scaled experiment and it is valid. Burning fuel is not going to start a vehicle rocking near the Pentagon.

I'm not trying to twist anything.

It's quite obvious that you just did.

I stand by what I've written and I'm certainly not going to accept your dubious value judgement on it.

These are important questions.

They're not even valid questions, much less important ones.

They are only important to people who value the United States. If you are one of those "proud to be an Americans" who delivered the country into the hands of the greatest criminal enabler in its history, for two consecutive terms of mayhem on every front, I can see why you might not be interested in addressing these questions.

There is a lot of variation in what witnesses saw at the Pentagon. One witness saw an aircraft flying away from the building on the opposite side from the impact nowhere near where the "shadowing" C-130 flew.

The only other plane in the vicinity, which has been caught on tape right after the crash while tailing the jet WAS the C-130.

Aldo: So you- you heard the explosion and ten seconds later you were outside and you were able to see that plane?

Roosevelt: Correct. You could see that plane just as clear as day. Couldn't miss it.

Except the C-130 wasn't flying at a low altitude away from the Pentagon.

10 seconds. Think about that REAL hard. Was the plane just hovering over the Pentagon during those 10 seconds when he supposedly saw it over the Parking lot?

At a conservative estimate of roughly 300mph, the plane would have been almost a mile away in 10 seconds.

Think about 5 seconds real hard and 200 miles per hour, a speed that would mimic an aircraft landing speed or take off speed. Using those figures as parameters, the plane would be roughly 500 yards from the point of the Pentagon explosion.

Roosevelt: Yes, sir, that's not what I think: I saw it. It was two aircraft. That's for sure.

He said it himself, he saw the second plane.

Did he see the first plane? No. He assumed that the "first plane" crashed into the Pentagon. He didn't see the C-130, because it wasn't where he saw his "second plane".

What he thought was the second plane was actually the first plane, leaving the scene.

The one that didn't crash into the Pentagon.

Other witnesses, including one police officer who says there is no chance he was wrong about this, saw the plane approach north of the Citgo gas station and on a trajectory which would make the light pole damage and the building damage unattributable to this plane.

The same officer that wasn't even sure where he was positioned that day?[

Whose twisting what now? He wasn't sure which set of gas pumps his car was at, not which side of the station he saw the plane on. And his testimony was backed up by another cop a couple of hundred feet away and by the station attendant.

That plane flew north of Citgo and there is no doubt about it.

Still, it's funny how they all say they are sure the plane impacted the building as well.

That would only be funny to one of the perps.

Seems MUCH more likely they were focused on the tragedy unfolding then exact coordinates of the flight path.

No tragedy had occurred near them at that point. At that point they simply saw a low flying airplane and weren't the least bit confused about where they saw it.

but most people would have been looking at the smoke and fire and that in turn would have masked the departure of the overflying aircraft for people on the highway in front of the Pentagon.

Hmm, I think the witnesses disagree with your assessment. You have failed to explain how witnesses viewing the event from the opposite side of the smoke and fire still report the same thing.

Witnesses on the opposite sides of the smoke and fire couldn't possibly see the same things no matter what happened. In any event there is quite a variation of detail in what was reported, not to mention a huge discrepancy in where people reported seeing the plane.

Wow, that must have been some magic trick

Posted like a perp.

[edit on 3-8-2010 by ipsedixit]

reply to post by ipsedixit


Can I just clarify?

You're actually accusing Soloist of being involved in the 9/11 conspiracy?

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

I'm more than happy to clarify for you. Get a dictionary and look up the word simile. Then re-read my post. It should all come clear.

You do realise that a simile compares things that are unalike, except in the respect to which they are being compared? you haven't used one above. Rather you've implied that he either is a "perpetrator" or makes posts like one.

Note that simply using the word "like" doesn't create a simile - it's a fairly specific type of construction deigned to draw out one aspect of the thing compared.