I can't disagree with any of that except for the proof. It's just not enough to qualify as proof that it could not have been a plane. Of course there's not enough proof that it was a plane either and definitely no proof at all that it was AA77. So your answer to Koko's question is no then? Don't be shy, just answer the question honestly.
at face value I agree. However....we have to look at the poles that were knocked down. It requires a plane of adequate wing span, and its impossible for a plane to avoid having the outer wings sliced off when hitting a pole. What are they somehere around 80-90 kips? IIRC This was about 140knots Plane wing meets light pole. If we want to claim its a plane then the winspan has to be wide enough to be able to clip all those poles claimed to have been clipped. If not impossible. Secondly its impossible for any 737, 747, 757, 767 to clip off poles without slicing clean through the outer wing section. keep in mind how fragile it is out there. the above gif is what we would have had to see if there was in fact a plane clipping poles. We did not. There should have been wingtips laying on the lawn.
If you insist there is a plane in that video take a snap shot and post it for all of us to see. Dont worry I wont hold my breath!
Neither of them stand up to scrutiny. Those two lists above should be more than enough for anyone with logic, critical thinking and even moderate intelligence. Thank you for your opinion Bob. My opinion is that we don't need to rule it out because it happened and though the official account hasn't all the data to make it 100% accurate, it is close enough. Nope. Nope, there are no laws violated. The kinetic energy in both falling tower sections is perfectly adequate to do what is witnessed. Irrelevant. No steel tower had ever been hit by a passenger jet, or had sections gouged out and 8hrs of fire. So now you're a bookie Bob? There are so, so many derivatives of this claim that it is hard to encompass them all, so I'll itemize just the basic stuff and not the crazy stuff like no official planes. What are the odds of the following: Regarding Demolition A secret US government agency plots a vast multi-faceted operation with not one single piece of electronic or paper evidence. This begins with establishing a means to demolish three buildings. Said demolitions must withstand fire/impacts or impact points must be known. They must employ people willing to murder thousands of Americans and somehow engage them with no paper/electronic trail. Those numerous people must secretly plant the demolition materials to ensure 3 collapsed buildings and must indefinitely keep it a secret. In the case of both twin towers, impact points could not possibly be known, but the building luckily gives way at these points. I say luckily, because had they not CLEARLY and IRREFUTABLY given way at those points there would be no justification for subsequent demolition process. This demolition process must REALLY defy the laws of physics with charges not making any noise audible to anyone within 50 or so yards of the building, or any video of the event. The 3rd building, though rigged must also rely on sheer luck that a) it is struck significantly by debris from the towers and b) that it significantly caught fire. A key point and my speculation. Would the US agency need to convince/coerce the fire department to NOT fight the fire, because without out of control fires there once again would be no justification for demolition. Regarding the airplanes Onto the hijacked American passenger jets. Who pilots them? Remote control? No idea what the unofficial line is because nobody ever discusses it. They could just allow the official line to proceed with the Arab terrorists. Or further complicate it with no hijacking and all the inherent issues noted in above posts. Let's assume remote control and nerve gas the pilots. Now they have to fabricate all the Air Traffic Control conversations. Fabricate all the cell phone conversations. Somebody to remote-pilot them all and commit mass murder of thousands. Four Arab terrorists hijack four planes and pilot them to pre-determined targets. Three strike their targets. Two targets are provably damaged enough for their top section to give way. The laws of physics comfortably prove the ensuing collapses. Third building has major damage to corner from debris, then 8hrs of unabated fire weakens the core structure such that it fails. Ok, job done. The 911 conspiracy claims are absolutely impossible.
Agreed and like I said the official 9/11 narrative makes no sense here either. But something knocked those poles down and I don't believe any plane was manufactured such that the wings would not be compromised when hitting the poles, not even a military plane. So we're left with ???
I like it when you guys agree on something, but sadly your combined opinions don't suddenly leap out of the void of nonsense to become factual. See post above yours Bob.
That's what I keep saying, the official 9/11 conspiracy claim is impossible. Thanks for agreeing, try something new, your silly repetitive theories are getting boring. Next.
Bob, you deliberately misrepresented my quote. You ignored everything in my post. Every single item I accurately listed represents an impossibility many orders of magnitude greater than even the ridiculously over the top "911-truth" claims of what actually happened, let alone what really happened.
That's because contrary to your claim, very little you listed is accurate, it's all just your personal invention. No one really knows what exactly happened other than what is on video, the known evidence, eyewitness claims and what is scientifically possible and not possible. You are making claims of what is possible and impossible that contradicts what experts claim is possible and impossible and often what eyewitnesses claim. Sorry but you are not qualified to contradict experts and eyewitnesses.
A pure nonsensical response. For there to be no plane at the Pentagon required EVERY point I made. They must have disposed of plane and passengers, manufactured debris and body parts, DNA etc. Plus rigged falling lamp posts etc. It is beyond absurd - If you claim to be a serious 911 researcher(whatever that actually is), why you even entertain this is bizarre.
and it wont do you any good to address any of it point by point or line item by line item as I have done that and he simply ignored every rebuttal. Was a waste of time. Those methods are neither a debate nor a discussion. There is a huge distinction between following where they evidence takes us and the made up dead end tangents that prove nothing that he expects us to engage in.
He says there is a plane in there yet hes not producing a pic of a plane, so thats what it looks like.
Here's a plausible scenario that would explain the downed light poles. The downed light poles at the Pentagon were staged in advance. http://911blogger.com/node/12064 (excerpt) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- But now that we know the plane was on the north side of the CITGO station it is clear that it could not have hit the poles. This is compounded by the fact that it is physically impossible for Lloyd England's story to be true. This may seem like a complex task but it would actually be quite simple for the suspect in question to accomplish. First realize that the area is the literal backyard of the suspect and one of the most highly secured areas in the nation. It's right by the heliport where the President travels from quite often and in fact he had left from there the day before and was scheduled to return there that afternoon! Heliport firefighter Allan Wallace: "Our first helicopter flight was around 10AM. But we were expecting President George W. Bush to land in Marine One around 12 Noon, returning from Jacksonville, Florida. (He had actually left from the Pentagon the day before.) Needless to say, neither flight arrived at the Pentagon that day because of the terrorist attacks." source This means that they had all the excuse they needed to "secure" the area in preparation for his arrival and this would even be quite routine and expected for the people in the area since the President travels from there regularly. The poles could have been removed in the middle of the night on any night prior to the event in what could have been made to look like regular late night road work. Then the pre-fabricated damaged poles could be put in place perhaps at 4:00am on 9/11 or even later in the day while they were "securing" the area for the President's scheduled arrival.
Luckily somebody IS good at seeing things that "are not there". This does a preliminary check, by showing before and after frames of available footage - in one angle of the security cameras - the tail fin of the plane is there suddenly behind obstructing small : This video debunks the false claim about wreckage, it highlights three pieces from the word "American" on the plane. And finally, I doubt whether anyone will watch those two videos above, so just this really short one. It does an isolation between two frames, highlighting differences between the two. The result is a plane shape. In the interest of truth and science, I'm sure all the "911-truth" claimants will rush off and do their own version of this to disprove it.
Firstly I would highly recommend you go off and review the meaning of the word "plausible". Secondly, all you just did was confirm 2 items on my very big list, a list of ludicrous and unnecessary proportions: Here's the official list: Get four volunteers to die for the cause. Train them in flying, well to be more clear, crashing an airplane. Get them to hijack 4 planes. Crash them into their targets.
For you any response that doesn't agree with your mentality is "nonsensical'. For me the response is 100% accurate. Again, you are not qualified to contradict experts and eyewitnesses. That is irrefutable/incontrovertible unless and until you can prove otherwise. Good luck with that. Inventing your own personal scenario(s) that you "can't imagine" these to be anything else does not qualify you for anything. Anyone can dream up stuff they can't imagine to be anything else. It's your response that is nonsensical. Once again, complete nonsense and reverse burden of proof. The burden of proof ALWAYS rests with the claimant, in this case the US government. You have no standing to try to prove anything about the Pentagon. For there to be a plane that crashed into the Pentagon requires at the very least, forensic evidence AND preferably accurate/unretouched photos and/or videos. Neither of those are available and in fact have been denied to the public. Unless and until that is made available, the official story is unsupported and quite questionable.
Thanks for your insightful response Bob, I am a little disappointed that even on totally obvious things you cannot concede, but then again I don't actually care. As always my posts are aimed at those you seek to influence. So, casual viewers: For there to be no plane DOES require the real plane and passengers to be disposed of. It's not even open for debate. Since DNA was identified, body parts, pieces of charred body etc. need to be manufactured, or, the medical identifiers are all in on the "evil-plot". Somebody needs to place all the AA77 plane pieces at the crash site. Involving quite a large number of people before the emergency services arrive, unless we bring them too, all in on the "evil-plot". The people speaking with their loved ones via cell phones have to be in on the "evil-plot" both parties, but that creates another massive problem. Now the person on one end of the cell phone must be killed and I'm guessing here, but the one related to them in conversation, isn't too happy about that! Pilot conversations must be faked. Air traffic control conversations must be faked. Whoever fires the missile/remote control plane must be in on the "evil-plot". Lamp post demolition person. Eyewitnesses to the actual AA77 plane are quite considerable. Are they all lying? Bob - "Again, you are not qualified to contradict experts and eyewitnesses. " Analysis Of Eyewitness Stmts on 9/11 AA F77 Crash into Pentagon, by Penny Schoner, 12/03-2/04 (ratical.org) This is an actual "911-truther" website and it goes into extraordinary detail about the eye-witnesses.
There is no plane in the security cam video posted. All I ask is to see one frame with a plane in it. If you cant show us so much as one frame then a plane does not exist and its all a fabrication.
false premise fallacy, it simply means something else had to happen. No one witnessed A77 at the pentagon.
With a security camera incapable of getting more than one frame, or of resolving the motion circa 550mph, the best you can get is the shape. The videos SHOWS this shape. One view CLEARLY shows the tail-fin. One view, with subtractive pixels, shows the outline and significant coloring of the AA77. “Absence of Evidence does not mean Evidence of Absence”, an old quote by Dr Carl Sagan. But straight to the point. Nope. For there to be no plane requires the real plane and passengers to be disposed of. Yes they did.
