RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

sleazy -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (2/3/2007 10:02:20 AM)

REAL,
Ok, fancy colours and fonts, not a good sign.

Please note that in the report damage is only considered significant if it impairs the function of the column significantly, i.e. the column must be damaged to the extent that its ability to perform its design function (ie bear a load)  is significantly reduced. Note, not minor damage, or comestic, or not at all, or in your words techincally very small.

Head down to your local building of similar construction with a jack hammer and see just how much of any column can be removed completely before there is a significant reduction in load bearing capacity. Take a 16lb sledge hammer to your car, see how much damage you can do to that before its ability to be driven from a to b is significantly impaired. I can understand you may not wish to damage your own vehicle, just go watch a demolition derby :)


I am not the only person who disagrees with your damage assesment, however you insist on demanding only I justify this, therefore this appears to me to be a personal attack based on my views as a whole as other posters who agree with the generally accepted damage assesment, but do not follow the official line are excused from justifying themselves in your eyes.

As for jumping around, ever wondered just how bloody annoying it is when you try explain a simple fact 23 different ways but someone still dont get it? Anyone could reasonably be expected to try a different tack. On the flip side, could changing subject be a sore point because you cannot counter the points made?

You have only been aware of the true construction of the pentagon for a few short days, and yet your obvious background in civil and aeronautical engineering allows you to argue the point with people who actually surveyed the damage site.


Fluid dynamics? http://www.cs.purdue.edu/cgvlab/papers/popescu/popescuPentagonVIS2003.pdf




sleazy -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (2/3/2007 10:08:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
prove out your fluid mass of undamaged plane + office junk that went around the yellow marked area to crash unscathed through a brick wall and make a big red 8ft hole in it.


Eh?

Clarify please,

A) where did I make a claim for anything that exited the building being unscathed?
B) Look at any picture of the hole, describe and explain the debris in the vicinty.



Real0ne -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (2/3/2007 11:11:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

REAL,
Ok, fancy colours and fonts, not a good sign.

Please note that in the report damage is only considered significant if it impairs the function of the column significantly, i.e. the column must be damaged to the extent that its ability to perform its design function (ie bear a load)  is significantly reduced. Note, not minor damage, or comestic, or not at all, or in your words techincally very small.

Head down to your local building of similar construction with a jack hammer and see just how much of any column can be removed completely before there is a significant reduction in load bearing capacity. Take a 16lb sledge hammer to your car, see how much damage you can do to that before its ability to be driven from a to b is significantly impaired. I can understand you may not wish to damage your own vehicle, just go watch a demolition derby :)


I am not the only person who disagrees with your damage assesment, however you insist on demanding only I justify this, therefore this appears to me to be a personal attack based on my views as a whole as other posters who agree with the generally accepted damage assesment, but do not follow the official line are excused from justifying themselves in your eyes.

As for jumping around, ever wondered just how bloody annoying it is when you try explain a simple fact 23 different ways but someone still dont get it? Anyone could reasonably be expected to try a different tack. On the flip side, could changing subject be a sore point because you cannot counter the points made?

You have only been aware of the true construction of the pentagon for a few short days, and yet your obvious background in civil and aeronautical engineering allows you to argue the point with people who actually surveyed the damage site.


Fluid dynamics? http://www.cs.purdue.edu/cgvlab/papers/popescu/popescuPentagonVIS2003.pdf




Yep as i suspected another freakin dead end.  Buddy i have 3D max on my work computer and thanks anyway for posting the purdue lesson on how to use it but i already know how to use it.  Just another fake out attempt to convince someone you have something when all you really have is zippo nada ziltch nothing!  Get it?

as usual.

Look i did not make the damage map asce did so dont cry to me if you dont like it and you are the one who wants to make impossible claims that defy the laws of physics in regard to the damage shown on the map.

So dont come crying because others do not come to your rescue if your keyboard runs before your brain is in gear.

Like i said i have better fish to fry than to discuss things with you as you have lost all credibility.  sorry.



sleazy -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (2/3/2007 11:35:37 AM)

Real,

Clarify please,

A) where did I make a claim for anything that exited the building being unscathed?

Come on, you have attributed a statement to me, stand by your own words if you have any faith in them. Or is the bluster coming from somewhere closer to home?



luckydog1 -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (2/3/2007 4:42:11 PM)

Sleazy...you didn't.  He is lying again.
as he lied about the size of the hole...
as he lied about the layout of the pentagon...
as he lied about Hitlers quote...
as he lied about the damage...
ect.



Real0ne -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (2/3/2007 5:39:16 PM)

RS what kinds of data did you save?  i pretty much saved the government account which is just a few reports etc, and then anything pertinent mostly witnesses accounts and actual videos of the crime scene pl us reference materials.  i am always on the lookout for more so when you get time i hope to see it.  



Real0ne -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (2/3/2007 8:07:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Substantiate and support your last claim of a fluid gob of parts getting around the yellow non-damaged area and making a hole in the ring 3 wall!

Look at the legend next to the yellow marker, RO. The yellow marked pillars are marked as such because they are damaged.


rule here is how it would have to look to make that exit wound:
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/asce-illus-4.gif

Here shows the damage disconnect
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/asce-illus-3.gif


Rule:  the point i am trying to make with all this is that impact damage always has the most destruction upon impact. 

Heavy moving mass typically continues to travel in roughly the same direction as it first impacted, and the lighter mass will have more of a tendency to glance off pillars and supports straying a bit from its original impact path but basically in the same direction of the original impact. 

Then all theis debris bangs around and knocks stuff down along its path continually losing energy along the way and eventually it finally comes to a stop. 

That and the physical location of the reatest mass is why the damage section is large and wide at first gets narrower as it goes and as the flying debris loses energy.

The yellow dots the once that i consider "no damage" since yellow indicates "no impairment" illustrates this exactly as expected.

From the impact we start out with everything missing, pink and red dots, then go to red and blue dots as the mass is losing energy and then to green and yellow dots as the mass has nearly come to a stop and finally white dots that were completely untouched.

My reasoning can be followed and verified by the map that the asce made. 

So if it follows that at the end of the damaged area the sum of mass has nearly lost all its energy that the only damage is yellow damage it is reasonable to expect that beyond the yellow damage we can expect white dots or untouched structure as the energy of the sum of the masses has now expended itself.

The problem of course is that instead of finding white dots indicating the expected continuation of loss of energy, suddenly we see a red dot which indicates and increase in acceleration and energy where there should have been none.

To illustrate this very simply: the plane crashes, the debris bangs around and has just about lost its energy creating yellow dots, but there is a round bomb in the debris, the round bomb bounces around hitting structure but does not do damage structural because it does not have enough energy to do so, but has enough forward motion to bang around and finally come to rest laying up against the wall then goes off blowing a hole in the wall.

i am not saying that was the case i am saying that scenario "would" indeed  fit all contingencies simultaneously.

It would fit the the damage evidence from the asce drawing,
at the same time not defy physics in any way,
at the same time conform to the increased energy where little to none was expected. 

Thus satisfying all contingencies simultaneously. 

That would also fit your mass of air scenario as a bomb exploding near the wall woudl be a mass of air or rapidly expanding gases.

So for those of you who take issue with this please take this into your physics professors in the local universities of your areas and have them verify it all for you.

Anyway i do not claim to be a good teacher and this was my best attempt to bring the concepts into laymans terms.



sleazy -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (2/4/2007 1:05:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1
Sleazy...you didn't.  He is lying again.
as he lied about the size of the hole...
as he lied about the layout of the pentagon...
as he lied about Hitlers quote...
as he lied about the damage...
ect.


Now see, me I was prepared to be generous and put it down to mis-interpretation, bad data and tunnel vision.

However I do notice that he has supplied no original data to support any of his theories, here I am been out done some quick web searches and come up with images etc for practically every question asked, wheras poor lil ole me is still waiting for the one image I have asked for. (Imagine if he really was a tax advisor!)

As usual when dealing with such people I have seen no original data, just circular thinking based on erronous or mis-interpreted data and bad physics with anything contrary to their beliefs being a lie or being planted with no substantiation for either claim. I entered this whole thread knowing damn well I would see nothing new, and be subject to personal attacks for showing a logical and consistent approach that toed the official line.

At one point I was prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, to assume he was mis-informed, but still had an at least partly rational argument for his case, but then when it was realised he had been studying an image for however long (I would assume since early 2002 when the first conspiracy sites really started getting noticed) and had made such a simple error as to be laughable any credibilty vanished. It left me assuming either he was aware of his erronous thinking but continued to vocalise it anyway (a lie) or has become an expert on how an aircaft would behave if it penetrated a building of open plan column design in the few short days since his original photographic analysis was proved wrong, or finally that he does not actually have an original thought but merely goes to his list of bookmarks of conspiracy theory sites and simply parrots what else is written there.

Personally speaking I have spent hundreds of hours reading both the pro and anti websites, seen so many truly laughable errors, bad interpretation, mis-quoting and quotes taken out of context that people have to try real hard to come up with something to impress me. His claim of the "no tail" smoking gun being original and him unaware of it being out there on the net, well I certainly recall seeing a site with a last update of 2003 debunking no tail and no wings. Sloppy research or more selective use of facts?

There are a couple of other folks on here have managed to make some rational points, that it has been a pleasure to talk with, unfortunately as usual none of them are original or make points that actually fit well with existing data or (to really annoy another reader again) meet the principles of Occam's razor, namely least hypothesis.

And on that note, I am outta here for the day, got construtive things to do that will have a tangible end result :)



Rule -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (2/5/2007 6:39:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
Blue on Blue? IFF?

Sorry, do not know what Blue on Blue means. IFF stands for identification friend or foe? If those are identification procedures, what significance do they have? If GWB can have a decripit grave yard aircraft painted in AA colours and markings, if that plane ever had those colours, then putting in a box that emits a forged identification should be about a thousand times less problematical, should not it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
Have you perchance seen the expert testimony from experts the world over that points out that from some angles an ancient old 707 can appear to be a 747 and vice versa (incident in case KAL007)? Such witnesses included ADIZ interceptor pilots and if you would expect anyone to have good recognition skills it would be them.

You think that it was a 707?
Frankly, I have no idea what kind of plane it was, but the handful of people that I investigated that said that it was a 757 and / or AA marked, according to my research were not credible witnesses.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
Correction, YOU may assume Timmerman etc etc, I have seen nothing that points to him being on board a C130, please cite a credible source.

Timmerman poses a problem. In my earlier analysis of his testimony I noted that he strenuously adheres to selective truths. There is no doubt in my mind that he flew the Pentagon plane into the Pentagon. Thus if he says that it was a 757, then in my opinion it is a strong argument that indeed it was a 757.
A credible source? He is that credible source. My analysis of his testimony does not leave a shred of doubt.
I have tried to find a bit more information about him on the internet, but it is swamped by repeats of his testimony.

Interestingly I did find a statement that the C130 was flown by a Steve O'Brien, that one of the two traffick managers at the nearby airport is named Daniele O'Brien, and that - noticed by someone else - the pilot of the military plane that was associated with the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania also was named Steve O'Brien.



sleazy -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (2/5/2007 8:06:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
Blue on Blue? IFF?

Sorry, do not know what Blue on Blue means. IFF stands for identification friend or foe? If those are identification procedures, what significance do they have? If GWB can have a decripit grave yard aircraft painted in AA colours and markings, if that plane ever had those colours, then putting in a box that emits a forged identification should be about a thousand times less problematical, should not it?

You are correct as regards IFF, blue on blue is perhaps better known as "friendly fire". My point simply is that despite all the training given to personell on how to recognise the bad guys, and the fancy electronics involved in IFF, people still mis-identify things. Therefore it is not impossible (given that other people have given differing descriptions 747, A320 etc) that the 3 witnesses I have found were mistaken when identifying #77 as a 737, especially as only one was an aviator of some sort and one even got the colour wrong
quote:


quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
Have you perchance seen the expert testimony from experts the world over that points out that from some angles an ancient old 707 can appear to be a 747 and vice versa (incident in case KAL007)? Such witnesses included ADIZ interceptor pilots and if you would expect anyone to have good recognition skills it would be them.

You think that it was a 707?

No, I am stating that if it is possible to mistake a 707 for a 747 as a highly trained interceptor pilot whose primary mission is the recognition of aircraft and having flown in close formation with said target aircraft and even altered position (and therefore viewpoint) so as to fire upon it, then mistaking a 737 for a 757 given a fleeting glance in an unnatural set of circumstances is more than easy
quote:


Frankly, I have no idea what kind of plane it was, but the handful of people that I investigated that said that it was a 757 and / or AA marked, according to my research were not credible witnesses.

post 238
No, I mean you take a graveyard 737 without engines and attach some discarded 757 engines from say 1983 to that plane. Then you fly it into the Pentagon.
 
Post 163
Another: who was on the cargo plane that apparently accompanied the 737?
 
Post260
I would expect that the engines of this 737 would have been replaced by those from a 757.
 
Post 293
We may assume that Timmerman already had a tough job piloting the 737 without
 
Post 266
plane that was associated with the 737.
 
Post 149
It was a 737.
.......to add: so we have at least two 737s involved (flights 77 and 175). Flight 93 probably also was a 737
Note the first line of this one, a statement of fact!

Post 197
Mass dry weight of Boeing 737, depending
 
Post 187
This 737 has a surface area of
 
So based on your research and admission you do not know what it was you sure seem hung up on the idea of a 737. Even to the extent of stating it as a fact in post 149
 
Post 270
If anyone shows me a 737 engine component, I wll accept that as evidence. If anyone shows me a 757 engine component, I will not accept it as evidence,
Which is backed up by this, as long as evidence matches your pet theory you will accept it, if it does not match your theory you will not. Hardly the marks of an intelligent and open investigative mind.
 
quote:
quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
Correction, YOU may assume Timmerman etc etc, I have seen nothing that points to him being on board a C130, please cite a credible source.

Timmerman poses a problem. In my earlier analysis of his testimony I noted that he strenuously adheres to selective truths. There is no doubt in my mind that he flew the Pentagon plane into the Pentagon. Thus if he says that it was a 757, then in my opinion it is a strong argument that indeed it was a 757.
A credible source? He is that credible source. My analysis of his testimony does not leave a shred of doubt.
I have tried to find a bit more information about him on the internet, but it is swamped by repeats of his testimony.

First I have not seen any analysis of his testimony on this forum, just an assumption he was abord the C130. Secondly I would assume that you are arguing that he is not a credible witness as you feel he cannot be trusted, therefore why will you accept his word that it was a 757? Thirdly according to CNN transcripts he does claim a 757, therefore you must accept this and stop with all the 737 claims.
 
Please clarify exactly what grounds there are for any belief he was not where he claimed. I note you say selective truths, if you are correct then his statement is actually a lie, not a selctive truth.
quote:


Interestingly I did find a statement that the C130 was flown by a Steve O'Brien, that one of the two traffick managers at the nearby airport is named Daniele O'Brien, and that - noticed by someone else - the pilot of the military plane that was associated with the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania also was named Steve O'Brien.


Excercise for class, first check any metropolitan phone listing on the east coast, count the number of O'Briens. Ok lets narrow it down, pick any large building, how many shared names are likely to be in it?

Ever noticed that it has been publicly admitted that the C130 over DC was retasked to Pennyslvania, pretending to discover something hidden that never was is one of the oldest tricks in the book.



Rule -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (2/5/2007 9:44:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
Which is backed up by this, as long as evidence matches your pet theory you will accept it, if it does not match your theory you will not. Hardly the marks of an intelligent and open investigative mind.

I will consider all options, sleazy. You may have noticed me taking a significant turn when taking into consideration the testimony of Timmerman who flew the plane into the Pentagon. I am still also keeping all options open.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
First I have not seen any analysis of his testimony on this forum, just an assumption he was aboard the C130.

See my post 274.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
Secondly I would assume that you are arguing that he is not a credible witness as you feel he cannot be trusted, therefore why will you accept his word that it was a 757?

I did notice that he told selective truths. I am well aware that one way to lie convincingly is to add a lie to a number of truths, like: "Grass is green, and fish swim in the sky", and indeed this may be one of the kind of lies told by Timmerman, but telling selective truths does make a dubious statement a bit more credible. I am not excluding any options, but still attach more weight to the 737 testimony. Timmerman does a lot to sway me toward a 757, though.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
Thirdly according to CNN transcripts he does claim a 757, therefore you must accept this and stop with all the 737 claims.

No, I must not at all. I am evidence obsessed and as long as the evidence is in doubt I am keeping all options open. At the moment it is wisest to adhere to the 737.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy 
Please clarify exactly what grounds there are for any belief he was not where he claimed. I note you say selective truths, if you are correct then his statement is actually a lie, not a selective truth.

His testimony is sufficient grounds. See my post 274.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy 
Ever noticed that it has been publicly admitted that the C130 over DC was retasked to Pennyslvania, pretending to discover something hidden that never was is one of the oldest tricks in the book.

I did not know. I will appreciate it if you can supply me with a reference. (Or else I will try to find one myself.)
Two for the price of one. So Timmerman did the plane in Pennsylvania as well. That is terrific. I suppose that the same method of operation was used in New York. That limits the number of accomplices and it does make the investigation so much easier, not having to look for more than these two crews.
 



sleazy -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (2/5/2007 10:22:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
Secondly I would assume that you are arguing that he is not a credible witness as you feel he cannot be trusted, therefore why will you accept his word that it was a 757?

I did notice that he told selective truths. I am well aware that one way to lie convincingly is to add a lie to a number of truths, like: "Grass is green, and fish swim in the sky", and indeed this may be one of the kind of lies told by Timmerman, but telling selective truths does make a dubious statement a bit more credible. I am not excluding any options, but still attach more weight to the 737 testimony. Timmerman does a lot to sway me toward a 757, though.


Selective use of the words selective truth there I am afraid.
Grass is green = true
Fish swin in sky = untrue
Fish do not swim on land = selective truth

A lie combined with a truth does not make a selective truth, they remain a truth and a lie. A selective truth is one that is entirely true but given in a context as to give a different impression. Given that criteria Timmerman lied, or did not lie in his statement to CNN. Being in an apartment block (Timmerman's claim) rather than an aircraft (your claim) is not selective truth, but an outright lie. And yet you would rather pick up on other issues rather than what would in your version of events be a very big lie right at the begining of the broadcast statement. Of course you are prepared to believe his claim of a 757, but not it seems by inferrence his claim as to his location. That is what in my trade is called "selective data analysis", or the age old wood/tree problem.

In the meantime I still await one piece of verifiable evidence (ie NOT witness statements), that points to a 737, or in fact anything that is identifiably not a 757. PS not only is a 737 incapable of carrying RB211 powerplants as were found within the crash debris, its dimensions dont fit the damage trail in at least two distinct, seperate places and of course quite possibly does not have the physical mass to produce the damage that did occur.

So to recap.....
Components identified as used for 757 aircraft recovered at scene, no 737 identifiable components
Damage path consistent with 757 dimensions, inconsistent with dimensions of 737
A witness you find credible states "It was a Boeing 757, American Airlines, no question."
A witness you find credible states a 737, contrary to the witness you appear to believe was actually flying the plane.

End result, you claim a 737 for a good length of time, and only resort to not sure quite recently.

Again you have done all that research, enough to discredit dozens of eyewitnesses (although by your own admission you only investigated a handful that made claims contrary to your pet theory), and yet I found a news release within a single click from googles first page of results that put one person from the C130 in a position to witness one crash, and the aftermath of another. And to think not too long ago people mocked my search skills, oh the irony. I would of course be interested in just how you discredited those people, as background checks are something I am familiar with and to be of evidential standard takes a team of a couple of dozen people anything up to three months to complete and costs are usually in the mid five figure range and can easily jump up into the 7 figure range. Even to be of an advisory standard its several man days of work and a few thousand invoiced, and of course that is with the consent of the person under review to allow us legal access to more resources.


Reference your 274, I shall have to return to that shortly, I think i have brought up plenty to keep us going for a few rounds yet :)



Rule -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (2/5/2007 12:57:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
I did notice that he told selective truths.

I am well aware that one way to lie convincingly is to add a lie to a number of truths, like: "Grass is green, and fish swim in the sky", and indeed this may be one of the kind of lies told by Timmerman.

Selective use of the words selective truth there I am afraid.
Grass is green = true
Fish swin in sky = untrue
Fish do not swim on land = selective truth

A lie combined with a truth does not make a selective truth, they remain a truth and a lie.

Quite. I agree. You misunderstood me - but you are excused, as I expressed two different observations as though they were interdependent. I have rectified that in the above quote of mine by inserting a blank line between my two statements.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
A selective truth is one that is entirely true but given in a context as to give a different impression.

Quite, I agree. When you look at Timmerman's testimony you will notice that this is the case exactly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
Given that criteria Timmerman lied, or did not lie in his statement to CNN.

He told selective truths. The interviewer Franken must have been in on it as well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
Being in an apartment block (Timmerman's claim)

Timmerman at no time claims to have been in his apartment at the time that he witnessed the crash.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
rather than an aircraft (your claim) is not selective truth, but an outright lie.

As Timmerman at no time claimed to have been in his apartment, he did not tell an outright lie.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
And yet you would rather pick up on other issues rather than what would in your version of events be a very big lie right at the begining of the broadcast statement. Of course you are prepared to believe his claim of a 757, but not it seems by inferrence his claim as to his location.

He does not claim any location other than nearly a quarter mile up, and by inference from another statement having unlimited overview of the building and the surrounding area.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
That is what in my trade is called "selective data analysis", or the age old wood/tree problem.

I am evidence obsessed. There are all kinds of data, credible, not credible, false, true, pertinent or not, relevant or not. Of course I am selective.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
In the meantime I still await one piece of verifiable evidence (ie NOT witness statements), that points to a 737, or in fact anything that is identifiably not a 757. PS not only is a 737 incapable of carrying RB211 powerplants as were found within the crash debris, its dimensions dont fit the damage trail in at least two distinct, seperate places and of course quite possibly does not have the physical mass to produce the damage that did occur.

I am prepared to accept that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
So to recap.....
Components identified as used for 757 aircraft recovered at scene, no 737 identifiable components

So the next questions I have are: how old was that plane (there must be all kinds of technology to determine the age of a plane from a piece of wreckage), were any cockpit instrument parts recovered, what happened to the remote flying technology components?


quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
Damage path consistent with 757 dimensions, inconsistent with dimensions of 737
A witness you find credible states "It was a Boeing 757, American Airlines, no question."
A witness you find credible states a 737, contrary to the witness you appear to believe was actually flying the plane.

End result, you claim a 737 for a good length of time

It is still wise to claim that it was a 737, even if the available evidence indicates otherwise.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
, and only resort to not sure quite recently.

I go on the evidence that I have and am qualified to deal with, sleazy. I do not know a 757 from a duck, so as far as I am concerned any airplane part is not relevant as evidence until confirmed by an expert witness.
 
Simply concluding that it was the alleged 757 will not do for me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
Again you have done all that research, enough to discredit dozens of eyewitnesses (although by your own admission you only investigated a handful that made claims contrary to your pet theory),

I investigated a handful and expect that any others that claim to have seen a AA 757 conform to the same pattern of being not credible. I do not know that there are dozens of such, as I have yet to count them. Many witnesses say that they saw a plane or a passenger jet, but only a few specifically said that it was an AA 757.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
and yet I found a news release within a single click from googles first page of results that put one person from the C130 in a position to witness one crash, and the aftermath of another.

Pray tell.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
And to think not too long ago people mocked my search skills, oh the irony.

Have I ever mocked your search skills, sleazy?

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
I would of course be interested in just how you discredited those people, as background checks are something I am familiar with and to be of evidential standard takes a team of a couple of dozen people anything up to three months to complete and costs are usually in the mid five figure range and can easily jump up into the 7 figure range. Even to be of an advisory standard its several man days of work and a few thousand invoiced, and of course that is with the consent of the person under review to allow us legal access to more resources.

It was not easy. Which is one of the reasons why I stopped after a handful of them.



sleazy -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (2/5/2007 3:11:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
I did notice that he told selective truths.

I am well aware that one way to lie convincingly is to add a lie to a number of truths, like: "Grass is green, and fish swim in the sky", and indeed this may be one of the kind of lies told by Timmerman.

Selective use of the words selective truth there I am afraid.
Grass is green = true
Fish swin in sky = untrue
Fish do not swim on land = selective truth

A lie combined with a truth does not make a selective truth, they remain a truth and a lie.

Quite. I agree. You misunderstood me - but you are excused, as I expressed two different observations as though they were interdependent. I have rectified that in the above quote of mine by inserting a blank line between my two statements.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
A selective truth is one that is entirely true but given in a context as to give a different impression.

Quite, I agree. When you look at Timmerman's testimony you will notice that this is the case exactly.

No, sorry cant see anything that I would regard as selective, the statement I have read is consistent and matches the percieved facts.
quote:


quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
Given that criteria Timmerman lied, or did not lie in his statement to CNN.

He told selective truths. The interviewer Franken must have been in on it as well.

So just how many people are involved in this, and not one has let slip anything of substance? Sorry but there are limits as to how many people can be involved in anything and it still maintain enough secrecy, clutching at straws here.
quote:



quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
Being in an apartment block (Timmerman's claim)

Timmerman at no time claims to have been in his apartment at the time that he witnessed the crash.

TIMMERMAN: I was looking out the window; I live on the 16th floor, overlooking the Pentagon, in a corner apartment, so I have quite a panorama.
Actually his first sentence broadcast. (source CNN interview)
quote:



quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
rather than an aircraft (your claim) is not selective truth, but an outright lie.

As Timmerman at no time claimed to have been in his apartment, he did not tell an outright lie.

See above. As it appears you are unaware of the full statement broadcast live on tv with a transcript available for some time afterwards I shall not be returning to your post 274 as it would appear to be based on an incomplete understanding of his statement.
quote:



quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
And yet you would rather pick up on other issues rather than what would in your version of events be a very big lie right at the begining of the broadcast statement. Of course you are prepared to believe his claim of a 757, but not it seems by inferrence his claim as to his location.

He does not claim any location other than nearly a quarter mile up, and by inference from another statement having unlimited overview of the building and the surrounding area.

Quarter mile up what? no aviator would claim quarter mile up in altitude, he would say 1300 feet, or flight level 13. I am not aware of any claims the C130 ever flew that low. Many people do live a quarter mile up the road, or the hill from a point. He also states "I am up" not "I was up", to me that would imply again not an an aircraft, try the context "where do you live", "I am quarter mile up from John". I also notice that particular comment is actually transcribed as a portion of 3 seperate disjointed statements.
quote:



quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
That is what in my trade is called "selective data analysis", or the age old wood/tree problem.

I am evidence obsessed. There are all kinds of data, credible, not credible, false, true, pertinent or not, relevant or not. Of course I am selective.

I would argue that point, but it has been gone over before, discounting evidence that is both valid and does not fit in with a preconcieved theory is overly selective.
quote:



quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
In the meantime I still await one piece of verifiable evidence (ie NOT witness statements), that points to a 737, or in fact anything that is identifiably not a 757. PS not only is a 737 incapable of carrying RB211 powerplants as were found within the crash debris, its dimensions dont fit the damage trail in at least two distinct, seperate places and of course quite possibly does not have the physical mass to produce the damage that did occur.

I am prepared to accept that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
So to recap.....
Components identified as used for 757 aircraft recovered at scene, no 737 identifiable components

So the next questions I have are: how old was that plane (there must be all kinds of technology to determine the age of a plane from a piece of wreckage), were any cockpit instrument parts recovered, what happened to the remote flying technology components?

Incorrect, the physical age of aircraft components is very difficult to determine due to the useage, a reasonably young aircraft (in years) can actually be very aged, Aloha Airlines are all too well aware of this. Also the maintainance requirements of aircraft lead to an awful lot of remove, replace, refurbish removed part. For a complete list of individual parts recovered please contact the NTSB, if there is an abscence of remote control gear it could be because none was ever present.
quote:




quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
Damage path consistent with 757 dimensions, inconsistent with dimensions of 737
A witness you find credible states "It was a Boeing 757, American Airlines, no question."
A witness you find credible states a 737, contrary to the witness you appear to believe was actually flying the plane.

End result, you claim a 737 for a good length of time

It is still wise to claim that it was a 737, even if the available evidence indicates otherwise.

Hang on, lets get this right, you are evidence obsessesed by your own admission, and all physical evidence and a goodly sized chunk of other evidence says 757, yet you still hang on the words of one witness who claims 737, and you also claim you do not know, but claim 737 anyway? Why is it wise to fly in the face of all available evidence on the face of a couple of eyewitnesses? Would you expect the cop that investigates a traffic collision involving you, or the person suspected of breaking into your residence the same way?
quote:



quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
, and only resort to not sure quite recently.

I go on the evidence that I have and am qualified to deal with, sleazy. I do not know a 757 from a duck, so as far as I am concerned any airplane part is not relevant as evidence until confirmed by an expert witness.

I still wonder what qualifies the person who claimed a 737 as an expert enough to base an entire theory on in the face of physical evidence as well as peer contradiction.

Well if it helps, there are a number of forums out there, full of people who work day in day out with aircraft, and they all seem to be in agreement (peer reviewed agreement at that) that all physical evidence inidicates a 757. As any scientist will tell you the hardest review at all is one conducted in the open by your peers.

In summary, we have studied two key pieces of wreckage photographed at the Pentagon shortly after September 11 and found them to be entirely consistent with the Rolls-Royce RB211-535 turbofan engine found on a Boeing 757 operated by American Airlines. The circular engine disk debris is just the right size and shape to match the compressor stages of the RB211, and it also shows evidence of being attached to a triple-shaft turbofan like the RB211. While many have claimed the wreckage instead comes from a JT8D or AE3007H turbofan, we have shown that these engines are too small to match the debris. Furthermore, we have studied what clearly looks like the outer shell of a combustion case and found that its fuel injector nozzle ports match up exactly to those illustrated in Boeing documentation for the RB211-535 engine. There is simply no evidence to suggest these items came from any other engine model than the RB211-535, and the vast majority of these engines are only used on one type of plane--the Boeing 757.


Biography: Dr. Joe Yoon has earned degrees in physics and aerospace engineering in addition to his doctorate in electrical engineering. He spent his early career working for NASA and McDonnell Douglas but now operates a private consulting firm that has been employed by research laboratories, academic institutions, and corporations in the aerospace field. Though Joe currently specializes in systems engineering and developing information networking concepts, his career has spanned such varied tasks as computer programming, flight data analysis and reconstruction, accident investigation, signal processing, and aircraft instrumentation design, to name a few. When not spending time with his wife and four children, Joe also enjoys flying a private plane that he co-owns.
Professional Interests: Computer networking, multi-disciplinary optimization, flight testing, flying qualities, fluid dynamics, data analysis, signal processing, accident investigation, range safety, circuit design.
Personal Interests: Aviation history, flying, aircraft photography, computer graphics, radio controlled planes, gliders, robotics, magnetoaerodynamics, unconventional flight technologies.
Selected Memberships:

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science
  • American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
  • American Small Business Association
  • American Society for Engineering Education
  • American Society of Mechanical Engineers
  • Association for Computing Machinery
  • Association of Old Crows
  • Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
  • National Society of Professional Engineers
  • Society of Automotive Engineers
  • Smithsonian National Air & Space Museum

    Expert enough for you? Thats just the first one I pulled out at random as regards expert identification of 757 components within the pentagon, so I guess it is time to circle back to them all being planted.

    Just noticed that I already referenced the page that came from. in an earlier post.

    quote:



    Simply concluding that it was the alleged 757 will not do for me.

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: sleazy
    Again you have done all that research, enough to discredit dozens of eyewitnesses (although by your own admission you only investigated a handful that made claims contrary to your pet theory),

    I investigated a handful and expect that any others that claim to have seen a AA 757 conform to the same pattern of being not credible. I do not know that there are dozens of such, as I have yet to count them. Many witnesses say that they saw a plane or a passenger jet, but only a few specifically said that it was an AA 757.

    According to my witness list there are only 2 claims of a 757* at time of impact, others are clearly using 757 after the information was widespread knowledge. I have previously mentioned the three claims of a 737 and one of a 747.
    * One claim is a 757 or A320, the other claim is of course Timmerman.

    Not many for you to fully investigate, although to do any real investigation of merit either requires the consent of the party being investigated, illegal acts, or the support of the courts unless you rely on hearsay and that of course does not meet any evidential standard at all except as coroboration.
    quote:


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: sleazy
    and yet I found a news release within a single click from googles first page of results that put one person from the C130 in a position to witness one crash, and the aftermath of another.

    Pray tell.

    Cleveland flight controller Stacey Taylor has asked a nearby C-130 pilot to look at Flight 93’s last position and see if they can find anything. Remarkably, this C-130 pilot. Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien, is the same pilot who was asked by flight control to observe Flight 77 as it crashed in Washington earlier. He tells Taylor that he saw smoke from the crash shortly after the hijacked plane went down.

    Published Oct 17th 2001 in The Guardian. Mentioned also on MSNBC 11th sept 2002 and by the investigation commission on 17 June 2004. Hardly a secret.

    Various Pittsburgh media outlets also ran the story. And of course as all FAA radio conversations are recorded there is a matter of public record.

    Cited source http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a936c130asked
    quote:


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: sleazy
    And to think not too long ago people mocked my search skills, oh the irony.

    Have I ever mocked your search skills, sleazy?

    That was not adressed at you personally, hence the use of the word "people" [:)] No hard feelings I hope
    quote:


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: sleazy
    I would of course be interested in just how you discredited those people, as background checks are something I am familiar with and to be of evidential standard takes a team of a couple of dozen people anything up to three months to complete and costs are usually in the mid five figure range and can easily jump up into the 7 figure range. Even to be of an advisory standard its several man days of work and a few thousand invoiced, and of course that is with the consent of the person under review to allow us legal access to more resources.

    It was not easy. Which is one of the reasons why I stopped after a handful of them.

    So you have reached your conclusions on the basis of an incomplete investigation then? Personally I would regard investigations that have hundreds if not thousands of investigators involved and the sort of budgets I could only dream of as having more validity. I have not found any claims in this thread that cannot be debunked with a few minutes searching, and of course see my comments earlier about how would you feel if a cop drew conclusions in the same manner as you, but add incomplete to the mix too. Me? Personally I would be making so many complaints about that cop that professional standards (internal affairs) would be so far up his ass he would be shitting investigation statements for the rest of his all too short career.



    • Rule -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (2/5/2007 4:29:04 PM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: sleazy
    No, sorry cant see anything that I would regard as selective, the statement I have read is consistent and matches the percieved facts.
    You are easily fooled, sleazy. That is why you need to read my analysis in post 274.

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: sleazy
    So just how many people are involved in this, and not one has let slip anything of substance? Sorry but there are limits as to how many people can be involved in anything and it still maintain enough secrecy, clutching at straws here.

    Do not be an ostrich, sleazy.

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: sleazy
    TIMMERMAN: I was looking out the window; I live on the 16th floor, overlooking the Pentagon, in a corner apartment, so I have quite a panorama. Actually his first sentence broadcast. (source CNN interview)

    I am well aware of this first sentence, sleazy. When you peruse my post 274, you will see that I am also well aware what he is saying here - and it is not what you perceive it to be.

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: sleazy
    See above. As it appears you are unaware of the full statement broadcast live on tv with a transcript available for some time afterwards I shall not be returning to your post 274 as it would appear to be based on an incomplete understanding of his statement.

    Stop being an ostrich, sleazy. I expect better from you. Go to my post 274 and perceive.

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: sleazy
    Quarter mile up what? no aviator would claim quarter mile up in altitude, he would say 1300 feet, or flight level 13. I am not aware of any claims the C130 ever flew that low. Many people do live a quarter mile up the road, or the hill from a point. He also states "I am up" not "I was up", to me that would imply again not an an aircraft, try the context "where do you live", "I am quarter mile up from John". I also notice that particular comment is actually transcribed as a portion of 3 seperate disjointed statements.

    I am well aware of linguistics, sleazy, as I demonstrate in post 274. Timmerman is telling selective truths aimed at giving his audience the false impression that he watched the crash from his apartment. Saying that he was nearly a quarter mile up was such a selective truth. Notice that he does not say that he was nearly a quarter mile up the road or up the hill. If he had been, no doubt he would have said so, but he was not. He was up, sleazy, up there among the birds and the clouds in his C130.


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: sleazy
    I would argue that point, but it has been gone over before, discounting evidence that is both valid and does not fit in with a preconcieved theory is overly selective.

    My conclusion was not preconceived, sleazy. I am evidence obsessed, not hypothesis obsessed. I do not care either way whatever the evidence points at.

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: sleazy
    Incorrect, the physical age of aircraft components is very difficult to determine due to the useage, a reasonably young aircraft (in years) can actually be very aged, Aloha Airlines are all too well aware of this. Also the maintainance requirements of aircraft lead to an awful lot of remove, replace, refurbish removed part. For a complete list of individual parts recovered please contact the NTSB, if there is an abscence of remote control gear it could be because none was ever present.

    Whatever, sleazy. There is the composition of the paint down to isotopic and radio-isotopic differences and half-lifes and there is metal fatigue and whatever other ways there are to date airplane debris. As for remote control gear, if that was not expected, it may have been identified as not-airplane, therefore Pentagon material.

    Why have witnesses that according to my research are not credible, testify to the nature of the plane if there was nothing to lie about? Also I know that there were no live people aboard that plane, if any - like frozen corpses - at all. Then also there is the testimony of Timmerman with his very obvious selective truths, and finally there is the same C130 associated with two crashes. Go figure.

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: sleazy
    Hang on, lets get this right, you are evidence obsessesed by your own admission, and all physical evidence and a goodly sized chunk of other evidence says 757, yet you still hang on the words of one witness who claims 737, and you also claim you do not know, but claim 737 anyway? Why is it wise to fly in the face of all available evidence on the face of a couple of eyewitnesses? Would you expect the cop that investigates a traffic collision involving you, or the person suspected of breaking into your residence the same way?

    It is the oldest trick in the manual of lieutenant Columbo and his colleagues: insist on an untruth that the murderer will do his utmost to disprove and in so doing establish his guilt. So, yes, I do hang unto. The murderer might offer me a piece of wreckage and say: "See, this part cannot possibly have been from a 737", whilst pointing at a part of the remote control instrumentation. Then I will be glad to agree with him.

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: sleazy
    I still wonder what qualifies the person who claimed a 737 as an expert enough to base an entire theory on in the face of physical evidence as well as peer contradiction.

    I am not quite sure what you are trying to say here. Can it be that you suggest that I have claimed to be a 737 expert? I am not.

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: sleazy
    Expert enough for you? Thats just the first one I pulled out at random as regards expert identification of 757 components within the pentagon, so I guess it is time to circle back to them all being planted.
    So he or they looked at a couple of photographs and no doubt made accurate identifications. Good for them. Now what about those debris that they did not see on photographs, like pieces of burned and shattered remote control?

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: sleazy
    According to my witness list there are only 2 claims of a 757* at time of impact, others are clearly using 757 after the information was widespread knowledge. I have previously mentioned the three claims of a 737 and one of a 747.
    * One claim is a 757 or A320, the other claim is of course Timmerman.

    So the 737's have the majority?

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: sleazy
    Not many for you to fully investigate, although to do any real investigation of merit either requires the consent of the party being investigated, illegal acts, or the support of the courts unless you rely on hearsay and that of course does not meet any evidential standard at all except as coroboration.

    Quite. I wonder what that will bring up. I only scratched the surface - and it bled.
     

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: sleazy
    Cleveland flight controller Stacey Taylor has asked a nearby C-130 pilot to look at Flight 93’s last position and see if they can find anything. Remarkably, this C-130 pilot. Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien, is the same pilot who was asked by flight control to observe Flight 77 as it crashed in Washington earlier. He tells Taylor that he saw smoke from the crash shortly after the hijacked plane went down.

    Published Oct 17th 2001 in The Guardian. Mentioned also on MSNBC 11th sept 2002 and by the investigation commission on 17 June 2004. Hardly a secret.

    Various Pittsburgh media outlets also ran the story. And of course as all FAA radio conversations are recorded there is a matter of public record.

    Cited source     http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a936c130asked

    Well done, sleazy.
     
    quote:

    ORIGINAL: sleazy
    That was not adressed at you personally, hence the use of the word "people" [:)] No hard feelings I hope

    Not at all. I enjoy your contributions.

    (I am sure, though, that it leaves one person whoms posts I blocked befuddled, as he mistakenly is convinced that I block those persons who disagree with me. Usually, though, I only block persons who use difficult to read fonts.)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: sleazy
    So you have reached your conclusions on the basis of an incomplete investigation then? Personally I would regard investigations that have hundreds if not thousands of investigators involved and the sort of budgets I could only dream of as having more validity.

    To be sure - as long as they do not disagree with mine.

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: sleazy
    I have not found any claims in this thread that cannot be debunked with a few minutes searching,

    Except for my post 274.

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: sleazy
    and of course see my comments earlier about how would you feel if a cop drew conclusions in the same manner as you, but add incomplete to the mix too. Me? Personally I would be making so many complaints about that cop that professional standards (internal affairs) would be so far up his ass he would be shitting investigation statements for the rest of his all too short career.

    It is well, then, that I am not a cop. I am Rule, and by definition and decree the highest authority.



    sleazy -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (2/5/2007 5:38:13 PM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Rule

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: sleazy
    No, sorry cant see anything that I would regard as selective, the statement I have read is consistent and matches the percieved facts.
    You are easily fooled, sleazy. That is why you need to read my analysis in post 274.

    You really think folks would trust me to send them into harms way and get them back out in one piece if I were gullible and unable to analyse data, assess risks, and all the other 5h1t that comes with planning semi-military operations?
    quote:


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: sleazy
    So just how many people are involved in this, and not one has let slip anything of substance? Sorry but there are limits as to how many people can be involved in anything and it still maintain enough secrecy, clutching at straws here.

    Do not be an ostrich, sleazy.

    Pick 40 people here, on CC, tell them a big secret, one that could earn them more cash than a small afrian country creates as GDP, see how long it takes to get out, now figure out just how many folks would be needed to pull of the kind of scam you claim, sorry, knowing people I just dont buy it.
    quote:


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: sleazy
    TIMMERMAN: I was looking out the window; I live on the 16th floor, overlooking the Pentagon, in a corner apartment, so I have quite a panorama. Actually his first sentence broadcast. (source CNN interview)

    I am well aware of this first sentence, sleazy. When you peruse my post 274, you will see that I am also well aware what he is saying here - and it is not what you perceive it to be.

    I contest you know what he was saying based on your own contradictions
    quote:


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: sleazy
    See above. As it appears you are unaware of the full statement broadcast live on tv with a transcript available for some time afterwards I shall not be returning to your post 274 as it would appear to be based on an incomplete understanding of his statement.

    Stop being an ostrich, sleazy. I expect better from you. Go to my post 274 and perceive.

    I justified not going back to 274 and I stand by that.
    quote:


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: sleazy
    Quarter mile up what? no aviator would claim quarter mile up in altitude, he would say 1300 feet, or flight level 13. I am not aware of any claims the C130 ever flew that low. Many people do live a quarter mile up the road, or the hill from a point. He also states "I am up" not "I was up", to me that would imply again not an an aircraft, try the context "where do you live", "I am quarter mile up from John". I also notice that particular comment is actually transcribed as a portion of 3 seperate disjointed statements.

    I am well aware of linguistics, sleazy, as I demonstrate in post 274. Timmerman is telling selective truths aimed at giving his audience the false impression that he watched the crash from his apartment. Saying that he was nearly a quarter mile up was such a selective truth. Notice that he does not say that he was nearly a quarter mile up the road or up the hill. If he had been, no doubt he would have said so, but he was not. He was up, sleazy, up there among the birds and the clouds in his C130.

    Notice he does not say he was in an aircraft, notice the sentence 1/4 mile up is INCOMPLETE, any conclusion drawn from that is akin to it was a car...... therfore it must have been a blue chevy. Here in this office that kind of guesswork can make the difference between catching an airplane home in the cabin with a beer, or in the hold in a sealed container.
     
    Now allow me to clarify, did Timmerman claim to be in his appartment or not? I reference your 313 Timmerman at no time claims to have been in his apartment at the time that he witnessed the crash. Whereas now you are saying he did claim it but was a selective truth, when it would be an outright lie (based on no apartment building having a 16th floor anywhere near 1300ft high). So what is selective truth from Timmerman, and what is selective truth from you? I ask for one piece of credible verifiable evidence that he was in an aircraft, not your linguistic analysis with your own confusion as to what was even said.
    quote:



    quote:

    ORIGINAL: sleazy
    I would argue that point, but it has been gone over before, discounting evidence that is both valid and does not fit in with a preconcieved theory is overly selective.

    My conclusion was not preconceived, sleazy. I am evidence obsessed, not hypothesis obsessed. I do not care either way whatever the evidence points at.

    Step back, look at it from outside the box, how can you seriously claim to be evidence obsessed when you ignore all evidence and refuse to submit anything of substance for review. The wrong person is being labelled as an ostrich. If you do not care what the evidence points to why have you freely admitted you will ignore evidence that does not match your preconceptions?
    quote:


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: sleazy
    Incorrect, the physical age of aircraft components is very difficult to determine due to the useage, a reasonably young aircraft (in years) can actually be very aged, Aloha Airlines are all too well aware of this. Also the maintainance requirements of aircraft lead to an awful lot of remove, replace, refurbish removed part. For a complete list of individual parts recovered please contact the NTSB, if there is an abscence of remote control gear it could be because none was ever present.

    Whatever, sleazy. There is the composition of the paint down to isotopic and radio-isotopic differences and half-lifes and there is metal fatigue and whatever other ways there are to date airplane debris. As for remote control gear, if that was not expected, it may have been identified as not-airplane, therefore Pentagon material.

    Please note, metal fatigue varies according to the usage of an aircraft, as I pointed out by referencing Aloha, therefore it is not a reliable indicator of airframe physical age. I am also unaware of any studies that show how the temperature variations and solar radiation etc affect paint, therfore I would take anything that used either of these as an attempt to disprove the wealth of other evidence as flawed.
     
    I suggest you look at aircraft investigation procudures, if it might be from the aircraft it is treated as from the aircraft until proved otherwise. Imagine the team investigating such a massive event coming across a pile of unrecognizable electronics within the wreckage, are they going to say, "nah just a xerox", or are they going to make  damn sure it is not part of the plot? Or are you going to add another few dozen people to your list of conspirators?
    quote:


    Why have witnesses that according to my research are not credible, testify to the nature of the plane if there was nothing to lie about? Also I know that there were no life people aboard that plane, if any - like frozen corpses - at all. Then also there is the testimony of Timmerman with his very obvious selective truths, and finally there is the same C130 associated with two crashes. Go figure.

    Are your witness not credible that a jury would dismiss their evidence? Or not credible that you dismiss? One of those would hold weight with me if verifiable.
    quote:


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: sleazy
    Hang on, lets get this right, you are evidence obsessesed by your own admission, and all physical evidence and a goodly sized chunk of other evidence says 757, yet you still hang on the words of one witness who claims 737, and you also claim you do not know, but claim 737 anyway? Why is it wise to fly in the face of all available evidence on the face of a couple of eyewitnesses? Would you expect the cop that investigates a traffic collision involving you, or the person suspected of breaking into your residence the same way?

    It is the oldest trick in the manual of lieutenant Columbo and his colleagues: insist on an untruth that the murderer will do his utmost to disprove and in so doing establish his guilt. So, yes, I do hang unto. The murderer might offer me a piece of wreckage and say: "See, this part cannot possibly have been from a 737", whilst pointing at a part of the remote control instrumentation. Then I will be glad to agree with him.

    So you admit it wasnt a 737 then? Leastways thats how reads to me. Jeez did you really expect some government conspirator to be watching this thread and let "the truth" out? What a waste of my time, discussing something you already agreed with
    quote:


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: sleazy
    I still wonder what qualifies the person who claimed a 737 as an expert enough to base an entire theory on in the face of physical evidence as well as peer contradiction.

    I am not quite sure what you are trying to say here. Can it be that you suggest that I have claimed to be a 737 expert? I am not.

    You claim your witness (I forget his name at the moment and am too damn lazy to go back) is an expert, however an equally qualified expert on the face of it contradicts him. what makes your witness more credible than any other?
    quote:


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: sleazy
    Expert enough for you? Thats just the first one I pulled out at random as regards expert identification of 757 components within the pentagon, so I guess it is time to circle back to them all being planted.
    So he or they looked at a couple of photographs and no doubt made accurate identifications. Good for them. Now what about those debris that they did not see on photographs, like pieces of burned and shattered remote control?

    I suggest you look at what those items are made of, and how they are designed to handle extreme heat. Now go put your computer in a blast furnace, say a cool one, 500c for 30 mins, identify any remaining bits at component level.
    quote:


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: sleazy
    According to my witness list there are only 2 claims of a 757* at time of impact, others are clearly using 757 after the information was widespread knowledge. I have previously mentioned the three claims of a 737 and one of a 747.
    * One claim is a 757 or A320, the other claim is of course Timmerman.

    So the 737's have the majority?

    Nope unidentifieds have the majority
     
    However Steve O'brien claims a 757 or 767, so chalk another up for the "5" camp making it parity. Both are outnumbered by planes of indeterminate make/model/size with gear down, and by planes of commuter/business size!
    quote:


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: sleazy
    Not many for you to fully investigate, although to do any real investigation of merit either requires the consent of the party being investigated, illegal acts, or the support of the courts unless you rely on hearsay and that of course does not meet any evidential standard at all except as coroboration.

    Quite. I wonder what that will bring up. I only scratched the surface - and it bled.
     

    Come on then, you have all this evidence, how about some review, put your money on the table.
    quote:



    quote:

    ORIGINAL: sleazy
    Cleveland flight controller Stacey Taylor has asked a nearby C-130 pilot to look at Flight 93’s last position and see if they can find anything. Remarkably, this C-130 pilot. Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien, is the same pilot who was asked by flight control to observe Flight 77 as it crashed in Washington earlier. He tells Taylor that he saw smoke from the crash shortly after the hijacked plane went down.

    Published Oct 17th 2001 in The Guardian. Mentioned also on MSNBC 11th sept 2002 and by the investigation commission on 17 June 2004. Hardly a secret.

    Various Pittsburgh media outlets also ran the story. And of course as all FAA radio conversations are recorded there is a matter of public record.

    Cited source     http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a936c130asked

    Well done, sleazy.

    For what? For bringing up stuff that people like democratic underground were talking about years ago? For mentioning something that is the focus of a museum display? Seriously if your research had not uncovered that little tidbit you need to practice your skills. Hey there is even a piece out there that names the rest of the flight crew, should you wish to dig.
    quote:


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: sleazy
    That was not adressed at you personally, hence the use of the word "people" [:)] No hard feelings I hope

    Not at all. I enjoy your contributions.

    (I am sure, though, that it leaves one person whoms posts I blocked befuddled, as he mistakenly is convinced that I block those persons who disagree with me. Usually, though, I only block persons who use difficult to read fonts.)

    I do not know who it was as I have thick skin when ot comes to insults, but it was on a thread similar to this one.
    quote:


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: sleazy
    So you have reached your conclusions on the basis of an incomplete investigation then? Personally I would regard investigations that have hundreds if not thousands of investigators involved and the sort of budgets I could only dream of as having more validity.

    To be sure - as long as they do not disagree with mine.

    Thank you, there it is from your own mouth, you have made up your mind and nothing will change it.
    quote:


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: sleazy
    I have not found any claims in this thread that cannot be debunked with a few minutes searching,

    Except for my post 274.

    Answer 1
    I have not found that yet as I have not gone back to look for it
     
    Answer 2
    Debunked as it is a third party analysis by somebody who seems unsure what was said, therefore any interpretation of it is very suspect. And that is without even reading it
     
    Pick either, both are valid in their own way.
    quote:


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: sleazy
    and of course see my comments earlier about how would you feel if a cop drew conclusions in the same manner as you, but add incomplete to the mix too. Me? Personally I would be making so many complaints about that cop that professional standards (internal affairs) would be so far up his ass he would be shitting investigation statements for the rest of his all too short career.

    It is well, then, that I am not a cop. I am Rule, and by definition and decree the highest authority.

    Do you? Or do you just adhere to what you want to believe? (rhetorical)



    farglebargle -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (2/5/2007 8:00:35 PM)

    I'm NOT reading all that.



    Sinergy -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (2/5/2007 8:13:01 PM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Rule

    Timmerman poses a problem. In my earlier analysis of his testimony I noted that he strenuously adheres to selective truths. There is no doubt in my mind that he flew the Pentagon plane into the Pentagon.


    I would really love to buy a drink for a guy that can fly a jet (that travels close to the speed of sound into a hardened building) and give an interview afterwards about how it went.

    Sinergy

    p.s. I am not actually sure that an ability to crash a jet plane into a building gives one credibility on the topic of identifying the plane one is crashing, however.



    MzMia -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (2/5/2007 8:33:38 PM)

    ^5 Fargle, neither am I! Did you read my post about NOT reading extremely long posts?
    You are just so damn cute.[:D]



    Real0ne -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (2/5/2007 8:59:51 PM)


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: sleazy   Now see, me I was prepared to be generous and put it down to mis-interpretation, bad data and tunnel vision.

    However I do notice that he has supplied no original data to support any of his theories, here I am been out done some quick web searches and come up with images etc for practically every question asked, wheras poor lil ole me is still waiting for the one image I have asked for. (Imagine if he really was a tax advisor!)

    As usual when dealing with such people I have seen no original data, just circular thinking based on erronous or mis-interpreted data and bad physics with anything contrary to their beliefs being a lie or being planted with no substantiation for either claim. I entered this whole thread knowing damn well I would see nothing new, and be subject to personal attacks for showing a logical and consistent approach that toed the official line.

    At one point I was prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, to assume he was mis-informed, but still had an at least partly rational argument for his case, but then when it was realised he had been studying an image for however long (I would assume since early 2002 when the first conspiracy sites really started getting noticed) and had made such a simple error as to be laughable any credibilty vanished. It left me assuming either he was aware of his erronous thinking but continued to vocalise it anyway (a lie) or has become an expert on how an aircaft would behave if it penetrated a building of open plan column design in the few short days since his original photographic analysis was proved wrong, or finally that he does not actually have an original thought but merely goes to his list of bookmarks of conspiracy theory sites and simply parrots what else is written there.

    Personally speaking I have spent hundreds of hours reading both the pro and anti websites, seen so many truly laughable errors, bad interpretation, mis-quoting and quotes taken out of context that people have to try real hard to come up with something to impress me. His claim of the "no tail" smoking gun being original and him unaware of it being out there on the net, well I certainly recall seeing a site with a last update of 2003 debunking no tail and no wings. Sloppy research or more selective use of facts?

    There are a couple of other folks on here have managed to make some rational points, that it has been a pleasure to talk with, unfortunately as usual none of them are original or make points that actually fit well with existing data or (to really annoy another reader again) meet the principles of Occam's razor, namely least hypothesis.

    And on that note, I am outta here for the day, got construtive things to do that will have a tangible end result :)     


    now this is some really good bullshit coming from the person who i could not keep on any singular point to conclusion.

    Pointing out that a pic of the building 20 ft south of the impact hole is where the tail hit doesnt do to much to support your self proclaimed super slueth analytic skills either.   

    Especially when its right in the asce report that in all that "extensive analysis and research" that you claim to have done on both sides of the issue you would have had recognized it as i did who you claim did little to none. LOL  See i brought the asce report to the table, that was new for you!

    Typical rant of someone who is incapable of doing their own analysis and as far as those of you who are fixated on everything evolving around occams razor, a smart well planned criminal will bury yer azzez.  btw i am disappointed that you missed talking about peer reviewed by bush cronies, that would have made your little projection session complete. LOL

    Anyway have fun giving people purdues "how to use 3d max" lesson as your reference analysis of the pentagon crash assessment.  

    i spilled my fucking coffee on the keyboard i was laughing so hard!

    Oh and btw....This may come as a huge shock to you, but i have been doing my own business taxes for over 20 years, been through 3 audits and no changes made! LMFAO!!!!   Now imagine if you really did understand physics!  LMAO




    Page: <<   < prev  14 15 [16] 17 18   next >   >>

    Valid CSS!




    Collarchat.com © 2025
    Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
    0.0625