Jump to content

I know what happens in 2012.


titorite
 Share

Recommended Posts

Now let us deal with this bad assumption of yours:

 

spacer.png

 

Lets criticaly examin this photo. The peice of wreckage you see must of landed in the spot and the plane exploded right?

 

Despite its twisted form there is no scorching, no sign of any soot, nothing at all to suggest it had been at the epicenter of a giant fireball(aside from its twisted form).

Allow me to first point out that you are NOT asking a question here. You are making a statement. So your previous argument (your fallback position) that you are "just asking questions" and not stating what you think should be true, has fallen apart. Here you are certainly implying that you think there should be soot or some evidence of being in a fireball. You appear to not even consider that these parts could have been thrown BEYOND the expanding fireball... hence since they were never IN the fireball they would never have a chance to be "sooted". I will now show why your assumption is bad.

First I am going to show you another angle of the Phantom F-4 video where it hit the block wall.

 

http://www.sandia.gov/media/mov_mpg/f_4crashtest.mpg

 

I would like you to pay close attention to the parts of the airplane flying away from the impact point. You can clearly see plenty of parts flying forward, but you can even see evidence of parts flying backwards from the point of impact. Here I have taken a piece of one frame and highlighted both forward-flying and backward-flying parts:

 

spacer.png

 

When you watch the video in realtime, you will also notice that these parts are ejected so quickly that they are OUTSIDE the smoke/dust plume created by the impact. So these parts are flying away from the point of impact with great velocity. Greater velocity than with which the smoke/dust plume is forming.

 

But I will even go one better, just to prove (once and for all) that your assumption that these airplane parts should be sooted is flawed. We can even look at the actual Pentagon video and see the exact same effect of flying parts that you observe in the F-4 video above. First, I want you to watch the video and pay close attention to the 2 frames right after the "light" of the impact fireball begins.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L75Gga92WO8Much as I did with the F-4 video above, I have also taken one of the frames right after impact, while the fireball is still expanding, and marked what are clearly parts that are flying away from the point of impact outside the flamefront of the fireball

 

spacer.png

 

Please note and admit that there are several parts that are flying away from the point of impact that are OUTSIDE the flame front! Again, this is another question of your honor. I have now disproven your flawed assumption, and we now have direct physical evidence for why it is not good to assume that parts of the airplane have to show signs of soot or scorching.

 

You may not accept this, but once again I assure you there are readers following this thread who see exactly the point I am making about your flawed assumptions (and in this case we should also note it was NOT a question.... titorite was clearly trying to "change people's minds" based on a FALSE assumption about what should be). We now see there is absolutely NOTHING inconsistent about airplane parts out of the Pentagon lawn not showing soot or scorch marks.

 

Your credibility as an accident investigator is waning fast, titorite. As I mentioned to you earlier on, I have easily identitied (and can provide evidence) for why your assumptions ("questions") are invalid. I have now shown you several of them. But there are more. And if you wish to continue I assure you the outlook for your credibility will become even bleaker.

 

But you go ahead and believe what you wish. It is merely a case of titorite ignoring the facts, and we all know that this does not change the truth. ;)

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 417
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

"First I am going to show you another angle of the Phantom F-4 video where it hit the block wall.

 

http://www.sandia.gov/media/mov_mpg/f_4crashtest.mpg

 

I would like you to pay close attention to the parts of the airplane flying away from the impact point. You can clearly see plenty of parts flying forward, but you can even see evidence of parts flying backwards from the point of impact. Here I have taken a piece of one frame and highlighted both forward-flying and backward-flying parts: (photo) "

Ahh - so there was (a) photo(s) beyond the films ending. Cool find RMT.

***Updated***

 

Just got back from looking at the gov footage of the F-4 and then comparing it with the youtube vid. The photo you capped and posted - is exactly what I was hoping we'd see. Even if it was done on a smaller scale with a plane that is built to higher tolerance than a commercial jet airliner, the proximate results are consistent with everything you explained on this particular aspect. I'm willing to bet if they'd of sifted that dirt pile they'd of found some wreckage in small chunks.

 

JL

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Right here

 

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.

Wrong again! And this time I will use one of your own "favorite sources" to impeach you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

 

The VERY FIRST LINE of this entry in Wikipedia makes it clear:

 

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

In the statement you concocted you were misrepresenting my position. Here is what you wrote:

 

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?

The bold parts clearly show you are setting up a strawman...i.e. you are trying to attribute this statment as being my understanding, when it is not. BTW, I asked you for clear answers to two questions in that post. You have not answered them. Please do so. Meanwhile, here are a few more quotes from the Wikipedia entry on strawman. You really should read-up on this before you try to prove me wrong.

 

To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent.

One can set up a straw man in the following ways:

 

1. Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.

The good thing is, I called you on your attempted strawman before you could ever get to the point of refuting it. Please stop these games, titorite, and just admit that I am completely refuting your idea that these photos have "inconsistencies". It is not looking good for you.

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just got back from looking at the gov footage of the F-4 and then comparing it with the youtube vid. The photo you capped and posted - is exactly what I was hoping we'd see. Even if it was done on a smaller scale with a plane that is built to higher tolerance than a commercial jet airliner, the proximate results are consistent with everything you explained on this particular aspect. I'm willing to bet if they'd of sifted that dirt pile they'd of found some wreckage in small chunks.

Thank you, JL. It is my hope that from items like this folks around here can understand that I *am* a professional in these matters, and that they should at least consider that I might know a bit more about these things than "amateur investigators". The points I am highlighting with respect to titorite's approach to investigation are important ones. Flawed assumptions quite often lead to flawed conclusions. And worse than that, when you approach an investigation with a theory that you belive to be the right one (rather than simply allowing the evidence to SHOW it is the right one), you will only search for evidence that backs your belief, and you will tend to ignore that evidence which does not match your belief. Again, we call this confirmational bias, and it leads to bad conclusions... and I certainly would hope critical thinkers would not allow their minds to be changed by such poor assumptions and poor investigative technique.

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Right here

 

You are trying to use strawman tactics on me as you say I am doing it to you.

 

create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent

YOU are createing a postion that I use the tactic of "strawmaning", refuteing it and saying I do it.

YOU DO BELIEVE IT IS LOGICAL THAT A LAMP POST KNOCKED DOWN BY A PLANE TRAVELING AT 500+ MILES AN HOUR HITTING A CAR CAUSING ONLY WINDSHIELD DAMAGE (and now passanger seat damage).

 

Before I shared the large photo with you, you circled a portion from the small photo and asked me how I could be so certian that it was not dented and then insisted I could not be certian. After I shared the large photo with proveing that thier were no dents your argument changes and you start saying "Oh well maybe a peice of the light pole broke the window" So what happened to me being incapable of know that thier were no dents?

 

You like wiki too obviously heres something else from them. ITS WHERE THEY GOT THE PHOTO FROM.

 

Lloyd England's taxicab hit by a lightpole as American Airlines Flight 77 passed low over Washington Boulevard and crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11/2001. Source: http://www.defenselink.mil/multimedia/ DefenseLink

Oh gee we got the dept of defens saying THE POLE not a peice THE POLE hit the car... not the fixture by the right hand corner of the car not the peice in the backround or forgraound but THE POLE.

And you still aint touched the penta-lawn or wtc7.

 

I'll go look for those question you say I didn't answer while you think of some more ways to defend the erroneous.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Right here

 

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?

 

Yes I not agree.

 

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?

 

Not with any conviction. What, do you want me to believe the car was stuck in rush hour in a in a in a sideways position? Come on dude get real.

 

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree about this.

 

SO MOVING ON.

 

How about that Penta-lawn and WTC7?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something else I've noticed...Indy is takeing sometime off from this thread..Classic disinfo vanishing act. I imagine he'll return when/if we start talking about WTC7.

Listen jerkoff (remember, it was you who decided to ratchet-up the rhetoric again, once I continued to show your assumptions are bad):

It happens to be a holiday weekend. I happen to know he and his wife are out of town for this weekend. How about you stop with your incessant (bad) assumptions ("disinfo vanishing act") and start respecting the people you debate?

 

You see you are losing ground, and so you must inject your emotional arguments about why a person who is not here to defend himself is not replying to you. Questioning his motives, yes?

 

Like I have said, I am almost done with you. And since you have decided to resurrect your snide remarks, why would I wish to "help you" with the g-level calculations of the airplane that prove it did not pull 5 g's? I've given you enough evidence to show it is BS... but somehow I am sure you will try to paint me as "vanishing" from that argument, and you will ASSUME (another bad assumption) that I cannot prove those g-levels with calculations.... if that is what you will do, then just try me...

 

I think Indazona was right in some of his own emotional arguments. You do need to grow up.

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Right here

 

"YOU DO BELIEVE IT IS LOGICAL THAT A LAMP POST KNOCKED DOWN BY A PLANE TRAVELING AT 500+ MILES AN HOUR HITTING A CAR CAUSING ONLY WINDSHIELD DAMAGE (and now passanger seat damage)."

 

yes, i believe its very logical. and i will tell you why. in my younger days, i had quite a few times where i got mad while in my vehicle, and i would hit the windshield and break it. i would always shatter it, but i never punched a hole through it, or even made a dent to it. in other words, that glass is purdy durned strong.

 

now, the lamp post really is not that heavy. maybe 700lbs at the most. it was also bolted to the ground when the plane hit it. you ever think that maybe the plane hit it, bent it, and after a second, the pole came crashing down and there were people stopped in the road by that time? im not saying that is what happened, but that was the first thing i thought when i looked at it.

 

"And you still aint touched the penta-lawn or wtc7."

 

umm, what pictures are you looking at? you dont see the big truck on fire?

 

how do you get the idea that none of the grass was burnt, when theres fallen building on the area that wouldve been burnt? and how do you get this big theory of what happened from this one piece of evidence? because this is really the only evidence ive seen, and i really dont see anything fishy with the picture. i mean, theres a big flaming truck n all...

 

listen titorite, i know when someones full of it, and rmt is not. if he saw anything suspicious, he would say he did. your not full of it either, your just being hard headed. :yum:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jerk off? Listin to you. Your a role model of civility. You still haven't touched the Penta-lawn or wtc7. Why is that? I know I know, some facts about 911 just can't explained away with maybes and possiblies? Some things don't add up. .......Which is possibly maybe could be why you won't address them.

 

Ganging like you do, thats a dis-info tactic. Name calling. Yeah dis-informationlist. Your misguided attempts to apply the tactics of disinformation against me is just another one of your tactics to avoid engageing in debate and an attempt to distract myself and others off the topic. If your not capable of good clean discourse then DON'T REPLY. Just drop it if you can't stand it.

 

OR

 

If you can calmly ,logicly, maturely, debate your side then feel free to jump back into the thick of it. You already shown me why turboprops couldn,t burn the grass ("not even if they were two inchs off the ground" I believe were your words) so why not tell me and the other readers why a big ball of fire could not burn the grass?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Right here

 

Ruthless that fireball extended well beyond that truck...you can reference that from other photos of the security buildings around the pentagon. A white hot fireball is around 2000 F extending out along the ground about 25 to 30 yards from the pentagon wall.

 

Why is the grass not shriveled crispy black?

 

and like I said in another post...take your kitchen knife. put it to a lighter. It will blacken in 5 seconds or less. It will blacken because of the carbon the fire left behind. TRY IT! You will see I am right. Then you can ponder some of the comments made by Myself and RMT reguarding shiney polished wreckage and green green grass.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Right here

 

Woah, calm down people. If you want your arguments critically assessed I can certainly do it for you, given that Critical Thinking was a subject area I excelled in. If you're going to use logical fallacies, I would suggest expanding your arsenal. A little clarification...

 

A Straw Man attack - Fairly easy to figure. Instead of the actual argument (or 'man'), a weaker argument is presented (a 'straw man' - something that can't fight back).

 

For example, if we had an argument about who is stronger, and the person went "I can beat a man in a one to one fight", and I said "You said you can beat a straw man in a fight..." that would be a straw man attack. Other examples include "You didn't state this", "You didn't present this" "If you had said that" etc etc, suggesting the argument lacks such features, when this may not be true.

 

As for expansion of Arsenal, try the various 'Appeals to...' and 'Ad Hominem' (Against the Man). Be mindful though, as Ad Hominem and the neccessary credibility of the arguer in regards to bias can overlap.

 

Appeal to Common Practices -

 

Arguer tries to persaude the listener to accept his or her argument on the basis of how many people have done/not done (etc) something. This is flawed because how many people do something does not make it right. For example, if 80% of the population in the UK lept off a cliff just now doesn't make it the right thing to do. If 80% of the people in America own a gun, it still doesn't make it the right thing to do.

 

Appeal to Emotion

 

Arguer tries to persaude the listener to accept his or her argument based on emotion. An example of this would be charities - "The children need computers... do the right thing, sponser a child today." - The problem with this is, they don't supply a real argument as to why you should give the money - you have to make the assumption the money will go to the children, which will enable them to get a computer. The other assumption is what they are saying is true (they need a computer - rather than want it).

 

Ad Hominem (against the man) is a favourite, since it tends to be the most overused in discussions. This is where the arguer attacks the counter-arguer rather than the counter-argument.

 

For example "What you say is just not true because you're an idiot". So if an idiot said the sky was blue, what he is saying is not true because he's an idiot? Of course, there's the underlying flaw of what's been said cannot be proven (can you prove all idiots get everything wrong always).

 

There is plenty more for the Critical Thinking catagory, but I don't want to bore anyone to death. Hope it helps!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Right here

 

Heres a new twist: What if 9/11 happened played out exactly the way the gov't says it did - but its the various governmental depts involved (CIA/FAA/FBI/NORAD/NIST/DOD/NSA/?) whose created this atmosphere of distrust. The most glareing example of which, is the Bush Administrations refusal to cooperate with the congressional 9/11 investigative commitee. Cheney and Co can't hide behind the "it will jeopardize the ongoing investigation to release classified information" malarkey, or involking the rarely used, "states secrets doctrine" to nullify the finding of non-compliance or congressional contempt. If Congress ever needed grounds to impeach these mofos it would be in the abuses of executive powers, thinly disguised as Executive Orders: most notably the Patriot Act.

 

We all know Bush, Cheney & Rumsfeld gave their statements before the committee, behind closed doors on conditions the senators wouldn't take notes, have no stenograper, that they wouldn't be filmed, and that they wouldn't be sworn in. Thats become a common theme whenever the fire has been lit under the asses of the people in The White Outhouse. This administration is more corrupted than my desktop harddrive which died this morning with a bang. (I'm on my laptop)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi ruthless,

 

go out in your yard and pick up some grass. now try to light it up with your lighter. notice it aint burning even if you leave the lighter on it for a while? interesting....

Yes, indeed. What is even more interesting is how old titorite ignored this point you made. He still hasn't touched it, has he? He also still hasn't touched my earlier point that clearly shows airplane parts being thrown away from the building OUTSIDE the fireball... To paraphrase titorite as of late:

"Why is that? I know I know, some conspiracy theories about 911 just can't explained away with the brand of 'inconsistencies' when you have raw evidence that disputes there are any 'inconsistencies'!!"

 

Look at how titorite conveniently ignores these proofs I have given him. King titorite is naked, folks, and he doesn't want to address the hard points, does he?

 

Hey ruthless... have you seen titorite provide any scientific evidence (such as a flamefront thermodynamic analysis) that would PROVE that the grass had to be scorched? I sure haven't seen any. You see, he hammers this point home, continually asking "Why is the grass not shriveled crispy black?" because he is making the bad assumption that it SHOULD BE shriveled crispy black.

 

It is certainly a bad assumption, especially when faced with experimental evidence such as you have put before him, ruthless. I wonder why he is not refuting it????? Good work, by the way, ruthless.

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Right here

 

AD hominem thats one I was forgeting. This constant "assumption" thing is ridiculas. And this "your loseing ground" stuff is also less than mature. RMT and Indy seem to channel thier inner junoir high school student when discussing this thing. One would think college educated older gentlemen could examine the doubts of mine (and many) without getting overly emotional.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Right here

 

If you want your arguments critically assessed I can certainly do it for you, given that Critical Thinking was a subject area I excelled in.

Considering you appear to have ignored the effects of gravity in one piece of your "critical thinking" I find that a bit hard to believe.

Would you like me to enlighten you where you forgot about gravity, and how it would obviously change the result of your analysis? I'd be more than happy to.

 

A Straw Man attack - Fairly easy to figure. Instead of the actual argument (or 'man'), a weaker argument is presented (a 'straw man' - something that can't fight back).

So are you making up your own definitions now? Because you clearly forgot the part that Wikipedia explains which is where the person constructing the strawman tries to infer that the person he is debating with accepts the strawman. Here is another reference that shows this is part of the strawman tactic (which is precisely what titorite tried to accomplish):

http://www.bartleby.com/59/4/strawman.html

 

A made-up version of an opponent's argument that can easily be defeated. To accuse people of attacking a straw man is to suggest that they are avoiding worthier opponents and more valid criticisms of their own position: 'His speech had emotional appeal, but it wasn't really convincing because he attacked a straw man rather than addressing the real issues.'

If you go back and look at the statement titorite was trying to pin on me, you will see that he was making it up, and then inferring it was what I believed (i.e. he was inferring I believed the taxi was in motion). And we also see titorite is not addressing the real issues I am making about his investigative protocol. Notice how he cannot refute that his approach is not the accepted approach to establishing facts in an accident?

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, indeed. What is even more interesting is how old titorite ignored this point you made. He still hasn't touched it, has he? He also still hasn't touched my earlier point that clearly shows airplane parts being thrown away from the building OUTSIDE the fireball... To paraphrase titorite as of late:

 

"Why is that? I know I know, some conspiracy theories about 911 just can't explained away with the brand of 'inconsistencies' when you have raw evidence that disputes there are any 'inconsistencies'!!"

 

Look at how titorite conveniently ignores these proofs I have given him. King titorite is naked, folks, and he doesn't want to address the hard points, does he?

 

Hey ruthless... have you seen titorite provide any scientific evidence (such as a flamefront thermodynamic analysis) that would PROVE that the grass had to be scorched? I sure haven't seen any. You see, he hammers this point home, continually asking "Why is the grass not shriveled crispy black?" because he is making the bad assumption that it SHOULD BE shriveled crispy black.

 

It is certainly a bad assumption, especially when faced with experimental evidence such as you have put before him, ruthless. I wonder why he is not refuting it????? Good work, by the way, ruthless.

 

RMT

WOW!...I mean WOW!!!..Your sinking to new lows RMT. Your leaveing the land of debate and entering the realm of bashing and berating reserved for smaller minds and school yard bullies.

As for the comments of ruthless...we actully had good syncronicity and posted at about the same time. The idea of crispy black is an exageration but the fireball in the photo is a far cry hoter than a lighter aswell as a much wider conering a much wider range of area... I would realisticly expect singening and a browning of the grass within a few hours.

 

Instead of useing a lighter direct appllied to the grass a better experiment would be to take a can of hairspray and a lighter and burn a patch of grass.. The grass should turn brown it may not catch but apply the hairspary flame "close" for 6 seconds and see if the grass turns brown with in a few hours.

 

Stop telling me to grow up RMT, I think the remark is makeing you act younger in a negative manner.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You still haven't touched the Penta-lawn or wtc7.

I promised you I would address your few points about the Pentagon. I would like you to go back and show where in that promise I said anything about WTC7. I didn't. I am not a structural engineer. I am an aircraft engineer and aircraft accident investigator.

What we see here is titorite changing the rules (and the subject). Now that I have shot down the majority of his "inconsistencies" and shown there are no inconsistencies, he continues to give me problems to solve (because he cannot solve them). Indeed, I have just about abolished ALL of titorite's claimed "inconsistencies" about the Pentagon attack. That means he has no more legs to stand on with the Pentagon issue, so he has to use disinfo tactic "#17. Change the subject." See, he has to change the subject AWAY from the Pentagon because he sees his arguments are falling apart. Poor titorite! :cry:

 

And he accuses me of acting like I am in junior high... it is to laugh. So titorite, how about those pieces of airplane flying away OUTSIDE the fireball? Guess that throws water on your assertion that the pics of the airplane parts "should of" had soot on them doesn't it? It must be, because I still don't see you providing any relevant analysis to support why they should have soot on them.

 

And then there is the issue of the possibility that a piece of the lightpole crashed through the taxi window... and my marked-up photo showing the angle of the passenger seat, and how it could not just be reclined, because it is at an off-angle to the driver's seat. Can't touch that one either, can you?

 

Honestly, do you REALLY want me to address the "unscorched" lawn, titorite? (Please answer this question) Do you really think you can withstand what I am going to present on that one? Perhaps you should do the experiment that rutheless suggested where you try to burn grass before you answer this. I will even allow you to do that and then come back and answer the question I just put in bold. Because that will give you a chance to avoid being shamed for your (yet again) bad assumption.

 

Don't you think you already look foolish enough for those assumptions you have made that I have already proven are invalid? You want to look even more foolish? I can do that, if you like.

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Right here

 

Titorite,

 

YOU DO BELIEVE IT IS LOGICAL THAT A LAMP POST KNOCKED DOWN BY A PLANE TRAVELING AT 500+ MILES AN HOUR HITTING A CAR CAUSING ONLY WINDSHIELD DAMAGE (and now passanger seat damage).

Yes. It's quite possible.

Not all impacts involve the transfer of all or even most of the velocity from one object to another. A light standard which is attached to the ground and which has long "arms" at the top does not react to an impact at all like a billiard ball. Real collissions are complex. Just how much energy is transferred depends on a host of factors, not the least of which is how the contact occurred - angle of attack, whether the object was anchored to the ground, its shape, elongation of the object, whether it was a flush, glancing or grazing blow, was the energy absorbed as linear impulse or angular momentum (set to spinning) or a combination of both, etc.

 

I've done my fair share of investigating accidents. There's nothing inconsistent in the photo - nothing at all. The damage is consistent with the circumstances and the physical evidence present in the photo.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your Tooting your own horn Rainman taking time to gloat and insult rather then just debate the subject. Your no longer acting gentelman but as an adolesent.

 

If your going to limit yourself to oly addressing airplane accident related question WTC7 still counts because two planes crashed in that area. This whole subject has become about debunking 911 CT. Well then don't stop short continue to "reveal my nakedness". After you get around to talking about the penta-lawn (if you get around to it) why not disscuss the WTC7 and show everyone why that was logical and my understand of it flawed?...But if you are willing please be civil. Let the manners of John Titor be your guide to internet interaction.

 

Also I release from any promises. You don't have to doing anything your tired of or uncomfortable doing for my sake.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Right here

 

Darby I have agreed to disagree about the taxi cab photo with RMT....weather or not he chooses to accept that agreement. And I hereby extend that agreement to disagree to you aswell. I see inconsistenceies but you do not and thats ok.

 

Let us not dwell on a *detail* we will not see eye to eye about at the expense of the bigger picture.

 

And just for a moment I'm gonna lower my standards for a touch just to say I was right about the car not haveing any dents.

 

I never went looking for the enlarged photo till after RMT made his assertation that nobody could know if the car was dented or not. Being an investigator like he "claims" he SHOULD OF known all he had to do was follow the lines of the car to deduce weather or not it was dented, Strait lines=no dents. If he wasn't quick enough to see that and he really does investigate plane crashes...Its a sobering thought to put it politly. No, I suspect his profession is true and that he was quick enough but that he just wanted to take the easy way out in our debate...because to assume the prior is a scary scary thought.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Right here

 

titorite, cmon man, be reasonable. do you realize what your arguing about now? why does it take a professional stuntman to crash into the pentagon? a 2 second fire to vaporize (water) grass? a light pole hitting a car? yeah, gigantic conspiracy there...

 

seriously, i think your an ok guy and have never had a problem with you, but are these the reasons you believe theres a conspiracy? if so, theres really not alot of evidence of foul play. its innocent until proven guilty in these lands. and if i were on a jury, and you were the prosecutor, and rmt was the lawyer of the defendant, i wouldve voted not guilty, not because i dont believe there was a conspiracy, but because there were no facts to prove it, and plenty of facts proving no foul play. simple as that.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A New point

 

We have ample visual and media evedence a horrible attrocity occurred that day. Most of us saw it play out on TV. Theres no doubts about it at all. There has also been a tremendous amount of effort made to control the flow of what we do know. The american public only knows stuff that has been declassified - or what can be found on the internet. But what about the "classified" stuff?

 

The stuff George Bush put Dick Cheney in charge of keeping safe. So far he has blanketed most of it with a 25 year seal. That means even the people who will audit and archive Bushes presidental papers (assuming he allows it - at this point he's refused to consider it - as has Cheney) can't get access to this stuff or anything else.

 

Bush to Meet Top Saudi on Sept. 11 Report - July 28, 2003 (Source: Reuters.)

 

A Saudi Foriegn Minister came to Washington DC for meetings with President Bush, on Tuesday and he made a request that he be provided with the declassified section discussing Saudi involvement in a section of the congressional report on the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, on whether there was any Saudi support for the hijackers was classified except for one page.

 

"Saudi Arabia has nothing to hide. We can deal with questions in public, but we cannot respond to blank pages," Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan said last week."

 

Bush rejects Saudi request to release 9/11 details dealing with Saudi Arabia. July 29, 2003 (source: Reuters)

 

"President Bush on Tuesday flatly rejected a Saudi request to declassify part of a report on the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks dealing with Saudi Arabia, on the grounds it would compromise intelligence.

 

In response, the Saudi foreign minister angrily denounced the report as an "outrage" that "wrongly and morbidly" accused Saudi Arabia of complicity in the attacks, but said he understood Bush's reasons for rejecting the request.

 

"It makes no sense to declassify when we've got an ongoing investigation. That could jeopardize that investigation," Bush said, even before he met Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal to personally deliver the news."

 

Or how about this one... August 1, 2003 - Report on 9/11 Suggests a Role by Saudi Spies

 

"The classified part of a Congressional report on the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, says that two Saudi citizens who had at least indirect links with two hijackers were probably Saudi intelligence agents and may have reported to Saudi government officials, according to people who have seen the report.

 

These findings, according to several people who have read the report, help to explain why the classified part of the report has become so politically charged, causing strains between the United States and Saudi Arabia. Senior Saudi officials have denied any links between their government and the attacks and have asked that the section be declassified, but President Bush has refused." (Source: New York Times (08/01/03))

 

Ohh and how about the Anthrax... that hot item really grew cold once the source of it was discovered to have been from a bio weapons research lab here in the states. Who was keeping guard on that stuff?? Better yet - who got access to it??

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...