View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Why do many cling to a theory from a pathological liar?

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Re: Why do many cling to a theory from a pathological liar?

Postby infinite1 » 22 Jul 2010, 13:03

OK it's going to take me a long time to thoroughly go through all of that material. It would be nice if it could be narrowed down a bit to the key areas. I will acknowledge that this is probably the strongest argument for a 757 hitting the Pentagon that I've seen to date. However, based on a quick look (all that I have time for at the moment - sorry) I can tell that this presentation is not flawless and I wouldn't be so quick to tell people that they are "wrong" so definitively, especially when there is no clear video released of a 757 even approaching the Pentagon let alone striking it and none of the photos of the supposedly "larger hole" are that convincing to be saying that there is absolutely no doubt of what exactly occured. The foam was covering the larger hole? The fire truck? Hmmm. Ok, well some of these links are suggesting that and that the larger hole was very close to the ground - almost level with it. First of all, how is it possible for a guy who was described by his flight instructor to have such poor flight skills in a small plane able to pull off flying such a large plane so low to the ground that it was nearly touching it before impact - especially at such a fast speed? What are the chances that he wouldn't just crash into the ground during the attempt? Why would they choose to hit the Pentagon in such a seemingly difficult maneuver when it would have been much easier to fly down into it rather than a low side strike risking a ground crash before reaching the building? Why did the strike just so happen to occur on the side that had been recently reinforced, rather than one of the sides that hadn't undergone the construction? Coincidence? Why did the strike just so happen to occur on the opposite side of the building from where the key leaders were at the time? Another coincidence? Why even go after the Pentagon at all when they could have gone for a nuclear power plant? And why wasn't the plane shot down by the Pentagon's anti-aircraft defense system?

Where are the 2 massive engines from the 757? One of the sites you linked shows a photo with a description stating that it's not surprising that the hole is said to be only 16 feet wide since the main body of a 757 isn't that wide to begin with and thus would leave a hole around that size. They completely fail to address the massive engines and the photo they show does not show any other holes on the sides of that hole where the engines would have hit. Another link you posted (which as I said above talks about a "larger hole") refers to a 90 foot wide hole (which contradicts the link that states that a smaller hole was all that was needed). Well which is it? Was the hole 16 feet wide or 90 feet wide?

Also to clarify I never said that no plane wreckage was found at the site. I said no wreckage of a plane of that size. I have seen pictures of wreckage a long time ago to understand that something that looks like a plane crashed. But where are the massive engines? If you can show me a photo of one of those babies at the site I will admit I was wrong. I've searched everywhere and have not been able to find one.

Finally, yes, why no clear video of the plane even approaching the building? You say it was discussed elsewhere. OK, sorry, I'm new to this site. If you could tell me how to locate the thread you are referring to I would be happy to check it out. I'm very curious as to why a building that is under so much video surveilance only had one crappy $10 web cam quality video of the strike. I'm so curious as to why the videos that would have captured the strike from neighboring buildings were confiscated and why FOIA requests for other videos have been denied due to "ongoing investigation." What ongoing investigation? This happened over 9 years ago and an official report was put out indicating who did it and how. So for what reason could the evidence be withheld?

Without any real evidence being released the official story remains just a conspiracy theory. And because of a conspiracy theory the U.S. invaded 2 countries - Iraq and Afghanistan (when the people they say did this were mostly from Saudi Arabia) and we've been forced to accept unamerican legislation such as the Patriot Act harming our rights and other nonsense involved at the airports when the whole time the Mexican border has been left WIDE open. Does any of this make any sense whatsoever?
infinite1
 
Posts: 13
Joined: 28 Jun 2010, 02:56






Re: Why do many cling to a theory from a pathological liar?

Postby infinite1 » 22 Jul 2010, 13:10

Slight correction, Edx, when I said you had mentioned the missing Pentagon video footage being mentioned elsewhere in the forum, I should have directed that comment to ProfWag, not you. My appologies.

And ProfWag, to answer your specific question, what leads me to question that it was not a 757? Yes, it was the size of the hole/impact area as shown in the video. How much larger should it have been? I can't say for sure, but certainly larger than 16 feet and certainly additional holes on the side at the very least to show where the engines impacted. The massive engines are what I'd say I'm most hung up on. I hope that answers your question.
infinite1
 
Posts: 13
Joined: 28 Jun 2010, 02:56

Re: Why do many cling to a theory from a pathological liar?

Postby ProfWag » 22 Jul 2010, 20:28

infinite1 wrote:Slight correction, Edx, when I said you had mentioned the missing Pentagon video footage being mentioned elsewhere in the forum, I should have directed that comment to ProfWag, not you. My appologies.

And ProfWag, to answer your specific question, what leads me to question that it was not a 757? Yes, it was the size of the hole/impact area as shown in the video. How much larger should it have been? I can't say for sure, but certainly larger than 16 feet and certainly additional holes on the side at the very least to show where the engines impacted. The massive engines are what I'd say I'm most hung up on. I hope that answers your question.

Since 16 ft is about the width of the fusalage of a 757, how much wider do you think the hole should have been? There are also photos of the initial impact of the wings before the bent backwards. If you google images "pentagon 9 11 engine" you'll see all sorts of pictures of engine parts. Of course, some people are claiming that didn't come from the 757, but if you look at the diagram of a 757 from Boeing and the pictures, they appear to match up perfectly to me. Also, keep in mind, when the plane hit, the wings would have folded back into the plane as it made it's way through the walls. I wouldn't expect to see a lot of debris outside the building. Would you?
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Why do many cling to a theory from a pathological liar?

Postby Edx » 24 Jul 2010, 03:46

infinite1 ,

You havent read those websites properly, they have all those answers to all of those questions. I am going away till august 25th so dont have time to get into any debate. I can only say that if you read those truther links and the debunker links they all have the answers to those questions.
Edx
 
Posts: 128
Joined: 03 Jul 2010, 03:21

Re: Why do many cling to a theory from a pathological liar?

Postby infinite1 » 13 Sep 2010, 10:09

ProfWag wrote:
infinite1 wrote:Slight correction, Edx, when I said you had mentioned the missing Pentagon video footage being mentioned elsewhere in the forum, I should have directed that comment to ProfWag, not you. My appologies.

And ProfWag, to answer your specific question, what leads me to question that it was not a 757? Yes, it was the size of the hole/impact area as shown in the video. How much larger should it have been? I can't say for sure, but certainly larger than 16 feet and certainly additional holes on the side at the very least to show where the engines impacted. The massive engines are what I'd say I'm most hung up on. I hope that answers your question.

Since 16 ft is about the width of the fusalage of a 757, how much wider do you think the hole should have been? There are also photos of the initial impact of the wings before the bent backwards. If you google images "pentagon 9 11 engine" you'll see all sorts of pictures of engine parts. Of course, some people are claiming that didn't come from the 757, but if you look at the diagram of a 757 from Boeing and the pictures, they appear to match up perfectly to me. Also, keep in mind, when the plane hit, the wings would have folded back into the plane as it made it's way through the walls. I wouldn't expect to see a lot of debris outside the building. Would you?


The only photos I have been able to find of "engine parts" are relatively small parts which appear to have possibly come from the small engine in the rear of a 757. I can find no photos whatsoever of either of the main engines at the pentagon crash site. These would be the most solid part of the airplane and they are constructed of titanium so one would expect to find them mostly intact yet they are no where to be found. If you think it's so easy to find a picture of one of the two MAIN engines at the pentagon site, then please link me to the google photo that you say is so easy to find. I'm not interested in "engine parts". I want to see the main engines.

To answer your question, I wouldn't expect where the fusalage hit to be much bigger than 16ft, but where the heck are the holes next to it that would have been made by the huge titanium engines?

And you talk about how the wings folded into the hole. Well, where did the engines go? They couldn't have folded up with the wings and fit through the 16 ft hole. So one would expect to find the engines on the ground right outside the wall yet they are not there.
infinite1
 
Posts: 13
Joined: 28 Jun 2010, 02:56

Re: Why do many cling to a theory from a pathological liar?

Postby infinite1 » 13 Sep 2010, 10:13

Edx wrote:infinite1 ,

You havent read those websites properly, they have all those answers to all of those questions. I am going away till august 25th so dont have time to get into any debate. I can only say that if you read those truther links and the debunker links they all have the answers to those questions.



Sorry but you linked to way too many websites, each of which has way too many pages of information. I've read through significant amounts and there is nothing concrete there to prove what you are saying from what I've seen. If there's any way you can pick one specific thing as an example - such as proof that the 2 giant MAIN engines were at the crash site - or proof of the 2 holes they would have made in addition to the 16ft fusalage hole I would be happy to check it out.
infinite1
 
Posts: 13
Joined: 28 Jun 2010, 02:56

Re: Why do many cling to a theory from a pathological liar?

Postby ProfWag » 14 Sep 2010, 02:30

infinite1 wrote:
ProfWag wrote:
infinite1 wrote:Slight correction, Edx, when I said you had mentioned the missing Pentagon video footage being mentioned elsewhere in the forum, I should have directed that comment to ProfWag, not you. My appologies.

And ProfWag, to answer your specific question, what leads me to question that it was not a 757? Yes, it was the size of the hole/impact area as shown in the video. How much larger should it have been? I can't say for sure, but certainly larger than 16 feet and certainly additional holes on the side at the very least to show where the engines impacted. The massive engines are what I'd say I'm most hung up on. I hope that answers your question.

Since 16 ft is about the width of the fusalage of a 757, how much wider do you think the hole should have been? There are also photos of the initial impact of the wings before the bent backwards. If you google images "pentagon 9 11 engine" you'll see all sorts of pictures of engine parts. Of course, some people are claiming that didn't come from the 757, but if you look at the diagram of a 757 from Boeing and the pictures, they appear to match up perfectly to me. Also, keep in mind, when the plane hit, the wings would have folded back into the plane as it made it's way through the walls. I wouldn't expect to see a lot of debris outside the building. Would you?


The only photos I have been able to find of "engine parts" are relatively small parts which appear to have possibly come from the small engine in the rear of a 757. I can find no photos whatsoever of either of the main engines at the pentagon crash site. These would be the most solid part of the airplane and they are constructed of titanium so one would expect to find them mostly intact yet they are no where to be found. If you think it's so easy to find a picture of one of the two MAIN engines at the pentagon site, then please link me to the google photo that you say is so easy to find. I'm not interested in "engine parts". I want to see the main engines.

To answer your question, I wouldn't expect where the fusalage hit to be much bigger than 16ft, but where the heck are the holes next to it that would have been made by the huge titanium engines?

And you talk about how the wings folded into the hole. Well, where did the engines go? They couldn't have folded up with the wings and fit through the 16 ft hole. So one would expect to find the engines on the ground right outside the wall yet they are not there.

First off, if you're not interested in the "engine parts" and only want to see the main engines, then I'm afraid there is nothing anyone can say to help you see the light. It's not like this plane flew into the side of a jelly donut. Expecting to see the entire main engines is not logical--at least to me it isn't.
Here are some decent pictures from inside the Pentagon. Hope they are useful:
http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm
As for your comment about the wings not being able to fold up. Why not? What comparison of a plane hitting the side of the Pentagon do you have that you can draw that conclusion? Here is a web site with several pictures of the exterior of the building. Hope it helps form an opinion one way or the other:
http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon-photos.html
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Why do many cling to a theory from a pathological liar?

Postby Edx » 14 Sep 2010, 08:03

All the information you seek infinite1 is in those links, if you cant be bothered to read it is another matter. It should tell you something when even other truthers think no plane at the pentagon claims are nonsense. You might want to think about why that is.
Edx
 
Posts: 128
Joined: 03 Jul 2010, 03:21

Re: Why do many cling to a theory from a pathological liar?

Postby infinite1 » 14 Sep 2010, 13:29

First off, if you're not interested in the "engine parts" and only want to see the main engines, then I'm afraid there is nothing anyone can say to help you see the light. It's not like this plane flew into the side of a jelly donut. Expecting to see the entire main engines is not logical--at least to me it isn't.
Here are some decent pictures from inside the Pentagon. Hope they are useful:
http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm
As for your comment about the wings not being able to fold up. Why not? What comparison of a plane hitting the side of the Pentagon do you have that you can draw that conclusion? Here is a web site with several pictures of the exterior of the building. Hope it helps form an opinion one way or the other:
http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon-photos.html[/quote]

I'm not expecting to see the "entire main engines" but I would expect to see something that at least remotely resembles at least one of them. The engine parts in all the photos you are linking to seem to be only of a much smaller engine. If a photo exists of that (which may or may not be the auxilary engine of a 757) then why not a photo of something resembling one of the main engines? If that small engine part survived enough to be photographed in a somewhat identifiable form, then why not one of the huge titanium engines - the most solid parts of the plane? I am the one not being logical? Interesting.

No, my comment was not about the "wings not being able to fold up." What i said was, the ENGINES could not have folded up along with the wings and everything together with the engines could not have fit into a 16 foot hole. One of you said before it was not surprising to you that the hole is only 16 feet because that's about how wide the fusalage is. Well, you didn't account for the two tremendous engines. To me it's not logical that the wings folded up along with the engines and everything fit through the 16 foot hole. To me, I would think the engines would have at the very least created a wider hole. You guys that always say how easily the wings could have folded up and fit through never seem to mention the engines. You act as if they aren't part of the plane but in fact they are the most substantial part of the aircraft.

You know this could all be resolved easily if just one clear video was provided, but surprise surprise the gov't has yet to produce one. But don't worry, that's not suspicious at all.
infinite1
 
Posts: 13
Joined: 28 Jun 2010, 02:56

Re: Why do many cling to a theory from a pathological liar?

Postby infinite1 » 14 Sep 2010, 13:40

Edx wrote:All the information you seek infinite1 is in those links, if you cant be bothered to read it is another matter. It should tell you something when even other truthers think no plane at the pentagon claims are nonsense. You might want to think about why that is.


Edx,
I already proved earlier that some of the links you posted contradicted each other (i.e. one mentions a 16 foot hole and another mentions that the hole is 90 feet) so you can't just throw a ton of links at me and then expect me to make sense out of all of the contradictions. If you really did read all of those pages of information and you really believe the answers are all there, then I challenge you to paste some specifics, otherwise I don't plan on wasting my time sifting through contradictions to try to find whatever it is you intend for me to see. It's like looking for a needle in a haystack.

And I disagree with your statement about "other truthers". What does that designation even mean? Also, I never said there was no plane at the Pentagon. To clarify, what I was saying was that I don't think it was a Boeing 757.
infinite1
 
Posts: 13
Joined: 28 Jun 2010, 02:56

Re: Why do many cling to a theory from a pathological liar?

Postby Edx » 15 Sep 2010, 03:34

infinite1 wrote:Also, I never said there was no plane at the Pentagon. To clarify, what I was saying was that I don't think it was a Boeing 757.


- facepalm -

Its when I notice statements like this that I remember why I needn't bother.
Edx
 
Posts: 128
Joined: 03 Jul 2010, 03:21

Re: Why do many cling to a theory from a pathological liar?

Postby infinite1 » 10 Oct 2010, 12:11

Good because it's when I notice that you isolate only a small part of my post and ignore all of the other parts because you have no logical explanation for them that I realize that I don't need to bother either. Continue pretending that the main engines didn't exist or that they were "vaporized", whatever helps you sleep at night. Obviously you don't want to talk about them.







"People don't like their reality being f'd with."
infinite1
 
Posts: 13
Joined: 28 Jun 2010, 02:56

Re: Why do many cling to a theory from a pathological liar?

Postby Edx » 10 Oct 2010, 20:52

infinite1 wrote:Good because it's when I notice that you isolate only a small part of my post and ignore all of the other parts because you have no logical explanation for them that I realize that I don't need to bother either. Continue pretending that the main engines didn't exist or that they were "vaporized", whatever helps you sleep at night. Obviously you don't want to talk about them.


I have told you where to find this information and you ignore it - totally - with no explanation claiming there was too much information to read.

You're still claiming that the "official story" is that the engines were "vaporized" even though this is something easily shown to be nonsense. Who, other than truthers, claim the engines were vaporized? :roll:

Here is JIm Hoffman, a big time TRUTHER, debunking some of those Pentagon no plane claims in Loose Change.
http://911research.com/reviews/loose_ch ... tagon.html

Here are a few quotes: (but please, actually go read it yourself and remember this guy is a truther)
"This is a straw man argument (no one claims the engines were vaporized)


No, a turbine rotor (not engine) was found outside the building.

Perhaps "engines should have been found relatively intact" if the Pentagon were made out of bamboo. Since when has an engine survived a 500-mph impact with a masonry building relatively intact?

Furthermore, a number of other engine parts were not only found, but documented in photographs. The 3-foot-diameter rotor in the photograph was outside of the building, and is consistent with a Boeing 757.
Edx
 
Posts: 128
Joined: 03 Jul 2010, 03:21

Previous

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests