Explosive 9/11 Documentary About To Air On Public Television In United States

Originally posted by totallackey

Because the object in question was traveling at a very high rate of speed. Much faster than would be at a regular landing speed (i.e., 250 mph is typical landing speed). An object traveling over 500 mph would be very difficult to identify.

You didn't just say that, did you?

Are you saying that every time I see a plane flying overhead, there is a good chance I am not correct in my assertion that it is indeed a plane?

There are many things one might choose to argue regarding the Pentagon and 9/11, but this is definitely not one of them! You can talk implosions all day long, and since I'm no expert on implosions, I can roll with maybe you are right, maybe you are not. You can roll out with wondering what the government knew ahead of time, and again, you might be right. However, questioning anyone's ability to identify an airplane in flight is ridiculous. Even at double the speed of a routine landing (if 250 mph is the typical speed), an airplane can easily be identified correctly.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by Fluffaluffagous

 

No, they are not.

Ohhh, naughty naughty. The only 500 MPH object that every eyewitness would ever uniformly identify as a plane is in fact a plane.

Oh naughty, naughty...no they would not...there are other objects capable of traveling 500mph that resemble planes, but indeed are not planes...Until there is objective corroborating evidence, these witnesses are just that...unreliable.

reply to post by usernameconspiracy

You didn't just say that, did you? Are you saying that every time I see a plane flying overhead, there is a good chance I am not correct in my assertion that it is indeed a plane? There are many things one might choose to argue regarding the Pentagon and 9/11, but this is definitely not one of them! You can talk implosions all day long, and since I'm no expert on implosions, I can roll with maybe you are right, maybe you are not. You can roll out with wondering what the government knew ahead of time, and again, you might be right. However, questioning anyone's ability to identify an airplane in flight is ridiculous. Even at double the speed of a routine landing (if 250 mph is the typical speed), an airplane can easily be identified correctly.

Do you have a list of all the witnesses? Do you know ages, health, measured eyesight, angle of view, weather conditions, etc., were that day? Where were they positioned? Now, do you have objective corroborating evidence to support their testimony? Yes or no. Simple question. If you do not, then the issue is no longer up for discussion.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by maxella1

Is this a fact or is it what you think is true?

You are free to try and disprove the claim. What other very large 500MPH object would ever be universally be confused with a plane?

I heard somewhere that ...yep, and we here in the states have something called, "the burden of proof is on the accuser". Good luck proving it!
"This is the first thing to came up in a search "

The only 500 MPH object that every eyewitness would ever uniformly identify as a plane is in fact a plane.

I didn't make the claim that [ the only 500 mph object ...] So good luck proving it..

reply to post by GoodOlDave

You're changing your story and you know it. You said there was a very good reason to aim a security camera at a SECLUDED brick wall

And secluded brick wall too Dave.

We get every move monitored by the feds regardless of who we are ( good or Bad). So why is it such a crazy thing to expect the Pentagon to aim cameras at a wall?

reply to post by GoodOlDave

The eyewitness testimony of the firefighters who were physically there (I.E. Deputy fire chief Peter Hayden) shows they saw massive deformations in the side of the structure where the fires were burning out of control, and they knew the building was going to collapse hours ahead of time from the creaking noises the building as making, Nice try.

And from the video evidence we have of the building, kindly point out these "massive deformations." Thanks. And I find it quite convenient your adjectives turn from "really loud BANGs," to "creaking noises." WHICH WAS IT!?!?!

I either did not see it, or I had posted it elsewhere and you didn't see it, but no matter. Since I have your attention now, here it is. Here's the original video that NIST used in its analysis: YouTube Link

I do not want to see another conspiracy based video...I want you to tell me how the video you present (supposedly showing the missing snippet) substantially and objectively differs from that presented in the documentary. I can see no objective difference. As a matter of fact, the entire documentary viewed for free here, shows multiple angles of the building coming down from the beginning. What has Gage eliminated? Watch from 45:07 to approx 47:00 on the documentary. Tom Sullivan clearly states he saw the penthouse portion of the collapse at 46:04 (approx). Your claim that Gage has "snipped," the video is FALSE. At 47:53 the exact same footage you present is IN THE DOCUMENTARY!!! Please stop posting falsehoods Dave. Thank you.

The documentary brings up an interesting point. Why do you think NIST is refusing to release the computer model parameters that were used? That is a simple question.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

You're being conspicuously artful in your responses again. Yes, there's 24/7 surveillance...OF AREAS WHERE PEOPLE WOULD BE, like the entrance, the parking lot, and that security gate where that photo came from. Do you genuinely expect they are going to aim security cameras at every garbage can, blade of grass, and every blank brick wall for no reason? Or are you saying you demandd to see security footage of people all looking at something off camera to prove it was a plane? This is nothing but desperate excuse making and you know it.

No, what I am saying it is one of the more secure buildings and areas in the world. It always has been. Cameras would not be pointed directly at walls, but would be placed in key points to provide unobstructed views of all exterior activity. That is all I am saying. Got any objective corroborating evidence to back up the eyewitness testimony? Or does it show a sperm whale going through the side of the building?

reply to post by GoodOlDave

You were proven wrong and you know it. Get on with your life already.

Can't believe I missed this line..

I'm not the one coming here to ONLY show you that you are wrong, but you do... Take your own advice Dave and get on with your life already. You were proven wrong many, many times, and everybody knows it.

reply to post by thedman


YEAH!!! Similar to this guy!
www.miaminewtimes.com...
www.sourcewatch.org...

reply to post by longlostbrother

Well a few birthers claim to see them, randomly, in some videos, but no witnesses on the day did.

And here is evidence of argumentum ad hominem, something the site expressly forbids...

reply to post by longlostbrother

You say there was audible explosions? Yes, but not the hundreds necessary to bring down a sky scrapper...

And here we have an admission it takes hundreds of explosions to bring down skyscrapers...

reply to post by longlostbrother

I've never once seen a OS believer claim jet fuel buned for a month. That would be crazy.

What was burning for a month?

This statement from the NIST report on WTC 7 condemns the report as bogus:

“As defined in NIST's Information Quality Standards, “Objectivity consists of two distinct elements: presentation and substance. The presentation element includes whether disseminated information is presented in an accurate, clear, complete, and unbiased manner and in a proper context. The substance element involves a focus on ensuring accurate, reliable, and unbiased information.” - Gann, R. G.; Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (NIST NCSTAR 1A) November 20, 2008, preface p.xxx (emphasis mine)

Given the fact the report clearly admits assumptions were utilized in coming to the final conclusion and given the fact they have yet to release any of their initial data sets utilized in the computer modeling, it is clear NIST is failing to meet their own standards concerning Information Quality.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

No Dave...he is claiming there are NO secluded areas, nor would there be any expected areas surrounding the Pentagon, that would be treated as secluded. That is what he is claiming...Understand?

reply to post by GoodOlDave


I reiterate...Do not show me any piece of crap reenactments. Do you have objective corroborating evidence or not?

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Dave...Oh Dave...

You forgot to address these points...Please do so at your earliest convenience. You have made claims concerning Richard Gage and you need to support them:

1) Do you have evidence the engineers and architects in question were shown the documentary in advance of the final cut?
2) Do you have evidence indicating the architects and engineers were incapable of viewing the events as they took place that day?
3) Do you have evidence these people are capable of being deceived while you are not?

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

No Dave...he is claiming there are NO secluded areas, nor would there be any expected areas surrounding the Pentagon, that would be treated as secluded. That is what he is claiming...Understand?

Yeah that's exactly what I was trying to say.. But you put it into words better !

reply to post by totallackey

You forgot to address these points...Please do so at your earliest convenience. You have made claims concerning Richard Gage and you need to support them:

He has a tendency of forgetting things... It almost seems like there's more than one GoodolDave and they don't share information amongst themselves... you know like the FBI and CIA didn't share Intel with each other.

Originally posted by maxella1
I heard somewhere that ...yep, and we here in the states have something called, "the burden of proof is on the accuser". Good luck proving it!
"This is the first thing to came up in a search "

BZZZZT!!! Wrong answer. We're not trying to prove that it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon, You are. I'm not the one saying it's impossible for people to identify a plane shaped object flying at 500 MPH. You are. It's not my obligation to disprove your claim. It's your obligation to prove it.

While you're mulling that one over, feel free to browse the list of identified witnesses. ALL of them said it was a plane they specifcally saw.

9/11 Pentagon eyewitnesses

Are you one of those "Pilots for 9/11 truth" characters who caused the 9/11 forem to be locked? Your single minded disregard of all the concrete evidence in favor of your own undocumented and unprovable theories strikes me as being rather orchestrated.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Funny...The US Government made the claim. No one here made any claims. I have been asking for objective corroborating evidence for the Pentagon...what are we offered?

(sound of crickets)...