Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9094 total)
4 online now:
Kleinman, PaulK, Phat (3 members, 1 visitor)
Newest Member: d3r31nz1g3
Upcoming Birthdays: Raphael
Post Volume: Total: 901,286 Year: 12,398/6,534 Month: 1,891/1,988 Week: 12/460 Day: 12/60 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Conspiracy Theories: It's all in your mind!
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 474 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 8 of 137 (699908)
05-28-2013 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Straggler
05-28-2013 7:38 AM


Re: Conspiratorial Conspiracy Theory
I have a theory that the sheer number of conspiracy theories around is part of a conspiracy to divert attention from conspiracies. I call this the conspiratorial conspiracy theory.
That's just what They want you to think.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Straggler, posted 05-28-2013 7:38 AM Straggler has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 474 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 9 of 137 (699913)
05-28-2013 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Dogmafood
05-28-2013 1:49 AM


Re: How can you tell?
How is it that they can identify the Boston bombers in a matter of hours and they can not produce a single picture of jet plane colliding with the pentagon? The pentagon has to be one of the most heavily CCTV'd buildings in the world. How is that possible?
But they did produce the pictures. They were exhibit P200022 in the Moussaoui trial, consisting of footage of of Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon as taken by two security cameras in the Pentagon parking lot.
---
Another question would be, if there weren't any pictures, would that be more consistent with (a) the hypothesis that no cameras were pointing in that direction (b) a vast conspiracy of evil?
Image the scene at Evil Headquarters.
Evil #1 : So, how can we make it look as though terrorists have flown a plane into the Pentagon?
Evil #2 : I have an idea ... let's fly a plane into the Pentagon, and then blame the terrorists.
Evil #1 : No, no, that wouldn't work.
Evil #2 : Why not?
Evil #1 : "Why not?" he asks. Well, that's why I'm Evil #1 and you're just Evil #2. No, we have to fake it.
Evil #2 : We'll need to blow a hole in the Pentagon with something, though.
Evil #1 : Naturally.
Evil #2 : And we'll need props. Bits of a destroyed plane to scatter hither and thither, charred bodies strapped into plane seats, that sort of thing.
Evil #1 : Yes, well, I'm sure even you can manage to kill a few people and set fire to their bodies.
Evil #2 : And we'll need to transport all this stuff to the Pentagon without being seen doing so ... and the Pentagon has quite good security ... are you sure we just can't fly the plane into the building, rather than wrecking a plane somewhere else and then transporting the parts to the site.?
Evil #1 : Yes, I'm quite sure. There are reasons for this which I sha'n't explain because no-one, including Dr A, has ever been able to imagine any.
Evil #2 : And speaking of the security at the Pentagon, how about we fake up a few CCTV images of the plane crashing into the Pentagon?
Evil #1 : No, no, we can't do that.
Evil #2 : Why not?
Evil #1 : Because that would be fibbing.
---
So how is this a "valid point"? A false premise is being used to support a version of the conspiracy theory which is patently ridiculous.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Dogmafood, posted 05-28-2013 1:49 AM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Dogmafood, posted 05-28-2013 1:05 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 474 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 17 of 137 (699941)
05-28-2013 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Dogmafood
05-28-2013 1:05 PM


Re: How can you tell?
This is exactly what I mean. There is no airplane in those videos.
Can we have a look at them?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Dogmafood, posted 05-28-2013 1:05 PM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Dogmafood, posted 05-28-2013 2:53 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 474 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 21 of 137 (699948)
05-28-2013 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Dogmafood
05-28-2013 2:53 PM


Re: How can you tell?
? You provided the link yourself.
No.
Link to video used to provide evidence that a plane crashed into the pentagon that does not actually show an airplane crashing into the pentagon
Thanks for the 404 error, I shall cherish it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Dogmafood, posted 05-28-2013 2:53 PM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-28-2013 4:33 PM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 26 by Dogmafood, posted 05-28-2013 9:10 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 474 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 23 of 137 (699951)
05-28-2013 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by New Cat's Eye
05-28-2013 4:33 PM


Re: How can you tell?
Sorry, still not seeing it. Where's the video? I can see the photographs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-28-2013 4:33 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-28-2013 4:58 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 474 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 27 of 137 (699971)
05-29-2013 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Dogmafood
05-28-2013 9:10 PM


Re: How can you tell?
Hang on. Are you saying that there is nothing at the link that you provided as evidence when you said ...
It shows that they produced the footage in court.
However, asking to see a picture of that plane strikes me as a legitimate request that should be easy to fill. It seems very odd that there would be no picture.
Why?
My point is simply to ask what would a conspiracy actually look like?
Well, my little dialog pretty much shows you what a conspiracy wouldn't look like. If They wanted you to think that terrorists had flown a plane into the Pentagon, then They'd fly a plane into the Pentagon, They wouldn't use some other means to blow a hole in the Pentagon and then hastily ferry bits of a wrecked plane and corpses onto the site under the noses of the first responders and hope that no-one noticed just to give conspiracy theorists something to talk about, because why the heck would They? And if They did, They'd be happy to supply you with all the fake CCTV footage you'd want, these are people who can apparently fake a plane crash without anyone noticing anything untoward, They could also supply you with a picture of a 757 to look at.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Dogmafood, posted 05-28-2013 9:10 PM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Dogmafood, posted 05-29-2013 7:59 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 474 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 35 of 137 (700017)
05-29-2013 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Dogmafood
05-29-2013 7:59 AM


Re: How can you tell?
A plane travelling at 500mph moves 733 feet/sec. The average video camera takes at least 24 pictures/second. That is a picture every 30.5 ft of travel. There should be a clearly visible plane in those videos.
Well, a couple of things.
First, the frame rate. A CCTV camera typically has a frame rate much lower than "the average video camera". Fortunately, we do not have to speculate on this issue. You can see what the frame rate is by looking at the car pulling up at the start of the video. You can see how jerkily it appears to move. I make it that it appears to move nine times in twelve seconds, giving the camera a frame rate of 45 pictures per minute, not 24 per second. That is a picture for every 977 feet that the plane would travel, according to your figures. Given that, it's pure good luck that we get to see the plane at all.
Second, "clearly visible"? Well, here's the image the camera (plus YouTube-ization) produces of the bit of the four-story building that the plane later crashes into.
That's not clearly a building. If someone told you that that was a picture of a cliff, you'd believe them. You can't see any windows or other architectural details, it's just a gray mass. So why would the plane be anything more than a white blur, if recorded by the same camera?
Here's a broader image:
Note that the only thing remotely in focus is the drop arm gate. Even the nearest part of the Pentagon is a mishmash of gray pixels.
And when you look at the video, you can see that the frame-rate is that low, that the focus is that poor, and that YouTubing the video has pixelized it all to fuck. And yet you say that "there should be a clearly visible plane in those videos". Well, I'll ask you again:
Why?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : Because I found out that the right word for those things is "drop arm gate".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Dogmafood, posted 05-29-2013 7:59 AM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Dogmafood, posted 05-30-2013 6:55 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 474 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(6)
Message 54 of 137 (700250)
05-31-2013 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Dogmafood
05-30-2013 6:55 PM


Re: How can you tell?
How plausible is it that;
- the released video from the pentagon is the best that they could do. The FBI admits to having 83 videos that captured the event.
They have made no such claim. That is, if memory serves, how many videos they collected from the Pentagon, they don't claim that every such video captured the event.
- the FBI would arrive at a gas station across from the pentagon to confiscate video within minutes of the impact. (edit; I don't know how many minutes.)
No, you don't. How come I was born within minutes of the extinction of the dinosaurs. Lots of minutes, but still minutes.
And why would policemen collect evidence? I've got to admit, it's highly implausible that they would do their jobs.
- a 124ft wide commercial airplane fit through the 50ft hole in the pentagon
The hole was 75ft wide, and what do you expect, this is reality, not a cartoon, it should have left a perfect plane-shaped hole?
We know what should have happened by looking at other plane crashes, for example the one that hit the Empire State Building in 1945. The hole was 20ft in diameter, the wingspan of a B-52 is 185ft. Or at least, that's what They want you to think
- there is absolutely no wing debris outside of the building
Here's some debris on the Pentagon lawn.
More pics from the Pentagon:
Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"
- there are intact windows where a wing should have impacted
"A blast-resistant window must be designed to resist a force significantly higher than a hurricane that's hitting instantaneously," says Ken Hays, executive vice president of Masonry Arts, the Bessemer, Ala., company that designed, manufactured and installed the Pentagon windows. Some were knocked out of the walls by the crash and the outer ring's later collapse. "They were not designed to receive wracking seismic force," Hays notes. "They were designed to take in inward pressure from a blast event, which apparently they did: [Before the collapse] the blinds were still stacked neatly behind the window glass."
- a training exercise that simulated an attack on the country was underway that morning
The military conducts training exercises all the time, and how in the world does that fit in with no-plane conspiracy theories?
- it was the first day on the job for the head of the FAA
Except that back in reality Jane Garvey was appointed head of the FAA in 1997.
- a non pilot ...
... who received his commercial pilot certificate in 1999 ...
... managed to execute a manoeuvre that even skilled pilots describe as nearly impossible.
Crashing?
The Pentagon is approximately 1500ft in diameter. A typical commercial runway (e.g. at LAX) is 150ft in diameter. A fortiori, someone who could perform the fairly skilled job of landing a plane on a commercial runway without destroying the plane or the runway could also crash one into the Pentagon, destroying the plane and killing himself and all his passengers. It can't be harder to do that than to set it down so gently that you don't even jolt the passengers on a target one-tenth the size.
There certainly may be legitimate explanations to all of these questions and coincidents happen all the time but I don't see how these concerns could be classified as signs of delusion or paranoia.
Well, they are certainly signs of being misinformed. For example, the date on which Jane Garvey became head of the FAA is not a secret.
As for paranoia, well, again take the date of Jane Garvey's appointment. Suppose that that was her first day, how on Earth would it fit in with a claim that there was no plane at the Pentagon? It is a mark of paranoia to shout "that can't just be a coincidence!" when neither is it remotely evidence for your conspiracy theory. It wouldn't even be a coincidence unless there was some context in which it could appear meaningful. If I tell you: "I said the word artichoke at exactly the same time as a fire broke out in an apartment building in the city of Hai Phong, Vietnam", then that is not even a coincidence. It's just two things happening at the same time. For it to be evidence of causality on the one hand, or a mere coincidence on the other, you have to put forward an argument that there was causality. If it turns out that you can put forward a cogent argument, and yet on investigation there was no causal connection between the two events, then that would be a coincidence. If all you can say is that the two things happened at the same time, then that is not even a coincidence.
Again, I am not convinced that there is or was a conspiracy underway but I am convinced that there are answerable questions that remain unanswered.
But they have been answered, you just haven't looked for an answer. You're like a creationist saying: "Evolutionists can't explain ..." something that is in fact explained in every biology textbook and was first explained in detail in The Origin Of Species. You could, for example, have tried to find out what sort of hole is made when a plane crashes into a building. Instead, you've gone all creationist on us ... "I haven't looked for an explanation, so I can't explain it, therefore you can't explain it, therefore there is no explanation, therefore you're wrong, therefore ... therefore something which I don't have to specify in any detail."
---
But let's hear from you. According to your version of the CT, They wanted you to think that terrorists had crashed a plane into the Pentagon. So instead of crashing a plane into the Pentagon, They did something else altogether, though you haven't explained what. They then obliterated all evidence of this whatever-it-was entirely, including, I presume, whacking any inconvenient eyewitnesses. They then managed to smuggle onto the Pentagon grounds (again without leaving any evidence) multiple large and heavy parts of a plane, and also the bodies of the passengers known to have boarded 9/11 (all but one of whom, an infant, were later identified by DNA evidence). But then They got lazy, and decided not to fake up CCTV footage that you personally would find convincing.
Why did they behave like this? Ah, right, because they must have behaved like this in order for a no-plane conspiracy theory to be true. Apart from that, their motives seem incomprehensible.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Dogmafood, posted 05-30-2013 6:55 PM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Dogmafood, posted 05-31-2013 10:38 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 474 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 56 of 137 (700252)
05-31-2013 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Dogmafood
05-30-2013 7:03 PM


Re: How can you tell?
Obviously it is not. In fact it is running at a rate below the average CCTV camera that one would expect to find anywhere else in the world.
But where are you getting your expectations from about the frame rate of security cameras at the Pentagon back in 2001? If you just pulled them out of thin air, then I would point out that they are contrary to all the evidence that we have.
And what, exactly, is the conspiracy theory?
From what you're implying, it seems that you think:
* The Pentagon did have CCTV with a higher frame rate back in 2001.
* They have somehow silenced everyone who knew this, so that no-one has come forward and denounced the footage.
* They then faked up a video of the crash with a frame rate of less than 1 picture/second.
* They decided to to fake this slow-frame-rate video and silence all the witnesses rather than fake up a video with the true frame rate of the actual cameras at the Pentagon, because ... ?
Because ... ?
Because ... ?
Again, I want to hear what you think the dialog was amongst the conspirators. Because there seems to be no explanation for their actions except that they wanted to give conspiracy theorists something to talk about.
Evil #1 : And of course we should fake up footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon.
Evil #2 : Sure, since our budget is measured in billions, we can provide you with all the footage you like!
Evil #1 : No, don't do that. Footage from a couple of cameras will do.
Evil #2 : OK, fine. If you say so. So since the footage of the impact will only be a couple of seconds, and our cameras have a frame-rate of 24/pics per second, we'll have to make about 200 fake pictures.
Evil #1 : No, just make a couple of fake pictures and say the CCTV had a frame-rate of less than one picture per second.
Evil #2 : But ... but the frame-rate! All our security people, plus the people who installed the cameras, are well aware that they have a frame-rate of 24 pics per second.
Evil #1 : No problem, we'll just kill everyone who knows this.
Evil #2 : Ooh good, I like it when we do killing!
Odd that they should be vastly superior to the cameras at the most guarded building in the world.
Well, I'll accept your claim that it is "the most guarded building in the world". Then they hardly need security cameras, do they? 'Cos they have highly-trained soldiers with big fucking guns. Security cameras are a substitute --- a poor substitute --- for having your property guarded by the military. The more heavily guarded your property is guarded around the clock by actual guards, armed with guns and trained to kill, the less need you have for mere security cameras.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Dogmafood, posted 05-30-2013 7:03 PM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Dogmafood, posted 05-31-2013 11:41 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 474 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 59 of 137 (700294)
06-01-2013 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Dogmafood
05-31-2013 10:38 PM


Re: How can you tell?
You are correct. They don't claim that.
Right. The one person you've found who makes any claim claims that there was one that she knows of. Rather than 85. There's a difference.
I am presuming that the gas station owner would have a finer sense of the appropriate words to use. It would be interesting to know how many minutes. I suppose if everything wasn't such a threat to national security we could find out.
Yes, the things you don't know about claims for which you can produce no primary source are awfully suspicious. No, wait, they're not.
The Mitchell 25D that hit the Empire state building had a wingspan of 67'7" and had a maximum take off weight of 35,000 lbs and cruises at about 180mph. The 757 has a wingspan of 124'10", has a max take off weight of 255,000lbs and cruises at about 500mph.
My mistake, it was indeed a B25 and not a B52. The fact remains that the hole it made in the building was less than one-third the size of its wingspan, suggesting that when planes crash into things they don't behave like you think they should.
Don't you find it even a little odd for that glass to be there right in the middle of the impact hole?
What I'm mainly seeing in the middle of the impact hole is fire.
If you read your source you will see that he was never a pilot.
But he did have a commercial pilot's license. So the quibble seems irrelevant. "How could he have driven the car? Sure, he had a driver's license, but he was never a chauffeur!"
No Doc. Very obviously not crashing. Instead it is placing your 500 mph 757 precisely where you intend it to be.
What in the world makes you think he did? He had to hit a building 1500 feet across and four stories high ... anywhere. Do you have evidence that Hani Hanjour declared jihad on the one particular part of the west side of the Pentagon that he actually hit, while saying that the rest of it was perfectly halal and it would be a shame to mess it up? No? Then what are you talking about?
(Consider, by the way, how suspicious conspiracy theorists would have found it if he'd missed.)
I don't have a version. Just a few questions.
Very well then. Which is more likely:
(1) A plane hit the Pentagon, as supported by multiple eyewitness accounts, by the plane wreckage found at the crash site, by DNA identification of the bodies found at the crash site, by phone calls made from the plane, by the presence on board of a suspicious number of radical Islamists, one of whom had a pilot's license, by the absence of any evidence showing that anything else occurred, and to a certain extent by the fact that that was pretty much the plane-crashiest day in history.
(2) Something else which you apparently can't even imagine, done for reasons you can't conceive of, as supported by the fact that you don't know how long it took for investigators to collect evidence from the Citgo gas station?
Another question ... if Flight 77 didn't crash into the Pentagon, what did happen to it? Is it still up there hiding behind a cloud? Somehow They had to make it disappear, while making something that looked exactly like it crashed into the Pentagon forty minutes later. Now if I was an Evil Mastermind, I could think of a very elegant way of making both those things happen. It involves crashing the plane into the Pentagon.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Dogmafood, posted 05-31-2013 10:38 PM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Dogmafood, posted 06-02-2013 3:05 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 474 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 60 of 137 (700295)
06-01-2013 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Dogmafood
05-31-2013 11:41 PM


Re: How can you tell?
I am only saying that it seems odd that of the 85 cameras the one that captured a blur is the best picture available.
It doesn't seem that odd to me, you'd be surprised how few CCTV cameras are pointed at the sky.
Tell me, do you think that you could have walked up to the Pentagon from any direction on that day without an identifiable picture being taken of your face? How close do you think you would have to get before they could take that picture?
I'm thinking that would depend to a certain extent on whether I (a) entered the Pentagon Reservation by one of the gates in the perimeter or (b) fell on it out of the sky and then exploded.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Dogmafood, posted 05-31-2013 11:41 PM Dogmafood has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 474 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 69 of 137 (700339)
06-02-2013 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Dogmafood
06-02-2013 3:05 AM


Re: How can you tell?
The one person that I found is the FBI agent who filed the legal document stating that there were 85 cameras that could have been 'potentially responsive' to the FOIA request. Upon reviewing 29 of them she says that she found one that did.
So, just to check, you no longer claim that "The FBI admits to having 83 videos that captured the event."
Well this is where I read it. National Geographic
but you are right, I can not produce Mr Velasquez to testify.
So, minutes (but we don't know how many) after he reported the biggest crime of the century, the police turned up and collected potential evidence. This is very suspicious, because
Nor the way that you think they should if you thought that a plane with a 185ft wingspan left a 20ft hole. It is mostly irrelevant though.
Why did you bring it up, then?
That's nice but doesn't answer the question. Don't you find it incongruous for a window to remain in the area that the tail section of a 757 has just passed through?
What, where? I'm seeing glass above the hole, not in it. The absence of stuff in the hole is kinda what makes it a hole.
Blast proof or not. Isn't just one case of failing to adhere to the law of cause and effect enough to give you pause?
Well, as we've seen, its alleged "failure to adhere to the law of cause and effect" gives no pause to the guy who supplied the glass. Maybe he knows more about it than both of us.
The relevant part is that he couldn't even convince someone to rent him a little plane.
If they thought he'd be a danger to himself and others, they're right.
Your comparison is just ludicrous. It is more like you jumping in an F1 car for the first time and being capable of winning the race.
No it isn't. What he did is more like what he actually did. But if you like analogies, let's hear from some pilots:
"The hijackers required only the shallow understanding of the aircraft," agrees Ken Hertz, an airline pilot rated on the 757/767. "In much the same way that a person needn't be an experienced physician in order to perform CPR or set a broken bone."
That sentiment is echoed by Joe d'Eon, airline pilot and host of the "Fly With Me" podcast series. "It's the difference between a doctor and a butcher," says d'Eon.
I really have no idea how hard that would be to do and neither do you. All I am saying is isn't it remarkable.
If you don't know how hard it would be, then on what basis do you call it remarkable?
He was licensed to fly commercial planes, 'cos of him having learned to fly commercial planes. All he had to do with this one was point its nose at the Pentagon, put the pedal to the metal, shout "Allah akbar!" and hit a target ten times wider than a commercial runway.
Let's hear from some more pilots.
Ronald D. Bull, a retired United Airlines pilot, in Jupiter, Florida, told The New American, "It's not that difficult, and certainly not impossible," noting that it's much easier to crash intentionally into a target than to make a controlled landing. "If you're doing a suicide run, like these guys were doing, you'd just keep the nose down and push like the devil," says Capt. Bull, who flew 727s, 747s, 757s, and 767s for many years, internationally and domestically, including into the Washington, D.C., airports.
George Williams of Waxhaw, North Carolina, piloted 707s, 727s, DC-10s, and 747s for Northwest Airlines for 38 years. "I don't see any merit to those arguments whatsoever," Capt. Williams told us. "The Pentagon is a pretty big target and I'd say hitting it was a fairly easy thing to do."
So if they're right, and it was possible, indeed "fairly easy" to hit the Pentagon, that would kind of explain what happened to the plane; why lots of eyewitnesses saw the plane hitting; the presence of DNA from the passengers at the crash site; and the presence of plane parts at the crash site, including, could I remind you, the "black box" on which your account, if accurate, of Hanjour's maneuvers must actually rest. If, on the other hand, these experienced plane pilots are wrong about the subject of piloting planes, then these things become rather harder to understand.
I would imagine that you would like to prevail in this discussion using logic and facts instead of misrepresentation and exaggeration. You should stow your accusations. I have not said one thing about there being a conspiracy.
Which is why I didn't say "... (2) A conspiracy."
I asked which was more likely, the version supported by the evidence, or ... something ... which you can't even imagine. Apparently you yourself find it impossible even to conceive of anything other than the evidenced account being true. That was my point. If you had offered an actual conspiracy theory, I couldn't have made it.
However, in post 26, you wrote:
Prototypical, post #26 writes:
My point is simply to ask what would a conspiracy actually look like?
Do you still claim that it looks like a conspiracy?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Dogmafood, posted 06-02-2013 3:05 AM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Dogmafood, posted 06-02-2013 3:49 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 474 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 71 of 137 (700346)
06-02-2013 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Dogmafood
06-02-2013 11:22 AM


Re: A Test Subject
Why should I consider those questions when trying to explain the presence of the intact windows in the middle of the impact hole in the Pentagon?
What is it with these windows? Clearly something blew a hole in the building without shattering adjacent blast-proof windows, to the complete unsurprise of the guy who supplied the windows. Why in the world should this be harder for a plane impact than for anything else?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Dogmafood, posted 06-02-2013 11:22 AM Dogmafood has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 474 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 80 of 137 (700409)
06-02-2013 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Dogmafood
06-02-2013 3:49 PM


Re: How can you tell?
Obviously, as I provided the clarification. Do you still maintain that there is nothing odd about only getting one fuzzy picture from 85 cameras that could have potentially captured the event? You know, the cameras that you had no reason to believe were there.
Why did I have no reason to believe that they were there, and what do you mean by "potentially"? Were they all pointing in the right direction?
I agree that Velasquez's choice of words is pretty thin grounds for suspicion.
Indeed, especially as you haven't said what it would make you suspect and why.
You brought it up Doc.
No, this size of the hole was in fact your point. But we now know that the size of the hole a plane makes when it hits a building is less than the wingspan of the plane.
The bottom of the two windows are no more than 20 ft off of the ground. I find it astounding that a plane that big went into that hole. I suppose that is an argument from incredulity but the incredulousness of an event must have a threshold beyond which it becomes a valid reason for doubt.
No doubt that he does. Must be some pretty good stuff. They should have built the rest of the wall out of it.
Well, as I point out, whatever made the hole left intact the windows which were in fact left intact. Unless you propose that the hole was made by a gentle process such as the nibbling of a highly trained team of mice, the glass that survived the formation of the hole was indeed good at surviving catastrophic events. I guess that's why they call it "blast-proof".
Here is a list of pilots who support the summary that I quoted up thread.
* They don't say that they do. Those are members of an organization, not signatories to a statement.
* I note that a lot of them aren't actually pilots.
* Of those that do claim to have flown, and give their flight time, about 40 claim to have logged less flight time than Hanjour.
* Do you want me to make a list of pilots who don't support the summary and are called Steve?
Are your references somehow more valid than mine?
Yes.
Three reasons. Firstly, they are experienced commercial pilots, rather than (for example) someone who's spent a few hours in a light private plane. Or a flight attendant. Or a chemist. Or someone whose qualifications are given as "liar".
Second, they made actual statements that what Hanjour did was perfectly practicable, rather than having danced with a girl who danced with a man who said it wasn't.
Third, because the debris, DNA evidence, eyewitness accounts, etc, show that a plane did hit the Pentagon. So faced with a choice between people who say this could have happened, and people who say that it couldn't, I would listen to the former.
It was a question. What magnitude of discrepancy would it take for you to reassess your position that all of the facts have been laid bare and that no one is concealing anything?
Who said that that was my position? I am always open to new evidence. But based on the evidence we have, Flight 77 hit the Pentagon on 9/11.
Do you disagree?
'Cos on the one hand, we have:
* The eyewitness accounts.
* The debris found by first responders, including the black box.
* The phone calls from the hijacked plane.
* The DNA evidence.
* The evidence that a bunch of radical Islamists boarded the plane, including one with a commercial pilot's license.
* Al Qaida claiming responsibility for 9/11.
* The otherwise inexplicable disappearance of flight 77 and everyone on it.
On the other hand, I'm presented with "discrepancies" of such "magnitude" as:
* Policemen collected evidence of a crime.
* The plane didn't obey the laws of cartoon physics as taught by Professor Wile E. Coyote.
* Blast-proof windows behaved just like their supplier thought they would.
* Hanjour performed a maneuver which experienced commercial pilots describe as "fairly easy".
* Despite merely having a commercial pilot's license, Hanjour was able to crash into something ten times wider than the runways that commercial pilots land on.
... etc, etc.
I am not familiar with any scale for the "magnitude" of discrepancies, but these would rate a 0 on any sensible scale.
When Slick Willy was denying his oral interactions in the oval orifice at what point did you wonder if he was telling the truth?
I don't know. It was some time ago, and I didn't take notes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Dogmafood, posted 06-02-2013 3:49 PM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Theodoric, posted 06-02-2013 9:29 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 82 by Dogmafood, posted 06-03-2013 7:32 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 474 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 85 of 137 (700457)
06-03-2013 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Dogmafood
06-03-2013 7:32 AM


Re: How can you tell?
Well you seemed to be arguing that a building with lots of soldiers had no use for cameras and that I had no reason to think that there was more than a couple of parking lot cameras filming at 1fps. Did you not make those points?
No.
If I said that a camera was 'potentially responsive' to a request for film that captured an event it would mean that the camera was pointed in the right direction as opposed to being on the other side of the building. I guess that I can not say what the FBI meant by 'potentially responsive'.
No, you can't. But if, for example, there was a filing cabinet labelled "Pentagon Footage, 9/11/01", then the tapes in that would be potentially responsive until you looked at the tapes, or the labels on the individual tapes.
How many minutes would strike you as odd? Anything less than one?
That would certainly be odd.
When I look at these first few names on the list I would have to say that they do not match your description of them.
I wasn't describing the first few names on the list, I was describing the list.
Assuming then that they are actual people with the listed experience I guess that I am also assuming that they wouldn't join an organization that promoted things that they did not agree with.
But that's not an official standpoint of their organization. Officially they don't have one! Look at their homepage. It says "We do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time [...] we ask for a true, new independent investigation into the events of 9/11." No-one's asked to sign up to every bit of nonsense that Truthers have ever written about 9/11.
Well if anything is concealed there must be a conspiracy right? If you question anything regarding the official account you must be a batshit crazy CTist who thinks that we didn't land on the moon.
I didn't say that either.
No I do not disagree.
Splendid.
Does this mean that I should not question the submission of the one blurry photo produced by 85 cameras? If I question that submission does that mean that I think the planes that hit the towers were holographic projections? Apparently, the FDR on flight 77 recorded an altitude of 480ft one second before impact.
Great Galloping Gish, here's another CT argument! No, it didn't.
Should I conclude that because it is obvious that the plane hit the Pentagon then the FDR must have been in error? Does that happen often?
I don't know that any more than you do; but I know that the CTs who fed you this stuff can be in error, 'cos that does happen often.
However, if they were right about what the altimeter showed, then you would of course conclude that the altimeter must have been in error. Because you have agreed that based on the evidence we have, Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon; so this would lead you to identify instrumental readings suggesting that it didn't as being erroneous.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Dogmafood, posted 06-03-2013 7:32 AM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Dogmafood, posted 06-04-2013 11:25 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022