Are there other Pentagon videos?

[beachnut]

I was going to post his aircraft accident investigator credentials since they're factual, but I'll go with this. Explain why it's wrong.
He did not say anything, it just is cute talk. I am an aircraft accident investigator, also, it is a fact as much as is Col Nelson. He makes up lies. I do not. Simple stuff. There were thousand of parts from 77. So? He makes up lies. What did he say. There were parts, what does it mean to 9/11 issues. Some parts have serial numbers; but not all parts are changed out, some go to failure; what does that mean. Some can talk up all the bs from their old careers, it does not mean crap.

This is one thing he said that is total nuts. Most of these time-change parts, whether hydraulic flight surface actuators , pumps, landing gears, engines or engine components, are virtually indestructible. It would be impossible for an ordinary fire resulting from an airplane crash to destroy or obliterate all of those critical time-change parts or their serial numbers. I repeat, impossible. Did you take out his insane claim? He says the parts are indestructible. Good for you George, total nuts in just one statement.

Red, show me what man has made in a jet that is indestructible. Does he mean indestructible. If a part is indestructible how did we make it? George is a few screws loose these days. I was in the Air Force also, we have no indestructible parts yet. Guess we need to learn the art of indestructibility to get indestructible parts. Oops he was teasing us, he said virtually. Not really, but almost.

So what put all the exact parts of 77 at the Pentagon. Since every rational person knows 77 hit the Pentagon, and no one can plant all that crap in broad daylight, what hit the Pentagon? Answer that.

But to say no one matched the parts to 77's records is making up lies, since they do not present proof. But why do you need to match parts to 77. Why is there doubt about 77. Let us not forget the guy with nut case ideas says this for each plane. Despite the fact we only have four jets missing on 9/11 and they are 11, 175, 93, and 77, and they were found to be in four places. Nelson insists something is wrong, but he says nothing but bs, talks about parts than cant be destroyed, or almost can't be. NUTS

[RedIbis]

You don't see the serial numbers in these photos?

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/Canberra.jpg/Canberra-large.jpg

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/SwissAirFlight111a.jpg/SwissAirFlight111a-large.jpg

More here (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/flight93page2).

I bet there are more because that's what planes look like after a crash. In fact, I'm willing to wager that quite a few of those parts have serial numbers.

Are you still going with the half filled dumpster of scrap as the totality of Flight 93 wreckage?

[beachnut]

The above cited method of identification was apparently required to obtain the positive identifications of American Airlines flight 11 and United Airlines flight 175, which crashed into the World Trade Center towers.

By FAA documents identified as "Summary of Air Traffic Hijack Events", pages 4 and 13, it is indicated that American Airlines flight 11 (N334AA) and United Airlines flight 175 (N612UA) were not transmitting proper transponder identification data at the time of their respective destructions and that therefore, proper aircraft identification cannot have been obtained from this absent or erroneous data.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB165/faa7.pdf

By documents labeled "NOTES TO CHAPTER 1", page 456, of the "Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States" (2004), it is indicated that "the CVRs and FDRs from American 11 and United 175 were not found" and that therefore, proper aircraft identification cannot have been obtained from this absent data.

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Notes.htm
http://www.911blogger.com/node/13149
Cherry pick. Alas, the radar data confirms it was 11, and 175. You need to take all the data to make the big picture. Not just pick some and make up lies. This was a wasted post, it makes as much of a factual point as does Nelsons politically biased rant.

Taking the radar data from tapes the NTSB can show you where 11 and 175 were from the raw data. Sorry to rain on your non point. But what is the rest of the crap for? Why is 9/11 truth so stupid on 9/11?


By FAA documents identified as "Summary of Air Traffic Hijack Events", pages 4 and 13, it is indicated that American Airlines flight 11 (N334AA) and United Airlines flight 175 (N612UA) were not transmitting proper transponder identification data at the time of their respective destructions and that therefore, proper aircraft identification cannot have been obtained from this absent or erroneous data.

This is a lie, made up by a blogger, a stupid blogger. Dumb and stupid.

You post totally erroneous analysis by idiots. The raw radar data shows 11 and 175 going to the WTC. Why do you post crap from idiots?

[fezzic]

Are you still going with the half filled dumpster of scrap as the totality of Flight 93 wreckage?



Considering that the half dumpter of pieces collected on a weekend by volunteers who searched the area around the crash site for the debris, after the FBI investigation, I don't know where you can then claim that it is being represented as the total amount of recovered wreckage?

[twinstead]

Red you even quoted a line where it was mentioned, but you glossed over it AGAIN.

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE DNA EVIDENCE?

[LashL]

This should shed a bit of light on the subject.

Indeed, it does. Just not the way you think.

A 12/16/2007 public correspondence e-mail inquiry of the NTSB posed the following question:

"Will the NTSB refer to recovered aircraft component serial number data, to determine the positive ID of an aircraft following a mishap, in the absence of other identifying data?"

The following e-mail response was provided by a Susan Stevenson of the NTSB on 12/26/2007:

"Yes. NTSB investigators rarely encounter a scenario when the identification of an accident aircraft is not apparent. But during those occasions, investigators will record serial numbers of major components, and then contact the manufacturer of those components in an attempt to determine what aircraft the component was installed upon."


It is very rare, indeed, that the identification of a crashed aircraft is in doubt, thus it is very rare that serial numbers are recorded by investigators.

That document does not support your allegation that crash investigations are always conducted by way of locating "serially charged plane parts". Your words: "That's the way it's always been done, at least until 9/11."

In fact, the document you cited refutes your allegation and indicates the opposite, i.e., that it is only in rare circumstances that resort is made to serial numbers.

Since the identification of Flight 77 (the subject matter of this thread) was not in doubt, in light of the overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence as to its identification, there was absolutely no reason to look for or record serial numbers.

Congratulations on self-debunking your faulty premise and your unfounded allegation. Well done.

[twinstead]

Considering that the half dumpter of pieces collected on a weekend by volunteers who searched the area around the crash site for the debris, after the FBI investigation, I don't know where you can then claim that it is being represented as the total amount of recovered wreckage?

And by debris, we also mean little tiny body parts whose DNA was matched with the passengers on the plane.

Of course for some reason Red will NOT comment on that, instead just insisting the serial numbers be checked when he knows full well that the identification of the passengers pretty much precludes that, nor will he even admit he doesn't even know for sure the SN's WEREN'T checked.

I can definitely see why he would ignore that little tidbit.

[DGM]

I bet there are more because that's what planes look like after a crash. In fact, I'm willing to wager that quite a few of those parts have serial numbers.

Are you still going with the half filled dumpster of scrap as the totality of Flight 93 wreckage?
Show me the pictures of the other crashes Red. You said that it was done all the time before 9/11. Why can't you show me any?

[Gravy]

Considering that the half dumpter of pieces collected on a weekend by volunteers who searched the area around the crash site for the debris, after the FBI investigation, I don't know where you can then claim that it is being represented as the total amount of recovered wreckage?Don't mind him. He doesn't know how not to lie.

[LashL]

The above cited method of identification was apparently required to obtain the positive identifications of American Airlines flight 11 and United Airlines flight 175, which crashed into the World Trade Center towers.


"Apparently" required? It either was or it wasn't. Do you not even know which it was? (Hint: on second thought, I've removed the hint)

By FAA documents identified as "Summary of Air Traffic Hijack Events", pages 4 and 13, it is indicated that American Airlines flight 11 (N334AA) and United Airlines flight 175 (N612UA) were not transmitting proper transponder identification data at the time of their respective destructions and that therefore, proper aircraft identification cannot have been obtained from this absent or erroneous data.


I have read this document before, but I do not recall that it said anything to the effect that the aircraft could not be identified post-crash due to the responder being shut off. Please provide a pinpoint reference to any such assertion.


By documents labeled "NOTES TO CHAPTER 1", page 456, of the "Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States" (2004), it is indicated that "the CVRs and FDRs from American 11 and United 175 were not found" and that therefore, proper aircraft identification cannot have been obtained from this absent data.


I have read this document before, but I do not recall that it said anything to the effect that the aircraft could not be identified post-crash due to the CVRs and FDRs not being recovered. Please provide a pinpoint reference to any such assertion.

1) Please provide evidence that either of these documents say that flights 11 and 175 (although those flights are not actually the subject matter of this thread) were not identifiable post-crash due as a result of the transponders being shut off or as a result of the CVRs and FDRs not being recovered.

2) Are you seriously suggesting that the only way to identify any given crashed aircraft is by way of transponder, CVR or FDR data?

[RedIbis]

Don't mind him.


You mean you haven't figured out that's not going to happen?

[funk de fino]

I was going to post his aircraft accident investigator credentials since they're factual, but I'll go with this. Explain why it's wrong.

Red, I will ask again. How do they mark the parts with the identification serial numbers?

You do not know what you are talking about here and you are parrotting stupid claims made by Nelson. Try and answer the above question as it may let you see where nelson has gone wrong.

Do you think it was something other than Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon that day?

[CurtC]

I asked this before but didn't get an answer. RedIbis, you've said that investigators didn't match any serial numbers on parts from the Pentagon to the N644AA plane. That sounds like a surprising claim; I would think they probably did.

What evidence do you have that this didn't take place?

[Mangoose]

Well, for the sake of comparison, here is the only video footage of the crash of AA 587:

http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2001/AA587/tollbooth_web01.wmv

Just a crappy video?!?! With all the cameras around Queens, New York, that's all they were able to come up with? I demand they release better quality video! :mad:

[lapman]

Well, for the sake of comparison, here is the only video footage of the crash of AA 587:

http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2001/AA587/tollbooth_web01.wmv

Just a crappy video?!?! With all the cameras around Queens, New York, that's all they were able to come up with? I demand they release better quality video! :mad:
On a side note, the Lane 13 segment shows what people should have described if FLT 93 had been shot down. Big explosion, fire and smoke trail.

[RedIbis]

I asked this before but didn't get an answer. RedIbis, you've said that investigators didn't match any serial numbers on parts from the Pentagon to the N644AA plane. That sounds like a surprising claim; I would think they probably did.

What evidence do you have that this didn't take place?

What evidence do you have that it did?

[DGM]

What evidence do you have that it did?
Got those ever so common pictures from other crashes yet?

[beachnut]

What evidence do you have that it did?
This means you have ZERO. Great, you make up lies and post hearsay junk from an old Air Force guy, who was well past his prime when he became an aircraft investigator. I suspect the guy with the idiot ideas went to the management side of the course and has no clue what an accident looks like. Why would they need to match parts? What evidence is missing to prove 77 hit the Pentagon.

You are the one who says it did not happen by implication. No you realy have said not a single thing to support anything. That is your nature. No facts, no evidnce just dumb talk. So, you prove all you have first. Since 77 hit, you have to debunk each DNA sample, each eye witnesses, and thousand of pieces of evidence. Better get started, otherwise you are BUSTED as being false idea king for a post. Each post you make is full of no evidence. How can you post stupid stuff about 77 without evidence. Nelson failed, you failed. Do you have anything more?
Pathetic Col Nelson's failed ideas pushed by a research challenged poster of false information and lies.

[LashL]

Bumping for RedIbis.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3409399&postcount=256

Congratulations on self-debunking your faulty premise and your unfounded allegation. Well done.


http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3409399&postcount=260


*crickets*

[LashL]

I asked this before but didn't get an answer. RedIbis, you've said that investigators didn't match any serial numbers on parts from the Pentagon to the N644AA plane. That sounds like a surprising claim; I would think they probably did.

What evidence do you have that this didn't take place?

I would not be surprised in the least if investigators did not specifically look for serial number to match up, because the identification of the aircraft was never in doubt. As noted above, it is very rare, indeed, that the identification of a crashed aircraft is in doubt, thus it is very rare that serial numbers are specifically sought out and recorded by investigators.

That is not to say that investigators may not have incidentally recorded numbers that they found, of course. But there was no reason at all for them to specifically look for serial numbers in the circumstances, and it is, even according to RedIbis' own self-debunking post above, rare for investigators to do so.

[RedIbis]

*crickets*

Juvenile and obnoxious. I see this too often on this forum. I'll respond how I want and when I want, within the rules.

Guess how they identified this plane crash?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,300128,00.html

[lapman]

Juvenile and obnoxious. I see this too often on this forum. I'll respond how I want and when I want, within the rules.

Guess how they identified this plane crash?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,300128,00.html
Yeah, I guess the statements from all the many witnesses who saw it crash and/or video recordings of it crashing wasn't enough. Wait a minute. There was only one hunter that saw the plane flying low. And the "serial number" of the airplane would be the tail number which is also on the dash. Real easy to identify the aircraft that way. Remember, it hit the ground at 70mph, not 500mph. Big difference.

[DavidJames]

Juvenile and obnoxious. I see this too often on this forum. I'll respond how I want and when I want, within the rules.Of course you will that's your prerogative. But please realize how foolish you look when after making a claim, you are challenged like this:
I asked this before but didn't get an answer. RedIbis, you've said that investigators didn't match any serial numbers on parts from the Pentagon to the N644AA plane. That sounds like a surprising claim; I would think they probably did.

What evidence do you have that this didn't take place?and you childishly respond like thisWhat evidence do you have that it did?killtown would be proud of you. Now go ahead Red, believe the U.S. Government was complicit in the murder of 3000 people without a shred of evidence then play word games, semantics and gotcha, have your fun. You're fooling no one, lurkers are amused and getting a better understanding of your kind with each of your posts.

[LashL]

Juvenile and obnoxious.

My post was neither juvenile or obnoxious, of course, but I do understand your need to pretend otherwise in a (lame) effort to deflect from the numerous shortcomings of your posts to which I referred. Your pattern seems to be 1) make claims without any supporting facts or evidence; 2) when pressed for facts or evidence, either (a) run away or (b) reluctantly provide something, anything, that you think might support your claim; 3) if 2(b), then when it is pointed out that your purported "evidence" does not support your claim, ignore that reality, move the goalposts yet again, and hope that nobody notices; 4) when reminded of 3, feign outrage and indignation, accuse others of being juvenile and/or obnoxious, move the goalposts yet again while still tap dancing and refusing to address the legitimate criticism and rebuttal of your prior posts and claims, and hope that nobody notices.

Oh, look. We appear to be at #4 again. How transparent, utterly unsurprising, and, quite frankly, pathetic.

I see this too often on this forum.

I'm sure you do, given what appears to be a rather close relationship between yourself and your mirror.

I'll respond how I want and when I want, within the rules.

Of course. Has anyone suggested otherwise?

It's a free country Internet, after all. You are not obligated to respond to any particular post whatsoever. You are perfectly entitled to run away from any and all posts that you find yourself incapable of responding to in a meaningful fashion. You do so regularly, after all, but doing so is not in any way a breach of the forum rules. It may be cowardly, lame, pathetic, obvious, hilarious, entertaining, and very poor form, but it is not against the rules. Again, I don't think anyone has suggested that it is.

Similarly, of course, others are free to post as, when and where they wish, within the rules. Others are not obligated to refrain from pointing out how often and how predictably you run away from posts and threads when your claims are shown to be nonsensical, indefensible, self-contradictory, and/or self-debunking.

Just as you have the option to run away as often as you wish from legitimate questions, posts, and discussion when you fail to substantiate your allegations and arguments, other posters have the option of attempting to get you to actually engage in legitimate discussion, the option of drawing attention to your failure to respond meaningfully, and the option of drawing attention to your repeated retreats from legitimate discussion.

So, since we seem to agree on the rules of posting here, I'll exercise my option to point out again that you have failed entirely to address the quoted posts below, and I will suggest that it is because you simply cannot address them in a meaningful fashion :


http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=256 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3409399&postcount=256)

Congratulations on self-debunking your faulty premise and your unfounded allegation. Well done.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3409488&postcount=260


If you have any rational, legitimate response to those posts, now would be a good time to bring it.

Your choice, of course.

[leftysergeant]

We have all the identifying part numbers from the wreckage that we need, to wit, two black boxes, so stop whining about that until you come up with some proof that there are incorrect numbers. It is a waste of toime to piece together shredded shards and melted masses to idnetify a vehicle of probably known identity when you have two pieces that confirm that identity., at least for the purposes of identifying that vehicle. If there are pieces of a possibly stolen Corvette scattered around a shattered telephone pole, what information do you need to possitively match the specific vehicle as to the owner. The license plate is convenient, but not 1005 reliable. The VIN plate on the dashboard is more reliable. In most cases, it is taken as THE DEFINITIVE identification.

Now, to expand this same scenario, let us stipulate that the Corvette was seen passing a section of road that normally takes twenty seconds to traverse, but traverses it in five. The vehicle is seen to serve and fishtail several times. Mail boxes are knocked over and have bits of fiberglass stuck in crevices and corners.

Stipulate that the only human remains found at the accident scene are matched by fingerprints to a known methamphetamine dealer.

Finding traces of meth in those remains at autopsy are no surprise, right?

Need any further questions even be asked as to why and how the accident occurred?

NTSB did not do a reconstruct, nor the routine checks to see if time-changed parts were, in fact, changed on schedule, because that information was not needed for forensic purposes. NTSB is only interested in what can be done to prevent aircraft accidents. They are not a criminal investigative body.

The whackadoodle Nelson seems to think they are, or at least claims to think they are a criminal investigative office, in that he insists they should have done a reconstruct.

Right away, his credibilty as an investigator comes into question. He has, immediately, lost points for competancy, if he honestly believes that crap, and integrity if he knows better.

He is, in essence, demanding the lube sticker from the windshield of our hypothetical Corvette. What a dim bulb.

He also goes on to say that the crater at Shanksville looks wrong. Guess that's because his only look at a crash scene is from the hangar where they examine the debris dug out of the imapact sites. He was not a specialist in aircraft accident investigations. He was a MAINTENANCE officer. His onlly functiuon, in an investigation into the downing of an aircraft, was to determine whether the airplane should have worked as designed, based on the conditions of parts and assemblies. If someone over-torqued a fuel line, or forgot to lube a gear, he is supposed to be able to spot it.

Now he wants to know whether there was adequate brake fluid in the master cylinder of our corvette, as though it would have made a diffence in whether or not a joy-riding tweaker would have had the sense to step on the brakes.

But, it seems that this is not Nelson's first foray into the arena of disinfo for the purposes of destabilizing the government.

He has been doing this since 1992, at the latest. He thinks Clinton did the Murrah Building. If this jerk is not on the no-fly list, Chertoff is a bigger waste of a salary than I thought.

http://www.thepowerhour.com/news2/nelson_watson.htm

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

I happen to be an excellent COWARD. I recommend the book, The Inner Game of COWARDICE. It's transferable to other sports or pursuits of lying and concerns itself with the mental and physiological aspects of COWARDICE, as opposed to technique and repetitive training.
fixed it for IT.

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

Don't mind him. He doesn't know how not to lie.

yes IT does!
IT reads a book called "the inner game of cowardice."

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

Guess how they identified this plane crash?
how about NO?

[funk de fino]

Juvenile and obnoxious. I see this too often on this forum. I'll respond how I want and when I want, within the rules.

Guess how they identified this plane crash?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,300128,00.html

Not by one of the serial charged parts. It was identified by the serial number of the plane which was probably on the body somewhere (rear section most likely). This not not what is meant by serial charged parts.

Again cause you seem to miss this. How do they get the serial number on the parts?

[RedIbis]

My post was neither juvenile or obnoxious, of course, but I do understand your need to pretend otherwise in a (lame) effort to deflect from the numerous shortcomings of your posts to which I referred. Your pattern seems to be 1) make claims without any supporting facts or evidence; 2) when pressed for facts or evidence, either (a) run away or (b) reluctantly provide something, anything, that you think might support your claim; 3) if 2(b), then when it is pointed out that your purported "evidence" does not support your claim, ignore that reality, move the goalposts yet again, and hope that nobody notices; 4) when reminded of 3, feign outrage and indignation, accuse others of being juvenile and/or obnoxious, move the goalposts yet again while still tap dancing and refusing to address the legitimate criticism and rebuttal of your prior posts and claims, and hope that nobody notices.

Oh, look. We appear to be at #4 again. How transparent, utterly unsurprising, and, quite frankly, pathetic.



I'm sure you do, given what appears to be a rather close relationship between yourself and your mirror.



Of course. Has anyone suggested otherwise?

It's a free country Internet, after all. You are not obligated to respond to any particular post whatsoever. You are perfectly entitled to run away from any and all posts that you find yourself incapable of responding to in a meaningful fashion. You do so regularly, after all, but doing so is not in any way a breach of the forum rules. It may be cowardly, lame, pathetic, obvious, hilarious, entertaining, and very poor form, but it is not against the rules. Again, I don't think anyone has suggested that it is.

Similarly, of course, others are free to post as, when and where they wish, within the rules. Others are not obligated to refrain from pointing out how often and how predictably you run away from posts and threads when your claims are shown to be nonsensical, indefensible, self-contradictory, and/or self-debunking.

Just as you have the option to run away as often as you wish from legitimate questions, posts, and discussion when you fail to substantiate your allegations and arguments, other posters have the option of attempting to get you to actually engage in legitimate discussion, the option of drawing attention to your failure to respond meaningfully, and the option of drawing attention to your repeated retreats from legitimate discussion.

So, since we seem to agree on the rules of posting here, I'll exercise my option to point out again that you have failed entirely to address the quoted posts below, and I will suggest that it is because you simply cannot address them in a meaningful fashion :


If you have any rational, legitimate response to those posts, now would be a good time to bring it.

Your choice, of course.


Condense.

[Dave Rogers]

I love it - the briefest self-incriminating post I've ever seen. LashL accuses RedIbis, at some length, of evasion when faced with awkward questions, and asks him to comment on this. RedIbis's response?

Condense.

Brilliant! If it weren't for the lack of context, that would be a Stundie.

Dave

[RedIbis]

I love it - the briefest self-incriminating post I've ever seen. LashL accuses RedIbis, at some length, of evasion when faced with awkward questions, and asks him to comment on this. RedIbis's response?



Brilliant! If it weren't for the lack of context, that would be a Stundie.

Dave

You must be unaware of the constant barrage of text that Lash spits out. Why am I responsible for fishing through all that to find a direct question, where there usually isn't one?

[Dave Rogers]

You must be unaware of the constant barrage of text that Lash spits out. Why am I responsible for fishing through all that to find a direct question, where there usually isn't one?

Actually, I was also complying with your request.

Dave

[RedIbis]

Actually, I was also complying with your request.

Dave

Then we agree with the Bard,

"Brevity is the soul of wit, and tediousness the outward flourishes.''

[Dave Rogers]

Then we agree with the Bard,

"Brevity is the soul of wit, and tediousness the outward flourishes.''

Yes, and if wit were all that mattered, that would be relevant.

Dave

[RedIbis]

Yes, and if wit were all that mattered, that would be relevant.

Dave

A touch, a touch, I do confess it.

[GStan]

Been busy Red, but here is my reply.

Since you asked for a reason, in the singular, I'll give you one. The one security video does not show a discernible commercial airliner, let alone Flight 77, specifically.

Ok that’s fair, but let me ask a more specific question then. The available forensic evidence, (DNA/passenger effects/plane pieces/FDR), combined with the eyewitnesses, all show that AA77 struck the Pentagon. What evidence have you discovered that makes you believe that all of the forensic and eyewitness evidence is either wrong or falsified? I hope that you are not doubting the entire investigation based on the security video, which as you mentioned, does not show a discernible commercial airliner. The video does not show a discernible anything other than a fast moving object and an explosion. The preponderance of evidence demonstrates that that fast moving object was in fact AA77. What evidence has fueled your belief that the fast moving object is not AA77?

Wrong. I posted the Nelson article to support the idea that planes have hundreds of serially charged parts.

Fair enough, although I don’t think anyone is disputing the fact that planes have these ‘serially charged parts’. While I don’t think he’s the best source on this, I have no reason to dispute that planes have these.

Post a quote of my saying the Nelson article was evidence of anything. Your email fantasy is just bizarre to me. Next.

Nevermind on this one, as I’ve reframed the question above.

Nelson's thesis is that serially charged plane parts are the hard evidence.

I understood that from reading his paper. The only problem is, he has not supported his thesis with any evidence.

Witnesses saw a lot of things. I'm not aware of any eyewitnesses who caught the flight number at 500mph.

I don’t see the relevance of this. Would you expect witnesses to be able to do this? And recall it? (And would you believe them if they did?)

Such proof has forthcome, and maintaining the opposite claim supported by zero evidence is not a precaution, it’s fanatical.
An absolutist opinion and nothing more.

I will acknowledge that this is an absolutist opinion if you can provide a single piece of evidence that validates your belief that something other than AA77 hit the Pentagon. You have not provided any yet. Appeals to one’s own authority, to ignorance, to popularity are not evidence. (Regardless of how desperately the truth movement would like them to be.)

I agree, but this is quite hilarious coming from someone on this forum, where credentials are constantly being called into question.

I’ve not called his credentials into question. I have no reason to. But his credentials alone do not constitute sufficient evidence, would you agree?.

His claim is that not a single serially charged plane part has been produced for any of the four flights.

But where is the evidence to support this claim? My standards of evidence are not even that high. I’d settle for the transcript of an email between himself and someone who investigated the Pentagon where the investigator states that no serially charged plane parts were recovered from the crash location.

Yes, it's possible, but the fact that he has never heard of such a case, and it occured four times, is in itself extremely improbable.

I would agree that if his claim is true, it would be an improbability. However, he did not show any evidence that his claim was true. When that is shown, then we can move on to debating whether or not the circumstances of the 9/11 crashes might have lent themselves to those parts being damaged beyond being identifiable or not.

If it was, there is no video of photographic evidence of "plenty" of anything. I've seen the pic of the half filled dumpster of scrap in Shanksville, and that is not conclusive of anything, let alone a specific flight.

We’re talking about AA77, not UA93. And there are photo’s of plane parts. You can see some here:
http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html

This is simply preposterous. If you choose to be ignorant about a very important aspect of this event, that's your business. I tend to pursue the most possible knowledge on a subject, not the least.

Wrong. What is preposterous is to continue to wallow in ignorance of all of the unique verifiable evidence that shows that what hit the Pentagon was AA77, simply because you, along with a wealth of incredulous ‘investigators’ just can’t believe that yet one more method of evidence verification was not employed to re-verify what had already been verified by other means. But again, this is pointless, because it has not been shown that all serially charged parts were destroyed or damaged beyond identification.

Regardless of the perpetrators, all plane crashes are investigated thoroughly. These should have been the most intensive.

They were.

That's what I can give you for now. I found the rest repetitive. I believe you owe me quite a few answers for questions that I have. In fact, I'm going to be much more careful about the amount of questions I answer and require that my questions be answered. No one can say that I have not obliged a barrage of posts over the course of these threads.

Fair enough. I hope I have answered everything to which you believed you were ‘owed’ an answer.

[GStan]

Bump for Red

[RedIbis]

Bump for Red

Since some might construe these "bumps" as obnoxious, perhaps the bump should contain those specific questions that you would like answered.

[twinstead]

Since some might construe these "bumps" as obnoxious, perhaps the bump should contain those specific questions that you would like answered.

Just one from the post right above the bump would be a good start.

ETA: I don't think it is an unfair question to ask you exactly what evidence led you to suspect that it wasn't the airliner that hit the building.

[RedIbis]

Just one from the post right above the bump would be a good start.

No problem.

But his credentials alone do not constitute sufficient evidence, would you agree?

Yes.

Now please explain what the purpose of all this is.

[leftysergeant]

Nelson's credentials, to me, are most relevant because the fact that he makes statements contrary to doctrine call his integrity into question.

The fact that he advocates other conspiracy theories which are contrary to evidence, such as the demolition by covert government agents of the Murrah Building, further supports my position that Nelson is a liar.

[gumboot]

Nelson is just following the standard Truther tactic of demanding evidence that they know cannot be produced, while dismissing out of hand the mountains of evidence that can be produced.

[funk de fino]

Since some might construe these "bumps" as obnoxious, perhaps the bump should contain those specific questions that you would like answered.


How do they get the serial number on the parts?

[Lensman]

How do they get the serial number on the parts?

Some are stamped, engraved or otherwise etched directly onto the part itself, some are stamped, engraved or otherwise etched onto a dataplate which is firmly attached to the part.

[LashL]

You must be unaware of the constant barrage of text that Lash spits out.

This is, of course, untrue. Sadly, that is a common trait of your posts.

Why am I responsible for fishing through all that to find a direct question, where there usually isn't one?

Since when did discussion on a forum mean nothing but asking and answering "direct questions"? Look up the word, "discussion" in a dictionary, RedIbis, and stop acting like a child.

As I've already said, you are entitled to run away from legitimate discussion when you find yourself painted in a corner of your own making, but others are equally entitled to point out your repeated evasions.

[funk de fino]

Some are stamped, engraved or otherwise etched directly onto the part itself, some are stamped, engraved or otherwise etched onto a dataplate which is firmly attached to the part.

I know this, I was asking Red to see if he understood why some parts may not have the serial number still attached. In my experience most parts had a small ali plate rivetted on. Some, like the main landing gear, have the number stamped on, and some engraved on.

Thanks for answering the question, he would not have.

[CurtC]

I know this, I was asking Red to see if he understood why some parts may not have the serial number still attached. In my experience most parts had a small ali plate rivetted on.

I thought you were trying to get him to reconsider his "indestructible" assertion - after all, if a part is indestructible, how would they engrave/stamp the serial number on, or even rivet a plate to it?

[funk de fino]

I thought you were trying to get him to reconsider his "indestructible" assertion - after all, if a part is indestructible, how would they engrave/stamp the serial number on, or even rivet a plate to it?

This is also a consideration. Even if the part was nearly indestructable the little alu plates held on by soft rivets are certainly not. In my experience only the landing gear parts had the stamped numbers, most everything else had plates attached (including the "indestructable" FDR and CVR).

[GStan]

Since some might construe these "bumps" as obnoxious, perhaps the bump should contain those specific questions that you would like answered.

Sorry, I thought it was obvious that the post right above it was for your response. And is it true that it is obnoxious? I am relatively new to the forum and from reading numerous threads, I just assumed that a 'bump' was the proper etiquette for bringing a thread that has outstanding questions back onto the front page of threads, thus getting the attention of the person from whom the additional response is desired. Is this incorrect?

[GStan]

No problem.

Yes.

Now please explain what the purpose of all this is.

Red, I have a geniune interest in understanding the foundation for your belief that something other than AA77 hit the Pentagon. It seems obvious to me that the evidence nearly irrefutably shows that it was AA77 (DNA of remains match to DNA of who got on AA77 that morning, passenger effects were found at the scene, the flight data recorder for AA77 was found at the scene with many other pieces of the plane, the preponderance of witnesses reported that a passenger jet hit the Pentagon, and some were close enough to identify it as an AA jet.)

You are disregarding all of the evidence that shows AA77 hit the Pentagon.
You must be looking at something that I am not, and it must be very compelling to get you to disregard this other evidence. I am curious to know what it is that has convinced you that the physical evidence is incorrect. The security video would not seem to be enough to do so, as it does not show, on its own, anything concrete enough to prove or disprove that it was AA77. Mr. Nelson's opinion piece, while provocative and backed by credentials, is not enough because it offers no sources or evidence worthy of questioning the existing evidence, just his opinion.

So I ask again, what evidence have you looked at that has fueled your belief that something other than AA77 hit the Pentagon? What is the evidence that is more compelling to you than the existing physical evidence?

Thanks.

[LashL]

Sorry, I thought it was obvious that the post right above it was for your response.

You are correct that it was obvious. RedIbis was simply being disingenuous, as he often is.

And is it true that it is obnoxious?

No, it was not at all obnoxious. Again, RedIbis was being disingenuous. He seems to think that others are fooled by his frequent attempts to avoid legitimate inquiries in response to his posts, but he is fooling nobody but himself.

I am relatively new to the forum and from reading numerous threads, I just assumed that a 'bump' was the proper etiquette for bringing a thread that has outstanding questions back onto the front page of threads, thus getting the attention of the person from whom the additional response is desired. Is this incorrect?

You are quite right that there was nothing at all wrong with your 'bump' to bring your legitimate comment and query to RedIbis' attention. RedIbis was just being disingenuous again, as he is wont to do.

[LashL]

Red, I have a geniune interest in understanding the foundation for your belief that something other than AA77 hit the Pentagon. It seems obvious to me that the evidence nearly irrefutably shows that it was AA77 (DNA of remains match to DNA of who got on AA77 that morning, passenger effects were found at the scene, the flight data recorder for AA77 was found at the scene with many other pieces of the plane, the preponderance of witnesses reported that a passenger jet hit the Pentagon, and some were close enough to identify it as an AA jet.)

You are disregarding all of the evidence that shows AA77 hit the Pentagon.
You must be looking at something that I am not, and it must be very compelling to get you to disregard this other evidence. I am curious to know what it is that has convinced you that the physical evidence is incorrect. The security video would not seem to be enough to do so, as it does not show, on its own, anything concrete enough to prove or disprove that it was AA77. Mr. Nelson's opinion piece, while provocative and backed by credentials, is not enough because it offers no sources or evidence worthy of questioning the existing evidence, just his opinion.

So I ask again, what evidence have you looked at that has fueled your belief that something other than AA77 hit the Pentagon? What is the evidence that is more compelling to you than the existing physical evidence?

Thanks.

Unfortunately, GStan, it is highly unlikely that RedIbis will provide a straight answer to your legitimate comments and inquiries. As evidenced by his posts in this and other threads, he typically (a) ignores legitimate rebuttals; (b) refuses to address legitimate rebuttals; (c) ignores legitimate inquiries; (d) refuses to address legitimate inquiries; (e) moves the goalposts; (f) runs away in hopes that nobody will call him on his nonsense; (g) purports to "respond" to a post by pointing out a minor spelling or grammatical error while studiously ignoring the content of the post, even though he makes dozens of similar spelling and grammatical errors himself; (h) complains about short attention span but blames others for it; and (i) never provides any facts or evidence to corroborate his unsupported claims and assertions.

Sure, he flings all manner of accusations around with childlike abandon, but when it comes to supporting his accusations, he fails and flees. Sad, but
predictable.

Frankly, it is almost to the point where his repeated refusals and failures are sufficient to conclude that not even RedIbis himself believes the nonsense he espouses.

On the off chance that RedIbis is inclined to respond meaningfully to your post (don't count on it), and on the off chance that RedIbis is inclined to advise what it is that led him to discard and ignore the physical evidence in favour of some fantastical alternate reality, I, too, am very interested in hearing his response.

But I won't hold my breath.

[DavidJames]

... on the off chance that RedIbis is inclined to advise what it is that led him to discard and ignore the physical evidence in favour of some fantastical alternate reality, I, too, am very interested in hearing his response.

But I won't hold my breath.I'm not sure you saw this... (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3420773&postcount=15)I, for one, would entirely suspend all belief in an inside job if these same people who were dysfunctional, incompetent, deceptive and negligent would be held accountable.All of Red's nonsense about no evidence and no plane at the Pentagon, will magically become a non-issue if people in the Bush administration are "held accountable", for incompetence.

What was his response when I called him on it, you'll never guess, he ignored me.

Disingenuous, troll? Tomato/Tomahto.

[RedIbis]

So I ask again, what evidence have you looked at that has fueled your belief that something other than AA77 hit the Pentagon? What is the evidence that is more compelling to you than the existing physical evidence?

Thanks.

For future reference, try not to introduce your questions with a long post that you expect me to absorb and respond to. Despite what Lash might have you believe, I've answered these questions ad nauseam. My responses are not satisfactory to her or some others here, yet the long personally addressed posts continue.

I am not looking for evidence "that something other than AA77 hit the Pentagon". I find what has been presented as evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon lacking.

[LashL]

I'm not sure you saw this... (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3420773&postcount=15)All of Red's nonsense about no evidence and no plane at the Pentagon, will magically become a non-issue if people in the Bush administration are "held accountable", for incompetence.

What was his response when I called him on it, you'll never guess, he ignored me.

Disingenuous, troll? Tomato/Tomahto.

As always, RedIbis is entirely predictable in his dodging, weaving, and false claims of having responded meaningfully to legitimate points raised in discussion.

Oh, and you're quite right... potato, potahto.

[LashL]

For future reference, try not to introduce your questions with a long post that you expect me to absorb and respond to.

Perhaps you should post a disclaimer in your signature about your attention span issues, and a disclaimer that you aren't actually interested in discussion.

Despite what Lash might have you believe, I've answered these questions ad nauseam.

No, you haven't. Rather, you have dodged, weaved, clapped your hands over your eyes and ears and run away from addressing legitimate points raised in discussion, much like a young child.

My responses are not satisfactory to her or some others here,

That's because you have consistently and repeatedly failed to actually address the points raised in discussion.

yet the long personally addressed posts continue.

Translation: "Wah! People are writing posts in response to my posts on a discussion board and expect me to contribute to the discussion rather than just posting my unsupported nonsense! Wah!"

I find what has been presented as evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon lacking.

Sure, that's understandable if you completely disregard the abundance of physical evidence, the debris, the FDR data, the DNA of all but one of the passengers, the eyewitness accounts, the radar data, the flight manifests, and the rest of the body compelling evidence that makes it utterly obvious that AA77 hit the Pentagon. :rolleyes:

[Pardalis]

Sure, that's understandable if you completely disregard the abundance of physical evidence, the debris, the FDR data, the DNA of all but one of the passengers, the eyewitness accounts, the radar data, the flight manifests, and the rest of the body compelling evidence that makes it utterly obvious that AA77 hit the Pentagon. :rolleyes:

And yet for him, one chemist who is a 9/11 activist (so therefore not objective) who finds some trace elements of a certain chemical compound is for Red Ibis crucial evidence.

Talk about double-standards.

[T.A.M.]

And yet for him, one chemist who is a 9/11 activist (so therefore not objective) who finds some trace elements of a certain chemical compound is for Red Ibis crucial evidence.

Talk about double-standards.

You give Jones WAY too much credit.

What he found, in his supposed legitimate samples, were traces of chemicals that all together, produce spectral patterns that are close in certain cases, to the patterns we might see with, AMONG OTHER THINGS, thermite.

THAT IS ALL HE HAS FOUND!!!

TAM:)

[Tweeter]

Is there reason to believe that there are videos of Flight77 hitting the Pentagon that we haven't seen yet? I've alternatively heard yes and no from both sides.

If yes, when will they be released, if ever?


From what ive been told by jref members, NO.
Thank god the only video camera in the pentagon was pointing exactly at the crash area.

[BCR]

From what ive been told by jref members, NO.
Thank god the only video camera in the pentagon was pointing exactly at the crash area.

Tweeter, not all JREF members say that. The DoD asserts that they turned over all camera footage from the Pentagon and Navy Annex to the FBI and I was told (by telephone) late last year that the FBI was planning a release "soon". The FBI however does not acknowledge the existence of these videos (which they have the right to do under the national security exemption). So, will they be released this year? I don't know, and I agree it would be nice to have additional video evidence.

[A W Smith]

From what ive been told by jref members, NO.
Thank god that only TWO of the video cameras in AT the pentagon was were pointing exactly at the crash area.

Fixed that for you.

[mark4mark]

Other videos could exist but would be dismissed by truthers when said videos showed flight 77's impact...

[BCR]

Other videos could exist but would be dismissed by truthers when said videos showed flight 77's impact...

So true.....