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

Hello everyone

Introduce yourself here!

Re: Hello everyone

Postby ProfWag » 23 Jun 2010, 21:58

Scepcop wrote:ProfWag,
Explain why it's in the interest of national security to not release the videos that show the plane hitting the Pentagon?

Our government has done false flag attacks before, killing innocent people in the process. So why is it hard for you to believe?

I know why. You fought in Iraq and so cannot psychologically handle it all being due to a fraud, right?

There are many irrefutable points in the film. Why don't you respond to them one by one sequentially?

How can a 757 move at 500 knots while 20 feet off the ground?

Why were there no visible pictures of debris on the lawn and in those big photos? No 757 can crash fast enough to vanish.

Why are you more credible than the experts in the film? We don't even know your full name or picture. You are anonymous. How credible are anonymous people to you?

My comment concerning the interest in national security stems from questions the families had asked for.
These questions can be found here: http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html
Please note Scepcop that there are no questions about the lack of video of a plane hitting the Pentagon. Sorry, but this is not a valid question from you.
Question #2. It is not hard for me to believe if the facts pointed that way. In the case of 9/11, they don’t.
Question #3, No, that is not right. The war in Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 but rather revenge and hatred towards a specific person (my opinion). Hindsight is 20/20, but I now believe the war in Iraq should not have happened. We should have focused on Al Quada.
Question #4. Addressing points one by one in a 90 minute video would really take up a considerable amount of time, wouldn’t you think? Others have already done that. Since you don’t like to read, feel free to watch http://www.youtube.com/user/RKOwens4#p/u/9/T6fe9YlHQwA
As I’ve said, give me a point you would like to discuss and I’ll do that. It appears you are doing that now which is not quite so overwhelming at one time.
Question #5
A 757 is capable of rather extreme maneuvers: It is capable of taking off on one engine, and can execute pitch accelerations of over 3.5 Gs (gravities) as demonstrated by the following incident report of an IcelandAir 757-200:
REPORT 7/2003 - Date: 22 January 2003
serious incident to icelandair BOEING 757-200 at oslo airport gardermoen norway 22 january 2002
...
1.1.14.5 At this time the First Officer called out PULL UP! - PULL UP!. The GPWS aural warnings of TERRAIN and then TOO LOW TERRAIN were activated. Both pilots were active at the control columns and a maximum up input was made. A split between left and right elevator was indicated at this time. It appears the split occurred due to both pilots being active at the controls. The pilots did not register the aural warnings. During the dive the airspeed increased to 251 kt and the lowest altitude in the recovery was 321 ft radio altitude with a peaked load factor of +3.59 gs. 2
How does this apply to the 2.5 minute 270-degree spiral turn? The G forces produced by such a turn can be calculated using the following formula.
RCF = 0.001118 * r * N^2
where
RCF = Relative Centrifugal Force (gravities)
r = rotation radius (meters)
N = rotation speed (revolutions per minute)
If the plane were traveling at 400 miles per hour it would travel 16.666 miles, or 26,821 meters, in 2.5 minutes. Assuming it was traveling in a circular arc, it would trace out 3/4ths of a circle with a 35,761-meter circumference, giving a rotation radius of 5,691 meters and rotation speed of 0.3 rotations per minute. Plugging those values into the above equation, we obtain a centrifugal force of 0.5726 Gs -- hardly a problem for a 757 whose rated G limits are over two.
As for the part about flying low at high speeds, I’m not really sure why that is even in question.
Here’s a video of a 757 at low altitude: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vJliayH6co
Question #6
Here is a slideshow of the debris from Flight 77:
http://www.youtube.com/user/RKOwens4#p/u/42/YTNRkb7AaQk
If you don’t want to watch that, then remember that most of a 757 is made of aluminum which melts at 1200 degrees. The fire at the Pentagon was 1800 degrees if that tells you anything.

Question #7. You don’t know if I’m credible or not. That’s why I present evidence. But I’ll answer that question with another question. Why are the “experts” in the film more credible than the experts who claim a conspiracy theory does not have substance?
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54






Re: Hello everyone

Postby Chris Sarns » 24 Jun 2010, 01:29

Scepcop,
"I don't think Chris or anyone has all the answers. There are too many unanswered questions and inconsistencies."

I don't have any of the answers and neither does anybody else, least of all CIT. ;-)

I have been saying that this endless debate is a frikin waste of time but nobody seems to catch on. Y'all keep running in circles.

Hey, whatever blows your skirt up. :D
User avatar
Chris Sarns
 
Posts: 12
Joined: 18 Jun 2010, 17:07

Re: Hello everyone

Postby Eteponge » 25 Jun 2010, 03:44

Scepcop wrote:
Eteponge wrote:Scepcop, I've watched the videos, very interesting stuff. I may write about it later, right now I'm very tired.


Yeah give me your impression of the points presented. Weren't they solid and compelling?

It presented very suggestive evidence in favor of whatever hit the Pentagon NOT being a plane, yes. However, if true, then the questions and problems that I brought up such as what happened to those aboard that flight, etc, need to be dealt with, because one logically follows the other. If what hit the Pentagon wasn't a Plane, then how do we explain the people aboard that flight who are listed as killed in the Pentagon crash, and what happened to them, what about their families, etc, among other issues.

Because, if you say, "Look, here is evidence that what hit the Pentagon wasn't a Plane!", then any logical person is going to respond asking what happened to the people on board that flight, and the other points I raised, and if your only response is, "Well, uh, we don't know, we have zero information to explain that, but you gotta believe me on the no plane thing!", people are going to dismiss it, no matter how compelling the evidence may be in favor, unless you can adequately deal with the skeptical points regarding those aboard the flight, etc.

Now, if any evidence came to light on the fates of those aboard that flight that contradicts that they died in a plane crash, and were killed elsewhere or whatever, then you'd have something more to back up the no plane theory with.
"I think Eteponge's Blog is a pretty cool guy. eh debates Skeptics and doesnt afraid of anything."
User avatar
Eteponge
 
Posts: 300
Joined: 06 Jun 2009, 13:26

Re: Hello everyone

Postby ProfWag » 25 Jun 2010, 03:51

Eteponge wrote:
Scepcop wrote:Yeah give me your impression of the points presented. Weren't they solid and compelling?

It presented very suggestive evidence in favor of whatever hit the Pentagon NOT being a plane, yes. However, if true, then the questions and problems that I brought up such as what happened to those aboard that flight, etc, need to be dealt with, because one logically follows the other. If what hit the Pentagon wasn't a Plane, then how do we explain the people aboard that flight who are listed as killed in the Pentagon crash, and what happened to them, what about their families, etc, among other issues.

Because, if you say, "Look, here is evidence that what hit the Pentagon wasn't a Plane!", then any logical person is going to respond asking what happened to the people on board that flight, and the other points I raised, and if your only response is, "Well, uh, we don't know, we have zero information to explain that, but you gotta believe me on the no plane thing!", people are going to dismiss it, no matter how compelling the evidence may be in favor, unless you can adequately deal with the skeptical points regarding those aboard the flight, etc.

Now, if any evidence came to light on the fates of those aboard that flight that contradicts that they died in a plane crash, and were killed elsewhere or whatever, then you'd have something more to back up the no plane theory with.

Most excellent post Eteponge! The only thing I could add is that there is overwhelming evidence that the AA Flight 77 did, indeed, hit the building. Eyewitnesses, plane parts, body parts, and even a fuzzy picture. As you say, there are a few points brought up that can, and should, make one think for a bit. However, unbiased logic should help come to a pretty solid conclusion.
<quotes fixed by Moderator>
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Hello everyone

Postby Scepcop » 27 Jun 2010, 17:56

Eteponge wrote:
Scepcop wrote:
Eteponge wrote:Scepcop, I've watched the videos, very interesting stuff. I may write about it later, right now I'm very tired.


Yeah give me your impression of the points presented. Weren't they solid and compelling?

It presented very suggestive evidence in favor of whatever hit the Pentagon NOT being a plane, yes. However, if true, then the questions and problems that I brought up such as what happened to those aboard that flight, etc, need to be dealt with, because one logically follows the other. If what hit the Pentagon wasn't a Plane, then how do we explain the people aboard that flight who are listed as killed in the Pentagon crash, and what happened to them, what about their families, etc, among other issues.

Because, if you say, "Look, here is evidence that what hit the Pentagon wasn't a Plane!", then any logical person is going to respond asking what happened to the people on board that flight, and the other points I raised, and if your only response is, "Well, uh, we don't know, we have zero information to explain that, but you gotta believe me on the no plane thing!", people are going to dismiss it, no matter how compelling the evidence may be in favor, unless you can adequately deal with the skeptical points regarding those aboard the flight, etc.

Now, if any evidence came to light on the fates of those aboard that flight that contradicts that they died in a plane crash, and were killed elsewhere or whatever, then you'd have something more to back up the no plane theory with.


I think their hypothesis wasn't that it wasn't a plane, but that it wasn't a 757 that hit the Pentagon. It was either a military craft or a missile or something else. If it was a military plane or drone, that would explain the witnesses.

As to what happened to the people on Flight 77, the only other explanations are:

1. They were landed somewhere and shot.
2. They were shot down somewhere else.
3. They were shills and never existed.
4. They were landed and released, and were shills.

Since we can't rule out any of the above, it's simply an unknown.

ProfWag likes to say "Can you consider that your paranormal experience is false?" yet he never considers that we were lied to. Double standard. He never considers that he might be wrong. That is his major fallacy.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Hello everyone

Postby Scepcop » 27 Jun 2010, 17:58

ProfWag wrote:
Eteponge wrote:
Scepcop wrote:Yeah give me your impression of the points presented. Weren't they solid and compelling?

It presented very suggestive evidence in favor of whatever hit the Pentagon NOT being a plane, yes. However, if true, then the questions and problems that I brought up such as what happened to those aboard that flight, etc, need to be dealt with, because one logically follows the other. If what hit the Pentagon wasn't a Plane, then how do we explain the people aboard that flight who are listed as killed in the Pentagon crash, and what happened to them, what about their families, etc, among other issues.

Because, if you say, "Look, here is evidence that what hit the Pentagon wasn't a Plane!", then any logical person is going to respond asking what happened to the people on board that flight, and the other points I raised, and if your only response is, "Well, uh, we don't know, we have zero information to explain that, but you gotta believe me on the no plane thing!", people are going to dismiss it, no matter how compelling the evidence may be in favor, unless you can adequately deal with the skeptical points regarding those aboard the flight, etc.

Now, if any evidence came to light on the fates of those aboard that flight that contradicts that they died in a plane crash, and were killed elsewhere or whatever, then you'd have something more to back up the no plane theory with.

Most excellent post Eteponge! The only thing I could add is that there is overwhelming evidence that the AA Flight 77 did, indeed, hit the building. Eyewitnesses, plane parts, body parts, and even a fuzzy picture. As you say, there are a few points brought up that can, and should, make one think for a bit. However, unbiased logic should help come to a pretty solid conclusion.
<quotes fixed by Moderator>


That's assuming everything that the government said is true. The same government that won't let you see the 86 videos of the Pentagon Crash.

That's your major fallacy ProfWag. You take everything you are told at face value. Do you ever consider that you might have been lied to?

Anyone can take pictures on the floor of engine parts. Anyone can fake them too.

But the bottom line is that in the panoramic shots of the Pentagon Crash, there was no debris at the crash site. That you CANNOT and HAVE NEVER explained ProfWag! You lose on that point! Stop avoiding it.

You are defending the indefensible.

You also never explained why releasing the 86 videos would be a threat to national security. Why? Answer that one please!

You also forget that the EPA lied about the air being safe to breathe, causing cancer in thousands. Where is your outrage at that lie? Why are you blind to it? Can you acknowledge this lie ProfWag and admit that the government lies?
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Hello everyone

Postby ProfWag » 27 Jun 2010, 19:53

Scepcop wrote:
That's assuming everything that the government said is true. The same government that won't let you see the 86 videos of the Pentagon Crash.

That's your major fallacy ProfWag. You take everything you are told at face value. Do you ever consider that you might have been lied to?

Anyone can take pictures on the floor of engine parts. Anyone can fake them too.

But the bottom line is that in the panoramic shots of the Pentagon Crash, there was no debris at the crash site. That you CANNOT and HAVE NEVER explained ProfWag! You lose on that point! Stop avoiding it.

You are defending the indefensible.

You also never explained why releasing the 86 videos would be a threat to national security. Why? Answer that one please!

You also forget that the EPA lied about the air being safe to breathe, causing cancer in thousands. Where is your outrage at that lie? Why are you blind to it? Can you acknowledge this lie ProfWag and admit that the government lies?

Yes, I freely admit that the government lies. Shouldn't be a surprise there. I've recently been on the receiving end of a lie from my US Senator. Yep, they sure do. Now, do you REALLY think that the same government whom you say is so inept can cover up a tragedy of this magnitude? You're claiming one thing then saying another.
As for the panoramic shots of the Pentagon, Jeezus Krist! Would you look at the freaking pictures!!!!! Holy crap you're blind. You have a hole in a building. Of course there's not going to be an entire airplane on the grass outside the building, what survived (which wasn't much) was inside the building. Don't be such a propogandist Winston. Follow your own treatise and look at the facts from an unbiased point of view for once.
And YOU stop avoiding the issue that IF the government lied to us and flight 77 didn't fly into the Pentagon, then you have THOUSANDS of recovery personnel who would have lied to us to. Yet, not one--NOT ONE--of the first responders or anyone else involved in the cleanup to include the mortuary personnel who processed body parts said it was anything but a passenger plane. Are they all lying to us? All of them? Are my friends where were there lying to me? Give me a freaking break.
You have absolutely nothing, you're grasping for staws, and you know it.
As for your 86 videos (sic - actually it's 85): http://www.flight77.info/85videos.html
Sorry for the rather rude post, but I'm responding to you the way you wrote to me.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Hello everyone

Postby Scepcop » 10 Jul 2010, 03:46

Chris, have you seen this video making fun of the CIT? What do you think of it?

“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Hello everyone

Postby Scepcop » 10 Jul 2010, 03:50

Chris, ProfWag,
What did this black cab driver mean at the end in his confession?

“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Hello everyone

Postby Chris Sarns » 10 Jul 2010, 07:09

I didn't think the mock trailer video was all that good. I agree that there is no way a plane could fly over the Pentagon and not be reported by many people but I will NOT argue the point because I have a more important point that I would like you to address.

There is NO PROOF that the plane flew over the Pentagon.

Lloyd was a pawn and like most people involved, he had no idea what was going on until it happened. The plane could have been on the south path and flown above the light poles so the fact that they were staged has nothing to do with whether or not the plane hit the Pentagon.

All this is misdirection. Endless bickering about the witnesses and total avoidance of the final conclusion which is false.


I have answered your questions now please address the most important point.

The so called "proof of flyover" is that a plane on the north flight path could not cause the directional damage (leading to and including the hole in the “C” ring). However, the flyover theory assumes the directional damage was caused by something other than the plane, such as explosives. If the directional damage was caused by something else in the flyover theory then it could be caused by something else if the plane hit the Pentagon. The directional damage has nothing to do with whether or not the plane hit, and it does not prove that a plane on the north path did not hit the Pentagon.

The North of Citgo flight path does not prove flyover.
User avatar
Chris Sarns
 
Posts: 12
Joined: 18 Jun 2010, 17:07

Re: Hello everyone

Postby ProfWag » 10 Jul 2010, 21:03

Soooooooo Scepcop, you're saying that the lightpole and damage to the taxi was staged to be done AFTER the plane hit, in broad daylight, in full view of everyone stuck in the traffic jam?
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Previous

Return to Introduce Yourself

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron