I don't know what happened immediately after the crash but they might have cordoned off the area and then taken away the light poles and threw the prepared damaged ones on the ground. If there were any witnesses, the press cold have ignored them and just printed the version given by the planted witnesses.Eyewitnesses that stand right beside the lamppost while you chop it...
It would have been easy to plant parts shortly after the explosion. Everybody in the Pentagon wouldn't have been able to get close enough to watch the planting of evidence inside the building.As for this suppose planted stuff it would have to be planted before anybody saw the planting it. Or do you think the whole pentagon as well as people in the surrounding area were all in on it?
No, not at all. They whole area could have been cordoned off. The area where the evidence was allegedly planted was out of sight. The few allegedly pieces planted on the lawn could have been planted quickly at any time before the pictures were taken.And it would take hours and yet nobody saw them. This doesn't sound a bit farfetched to you?
I never said I was sure about anything. I said the evidence I've seen leads to there not being any bodies. You people have provided no evidence that there were any bodies.You seem to simply want believe these videos over anything we say. They say there were no bodies and you believe them. We say that there were and you don't believe us.
I'm trying to convince you and also post information for the viewers to see so that they can decide for themselves. This is viewed by a lot of people. Does that have anything to do with your not wanting me to post links? Is this website dedicated to seeking the truth? Is there an interest here in making everybody believe the governments version? I hate to say it but it seems so.So why are you here if nothing we say will convince you?
All I want to do is find out the truth. That's why I post that stuff. I want everybody to analyze it and say what they think. It it has mistakes, I want to know about them.Originally Posted by David C
Here's something I just found. It has a lot of interesting stuff.
Fun site there...but he gets it wrong when he "poo-poos" the breakaway design of light poles (saw a nice example the other morning, a car had knocked one down sliding on the icy roads), and he doesn't comprehend wing tip vortices, and the difference in their power between slow, flaps down flying and clean wing high speed flight.
...among other things...he also got the NORAD air defense structure/composition/location/response capacity all wrong as well as the capability of the fighters responding that morning.
All the usual mistakes and ignorant assumptions. Edit...David, you used the term "interesting"...does this mean that you believe it all, that you think it's accurate? Trust me when I say he has it wrong on many counts...I spent about all my USAF career in, or in support of, NORAD...I can consider myself something of an expert in that arena.
Engineers can be corrupt. There are engineers who say the twin towers fell because of softened steel and there are other engineers who say they fell because of controlled demolition. When a layman sees two groups of professionals saying opposite things, what's he supposed to do except use his common sense?Why is making "the most sense" to you the standard by which you judge truthfulness? Why is an explanation that makes sense to engineers the world over suddenly wrong merely because it doesn't makes sense to a handful of non-engineers?
Some things are obvious such as the fact that the glass isn't even broken in some of the windows where the wing of the 757 was suposed to have hit the side of the pentagon. Also, there is no trace of the wings.Why must all explanations "make sense" to lay people for them to be true?
Maybe it wasn't immediately after the impact but sometime before the pictures were taken.Have you seen the security video from the Pentagon? (The whole thing, not just the few frames showing the actual impact.) You can see people on the scene mere minutes after the impact. No eyewitnesses from the highway, many of whom no doubt stopped to gawk at the event, report seeing people running, or vehicles driving, around the lawn putting stuff down immediately after the impact.
I said I was too busy to devote much time to the thread because of work and I'd try do do some serious posting during the weekend. Didn't I do some serious posting yesterday?David C made NO claims. He is not being reasonable because he refuses to answer questions and won't stop to discuss posts made by members. Disagreements are great but one has to take a stand before a disagreement can happen.
On some other forums where I've debated nobody complained when I posted articles that made a good case for the theory that a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon. It was considered normal to post something that made a good case and ask people what they thought of it and to analyze it. It was considered to be his stand and no summary was considered necessary. Nobody ever asked me to summarize it before they'd even look at it. This is the first forum I've ever come across where people say that. I find it very strange but I'll change my habits. I do have to say that this rule makes it harder for a believer in the conspiracy to make his case.
Those links I've posted make some very good arguments and you guys still haven't addressed them. You only complain that I haven't summarized them. If I were in your place and I truly believed my views were correct, I'd read a posted article and refute all of the points I disagreed with. I would complain that the poster hadn't summarized it.It is rather better than your technique; you post link after link without making any sort of statement aside from "This is interesting."
Imagine if you were in a debating hall and practiced the same thing you are doing here; ignoring the response, and simply name a website for the person to look at. How do you think YOU would be treated?
Besides, why should I bother to bring up a point and tell you why I disagree with it? Others are doing that, and you're ignoring them. You just say "This makes more sense than you guys do", and post another link.
Those links are my rebuttals to your arguments as they contain explanations which refute what you guys say.People ARE giving their opinions, yet you continue to post links.
I posted a link instead of summarizing it to save time--not because I didn't understand it. As I said before--if I were in your place, I wouldn't delay refuting the info in a link just because I suspected that the person who posted it didn't understand it. If I'd summarized everything I posted, I wouldn't have been able to post nearly as much info as I did and the viewers wouldn't have been able to see it and judge for themselves. Is that part of your strategy?Your words are important because it shows that you really understand what the issue is you are talking about.
You're just dismissing alternative theories with no analysis. They'd laugh you out of the debating hall for that.Do you intend to post links to EVERY conspiracy theory website and video and ask for opinions on them?
This is a place for debate; you talk about the subject, then defend your position.
This is NOT a place for advertising conspiracy websites and videos.
Look at this picture again.With the Pentagon the bulding was reinfoced concrete al metre thick, totally different to the WTC. As to the windows, David C. you really need to do some real research (ie not just reading up all the CT sites and swallowing them hook, line and sinker.) The windows in the Pentagon were armoured glass about a foot thick. They were designed to resist a truck bomb like the one at Oaklahoma. That is why they didn't break.
The first window to the left of the hole is broken. The second one looks shattered. The third and forth ones are intact. Is that what happens to armoured glass.
I saw a film of firefighters saying they'd heard explosions. Watch "Loose Change" or "Painful Deceptions".Read up what the Firefighters and Emergency workers who were there stated.
People can be corrupt and lie. If the evidence shows that the crash is inconsistent with a 757 and people say they saw a 757, the people are lying.Find out what the Montgomery County Resue team members who were at the Pentagon have to say
Look at the fifth picture here.
There's no sign of wings or any other part of a 757.
(This link has the picture which supports my argument. I hope it doesn't get me banned)
You guys call it seagull posting. If I post a few links with some good info that I don't have time to summarize, maybe some of the viewers will read it and join the forum and post a comment on it. I'll follow the rules but I have to say they are totally arbitrary and seem to be designed to keep the truth from prevailing.if I was really going to do seagull postings like him I would have dropped more than one link
Here's the moon thread from LC.You know, in the Moon hoax thread on LC, he was the same way.
My posts start around page 17. I did a lot more arguing there because during the summer my work load is light and had the time. At the end of September my work load increases and I don't have as much time to do serious debating so I've been posting stuff for others to see in the hope that someone runs with the ball. That's all my intentions were.
I gave up on the moon debate because all the good videos are going off-line and now I hardly have any evidence to show.
That's not all. Where are the wings of the plane?The part I've quoted is fascinating. We have the CTers claiming that the Pentagon was built to withstand a bunker buster, and then they get all suspicious when they can't see oodles of damage from plane crash.
Show some evidence that the entire structural engineering community says this is what almost certainly happened. What about Steven Jones?If practically the entire structural engineering community says, "This is what almost certainly happened," I trust them. They would know; I do not. I have no reason to trust people without training in the relevant field unless they somehow show that they are truly equipped to answer questions, and I've not seen anyone from the CT side who can. At least, not that can answer reasonable questions in a reasonable manner, including providing evidence.
He's an engineer. (This links supports my argument and I don't have time to summarize it now. That shouldn't stop anyone from watching it and giving an opinion.)
Steven Jones sounds like he knows what he's talking about to me. Why don't some of the engineers here watch this video and say why he's wrong? I'd reall like to hear the opinions of the engineers.We are trying to teach critical thinking skills here, I think. Don't just take someone's word for it, in other words, but know whether their word is worth taking.