|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
1st January 2014, 08:44 PM | #361 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
|
|
__________________
Mister Earl: "The plural of bollocks is not evidence." |
|
1st January 2014, 09:16 PM | #362 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
|
Okay, I have no reason to disagree. I will take your word for it that they interviewed witnesses. I guess you are saying that they wanted to see if the interviews of the witnesses would corroborate the videos that should show mamma taking pictures of poppa just to prove that he really existed.
|
1st January 2014, 09:21 PM | #363 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,692
|
Are you saying that when they collected the videos they already knew what happened?
|
1st January 2014, 09:33 PM | #364 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
|
I have no idea why the Pentagon would have video cameras aimed "at the air."
(Well, maybe if they were attacked from the air they might want it recorded.) But, like you, I would certainly hope they would not all be pointed in the air. I would hope they would have some pointed towards the area in front of the Pentagon. Then if the Pentagon was attacked from in front of the Pentagon, they would be able to record how and by what they were attacked. |
1st January 2014, 09:42 PM | #365 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
|
It would help if you did some research and actually knew what you were talking about.
Correct. They did not have cameras "pointed in the air." All the cameras (Pentagon or otherwise) were pointed in toward the building they were covering. Which is why the CITGO video shows nothing but the CITGO and the Pentagon parking lot video shows a single frame of 500 MPH moving object as it crosses the parking lot. |
__________________
Mister Earl: "The plural of bollocks is not evidence." |
|
1st January 2014, 09:50 PM | #366 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
|
Maybe not. But beachnut knew. Maybe he is sharper than the FBI.
beachnut (#355): "When the Pentagon was hit it was known by all who knew the WTC was hit twice we were most likely under-attack from terrorists in PLANES, big planes since 175 impact was on video. I knew when I went to work the terrorist came in planes." Apparently what beachnut is saying with "it was known by all who knew the WTC was hit twice we were most likely under-attack from terrorists in PLANES, big planes since 175 impact was on video," that "all" did not include the FBI. Maybe they were watching the wrong channel. |
1st January 2014, 09:57 PM | #367 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
|
|
1st January 2014, 09:58 PM | #368 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
David you are prattling on like a demented truther.
Stop, back off, count to ten (or 100) (even to 10000) and ask what is the key issue here. The FIRST issue you need to get clear is the simple fact that the 'plane ended up inside the Pentagon. Now you can accept that fact OR you can dispute it but all this disputing about witnesses and videos is totally irrelevant till you know what your position is on where the plane ended up. Actually your only necessary choice is between: A) it crashed into the Pentagon; OR B) it didn't crash into the Pentagon. You are down the dead end that truthers want you down. Think about it. You have been conned into ignoring all the overwhelming evidence for "plane crashed into Pentagon" WHILST focussing on 'why don't we have videos'. It is irrelevant whether there were zero videos OR 135 specially arranged high definition shots from 6 different directions. The plane ended up in the Pentagon. If the videos showed differently THEN you need to explain why the videos were wrong. Because sure as hell one video OR 135 clone copies are a single factor and as evidence they do not outweigh the evidence for "plane crashed into Pentagon". Be very clear on the principle: One disputed factor raised by truthers does not outweigh hundreds (at least) items of opposing evidence. So get yourself out of the dead end side track rabbit burrow* and start thinking clearly. * If the "three metaphors mix" is not enough I can add more. |
1st January 2014, 10:15 PM | #369 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
|
|
__________________
Mister Earl: "The plural of bollocks is not evidence." |
|
1st January 2014, 10:24 PM | #370 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
|
I was just answering why "quickly" was a consideration. Then beachnut jumped in and I responded in kind. ozeco, you also stated, "The FIRST issue you need to get clear is the simple fact that the 'plane ended up inside the Pentagon." I do not see it as a "simple fact." Maybe I will get to debating the 'plane in the Pentagon.' But you know where I come from and what arguments I would make. It would only be a rehash of something that has been hashed about many times, no doubt, here at JREF. It wouldn't go anywhere. You said also, "It is irrelevant whether there were zero videos OR 135 specially arranged high definition shots from 6 different directions." That is correct if you are correct. But given the entire context surrounding what happened on 9/11, I find it a little bit suspicious that we have never seen the AA 757 actually hit the Pentagon. So why not release them and put this thing to rest? |
1st January 2014, 10:30 PM | #371 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
|
It has been laid to rest, the plane hit the Pentagon. You not liking that a plane hit the Pentagon is no impediment to the issue being put to rest. No no one is under any obligation to answer your silly little ideas about death rays, explosives, holograms or whatever else you think happened before closing the investigation.
|
1st January 2014, 10:34 PM | #372 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
|
|
1st January 2014, 10:40 PM | #373 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
|
As you have been told, multiple times, all the videos have been returned. Go find them yourself. Or go interview the CITGO guy and once and for all figure out how many "minutes" it took before the "FBI" showed up. Answer some of your own questions and stop asking us to do your homework for you.
Imagine a random second taken from the 86,400 seconds in a day. What are the odds of that second someone having a camera pointed directly at the point of impact? Security video point "in" to the business so there was essentially nothing gained from the various business around the Pentagon (E.G. CITGO). AFAIK, the only video showing anything pertinent to 911 was taken from two(?) Pentagon parking lot security cameras. Since the cameras filmed at 1/FPS and the jet was moving at ~500 MPH, the image is unsurprisingly blurred. That jet moved 733 feet in a single second. At near ground level you'd have had a hard time keeping an eye on it yourself. What you find "suspicious" is a perceived lack of evidence. Lack of evidence is not evidence. Your perception is based on nothing more than opinion. Your opinion has been (repeatedly) shown here to be lacking. Because no matter how many times you show a CT evidence or explain to him (and it's always a him), they will accept nothing which contradicts their POV. Regardless of facts. It's a faith based belief system. |
__________________
Mister Earl: "The plural of bollocks is not evidence." |
|
1st January 2014, 10:54 PM | #374 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
|
A. I don't know why it is an issue in so many minds. I have my theories but not being a psychologist, I'll defer to the experts on that.
B. I do not recall anyone saying that there were no cameras. There were cameras all over the Pentagon, and the parking areas. You are rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. A plane ended up inside the Pentagon and you are worried about a video camera. Tell me, after finding a plane in the building how much video do you need to know a plane crashed into the building? |
1st January 2014, 10:58 PM | #375 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
1) True that I stated that.
2) Despite your denial I note that you do not state an alternate "top level fact". If "plane into Pentagon/plane not into Pentagon" is not the big issue here what is? I'll bet you cannot even say why you are discussing videos. Actually I comprehend your difficulties in clearly defining issues and relating them by logic. But you do not get any simpler issue of fact than "Choose A or Not A" -- "Plane into Pentagon OR Plane NOT into Pentagon". Granted considering the evidence as to whether the fact is true or false - or selecting the positive or negative option the way I worded it - is a bit more complicated. BUT you will never get to that simple question of fact whilst ever you are focussed on two issues which are irrelevant AND ignoring all the evidence which is relevant. Your approach to reasoning through the problem is arse about. And nothing I can do here can teach you how to reason through complex multi factor events. Why are you debating videos if it is not to support some argument either way about the big questions? If you don't know the answer to that it means you don't know where you are going. Probably don't know why but that not as clear. And many of our members will happily help you make sure that it "...wouldn't go anywhere." As I said in my post "get yourself out of the dead end side track rabbit burrow". If you don't want to go anywhere, if you want to keep going round in circles...be my guest. That is correct. Its "correctness" does not depend on me. You need to learn to assess objective facts and stop trying to make them issues of opinion. If it is incorrect it is incorrect no matter who said it. That is the core problem I am showing you how to escape from. "You find it a little bit suspicious" BUT you cannot say why and you refuse to come at the problem from a rational direction. Because: 1)"them" don't exist; 2) the truth movement would not let the matter rest; 3) Anyone who thinks the videos are game changing evidence is not thinking clearly; 4) The main reasons they are in contention are: (a) Truthers will not address the factual evidence which says 'Plane crashed into Pentagon" (b) When confronted by strong evidence truthers "quote mine", evade, shift goalposts etc etc (c) Truthers know - like they know "No CD at WTC" - that they have lost the claim "It wasn't the plane at Pentagon" so any evasive side track to keep discussion going round in circles; (d) (more if you want them ) 5) More at this level too but.... |
1st January 2014, 11:03 PM | #376 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
|
1st January 2014, 11:08 PM | #377 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
It is not an issue for anyone who rationally looks at the evidence and arguments. AKA "anyone who can think clearly".
THEREFORE: (two obvious consequences) And, as far as I am aware, there are no extant examples of clear thinking on this topic from the truth movement. If there are any post them or the links and stop "asking questions". |
1st January 2014, 11:14 PM | #378 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
|
You know darn well why I am suspicious. What other reason would they not release the videos other than they are hiding something? But you say "them" don't exist. I am assuming "them" means "videos." If they don't exist then that ends that. But please point me to something that has some plausible explanation that there were no video cameras at the Pentagon that would have recorded the "757." Maybe you can. And why did it take FOIA requests to get video that showed not a thing, 757 or otherwise.
|
1st January 2014, 11:20 PM | #379 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
|
We are not mind readers. You have to use words.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
Mister Earl: "The plural of bollocks is not evidence." |
|
1st January 2014, 11:24 PM | #380 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
|
ozeco,
With all due respect, you seem totally committed to the facts as you see them. But, I think you have been unable to see the "big picture." Sincerely, David Watts |
1st January 2014, 11:29 PM | #381 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
|
|
1st January 2014, 11:30 PM | #382 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
|
|
1st January 2014, 11:54 PM | #383 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
|
1st January 2014, 11:58 PM | #384 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
|
One thing that would help me understand this "plane in the Pentagon" thing, would be to see a plausible explanation of how almost all of the airplane "vaporized" -- including big, large, titanium engines -- or whatever it was they say happened to it, and yet every or nearly every airplane occupant was identified with DNA?
|
2nd January 2014, 12:01 AM | #385 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
|
|
2nd January 2014, 12:04 AM | #386 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
|
It's unlikely you are going to be able to understand anything that is 911 related.
http://thenewalexandrialibrary.com/j...enewworld.html |
2nd January 2014, 12:11 AM | #387 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,744
|
As I said earlier, the "no videos" claim is a deliberate deception by Truthers designed to distract people from the overwhelming physical and corroborating witness evidence that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.
As was pointed out above, you don't NEED a video to prove a plane crashed into a building when you find a plane and its occupants in the building. I may have posted this earlier but this is a rundown of the video the FBI collected as evidence. Because it is evidence in an ongoing criminal investigation a FOIA request would be required for them to release it - kind of a no-brainer: 56 of the 85 videotapes did not show either the Pentagon building, the Pentagon crash site, or the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11." Of the remaining 29 videotapes, 16 "did not show the Pentagon crash site and did not show the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon." Of the 13 remaining tapes, 12 "only showed the Pentagon after the impact of Flight 77." Only one tape showed the Pentagon impact: the Pentagon's own security camera footage, that would be released in 2006 after being used as evidence in the Moussawi trial. It was taken by a low resolution Philips LTC 1261 TV security camera at a checkpoint in the entrance to a parking lot. This camera was recording at one frame per second and had a limited field of view of the impact site. This camera at its location would have been entirely incapable of taking a clear image of a Boeing 757 moving at 780 feet/237.9 meters per second. But again, we don't need any video at all know now that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Just like countless other air crash investigations that were solved without any video evidence at all we know exactly what happened to 77. Stop ignoring the woods because you are so fascinated by the pattern of the leaves at start looking at the big picture. This case is not solved on one piece of non-evidence. |
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts. |
|
2nd January 2014, 12:12 AM | #388 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
|
|
2nd January 2014, 12:15 AM | #389 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
|
|
2nd January 2014, 12:18 AM | #390 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
|
|
2nd January 2014, 12:23 AM | #391 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
|
|
2nd January 2014, 12:23 AM | #392 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,744
|
Because the plane did not "vaporize". Only Truthers claim that and well, they lie because they are motivated by a political agenda, not evidence.
Have you ever bothered to do a Google search for "Flight 77 debris"? You have to stop looking for evidence that does not exist and start paying attention to all the evidence that does. We have a mountain of evidence which says Flight 77 hit the Pentagon; 1. Flight 77 took off and never landed, its passengers and crew to never be seen or heard from again. 2. Radar data which tracked the flight from take-off to impact 3. The Flight Data Recorder recovered at the site and its data matches the radar data exactly 4. 136 witnesses on record who saw Flight 77 hit (and zero who saw anything else) 5. The light poles, tree and generator on the lawn that the plane hit. 6. The parking lot surveillance video. 7. The DNA evidence from everyone aboard that was recovered at the Pentagon 8. Recovered aircraft debris and personal effects. 9. The airline and its insurers admit it was their aircraft and suffered millions of $ in damages and losses as a result. There is a huge collection of evidence here, have at it: http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/ And because Truthers love Youtube, here is a video that might help explain to you what happened that can not be explained any other way than an airplance. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8 If you have a more plausible case for what happened to the Pentagon that is supported by evidence please bring it. Make sure you explain what actually happened to Flight 77 and how it all fits in with everything else that happened that day. If you can't, then airplane-in-the-Pentagon it is. |
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts. |
|
2nd January 2014, 12:29 AM | #393 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
|
|
2nd January 2014, 12:30 AM | #394 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,744
|
|
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts. |
|
2nd January 2014, 12:36 AM | #395 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
|
Lol,
David watts has the same view as Chris Sarns did back in 2007. And what have either of them done about it other than try and make a few bucks out of it ? Post 8 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ad.php?t=73444 |
2nd January 2014, 12:37 AM | #396 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
|
2nd January 2014, 12:49 AM | #397 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
I still rank C7 as the most effective troll I have seen.
So good that few people would agree that he was trolling. The skill you don't see in today's trolls - he tracked the topic and could throw in questions which looked like he was progressing. Even agreed and admitted the occasional error. BUT net result the discussion stayed down dead ends/rabbit burrows/derailed and going round in circles - which is the goal of truthers and some trolls.
Originally Posted by DGM's sig
|
2nd January 2014, 12:56 AM | #398 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
lol, you don't do the hard stuff, radar, it is electromagnetic radiation, like vision, but you need a machine.... you really have no clue what radar is? A pilot, how many times did you flunk the ATP?
Making fun of the dead? All but the kid, the kid was too small for his DNA to be found. Do you want to tell his parents your lies? Face to face? |
2nd January 2014, 01:01 AM | #399 |
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 31,398
|
My bolding.
It didn't. Go to Google, switch to 'Images' and search for Pentagon 9/11 debris. Engine parts, wheels, landing gear etc etc..... See how easy it is to correct your own misconceptions in about 30 seconds rather than spending hours typing out your misconceptions on an internet forum? |
__________________
"There ain't half been some clever bastards" - Ian Dury |
|
2nd January 2014, 01:03 AM | #400 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|