Jump to content

I know what happens in 2012.


titorite
 Share

Recommended Posts

maybe the plane hit it, and since light poles arent really that heavy, only did minor damage to the car. and minor damage to the plane?

 

"Also I have not seen anyone address the collapse of wtc7..wanna be the first to have a go at it and explain to me why the solomon building fell?"

 

he told everyone it wasnt a collapse, it was a controlled demolition. now why, i do not know. i dont know how they were able to drop it so fast either. i never said there wasnt something fishy, but certain things i can say for sure didnt happen, thats all

As for the plane hiting the car...not likely. Besides, the pole and car are reference in the 911 commisons final report.

Hey thanks for addressing the solomon building.. If RMT addressed it already I missed it. Sorry about that. So we can agree that controled demolition brought down one building. Can we shift gears and talk about wtc7 for a moment or does anyone have an objection?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 417
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Sure ask me any question you want any way you want to ask it.

 

1. What is the wombasphere, how does it work and why don't you know when you'll leave?

 

The wombasphere is a gelatinus sphere which houses the ovarian shell which make time displacement from the infinite to the finite possible via the zygomatic theorum.

 

I have no idea when I will leave this timeline because when I arrived here the hydrogen containment unit in my wombasphere broke and I can't repair it.

 

2 part question so I'm counting you for two questions not 1. 18 left. Got anymore questions?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right here

 

OK RMT This is the post where you only answered the last question I asked reguarding the engine exhaust. Now I look forward to the rest of your answers.

 

In reply to:

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Like why the grass infront of the impact point shown no sign of scorching.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Why do you assume it should be? Or better yet, how do you know it is not, and simply scorched in a wide dispersal ... So with all of these FACTS, again I ask why we must assume a "scorched earth policy" must be the norm? For all we know, if you had a very close-up shot (as opposed to the ones further away) we might see some minimal signs of scorching.

When planes crash and explode they scorch the earth. That is normal is it not?

spacer.png

 

In the above photo we can see that the white hot fireball expands past the structure so we can have a general idea of how far the flame traveled along the ground. A white hot fireball should incinerate the ground charring it black shouldn't it? Isn't the ground normaly charred black at plane crash sites?

 

In the photo two photos below we can see a clear lack of blackend ground.

 

spacer.png

 

spacer.png

 

And in the above photo here we can reference the building in relation to the fire ball. And again that grass does not look scorched, singed, or even browned.

 

Why do you assume that all pieces must be burned or have some noticeable sign of soot on them? I can explain a viable physical reason why some pieces would not. When pieces start to fly apart from the airplane after such a violent collision, quite a few pieces will "bounce off" the building as the airplane disintegrates, and they will have velocities AWAY from the building. This is reversal of momentum due to the "elastic collision" effect. Soot requires smoke, and at that moment of the fireball there was little smoke (that comes later). Burning or charring of the parts requires sustained fire (and by sustained I mean for at least several seconds). When the airplane flies apart on impact, a great many of those pieces that are thrown outward away from the impact zone will not experience any smoke (hence, no soot) and they will fly away so rapidly that they will not experience sustained fire. Look at photos of many aircraft accidents and you will see many airplane parts thrown clear of the impact area. Not many of those have soot or are charred. Pan Am 103 (Lockerbie Scotland), or United Airline DC-10 into Sioux City Iowa. I can show plenty of examples of why one should not immediatley assume that parts thrown clear of an impact site should always be sooted or charred. Again, you may wish to cling to a belief that they should be sooted/charred, but that does not make it real, actual or truthful. The fact is this happens on many aircraft accidents.

Well I know if I put a steel butter knife in a lighter flame it will blacken the metal in about five seconds or less. I don't think the blackening is cause by smoke but by carbon residue. Judgeing by the size of the explosion I would assume that any debries that flew away would have some blackened carbon residue...

 

How do you know they were directly in the path of the final approach? How do you know how low if flew to the ground before impact? Where is the evidence that allows you to make these conclusions? In photo #1 how do you know the airplane should have passed over the light posts in that photo, and in addition how do you know that it was at an altitude to hit them? In photo #2 how do you know the direction that this photo is taken from is the actual lateral flight path into the building? Where is the undisputable evidence that leads to an assumption that these posts were in the pathway of the jet?

Well for one thing I saw a nice youtube video earlier that showed the flight path and the light poles flight 77 hit. Yup according to the offical story 5 light poles were knocked down by the plane. I just found this youtube video today. Although I do have to wonder about pole #one

spacer.png

 

a plane traveling at 550 miles an hour knocks down a lamp post into this car and only the windshield is damaged? Lets get a close up.

 

spacer.png

 

Here we can see the refelction off the hood...No dents, No scratchs in the paint, Nothing to indicate a lamp post knocked over by an object traveling at 550 MPH other than a broken windshield?

 

Is damage to the car consistent with what was reported to of happened to it?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>1. What is the wombasphere, how does it work and why don't you know when you'll leave?<

 

>>The wombasphere is a gelatinus sphere which houses the ovarian shell which make time displacement from the infinite to the finite possible via the zygomatic theorum. I have no idea when I will leave this timeline because when I arrived here the hydrogen containment unit in my wombasphere broke and I can't repair it. 2 part question so I'm counting you for two questions not 1. 18 left. Got anymore questions?<<

 

No- you have not properly answered question number one. This is like you asking me how my magic remote control works and I tell you "it works because the xylum of the flarnum in the timespace of Zar is in equilibrium and my remote control picks up that harmony."

 

1a. What is the zygomatic theorum? I assume it explains ovarian shells, gelatinous spheres and time travel to me, which in turn will explain to me what a wombasphere is and the relevance of a wombasphere, at which point I can deduce its purpose and malfunction.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. What is the wombasphere, how does it work and why don't you know when you'll leave?<

 

>>The wombasphere is a gelatinus sphere which houses the ovarian shell which make time displacement from the infinite to the finite possible via the zygomatic theorum. I have no idea when I will leave this timeline because when I arrived here the hydrogen containment unit in my wombasphere broke and I can't repair it. 2 part question so I'm counting you for two questions not 1. 18 left. Got anymore questions?<<

 

No- you have not properly answered question number one. This is like you asking me how my magic remote control works and I tell you "it works because the xylum of the flarnum in the timespace of Zar is in equilibrium and my remote control picks up that harmony."

 

1a. What is the zygomatic theorum? I assume it explains ovarian shells, gelatinous spheres and time travel to me, which in turn will explain to me what a wombasphere is and the relevance of a wombasphere, at which point I can deduce its purpose and malfunction.

Question 1a I am counting as your thrid question...and I'm leting you get away with that freebie because I failed to notice that your two part question was actully a 3 part question.

And I may not be able to answer every question as perfectly as you think I should. Its been 28 years since I made the original trip here and I haven't returned to my wombasphere ever since the hydrogen containment unit broke. I never saw the point. I couldn't fix it. Unless a rescue team is sent I am likely stuck here...I have only heard of rescue units being sent from the infinite under extreme circumstances.

 

From what I can recall of the zygomatic theorum when two haploid singularitys combine a diploid singularity is created. The ovarian shell is supposed to provide the energy to generate a haploid singularity but only with in the hydrogen containment unit and only when I authorize the transfer of spurmal intigration with the shell. At this point the Haploid singularitys are produced and combined into a diploid singularity which is housed at the center of the wombasphere.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great, now your answering my replies to others...

Yes, I did, because isn't it obvious that these questions are smack-dab in my area of expertise? I figured ruthless would answer them, but to avoid you refuting him with "but you are not an airline pilot" I figured I would chime in too. BTW, again I point out it is comments like this that cause people to think you are harping on them, and they will then harp right back!
Still, I've done it myself.

Yes, you have. And the fact you have makes it seem even that more "snide" that you would point this out. If you are really honest about having those questions answered, then I would think you would be HAPPY to see an expert in aircraft answer them....right?
But could you answer my questions I really REALLY want answered some time?

Patience, please. Did I not promise I would? Answering these questions will require me to download some of those pics and mark some of them up to highlight my point. That takes a bit more time than simply typing a reply... and I do have other things to get done in my life. So there is plenty of time over the weekend. I will get to each of them, as long as you will be just as honest in accepting that the answers are AT LEAST plausible, if not highly probable.
The following is the best source I could find. With your backround I was hopeing you could tell me how to calculate the Gs of flight 77 in this reported artical. The degree of the spiral I read somewhere was approx 320 degrees.

 

Radar data shows Flight 77 crossing the Capitol Beltway and headed toward the Pentagon. However, the plane, flying more than 400 mph, is too high when it nears the Pentagon at 9:35 a.m., crossing the Pentagon at about 7,000 feet up. [CBS News, 9/21/2001; Boston Globe, 11/23/2001] The plane then makes a difficult high-speed descending turn. It makes a 'downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes.

I can lead you through the calculations for this as well, but I will wait until after I handle the other questions first. But in the meantime I hope you understand that the "320 degrees" refers to its change in heading? In other words, if it had turned 360 degrees it would have done one complete turn. I want to end this reply with a reference to a piloting technique known as the "two-minute turn". It is called this because under nominal conditions (not heavy manuever g's) ALL AIRPLANES can complete a 360 degree turn in 2 minutes.... with MUCH less than even 1.5 g's. Here is the reference:http://www.flightsimbooks.com/copilot/page19.php

And here is the quote:

 

I'm demonstrating a standard two-minute turn, the turn you'll virtually always use when flying IFR (Instrument Flight Rules, which means there is weather up there and you had better know what you are doing if you get into it). You will also use this kind of turn when flying an ILS approach, as well as in everyday flying when you want to make a nice leisurely turn. It's also called a 'standard-rate turn.'

 

'Two-minute turn' means that with this bank (averaging approximately 20 degrees) it will take your aircraft approximately two minutes to turn 360 degrees and, of course, one minute to reverse direction. We call the latter 'doing a 180' for obvious reasons. The 180 is a very useful maneuver, for example: If you took off and flew a few miles and then remembered you left your briefcase in the hangar—or even worse, your lunch.

So given the above, now look at the quote you provided about AA 77's maneuver before it hit the Pentagon... It took two AND A HALF minutes to complete NOT EVEN a full 360 turn!!!! Logic and math tells us that this is SLOWER than a "standard rate turn" (two-minute turn), which means it is LESS AGGRESSIVE than a two-minute turn. And I can also assure you that because this guy did a maneuver that was even more gentle than a standard-rate turn, there is absolutely NO TRUTH in the statement that it was " a difficult high-speed descending turn . " That is just BS. And as I said, I will run you through the calcs for the g-levels involved, but after I address your other questions on the photos.

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Right here

 

First let us deal with the lamp post and the taxi that was damaged when it came down. This takes less effort than the other photos... and besides, saving those other photos for last is the same as "saving the best for last". I assure you, the answers I give to these could be just as "damaging" to your belief these pics are "inconsistent" as the turbofan and scorched grass issue.

 

Well for one thing I saw a nice youtube video earlier that showed the flight path and the light poles flight 77 hit. Yup according to the offical story 5 light poles were knocked down by the plane. I just found this youtube video today. Although I do have to wonder about pole #one

 

spacer.png

 

a plane traveling at 550 miles an hour knocks down a lamp post into this car and only the windshield is damaged?

First of all there is certainly damage, as we can see. One must now ask you the question Why do you believe there needs to be MORE damage than what you see? Please answer. Even better is how do you think this fact is either "inconsistent" or somehow contributes to the idea that "the gov is lying" or "a 757 did not hit the Pentagon"? Whether or not you think there should be more damage than there is has NO BEARING on the fact that it is entirely plausible that a 757 clipped this light post, and it fell on this taxi's windshield.

Now I would like you to notice that the light pole bends right about the point that the yellow line goes through it. This bend means it is very plausible that the pole fell in such a way that the end (which we can see no longer has the light fixture on top of it) PUNCTURED the windshield directly. With the bottom flange of the pole on the ground, and supposing the top end did puncture thru the windshield, this could have permitted what we see...damage to the windshield only but no major damage to the hood. I assure you, the physics ARE POSSIBLE, and there is not NECESSARILY anything inconsistent about this photo.

 

Now let me throw even one other possibility into the mix: Since we can clearly see the top part of the pole is missing (the light fixture part), How can you be CERTAIN that the part of the pole you see in the photo was responsible for the damage you see in the windshield? (Hint: you cannot). It COULD BE that when the airplane clipped the pole it clipped OFF the top portion of the light fixture, and it could be POSSIBLE that this piece is what punctured the windshield while the remainder of the pole fell where you see it lying.

 

Now let me be the first to admit, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE to support this version. BUT IT IS CERTAINLY PLAUSIBLE. One might even FIND evidence for this if one were able to look INTO the vehicle and see what sort of debris is in the front of the car from the light pole. But my major point here is that I think I have sufficiently pointed out that this photo is NOT NECESSARILY "inconsistent" with ANYTHING!!! There could be many different physical explanations for why only the windshield had major damage. And BTW, neither of the photos are high enough resolution for you to positively conclude there were no other scratches or dents. In fact, one MIGHT be able to argue that in the smaller, closer photo that the different shading on the hood right in front of the windshield COULD BE evidence of a dent! How can you say that different shading is NOT a dent? You cannot dismiss this possibility with the evidence of the photo only.

 

But the bigger issue is what I laid out at the beginning of this reply: HOW DOES ANY OF THIS STUFF WITH THE LIGHT POST AND TAXI IN ANY WAY PROVE THAT EITHER

 

a) The GOV is lying about a plane hitting the Pentagon. or

 

b) A 757 did NOT hit the Pentagon.????

 

There is no "real" connection between the two. It is quite plausible that a 757 DID clip that light pole and the damage to the vehicle is plausible....there is NOT NECESSARILY ANYTHING INCONSISTENT IN THES PHOTOS!

 

But now one thing I would like to say about this photo, based on my knowledge of aircraft, aircraft accidents, and aircraft flight paths:

 

I think it is HIGHLY POSSIBLE and certainly VERY PLAUSIBLE that the direction that this photo is looking could well represent the truest angle of view for the flight path the airplane took into the Pentagon outer wall!

 

I say this because we see CLEAR EVIDENCE of a "clear corridor", not to mention the evidence of the pole itself that has been clipped by something that came along that path. But now you can see that this "corridor" is almost even delineated by two OTHER light poles that ARE still standing. They are both near the yellow marks on the photo. The right-most edge of the corridor is marked by the light post right next to the yellow arrow with the word "generator" next to it. The left-most edge of the corridor is marked by the light post just to the left and above the other yellow arrowhead that goes through the taxi.

 

So can we now dispense with this photo as somehow being "inconsistent" with the story? And maybe, just MAYBE this photo could actually be evidence FOR the story because it shows a clipped light pole and it clearly shows a wide enough corridor for a 757 to fly through to hit the Pentagon!!! :eek:

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me point this out:

 

I am willing to debate this event because I believe I can change peoples minds by pointing out the flaws and contradictions in the offical story.

This quote, directly from you, belies your claim that you are "only asking questions". Clearly right here you are saying you think you can change people's minds. That would suggest that your "asking questions" about things that you think are inconsistent (but which may have totally consistent explanations, such as the turbofan and unscorched grass) may be more geared towards trying to "change people's minds" than they are actually trying to get VALID answers to your questions.

I maintain that this quote of yours says you are not being totally honest in the motives behind your questions. And I further state that it is dangerous for you to try to get people to "change their minds" ESPECIALLY if the "questions" you are asking are based on bad assumptions which could NOT indicate lies or inconsistencies. THIS is why I answer your posts, and THIS is why I write my answers for OTHERS TO READ... so they can see that it might be "buying into bigger lies" about 9-11 if they change their minds in the way you wish to change their minds!!!

 

:mad:

 

Why can't people make up their own minds? WHy do YOU believe you have the right to get them to change their minds (with possibly false accusations)?

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Right here

 

First of all there is certainly damage, as we can see. One must now ask you the question Why do you believe there needs to be MORE damage than what you see? Please answer. Even better is how do you think this fact is either "inconsistent" or somehow contributes to the idea that "the gov is lying" or "a 757 did not hit the Pentagon"? Whether or not you think there should be more damage than there is has NO BEARING on the fact that it is entirely plausible that a 757 clipped this light post, and it fell on this taxi's windshield.

I think thier should be more damage to the car because a light post hit it. A light post that was knocked over at the speed the plane was flying at when it was cliped. I think the damage to the car is inconsistent to the explaination that a light post hit it because only the windshield is damaged.

A light post landed on the car and did not damage the hood or the roof. The car is one the road so it was likely in motion yet the damage to the windshield is a punch...kinda like what you would expect if you threw a brick through it. If the light pole landed in the glass why didn't the car drag the lightpost before coming to a complete stop..effectively tearing through the glass and scraping the roof of the car.If a light post landed in the windshield while the car was in motion the driver would likely slam on the brakes. But the photo shows no skid marks. The hood of the taxi isn't even scratched.

 

Yes thier are many plausible explainations and the photo is not neccesarly inconsistent..but it is suspect and questionable.

 

And then thiers what I said about skid marks but again maybe the car was driveing slow not fast.

 

As for the whole dent and scratch thing you brought up...the other photo I referenced, the close up, it had a clean refelction off the hood. No waviring. Not even hail damage type dents just smooth hood.

 

But the bigger issue is what I laid out at the beginning of this reply: HOW DOES ANY OF THIS STUFF WITH THE LIGHT POST AND TAXI IN ANY WAY PROVE THAT EITHER

 

a) The GOV is lying about a plane hitting the Pentagon. or

 

b) A 757 did NOT hit the Pentagon.????

Where you find one inconsistencey you may find more. The point is that thier is reason to look for them by questioning everything because somethings about 911 like WTC7 don't make a lick of sense. BUT to continue on topic.

The photo maybe good clear evidence of the government version....then again maybe I said something that will grab your attention that you can affirm is an inconsistency...proly not but if they can let it happen they can help it along too...As I pose all these questions you understand I AM questioning. When a question is answered I accept it...now this car thing ..your answers seemed kinda inconclusive and understandably so considering that thier could be many reasons why only the windshield was damaged....SO after we elimenate all the impossible reasons for the damage what kind of answers are we left with that can account for it. I think the close up photo is better for critical examination... the photo quaility is better and we see the taxi Close up.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yada yada yada aren't you glad I choose to question experts like yourself so you can educate me.

 

People can make up thier own minds..IN FACT I would go so far to say that I can not make up anyone elses mind for them. I believe I have the right to try and change peoples minds by questioning things because I am not BELIGERANTLY insisting they conform to my view point. I am not a facist. If I change someones' mind, like yours, by questioning aspects of the story I find fishy have I done some kind of dis-service to you? Or did I enlighten you to a point that you did not consider before I brought up question you may not of considered befor?

 

If nothing else I know I have provided you with a few photos you like so I can't understand you discontent with me.

 

Also, I rarely engage in this debate anymore. Since I have here and since your still willing to answer my questions I am willing to ask. And I apperciate you attention and hope to have all my questions satisfactorly answered.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disappear for a day the the thread has rushed ahead.

 

@JustLurking

 

Interesting find. This GPS system is similar to the areas of robotics the US army is researching for their ground vehicles, as it is under congress to make 1/5th of the army unmanned by 2015. Why such an early date given the lack of any real threat from any country has me worried. Think 'Trade Federation' from Star Wars in Episode One. It could be surmised that those men may have views which the government didn't like, although in all honesty this is speculation without proof, so a bit of research in their area of robotics might be neccessary to shed light.

 

Ironically, in my path for programming, I have built several types of AI.

 

@RainmanTime

 

I'll just quickly cover your points. This is my favourite method, quotation attack and Critical Analysis of the argument. It works by exposing contradictions and logical flaws in an argument (feel free to echo it back at me with no real understanding later on) -

 

No investigator in their right mind would align their evidence such that their argument for what happens "rests" on an eyewitness account, and you cannot showthat mine did.

then ignore WELL OVER 20 PEOPLE who witnessed and identified the 757 that was approaching the Pentagon before it struck

:)

Usage of Numbers of People - Appeal to common practices.

 

Exactly what makes this true?

Now, the rotor and lack of debris suggest the aircraft was small. The lack of damage around the scene suggests it was directed, something all planes do not do when they crash. The direct line suggests the craft was flying low, something any airplane, and pilot, would have great difficulty doing - do not forget the point of entry was almost at ground level. The level of penetration suggests the craft was designed for such a purpose, or was at least stronger than the standard type of aircraft. The most damaging part of an airplane is it's fuel tank and engines, which happens to be contained in the wings. The very wings missing from the scene. So why had the plane exploded?

Presenting a weaker argument from the opposition - Straw Man Attack.

 

You say that, but you do not show it. Anywhere in your response.

I cannot supply information not given.Presenting a weaker argument from the opposition - Straw Man Attack.

 

You have not shown obstructions nor specifically shown a flight path that would meet with obstructions. Your are claiming a complete argument, but your argument is quite incomplete.

It is not neccessary for such information to be supplied for it to be known there are obstructions at ground level. Not namely the building itself. A flight path would be inherently flawed as information regarding the aircraft's path was withdrawn or altered, and condictory peices of information has been supplied. Given your claims on expertise in such an area, it is assumed you can extrapolate a flight path yourself.

Simply because I have neither supplied two peices of evidence does not mean the argument is 'incomplete'. All arguments, by your definition, would be 'incomplete' as they would need 100% of everything supplied, which would mean, by your definition, your argument is incomplete also has you have not supplied an image with a lack of obstructions and/or a suitable flight path to avoid any obstructions.

 

Evidence and reasoning only affect the strength of the argument.

 

Could you explain, technically, why it is "necessary" to slow down to control the aircraft in a maneuver? You might wish to write a book, because one of the most fundamental control analysis techniques we use is called a "constant speed manevuer". In addition, there are things called "automatic throttles" that are specifically designed to hold an airplane's speed constant in the face of not only disturbances but also when the airplane manevuers. Therefore, your statement above in bold is not correct.

However, for a plane to lower itself on a level line, it has to slow. The craft could not simply be pointed down as, at the point of the crash, the penetration holes were relatively level EG not angled. The craft would not have time to point itself down and level out as, if you say, it would still be going at the same constant speed, meaning there would be very, very little time for it to pull this off from the time of lowering itself from the highway to hitting the pentagon. Therefore, it must of slowed down.

Aside from the earlier statement in your paragraph (removed from the quote), this argument is sound. Kudos.

 

You gave your opinion and nothing more. (In a sidenote you also use the word "impossible" which is poor form, as this is always a very difficult adjective to prove.) You also related your belief in some sort of control requirement which is not a requirement. I fail to see the purpose in debating a person such as yourself who clearly is bending the truth and making statements, as if they are fact, that they cannot provide evidence to support.

Presenting a weaker argument from the opposition - Straw Man Attack.

 

Are you inferring Arlington is a crowded city? This is a non-sequitor. Please show me the "crowded city" in the verified flight path of AA 77 into the Pentagon.

We have already established the inherient flaws of the flight path. The rebuttal is simple, show me the flat land in the flight path of the AA 77.
It went over a freeway interchange by the time it got below 500 feet.

Hmm. Guess not.
The air cushion effect applies to any form of mass, even rolling hills.

Has it been shown rolling hills have a similar construction as buildings?

If it's different, please show us the effects on buildings. If it's the same, please show us the buildings that have a similar construction to rolling hills.

 

Please show me buildings in the AA 77 flight path into the pentagon. It went over a freeway interchange by the time it got below 500 feet.

Show me a flawless flight-path to work with.Freeway is higher than the ground. A freeway is not the same as rolling hills, nor flat ground (in regards that it's not level in proportion with the rest of the ground).

 

That is false. There is no requirement for an assumption to be "hidden" as you claim. Here is the link to the dictionary definition of assumption, and it does not make the restriction that an assumption cannot be explicit.

The dictionary only applies to the general use of assumption. However, in your case, you have been using it to form an argument, which means it falls under the definition of logic.2# Citation

"Logic A minor premise."

 

Premise meaning Reason. However, this is incorrect, as a reason is based on validity, meaning it is either one of two possible states - true or false. A reason cannot either be 'minor or major'.

 

3# Citation

 

"a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play""

 

This is the correct description of the usage of an assumption logically.

 

It is deemed implicit simply because it's held to be true, and therefore does not need to be stated. For example, I assume you are human - this does not need to be stated, and is therefore implicit. After all, if it's the same as a reason, why not just call it a reason?

 

I see no further reason for addressing all your statements which are not based in fact

Straw Man Attack!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Right here

 

I would like you to keep your mind on the larger point I am making. If you wish to talk about "inconsistencies", what I am exhibiting (to you and other readers) is that the approach you are taking is totally inconsistent with the standards that professional accident investigators adhere to. Professional investigators DO NOT say things like "I think there should be more damage". They would require EVDIENCE that would SHOW WHY there HAD to be more damage. There are other SERIOUS inconsistencies between the approach you adopt and the rigorous approach a professional accident investigator (such as myself) adheres to. I will keep pointing them out, even if you do not accept them. It only shows why you are not thinking like a professional accident investigator.

 

I think thier should be more damage to the car because a light post hit it.

But you can provide NO EVIDENCE that demands why there should be more damage. There is already damage. But you cannot show why there must be more. It is only your BELIEF that there must be more. Without that evidence, a professional accident investigator would simply say "it seems like the post hit that vehicle". That is the material evidence. Then the investigator would interview the driver of the car. If he gave eyewitness testimony that, yes indeed, that pole came crashing through my windshield, then this is SUPPORTING EVIDENCE for the material evidence. Here we don't have any such eyewitness account, but I would bet someone did interview that driver (if he lived, which it seems he did from the caption). And if he confirms that the post did hit his car, then the professional investigator moves on to other more important evidence. He does not dote on this stuff TRYING TO FIND INCONSISTENCIES. A person like you continues to dote on this photo trying to identify inconsistencies BECAUSE YOU HAVE A PRE-EXISTING BELIEF that the government is either lying or planting fake evidence. That is a bias. If you were on a professional accident investigation team, and you followed your approach and EXHIBITED this bias of yours, I guarantee you that the lead investigator would IMMEDIATELY throw you off the team... because you are allowing your bias towards a specific belief to tarnish the "sanitary" approach of the investigation. This is simply fact, whether you wish to believe it or not.

 

I think the damage to the car is inconsistent to the explaination that a light post hit it because only the windshield is damaged.

There it is again....you THINK it is inconsistent. But there is still absolutely NO evidence that proves it is inconsistent. It is only your belief, and one that cannot be supported by other evidence. That is problematic to an unbiased investigation. Don't you see that? I am sure other readers see that. And I KNOW Darby sees and understands this. Perhaps he might chime in?

 

The car is one the road so it was likely in motion

More poor investigative skills. Why do you immediately think it is "likely" that it was in motion. WHAT EVIDENCE CAN YOU DISPLAY TO SHOW THIS IS LIKELY???? Let me suggest two reasons why it may NOT be likely:

1) The eyewitness in the video shared by ruthless stated it was rush hour, and traffic was bad in that area near the Pentagon. When you listen to his words, it would seem that if the vehicles were moving at all, they may have been moving slow. But it could have been at a DEAD STOP...

 

2) If you are in a vehicle fighting traffic, and suddenly you see a BIG commercial 757 coming RIGHT AT YOU (slightly above the road)... is it possible there is a natural human reaction to STOP THE VEHICLE???? Beyond this, if you sit in your vehicle and WATCH that airplane come at you AND CLIP THE LIGHT POLE in front of you, wouldn't you think it is also a natural human reaction (when they see an ensuing accident) to SLAM ON THE BRAKES!?!?!

 

So these are just two reasons why your belief that just because it was on a road that it was "likely in motion" is a bad assumption to make, especially if that assumption plays on your other BELIEF that there should be more damage.

 

If the light pole landed in the glass why didn't the car drag the lightpost before coming to a complete stop

Again, this assumes the vehicle was in motion. You CANNOT ASSUME IT WAS IN MOTION, rather the protocols of investigation require you to HAVE EVIDENCE IT WAS IN MOTION before you ever postulate about this!!!! Please please PLEASE understand this, for this thread is littered with many more of exactly these kinds of bad assumptions of yours.

 

Yes thier are many plausible explainations and the photo is not neccesarly inconsistent..but it is suspect and questionable.

ONLY because YOU BELIEVE it is suspect and questionable. You have shown NO EVIDENCE that suggests it actually IS suspect or questionable.

 

And then thiers what I said about skid marks but again maybe the car was driveing slow not fast.

Or maybe it was at a dead stop, watching a giant airplane speeding past it towards the Pentagon?

 

As for the whole dent and scratch thing you brought up...the other photo I referenced, the close up, it had a clean refelction off the hood. No waviring. Not even hail damage type dents just smooth hood.

No....that is the exact photo I was referring to about the difference in shading on the hood directly in front of the windshield. Here is the photo that I have downloaded and circled the area I am talking about:

spacer.png

 

How do you KNOW that the area I have circled is NOT a dent or depression?

 

I certainly cannot say that, for certain, it is NOT a dent or depression. You need more evidence (a clearer photo or perhaps one that is taken ONLY of the hood) before you can be conclusive that this is NOT additional damage perhaps caused by the pole resting on the hood.

 

Again, do not mistake what I am saying here. I am NOT saying that area I circled IS more damage. I am simply saying you cannot CONCLUSIVELY say that it is NOT damage without additional evidence. Remember the F-4 video, and how you thought you DID NOT see the airplane punch thru the cement? And when myself and JustLurking implored you to look more closely, you admitted you could not realistically come to that conclusion.

 

Where you find one inconsistencey you may find more. The point is that thier is reason to look for them by questioning everything because somethings about 911 like WTC7 don't make a lick of sense.

And this is PRECISELY why you would be kicked-off a professional investigative team if you exposed such beliefs and methods... Because the ONLY reason for you to look for inconsistencies is because YOU BELIEVE that the government is not telling the truth. IOW, you are NOT acting like you are on an UNBIASED search for the truth...Instead you are ONLY looking for inconsistencies that would (appear) to support your belief. In the investigative world we call this "confirmational bias search for evidence". You will spend so much time looking at something as insignificant (to the issue of weather a 757 hit the Pentagon) such as this photo, that you IGNORE the bigger elements of evidence that SUPPORT the exact story told by the government (and some non-gov) accident investigators.

I know you may disagree, but I assure you I am telling you EXACTLY how professional accident investigators behave and HOW THEY DO NOT BEHAVE. Your approaches are INCONSISTENT with the "best practices" of unbiased accident investigation.

 

I am almost done. I will address your other photos later today. I've got errands to run... and my girlfriend is "demanding to be serviced"! :D

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Right here

 

But you can provide NO EVIDENCE that demands why there should be more damage. There is already damage. But you cannot show why there must be more.

OK just so we are clear and can move on from this point agreeing to disagree if the case need be...

If a lamp post just spontaniously fell over on a car it would dent the hell out of it. This lamp past was knocked down at 500+ miles an hour into a car in motion and you believe it is perfectly normal and consistent that only the windshield was damaged? Am I understanding you correctly?

 

And I KNOW Darby sees and understands this. Perhaps he might chime in?

now asking for back up is not kosher if your assertations are sound they can stand on thier own without back up...but in this case hell ya . sure YO DARBY CAN WE GET YOUR OPINION ABOUT THIS?

 

More poor investigative skills. Why do you immediately think it is "likely" that it was in motion. WHAT EVIDENCE CAN YOU DISPLAY TO SHOW THIS IS LIKELY???? Let me suggest two reasons why it may NOT be likely:

No, look at the photo again. The car is parked across the road. WHY? A) The driver slamed on his brakes and skid into that position. B) the car was moved into that position to get the light pole off his car but if that is the case the car will have scratchs and scuffs as metal scraped against metal pulling the car out from under the pole C) the car was parked thier with a window smash to make it look good. Considering the amazing paper passports that survive firebals this is not beyond conception.

THE CAR IS PARKED ACROSS THE ROAD.

 

Or maybe it was at a dead stop, watching a giant airplane speeding past it towards the Pentagon?

not parked across the road.

 

How do you KNOW that the area I have circled is NOT a dent or depression?

spacer.png

I think you know the right answer and you just don't wanna admit to it..but just in case you really don't know the answer. Follow the lines. The lines of the car are strait in your circled section. As for that white thing....I think its glass

 

Lets get a SUPER CLOSE UP

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Pentagon_taxi_hit_by_lightpole.jpg

 

Yup the white thing was glass....a light pole cliped at 500+MPH hit this car and only the windshield is damaged and you think it is consistent correct?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Titorite,

 

'The wombasphere is a gelatinus sphere which houses the ovarian shell which make time displacement from the infinite to the finite possible via the zygomatic theorum.

 

I have no idea when I will leave this timeline because when I arrived here the hydrogen containment unit in my wombasphere broke and I can't repair it.

Sounds like a futuristic take on the 'old world' process of conception and birth to me. :eek:

And you've been here 28 years? Remarkable. This timeline sucks... I should know. I've been here 48 years so far. Since I got out - as hard as I've been trying as of late - I haven't been able to get back in either. :D

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im glad someone got it... I wanna know where in the heck did jmpet get the idea I was a time traveler... god knows I never said anything to that effect untill he accused me...after that I thought I'd run with it...

Ahh [censored]!. I feel bad man... I'm sorry, now I realize letting this exchange run its course woulda been interesting. I won't do that again.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Right here

 

hiya RMT,

 

" I assure you, the answers I give to these could be just as "damaging" to your belief these pics are "inconsistent" as the turbofan and scorched grass issue."

Speaking of commercial jet engines. Onetime on a Saturday, I recall being at SFO with my boss, and UAL Maintenance was in the process of doing an engine R&R on a 747-400 outside the shop. About an hour after we arrived and saw what we came to inspect, the three of us were standing there talking about what we were going to do in the doorway of the hangar, as they were just starting to lower it down off the wing with a giant engine cart. Another mechanic had hopped up and was standing inside the front of the engine, on its replacement. He seemed very small I thought.

I turned to our UAL contact (I've since recalled his name was Frank,)and said "Thats one huge engine." Frank replied, " They all look big - but you'd be dissapointed if you could see one dismantled, and saw whats inside." I never was sure what he meant by that, until I saw the link you posted about the engine in a Boeing 757.

 

Because the engine covering is huge, anyone who didn't know - would think the internal parts would have to be huge as well - when thats simply not the case.

 

" Now let me throw even one other possibility into the mix: Since we can clearly see the top part of the pole is missing (the light fixture part), How can you be CERTAIN that the part of the pole you see in the photo was responsible for the damage you see in the windshield? (Hint: you cannot). It COULD BE that when the airplane clipped the pole it clipped OFF the top portion of the light fixture, and it could be POSSIBLE that this piece is what punctured the windshield while the remainder of the pole fell where you see it lying. Now let me be the first to admit, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE to support this version. BUT IT IS CERTAINLY PLAUSIBLE. One might even FIND evidence for this if one were able to look INTO the vehicle and see what sort of debris is in the front of the car from the light pole. "

Because of the impact pattern on the windshield, what you propose is very likely what did occur. Those lamp fixture assemblys only weigh about 50 to 60lbs - if that. the fixture case could have shattered, and then a part of it hit the center of the windshield.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Right here

 

Uhh...take a look at the front seat of the taxi (zoom your XP if you have to). The seat is crushed on the passenger's side and the whole thing is slanting down about 20 degrees. Whatever hit the windshield entered the cab on the passenger's side. The cabbby is lucky that the taxi wasn't three feet farther to the right or he would have been "slanting down" as in one more decedent added to the mix.

 

Just a guess, based on the position of the car and the downed light pole but whatever was on the end of the pole is what entered the vehicle. The fracture pattern of the safety glass tends to support this. The glass was struck by a cylindrical object that swing in an arc from the left more horizontally than vertically.

 

I'll even take one more wild guess at which object in the last photo (post above this one) pierced the window. It's the white-tanish cylinder on the street in front of the cab (it's probably the J-Box from the top of the pole). If you go back to the large photo on the last page, download it and zoom to 800X and look at the safety glass you can see the paint transfer - same color.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Right here

 

Now let me throw even one other possibility into the mix: Since we can clearly see the top part of the pole is missing (the light fixture part), How can you be CERTAIN that the part of the pole you see in the photo was responsible for the damage you see in the windshield? (Hint: you cannot). It COULD BE that when the airplane clipped the pole it clipped OFF the top portion of the light fixture, and it could be POSSIBLE that this piece is what punctured the windshield while the remainder of the pole fell where you see it lying. Now let me be the first to admit, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE to support this version. BUT IT IS CERTAINLY PLAUSIBLE. One might even FIND evidence for this if one were able to look INTO the vehicle and see what sort of debris is in the front of the car from the light pole. "

All the possibles,probables, mights, and maybes of the above quote and you never thought of the possiblity that the seat was leaned back and not crushed. I mean that headrest looks strait to me. RMT tried saying thier were dents in the car when thier were none. and a smart man like him should of known to just follow the line to prove it. Strait lines=no dents. But just incase I got that super large photo link which clearly shown I was right. Now darby wants to say the seat is crushed

when in fact the head rest of the passanger side is thier intact in a leaned back position with the rest of the seat.

 

Just accept the inconsistency and stop grasping at straws to explain something that is anomalis and without logical explaination upon critical examination.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Right here

 

If a lamp post just spontaniously fell over on a car it would dent the hell out of it. This lamp past was knocked down at 500+ miles an hour into a car in motion and you believe it is perfectly normal and consistent that only the windshield was damaged? Am I understanding you correctly?

Never was there a more perfect example of a strawman argument. This is what makes people consider you to be an ahole, and again the rhetoric will ratchet-up if you keep it up. Look at the words you are trying to put in my mouth (in bold). Let me ask you a question (again an explicit question that I wish an answer to): Did I not just explain to you above that YOU cannot assume the car was in motion because you have NO evidence to show it was? Didn't I just point that out in a post of mine above? Hmmmmm? And here you are trying to claim that I am saying this in your quote above? That is truly shameless and it is why I would wish to use some of the language on you that Penn Gillette used on some of those people in the video that ruthless shared.

And another part of your obvious strawman: "perfectly normal". No, if you are going by the assumption that the pole itself was what hit the taxi, then no, I do not consider it perfectly normal. So that when you say the following I have a response that I want you to admit to:

 

Just accept the inconsistency and stop grasping at straws to explain something that is anomalis and without logical explaination upon critical examination.

Why don't you stop demanding there is an inconsistency when there are clearly OTHER EXPLANATIONS for which it could be consistent? Why don't you stop grasping at straws to "change people's minds" to think it is without a doubt this is an inconsistent photograph?

Another direct question that I want an answer for: Do you not agree that it is possible that it could have NOT been the post itself that you see in the photo that hit the windshield, but rather some other large piece of the light pole?

 

Stop coming to conclusions without evidence to back them up! :mad:

 

No, look at the photo again. The car is parked across the road. WHY? A) The driver slamed on his brakes and skid into that position. B) the car was moved into that position to get the light pole off his car but if that is the case the car will have scratchs and scuffs as metal scraped against metal pulling the car out from under the pole C) the car was parked thier with a window smash to make it look good. Considering the amazing paper passports that survive firebals this is not beyond conception.

 

THE CAR IS PARKED ACROSS THE ROAD.

And you claim to be able to lay out the ONLY reasons why the car is parked across the road. You are really shameless and acting like you think you are a professional investigator again. And once again keep your eye on my larger point: Your approach is totally inconsistent with the standards and norms of how accident investigations are conducted. You immediately make assumptions that you cannot back up. Why can't you admit that you do that? (I know why, because then you would not be able to "change people's minds). :confused:

 

I think you know the right answer and you just don't wanna admit to it..

Stop it. You cannot bare to admit that I am following the investigative standards that are part of my profession. You, OTOH, are approaching this willy-nilly, and you are clearly approaching this with a "conclusion" in mind and you are seeking ANY sort of "facts" (in your case "inconsistencies") that you think will get people to "change their minds".

I am again having little to no respect for you. You are acting just like a scammer...trying to get people to believe something that MAY NOT BE TRUE, but which you seem to think you are on a "mission from God" to get people to believe.

 

Yup the white thing was glass....a light pole cliped at 500+MPH hit this car and only the windshield is damaged and you think it is consistent correct?

Again the obvious attempt at strawman. Please complete what you know is my position on this: "It is consistent with ANOTHER SCENARIO that you are just not wishing to admit is possible." That is my stance.

And I am glad that you shared that other photo that shows the other two pieces of light pole debris in that photo. Because I was just about to share that as well. What you cannot deny is that since we can see these other pieces in this photo, that means there could have been more... and THAT MEANS that the possibility that the damage was caused by an errant piece falling INTO the vehicle is still a possible consistent explanation. ADMIT IT, and stop pretending there is ONLY ONE CONCLUSION (which you do not have evidence to support)

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Right here

 

now asking for back up is not kosher if your assertations are sound they can stand on thier own without back up

Yes, it is kosher. And unlike you I can provide direct evidence WHY it is perfectly kosher to get another investigator's opinion:

There is a REASON that aircraft accident investigations are comprised of a TEAM of people. That reason is not only to get people with varying specialties (flight controls, hydraulics, piloting, structural engineers, etc.).... but another very good reason is to avoid the "single person single conclusion" obvious problem. Accident investigations are performed by TEAMS to avoid exactly what you wish to do: You wish to be the sole voice who pronounces what happened, and in your case you also wish to be the one who says "this is inconsistent" and not have anyone question your claim of inconsistency.

 

Once again, I have proved my bigger point: You are biased in your "investigation" and your "questions" because you outright state you want to change people's minds, and I have also sufficiently shown you are shoddy in your investigative approach. I am just about done with you. But out of courtesy I will address the last two points you asked me to address: About the "cleanness" of the parts thrown from the impact site, and the "undamaged/unscorched" grass from the blast.

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Right here

 

All the possibles,probables, mights, and maybes of the above quote and you never thought of the possiblity that the seat was leaned back and not crushed. I mean that headrest looks strait to me.

And you are now grasping at straws. No, your analysis is incorrect and I can show you how. Looking at the ANGLE OF THE DRIVER'S SEAT as compared to the ANGLE OF THE PASSENGER'S SEAT shows that it is an incorrect conclusion to think the passenger's seat is only "leaned back and not crushed". You are projecting what you want to believe. Here I have marked up a cutout of this photo to show you that the angles are off. The green lines are parallel to the lines of the top of the two seats:

spacer.png

 

If the passenger's seat was only "leaned back and not crushed", then the top of the seat would still be at the same angle of the driver's seat. So your analysis is inconsistent with geometry of the two front seats of a car being properly aligned.

 

Talking about inconsistencies! There are more inconsistencies in your approach than there are in the data you present! :confused:

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Right here

 

Never was there a more perfect example of a strawman argument. This is what makes people consider you to be an ahole, and again the rhetoric will ratchet-up if you keep it up. Look at the words you are trying to put in my mouth (in bold). Let me ask you a question (again an explicit question that I wish an answer to): Did I not just explain to you above that YOU cannot assume the car was in motion because you have NO evidence to show it was? Didn't I just point that out in a post of mine above? Hmmmmm? And here you are trying to claim that I am saying this in your quote above?

I don't alter what words are typed in quotes.

Lets clear some more things up, a strawman attack is when a person focuses on the weakest part of an opponets argument and overemphasises its importance. That bold part about the car in motion was not an attack of any kind. Infact you quoted one statement and two questions.

 

Another thing. Your insistence that nobody can know if the car was in motion....well sir when you drive on a road you normaly drive WITH the road, not ACROSS the road. The car in the photo is parked ACROSS the road. IF the car was not in motion like you insinuate, how logical is it to drive it across the road and park it?

 

And I still wait to understand why you think it is logical that a giant fireball does not char the penta-lawn.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...