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

Skeptics, what's your take on these expert statements?

Discuss PseudoSkeptics and their Fallacies. Share strategies for debating them.

Skeptics, what's your take on these expert statements?

Postby Scepcop » 24 Jul 2009, 12:03

To all those who still believe the official story of 9/11, here's a big question for you:

Do you think that US Navy Top Gun pilots and commercial airline pilots with 40+ years of flying experience, logging 23,000 hours of air-time, know their shit regarding aviation maneuvers?

If so, do you think you are qualified to argue or disagree with them?

See below what the world's top pilots said about Flight 77, the plane that hit the Pentagon on 9/11. Pay attention to the part in bold.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera ... _gun__.htm
U.S. Navy 'Top Gun' Pilot Questions 9/11

by Alan Miller Page 1 of 1 page(s)

September 5, 2007 - U.S. Navy Top Gun pilot, Commander Ralph Kolstad, started questioning the official account of 9/11 within days of the event. It just didnt make any sense to me, he said. And now 6 years after 9/11 he says, When one starts using his own mind, and not what one was told, there is very little to believe in the official story.

Now retired, Commander Kolstad was a top-rated fighter pilot during his 20-year Navy career. Early in his career, he was accorded the honor of being selected to participate in the Navys Top Gun air combat school, officially known as the U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School. The Tom Cruise movie, Top Gun reflects the experience of the young Navy pilots at the school. Eleven years later, Commander Kolstad was further honored by being selected to become a Top Gun adversary instructor. While in the Navy, he flew F-4 Phantoms, A-4 Skyhawks, and F-14 Tomcats and completed 250 aircraft carrier landings.

Commander Kolstad had a second career after his 20 years of Navy active and reserve service and served as a commercial airline pilot for 27 years, flying for American Airlines and other domestic and international careers. He flew Boeing 727, 757 and 767, McDonnell Douglas MD-80, and Fokker F-100 airliners. He has flown a total of over 23,000 hours in his career.

Commander Kolstad is especially critical of the account of American Airlines Flight 77 that allegedly crashed into the Pentagon. He says, At the Pentagon, the pilot of the Boeing 757 did quite a feat of flying. I have 6,000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757s and 767s and I could not have flown it the way the flight path was described.

Commander Kolstad adds, I was also a Navy fighter pilot and Air Combat Instructor and have experience flying low altitude, high speed aircraft. I could not have done what these beginners did. Something stinks to high heaven!


He points to the physical evidence at the Pentagon impact site and asks in exasperation, Where is the damage to the wall of the Pentagon from the wings? Where are the big pieces that always break away in an accident? Where is all the luggage? Where are the miles and miles of wire, cable, and lines that are part and parcel of any large aircraft? Where are the steel engine parts? Where is the steel landing gear? Where is the tail section that would have broken into large pieces?


So, one of the world's best pilots says he CANNOT duplicate the maneuvers of Flight 77, and that it's not possible. What does that tell you?

Are you more qualified than Commander Ralph Kolstad to comment on the maneuver of a 757? Do you have similar qualifications that he does? Have you logged 23,000 hours of flight time? Have you flown fighter jets and 757's for 40 years? What are YOUR qualifications against his?

Also, here is a similar statement from another experienced season pilot with 35 years experience flying commercial airlines and been on 100 combat missions for the Air Force. He explains below why Flight 77's maneuvers are impossible, even for the best pilots. Again, are you more qualified than he is about the plausibility of Flight 77's maneuvers on 9/11?! Pay attention to his words in bold below.

http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.html

Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force – Retired commercial pilot. Flew for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years. Aircraft flown: Boeing 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777. 30,000+ total hours flown. Had previously flown the actual two United Airlines aircraft that were hijacked on 9/11 (Flight 93, which impacted in Pennsylvania, and Flight 175, the second plane to hit the WTC). Former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions.

Image

Video interview 9/11 Ripple Effect 8/07: "I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that's alleged to have hit the South Tower. I don't believe it's possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding -- pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's. And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do it." http://americanbuddhist.net

Article 7/17/05: "The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S. plain and simple." … Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77 could have "descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 280 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon's first floor wall without touching the lawn."…

"For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible - there is not one chance in a thousand," said Wittenberg, recalling that when he made the jump from Boeing 727's to the highly sophisticated computerized characteristics of the 737's through 767's it took him considerable time to feel comfortable flying." http://www.arcticbeacon.com

Audio Interview 9/16/04: Regarding Flight 77, which allegedly hit the Pentagon. "The airplane could not have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into what they call a high speed stall. The airplane won’t go that fast if you start pulling those high G maneuvers at those bank angles. … To expect this alleged airplane to run these maneuvers with a total amateur at the controls is simply ludicrous...

It’s roughly a 100 ton airplane. And an airplane that weighs 100 tons all assembled is still going to have 100 tons of disassembled trash and parts after it hits a building. There was no wreckage from a 757 at the Pentagon. … The vehicle that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77. We think, as you may have heard before, it was a cruise missile."
http://911underground.com

Editor's note: For more information on the impact at the Pentagon, see General Stubblebine, Colonel Nelson, Commander Muga, Lt. Col. Kwiatkowski, Lt. Col. Latas, Major Rokke, Capt. Davis, Barbara Honegger, April Gallop, Colonel Bunel, and Steve DeChiaro.


For more statements and analyses like these from many highly qualified veteran expert pilots with decades of experience in the Air Force and Commercial Airline Industry, see here:

http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.html

Remember folks, these are NOT about theories, they are about FACTS. And none of these experts are nutty paranoid conspiracy theorists.

Here also are full lists of many qualified experts who have come out challenging the official account of 9/11. Their full names, pictures, qualifications and testimonies are all documented at the link below.

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

Summary:

CREDIBLE CRITICS OF THE OFFICIAL ACCOUNT OF 9/11

41 U.S. Counter-Terrorism and Intelligence Agency Veterans Challenge the Official Account of 9/11 – Official Account of 9/11: "Terribly Flawed," "Laced with Contradictions," "a Joke," "a Cover-up"
May 18, 2009 English PDF English HTML Danish PDF
French PDF German PDF Greek PDF Norwegian PDF
Polish PDF Swedish PDF

29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition in Collapses of All 3 WTC High-Rises on 9/11 – More than 700 architects and engineers have joined call for new investigation, faulting official collapse reports
June 17, 2009 PDF

Respected Medical Professionals Launch New 9/11 Truth Group – Announces Online Petition Calling for New Investigation
Feb. 24, 2009 MS Word Article on OpEdNews

Twenty-five U.S. Military Officers Challenge Official Account of 9/11 – Official Account of 9/11 “Impossible”, “A Bunch of Hogwash”, “Total B.S.”, “Ludicrous”, “A Well-Organized Cover- up”, “A White-Washed Farce”
Jan. 14, 2008 PDF Version Article on OpEdNews

Eight U.S. State Department Veterans Challenge the Official Account of 9/11 – Official Account of 9/11 "Flawed", "Absurd", "Totally Inadequate", "a Cover-up"
Jan. 5, 2008 PDF Version Article on OpEdNews

Seven Senior Federal Engineers and Scientists Call for New 9/11 Investigation – Official Account of 9/11 "Impossible", "Hogwash", "Fatally Flawed"
Dec. 13, 2007 PDF Version Article on OpEdNews

Eight Senior Republican Administration Appointees Challenge Official Account of 9/11 – "Not Possible", "a Whitewash", "False"
Dec. 4, 2007 PDF Version Article on OpEdNews

Senior Military, Intelligence, Law Enforcement,
and Government Officials Question
the 9/11 Commission Report

Many well known and respected senior U.S. military officers, intelligence services and law enforcement veterans, and government officials have expressed significant criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report or have made public statements that contradict the Report. Several even allege government complicity in the terrible acts of 9/11. This page of the website is a collection of their statements. The website does not represent any organization and it should be made clear that none of these individuals are affiliated with this website.

Listed below are statements by more than 200 of these senior officials. Their collective voices give credibility to the claim that the 9/11 Commission Report is tragically flawed. These individuals cannot be simply dismissed as irresponsible believers in some 9/11 conspiracy theory. Their sincere concern, backed by their decades of service to their country, demonstrate that criticism of the Report is not irresponsible, illogical, nor disloyal, per se. In fact, it can be just the opposite. (continued below)

http://patriotsquestion911.com/
“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: Skeptics, what's your take on these expert statements?

Postby Franc28 » 24 Jul 2009, 16:09

How dare you go against the consensus. You must therefore be some kind of quack. Next you're gonna tell us that secondhand smoke isn't as damageable as they say, or that flouride in water doesn't improve dental health. Doubt is a slippery slope straight to HELL!

:lol:
Banned by the JREF Board for calling them on their "bullshit"...
Franc28
 
Posts: 70
Joined: 16 Jun 2009, 05:55

Re: Skeptics, what's your take on these expert statements?

Postby jakesteele » 26 Jul 2009, 08:44

I just recently posted a question on Straight Dope in their questions thread. I told them I was writing a college paper about 911 pertaining specifically to the qualifications of the experts on both sides. I mentioned that all of the Patriots 911 and the Truth Movement, etc., were posted on their sites. However, I was unable to find a complete list of all of Popular Mechanics experts they used to 'debunk' the CT.

I asked them a simple question: PM says the consulted with "over 300" experts in the various fields and said the following were particularily helpful...they had listed somewhre around 60 to 70 people, many of which were journalists and other seemingly unrelated fields. I then asked them where I could find a complete list of the "over 300" experts. Gues what? I was met with hostility and agressively attacked as being a CTer and they tried to railroad the post into something way beyond a Straw Man. Will wonders ever cease. :roll:
Debunkers think all UFO photos are fake,
especially the real ones.
jakesteele
 
Posts: 88
Joined: 29 May 2009, 11:47

Re: Skeptics, what's your take on these expert statements?

Postby Scepcop » 26 Jul 2009, 12:17

Why don't you send the question to Cecil Adams himself? His email is on the site. He seems a lot more calm and level headed than his forum posters, who are vicious and bullying.
“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: Skeptics, what's your take on these expert statements?

Postby Scepcop » 26 Jul 2009, 13:00

Hey get this. When I brought up this post to some skeptics on my mailing list, they argued that these two experienced pilots quoted were only trained to fly aircraft safely and not to do kamikaze maneuvers, and that therefore these pilots were not qualified to assess whether Flight 77's kamikaze maneuvers were possible or not. Then they said that only aircraft engineers can assess an aircraft's ability to do certain maneuvers, and not the pilots themselves.

Is that the stupidest thing you ever heard or what?

So I ask these skeptics what qualifications they have in aviation maneuvers and why their opinion is more valid than pilots with 40+ years of experience. They offered no credentials or qualifications. So I laughed and said,

"Get real! Who do you think people would rather believe, pilots with 40+ years of real life experience flying various aircraft, including jet fighters and airliners, or some skeptic BSing behind a keyboard making up shit as he goes along?! Gimme a break!"

How ridiculous can they get?! And they call themselves "rational"? LOL

So then I ask them for a list of aircraft engineers who say that Flight 77's maneuvers were possible, engineers that are not affiliated with the government or are in danger of losing their jobs for speaking freely. They couldn't come up with any either.

Why do these guys have no sense of humility? Sheesh. They act like know-it-alls, even in areas they are not qualified in at all.
“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: Skeptics, what's your take on these expert statements?

Postby jakesteele » 26 Jul 2009, 14:52

Scepcop wrote:Hey get this. When I brought up this post to some skeptics on my mailing list, they argued that these two experienced pilots quoted were only trained to fly aircraft safely and not to do kamikaze maneuvers, and that therefore these pilots were not qualified to assess whether Flight 77's kamikaze maneuvers were possible or not. Then they said that only aircraft engineers can assess an aircraft's ability to do certain maneuvers, and not the pilots themselves.


If you refer to my "Rules of Woo" thread, this is a classical example of "Forced Plausibilities" or "Implausible Plausibilities". Law of Forced/Implausible Plausibilities – 1.) every explanation MUST be a plausible and mundane one, even when it doesn’t fit.
2.) It is better to be mundane and wrong than to be complex and right.
(See Ocamm’s Beard – the simplest solution isn’t always the right one)It also contains within it


Also, Law of Specific Credentials - Expertise in one field automatically grants expertise in another unrelated field. For example, anything Randi’s debunk is righteous even though he is a stage magician. This guy goes way beyond that. He has no credentials in anything other than digitally masturbating on the internet.

Note from Admin: You applied the quote tags incorrectly, so I fixed them. Winston
Debunkers think all UFO photos are fake,
especially the real ones.
jakesteele
 
Posts: 88
Joined: 29 May 2009, 11:47

Re: Skeptics, what's your take on these expert statements?

Postby skeprogue » 26 Jul 2009, 15:16

http://www.airspacemag.com/issues/2006/ ... aghdad.php

To avoid being knocked out of the sky, pilots employ an old, trusted tactic: the spiral, or corkscrew, landing approach. Once the plane arrives at about 18,000 feet—still safely beyond the range of weapons like the SA-7 shoulder-fired missile—the pilot banks sharply and descends toward the runway in a slow, tight circle, like someone walking down a spiral staircase. During the spiral the crew keeps an eye out for other air traffic, and for anything coming at them from the ground. After several turns, the pilot pulls out of the rotation with careful timing, straightens out, and lands. The whole thing takes seven to 10 minutes, roughly the same as a regular approach, but it all takes place directly overhead, instead of beginning 20 miles from the runway.

Though it sounds like something from a flying circus, the corkscrew is actually a straightforward tactic that uses fairly standard piloting skills. Airline pilots sometimes use a similar maneuver, descending quickly through clouds to get under bad weather. With a little on-the-job training, spiraling down to the runway becomes second nature, says Kurt Neuenschwander, international chief pilot for Air Serv International, a nonprofit organization that flies relief workers and supplies into Iraq. Landing in Baghdad, he has flown Embraer 120s, which can handle a maximum bank angle of 60 degrees. Neuenschwander keeps it under 55 to be safe.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHmrcCfd ... r_embedded shows an approach to an airport in Honduras.

Then, of course, there is Hong Kong's infamous Kai Tak Airport: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q ... arch_type=

But let's run with this, for the sake of discussion. I have several questions for you:

What *did* happen to AA77, its crew and passengers? Don't forget to include an explanation of how nearly every one of these people left DNA at the crash scene?

Why does the FDR show exactly this manuever having been performed?

What *did* happen to the Pentagon that day.

And why?
skeprogue
 
Posts: 46
Joined: 23 Jul 2009, 00:18

Re: Skeptics, what's your take on these expert statements?

Postby Scepcop » 27 Jul 2009, 01:44

jakesteele wrote:
Scepcop wrote:Hey get this. When I brought up this post to some skeptics on my mailing list, they argued that these two experienced pilots quoted were only trained to fly aircraft safely and not to do kamikaze maneuvers, and that therefore these pilots were not qualified to assess whether Flight 77's kamikaze maneuvers were possible or not. Then they said that only aircraft engineers can assess an aircraft's ability to do certain maneuvers, and not the pilots themselves.


If you refer to my "Rules of Woo" thread, this is a classical example of "Forced Plausibilities" or "Implausible Plausibilities". Law of Forced/Implausible Plausibilities – 1.) every explanation MUST be a plausible and mundane one, even when it doesn’t fit.
2.) It is better to be mundane and wrong than to be complex and right.
(See Ocamm’s Beard – the simplest solution isn’t always the right one)It also contains within it


Also, Law of Specific Credentials - Expertise in one field automatically grants expertise in another unrelated field. For example, anything Randi’s debunk is righteous even though he is a stage magician. This guy goes way beyond that. He has no credentials in anything other than digitally masturbating on the internet.

Note from Admin: You applied the quote tags incorrectly, so I fixed them. Winston


I think you've got it reversed in this case. The skeptics are the ones trying to explain away some huge implausibilities with regard to Flight 77, not us. The mundane explanation in this case is that it wasn't a 757 and that the official explanation is false. It's the skeptics who hold onto it with religious fervor despite there being no evidence for 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: Skeptics, what's your take on these expert statements?

Postby Scepcop » 27 Jul 2009, 02:01

skeprogue wrote:http://www.airspacemag.com/issues/2006/october-november/landing_in_baghdad.php

To avoid being knocked out of the sky, pilots employ an old, trusted tactic: the spiral, or corkscrew, landing approach. Once the plane arrives at about 18,000 feet—still safely beyond the range of weapons like the SA-7 shoulder-fired missile—the pilot banks sharply and descends toward the runway in a slow, tight circle, like someone walking down a spiral staircase. During the spiral the crew keeps an eye out for other air traffic, and for anything coming at them from the ground. After several turns, the pilot pulls out of the rotation with careful timing, straightens out, and lands. The whole thing takes seven to 10 minutes, roughly the same as a regular approach, but it all takes place directly overhead, instead of beginning 20 miles from the runway.

Though it sounds like something from a flying circus, the corkscrew is actually a straightforward tactic that uses fairly standard piloting skills. Airline pilots sometimes use a similar maneuver, descending quickly through clouds to get under bad weather. With a little on-the-job training, spiraling down to the runway becomes second nature, says Kurt Neuenschwander, international chief pilot for Air Serv International, a nonprofit organization that flies relief workers and supplies into Iraq. Landing in Baghdad, he has flown Embraer 120s, which can handle a maximum bank angle of 60 degrees. Neuenschwander keeps it under 55 to be safe.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHmrcCfd ... r_embedded shows an approach to an airport in Honduras.

Then, of course, there is Hong Kong's infamous Kai Tak Airport: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q ... arch_type=

But let's run with this, for the sake of discussion. I have several questions for you:

What *did* happen to AA77, its crew and passengers? Don't forget to include an explanation of how nearly every one of these people left DNA at the crash scene?

Why does the FDR show exactly this manuever having been performed?

What *did* happen to the Pentagon that day.

And why?


Hi there,
I looked at some of your links but I'm not sure how they prove that Flight 77's maneuvers were possible with a 757? You already heard from experienced pilots about why they weren't. Why do you think they are wrong, when they've had 40 years of experience?

Show me some pilots who say that a person trained on a Cessna plane can fly a 757, or do a 270 degree turn and descend 7000 feet in 2 minutes. Show me.

Remember we are talking about a 270 degree turn here. Your article above described a 60 degree turn, and then said that the pilot keeps it under 55 to be safe.

"Landing in Baghdad, he has flown Embraer 120s, which can handle a maximum bank angle of 60 degrees. Neuenschwander keeps it under 55 to be safe. "

To answer your question:

We don't really know. All we can do is come up with different scenarios. The FBI confiscated around 80 video tapes of whatever hit the Pentagon, and won't release them to the public. If a 757 really did hit the Pentagon, then why don't they release the videos to prove it? What are they hiding?

Why don't you call the FBI and ask them to release them, so we can all have our answer?

The few tapes they have shown just show a white streak. You can't make out anything from it.

As to the passengers, we don't know. They could have been murdered somewhere for all we know. It's not beyond the government to kill innocent people you know. Google "Operation Northwoods" for documented proof. The CIA and Illuminati teach their elite to lose their compassion and become sociopaths who do not mind sacrificing innocent people for a larger aim.

As to the DNA, all we have is their word for it, which you seem to take as Gospel truth.

Question for you: Why did Flight 77 vaporize upon impact? NTSB said the wings fell off upon impact. If so, then why don't we see the wings? Even reporters such as Jamie McEntyre on CNN said he saw no debris from a plane there at the Pentagon, at all.

So, you really believe that on 9/11, for the first time in history, two airliners crash on land and then just vaporize with no debris? And that for the first time in history, three steel framed skyscrapers collapsed due to fire, all on 9/11, the third building, 7, not even having been hit by a plane? You really buy that many coincidences? Why? Why do you have zero skepticism for official stories?

As to the FDR, we don't know cause we don't have access to it. All we have is their word, and in the past, the government and media have lied many times.

The radar showed those maneuvers yeah, so some suspect it was a missile.

Questions for you:

Why do you feel that the official story is gospel truth, when there is no evidence to back it up? The FBI even admitted that they have no hard evidence linking Osama Bin Laden to 9/11, so why do you take it as gospel truth?

Do you consider yourself an objective truth seeker and thinker, or defender of orthodoxy?

If you really felt that all the evidence contradicted the official story, would you disagree with it honestly, or deny it due to your allegiance to anything official and by the establishment?

If Flight 77 vaporized, then how come some of the hijackers were found to still be alive?

When William Rodriguez, the last man out of the WTC, said that he heard a huge explosion from the BASEMENT level of the WTC that happened BEFORE the plane hit, ABC edited it out and made it look like he said that the plane caused the explosion he heard.

Is that dishonest to you? Do you have no quarrel with that? In your book, is it ok to distort and take someone's statements out of context, to protect the official story? Is conformity a higher principle to you than truth?

And if the official story is true, and the media have nothing to hide, then why don't they report William Rodriguez's testimony accurately, along with many others?
“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: Skeptics, what's your take on these expert statements?

Postby skeprogue » 27 Jul 2009, 09:52

Scepcop wrote:I looked at some of your links but I'm not sure how they prove that Flight 77's maneuvers were possible with a 757? You already heard from experienced pilots about why they weren't. Why do you think they are wrong, when they've had 40 years of experience?


Well, setting aside your "expert" expecting a Warner Bros. cartoon outline of the plane with little cutouts for the wings, how about the fact that the videos I posted showing similar turns actually being made, not to mention the fact that the FDR clearly shows the turn happening?

Scepcop wrote:Show me some pilots who say that a person trained on a Cessna plane can fly a 757, or do a 270 degree turn and descend 7000 feet in 2 minutes. Show me.


You do know that every pilot starts out in a Cessna or something similar, right?

Why are you trying to hide the fact that hanjour had a commercial pilot license?

Scepcop wrote:Remember we are talking about a 270 degree turn here. Your article above described a 60 degree turn, and then said that the pilot keeps it under 55 to be safe.

"Landing in Baghdad, he has flown Embraer 120s, which can handle a maximum bank angle of 60 degrees. Neuenschwander keeps it under 55 to be safe. "


Do try to read for comprehension. It is the bank angle which is 60 degrees, not the radius of the turn.

And do you really believe Hanjour was concerned about keeping it safe?

Scepcop wrote:To answer your question:

We don't really know.


Yes, we do

Scepcop wrote:All we can do is come up with different scenarios. The FBI confiscated around 80 video tapes of whatever hit the Pentagon, and won't release them to the public. If a 757 really did hit the Pentagon, then why don't they release the videos to prove it? What are they hiding?


Your proof of this "80 tapes" canard?

Scepcop wrote:Why don't you call the FBI and ask them to release them, so we can all have our answer?


Ignoring the fact that you haven't done more than assert these tapes exist, and that a phone call would not suffice to acquire them if they did, how about "It's not my claim, so I feel no need to attempt to prove it?"

You think it is so important, *you* file the FOIA paperwork to get them/

I'll wait right here....


Scepcop wrote:The few tapes they have shown just show a white streak. You can't make out anything from it.



And what reason do you have to believe your mythic 80 tapes would be any different.

Here, let me do the math for you: normal video is shot at 30 frames per second. Surveillance cameras use a much lower rate to save on tape but we'll use 30 for our calculation. AA77 was flying 500+ mph, we'll use 500 to keep things simple. 500 mph * 5280 feet in a mile / 60 minutes / 60 seconds / 30 fps == 24 feet per frame. Now the 757 is ~ 155 feet long. This means it would take 6 frames for the 757 to travel it's length -- that's .2 seconds. In a single second, the 757 has travelled 5 times its length.

How is this *not* going to result in a blur on videotape?


Scepcop wrote:As to the passengers, we don't know.


The DNA evidence says otherwise.

Scepcop wrote:They could have been murdered somewhere for all we know. It's not beyond the government to kill innocent people you know. Google "Operation Northwoods" for documented proof.


Just how many people were killed during Operation Northwoods?

Scepcop wrote:The CIA and Illuminati teach their elite to lose their compassion and become sociopaths who do not mind sacrificing innocent people for a larger aim.


pffffth! The Illuminati?

Where is your documentation of such training?


Scepcop wrote:As to the DNA, all we have is their word for it, which you seem to take as Gospel truth.


"They" being all of the people who gathered the remains, all of the people who cataloged them, all of the people involved in trasporting it and all of the people involved in the testing -- not one of whom has, in close to 8 years, ever even suggested anything hinky about the whole process?

Scepcop wrote:Question for you: Why did Flight 77 vaporize upon impact?


Answer: it didn't. http://media.popularmechanics.com/image ... debris.jpg

Scepcop wrote:NTSB said the wings fell off upon impact. If so, then why don't we see the wings? Even reporters such as Jamie McEntyre on CNN said he saw no debris from a plane there at the Pentagon, at all.


And how close was he to the Pentagon when he made that statement?

You are aware that he later stated that there could be no doubt a plane hit the Pentagon, right? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aV1OAKmmQLc

Scepcop wrote:So, you really believe that on 9/11, for the first time in history, two airliners crash on land and then just vaporize with no debris?


No, I don't, since plenty of debris was left behind by all four crashes.

Scepcop wrote:And that for the first time in history, three steel framed skyscrapers collapsed due to fire, all on 9/11, the third building, 7, not even having been hit by a plane?


Of course, you're not being completely dishonest, so the fact that the above doesn't read "due to fire and major structural damage from being hit by fully loaded airliners in two cases, and by huge chunks of debris in the third case" is simply a typo, right?

But let's run with this one, too: how many buildings constructed in the same was as these three have survived unfought fires and major structural damage?

Scepcop wrote:You really buy that many coincidences? Why? Why do you have zero skepticism for official stories?


Life is full of coincidences.

And where do you get "zero skepticism?" I treat the "official story" and all 9/11 "Truth" with equal skepticism. In this case, one side has mountains of evidence, and the other side has a bunch of one-off "well, it coulda's" and assumptions about what evidence which does not exist might prove.

Tell you what, given me a fact driven alternative scenario which better explains the evidence we do have, and you have a case.

Scepcop wrote:As to the FDR, we don't know cause we don't have access to it.


Nor would you have any idea what to do with it if you did.

Scepcop wrote:All we have is their word, and in the past, the government and media have lied many times.


No, we also have American Airlines and all of the passengers and crew from that jet for the 24 hours prior to its crash to confirm that not a single detail of the freely available FDR data contradicts the other evidence. We have the fact that AA77 never arrived at its destination. We have the fact that no airliner bearing that serial number has been use after the crash, nor did an airliner with a different serial number pop up without the usual documentation tracing it all the way from construction through commissioning.

Scepcop wrote:The radar showed those maneuvers yeah, so some suspect it was a missile.


Because, of course, the radar signature of an airliner and that of a missle are identical in every regard...


Scepcop wrote:Questions for you:

Why do you feel that the official story is gospel truth, when there is no evidence to back it up?


Where have I stated that the "official story," what ever you mean by that, is "gospel truth?"

And why do you lie that there is no evidence?

Scepcop wrote:The FBI even admitted that they have no hard evidence linking Osama Bin Laden to 9/11, so why do you take it as gospel truth?


Nor was there any "hard evidence" linking Al Capone to the racketeering, extortion, rum running and murder which occurred in Chicago during Prohibition.

So he never ordered those crimes, huh?

Scepcop wrote:Do you consider yourself an objective truth seeker and thinker, or defender of orthodoxy?


Neither.

Scepcop wrote:If you really felt that all the evidence contradicted the official story, would you disagree with it honestly, or deny it due to your allegiance to anything official and by the establishment?


And what allegiance is that? Do you really not see how lying about "no evidence" "vapourization" and "allegiance" says some very unflattering things about you?

If all the evidence contradicted the official story, it wouldn't be the official story. It's kind of like the name given to alternative medicine which has been proven to be effective.

They call it "conventional medicine."

Scepcop wrote:If Flight 77 vaporized, then how come some of the hijackers were found to still be alive?


Since it did not vapourize, and some of the hijackers were *not* found to still be alive, I fail to see your point. You *do* know that the BBC has admitted their error in reporting that some were, citing the fact that confusion arose due to them having had common names, right?

Scepcop wrote:When William Rodriguez, the last man out of the WTC,


Arguably the last to walk out unharmed, but that was not his claim. He told NIST that he was "the last survivor pulled from the rubble". Of course, the 18 other survivors pulled from the rubble of the North Tower long after Rodriguez left show that he was at best ill-informed. In fact, the last survivor was Jenelle Guzman-McMillan, who was rescued some 26 hours later at approximately 12:30 p.m. on September 12, 2001. http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020 ... vivor.html

Scepcop wrote:said that he heard a huge explosion from the BASEMENT level of the WTC that happened BEFORE the plane hit, ABC edited it out and made it look like he said that the plane caused the explosion he heard.


He did not claim the explosion was from the basement, he said that he was in the basement when he heard it.

Scepcop wrote:Is that dishonest to you?


Yes, I am inclined to believe you are not simply ill-informed, but knowingly telling untruths.

Scepcop wrote:Do you have no quarrel with that? In your book, is it ok to distort and take someone's statements out of context, to protect the official story? Is conformity a higher principle to you than truth?


Yes, I have a quarrel with your distortions. No, it's not okay to distort and take statements out of context. Not even when you do it to protect your fantasies about 9/11. And no.


Scepcop wrote:And if the official story is true, and the media have nothing to hide, then why don't they report William Rodriguez's testimony accurately, along with many others?


Why don't you try actually *documenting* the inaccuracy you claim, as well as these "many others?"

Or am I just supposed to take your bald assertion, even when you have been shown to be dishonest, and to cite others who are demonstrably wrong?
skeprogue
 
Posts: 46
Joined: 23 Jul 2009, 00:18

Re: Skeptics, what's your take on these expert statements?

Postby Scepcop » 30 Jul 2009, 23:00

skeprogue wrote:Well, setting aside your "expert" expecting a Warner Bros. cartoon outline of the plane with little cutouts for the wings, how about the fact that the videos I posted showing similar turns actually being made, not to mention the fact that the FDR clearly shows the turn happening?


Christ Skeproggue. Having to explain things to you again feels like picking up toys after babies throw them on the floor. It's very tedious. Are you being ignorant on purpose or are you just so closed that your mind and cognitive abilities have become blind? You don't seem to get the most obvious.

So tell us, what happened to the wings of Flight 77. Did they vaporize too? If they didn't damage the Pentagon, but fell off, as NTSB reported in their computer simulation (have you seen it? it's on youtube), then where are the wings?

This is one question that NONE of the sites debunking 9/11 Truth have answered, WHAT HAPPENED TO THE WINGS OF THE PLANE IF THEY FELL OFF? DID THEY JUST VAPORIZE? IF SO, HOW?

You commit circular reasoning. The plane and the wings weren't there, yet you believe that it hit the Pentagon, therefore it must have vaporized. That's circular reasoning. You don't even consider that the story might be false to begin with.

Scepcop wrote:You do know that every pilot starts out in a Cessna or something similar, right?


Yeah, and your point is?

Did you even read the point I made? The pilots I quoted said you CANNOT train on a Cessna and then jump into the cockpit of a 757 and fly it, PERIOD. WIttenburg says there is not one chance in a thousand. Did you read that? My God. Why do I have to repeat it to you? This is getting blank tedious. When you can't explain away something, your mind becomes blind to it and erases it from your head, and you act like nothing was there. Sheesh. That is insane. And then it forces me to tediously repeat the point over again!

If you're stumped, then admit it!

Expert pilots who have flown 757's say that you cannot jump into one after training on a Cessna and just start flying it like that. NOT POSSIBLE AT ALL! They know their shit. You are just a skeptic BSing and making up shit as you go along. What are YOUR QUALIFICATIONS in aviation? Nothing? Then why are you arguing about this? Why don't you listen to expert pilots who have flown 757's for years???????

My God.........

Why are you trying to hide the fact that hanjour had a commercial pilot license?


Why are you hiding the fact that his flying mates said he couldn't fly at all and that he was a terrible pilot? Even if he was a great Cessna pilot, again, you can't just go from a Cessna to a 757 cockpit just like that.

You've been watching too many movies.

Scepcop wrote:Remember we are talking about a 270 degree turn here. Your article above described a 60 degree turn, and then said that the pilot keeps it under 55 to be safe.

"Landing in Baghdad, he has flown Embraer 120s, which can handle a maximum bank angle of 60 degrees. Neuenschwander keeps it under 55 to be safe. "


Do try to read for comprehension. It is the bank angle which is 60 degrees, not the radius of the turn.

And do you really believe Hanjour was concerned about keeping it safe?


Ok what is the radius of that turn? Is it 270 degrees?

It's not about keeping it safe dude. A 757 cannot make that kind of turn. If it did, it would go into a high speed stall. Didn't you frickin read what Wittenburg wrote? My God! Do I have to copy and paste it for you again? SCROLL UP!

Scepcop wrote:To answer your question:

We don't really know.


Yes, we do


How do we know? Cause the government told you so? So you take their word as gospel truth and apply zero skepticism toward them? Nice clear objective fair balanced thinking on your part... NOT!

Scepcop wrote:All we can do is come up with different scenarios. The FBI confiscated around 80 video tapes of whatever hit the Pentagon, and won't release them to the public. If a 757 really did hit the Pentagon, then why don't they release the videos to prove it? What are they hiding?


Your proof of this "80 tapes" canard?


Christ. You didn't know about the 80+ tapes? I guess you aren't very well read in this subject then. Here you go. I await your admission of your mistake.

http://www.flight77.info/85videos.html

Also see this:
http://www.infowars.net/articles/may200 ... videos.htm
FBI Withholding 84 More Tapes of Pentagon on 9/11

And what reason do you have to believe your mythic 80 tapes would be any different.

Here, let me do the math for you: normal video is shot at 30 frames per second. Surveillance cameras use a much lower rate to save on tape but we'll use 30 for our calculation. AA77 was flying 500+ mph, we'll use 500 to keep things simple. 500 mph * 5280 feet in a mile / 60 minutes / 60 seconds / 30 fps == 24 feet per frame. Now the 757 is ~ 155 feet long. This means it would take 6 frames for the 757 to travel it's length -- that's .2 seconds. In a single second, the 757 has travelled 5 times its length.

How is this *not* going to result in a blur on videotape?


Dude, I was NOT arguing that something going at 500mph should show up on low quality video tape. No one is. I'm just saying that that video is NOT proof of a 757 hitting the Pentagon. And you know it. Stop playing dumb.

Plus, show me some proof that it's possible for a 757 to fly at 500mph while 6 feet above ground. Experts say its aerodynamically impossible. Where is your proof that it's possible?

Scepcop wrote:As to the passengers, we don't know.


The DNA evidence says otherwise.


And how do you know? Do you have the DNA evidence in your hands? If not, you are going by faith based on what someone else says. Why do you accept authority as truth? How do you decide who to put your faith in?

Scepcop wrote:They could have been murdered somewhere for all we know. It's not beyond the government to kill innocent people you know. Google "Operation Northwoods" for documented proof.


Just how many people were killed during Operation Northwoods?


Dude, the fact that they would seriously PLAN to stage terrorist attacks and kill innocent people means that they are CAPABLE of it. Dude, if I drafted a serious plan to kill you, but didn't carry it out, would you still say that I am not capable of wanting to kill you? LOL

Besides, some say that Operation Northwoods was carried out, in the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. I bet you didn't know that turned out to be a fraud, did you? And it doesn't piss you off at all that 3 million Vietnamese and 58,000 Americans died as a result of a lie does it? No, the only thing that pisses you skeptics off is anyone promoting alternative medicine.

Scepcop wrote:The CIA and Illuminati teach their elite to lose their compassion and become sociopaths who do not mind sacrificing innocent people for a larger aim.


pffffth! The Illuminati?


My God. There is an Illuminati/Freemason symbol on the back of the one dollar bill! What do you think that is, a secular symbol? lol You are so ignorant and dumb. My God. Things exist that you don't know about. Face it.

If you want to learn the truth, do some research, don't just sit there and taunt me. First, go read Jordan Maxwell and watch his videos and interviews on YouTube. There are many books on this.

You think the Masonic architecture of the White House and Pentagon are just coincidences? You skeptics lack the ability to connect dots, big time.

Where is your documentation of such training?


Google or YouTube "skull and bones" for a little info. Also "Bohemian Grove". I've spent many hours studying this stuff. You gotta do it yourself.

Do you know what the "Cremation of Care" ritual is? Does it sound like a good thing, to destroy compassion?

Scepcop wrote:As to the DNA, all we have is their word for it, which you seem to take as Gospel truth.


"They" being all of the people who gathered the remains, all of the people who cataloged them, all of the people involved in trasporting it and all of the people involved in the testing -- not one of whom has, in close to 8 years, ever even suggested anything hinky about the whole process?


One of them refuses to be interviewed. The makers of Loose Change tried and he refused. They have a job to do. There have been whistleblowers from the inside, like Kevin Ryan for instance. But the media ignores them.

Hey check out the list at: http://www.patriotsquestion911.com It's very impressive. Many government experts are on that list.

Scepcop wrote:Question for you: Why did Flight 77 vaporize upon impact?




So a piece of tin on the ground, which anyone can Photoshop or plant, is your debris? Where is the rest of it? Where are the wings? None of you deniers have answered that.

Scepcop wrote:NTSB said the wings fell off upon impact. If so, then why don't we see the wings? Even reporters such as Jamie McEntyre on CNN said he saw no debris from a plane there at the Pentagon, at all.


And how close was he to the Pentagon when he made that statement?

You are aware that he later stated that there could be no doubt a plane hit the Pentagon, right? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aV1OAKmmQLc


Of course he retracted it. It was HIS JOB. Duh. You really have no understanding about how power and influence work, do you?

His original statement was clear and unambiguous. He said there was nothing you could distinguish that a plane had crashed there. NOTHING.

Scepcop wrote:So, you really believe that on 9/11, for the first time in history, two airliners crash on land and then just vaporize with no debris?


No, I don't, since plenty of debris was left behind by all four crashes.


Where? There are no debris in the pictures. Reporters at the scene didn't see them either. Only in your deluded head are there debris.

Look at these pictures and tell me where the debris is:

http://911review.com/attack/pentagon/im ... _large.jpg

http://911review.com/attack/pentagon/im ... arge_2.jpg

Here is a French site asking you to find the Boeing:

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/ ... urs_en.htm

Scepcop wrote:And that for the first time in history, three steel framed skyscrapers collapsed due to fire, all on 9/11, the third building, 7, not even having been hit by a plane?


Of course, you're not being completely dishonest, so the fact that the above doesn't read "due to fire and major structural damage from being hit by fully loaded airliners in two cases, and by huge chunks of debris in the third case" is simply a typo, right?


Nope, cause anyone knows that falling debris hitting a steel building will not cause it to collapse in 7 seconds. You are just making up shit cause you have no explanation. NIST has no idea what happened to Building 7 either. They changed their story many times. And faked a computer simulation even. Kevin Ryan, an inside whistleblower, caught them doing it.

Are you really that stupid and out of touch with reality? Fire does not collapse steel buildings.

But let's run with this one, too: how many buildings constructed in the same was as these three have survived unfought fires and major structural damage?


A skyscraper in Madrid in 2005 burned for 20 hours, yet it never collapsed. This is a common example given.

Why are you asking such a question. NEVER before in history have steel skyscrapers collapsed from fire. That's a fact. Did you even know that?

Scepcop wrote:You really buy that many coincidences? Why? Why do you have zero skepticism for official stories?


Life is full of coincidences.


And full of violations of the laws of physics too? LOL

Why do you want so desperately bad to believe the official story against all reason? It's like a religion to you.

And where do you get "zero skepticism?" I treat the "official story" and all 9/11 "Truth" with equal skepticism. In this case, one side has mountains of evidence, and the other side has a bunch of one-off "well, it coulda's" and assumptions about what evidence which does not exist might prove.


If you treated the official story with skepticism, you would be asking what happened to the wings of Flight 77, as any true skeptic would. But you don't. So you have zero skepticism toward the official story.

Show me your skepticism toward the official story. Prove it. Otherwise, you're just full of it.

If your side had mountains of evidence, then why did the FBI admit that it had no hard evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11? BUSTED!

Tell you what, given me a fact driven alternative scenario which better explains the evidence we do have, and you have a case.


Already done. A cruise missile or bomb fits the data than a 757 does.

Have you seen the two hour presentation by Richard Gage of AE911Truth.org? It covers every theory and proves that controlled demolition is the best theory that fits all the data for the WTC collapse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b74naeawdCs

Scepcop wrote:As to the FDR, we don't know cause we don't have access to it.


Nor would you have any idea what to do with it if you did.


Irrelevant.

Scepcop wrote:All we have is their word, and in the past, the government and media have lied many times.


No, we also have American Airlines and all of the passengers and crew from that jet for the 24 hours prior to its crash to confirm that not a single detail of the freely available FDR data contradicts the other evidence. We have the fact that AA77 never arrived at its destination. We have the fact that no airliner bearing that serial number has been use after the crash, nor did an airliner with a different serial number pop up without the usual documentation tracing it all the way from construction through commissioning.


Just because Flight 77 disappeared doesn't prove that it crashed into the Pentagon. Think!

Scepcop wrote:The radar showed those maneuvers yeah, so some suspect it was a missile.


Because, of course, the radar signature of an airliner and that of a missle are identical in every regard...


The radar folks said that a 757 could not perform those maneuvers.

How do you explain why it disappeared from radar for a while until just before reaching the Pentagon?

Also, how did Flight 77 have the code for Air Force one in it, which allowed it to enter Pentagon airspace? How did the hijackers get the transponder codes for Air Force One? You didn't know about this did you?

Scepcop wrote:Questions for you:

Why do you feel that the official story is gospel truth, when there is no evidence to back it up?


Where have I stated that the "official story," what ever you mean by that, is "gospel truth?"

And why do you lie that there is no evidence?


Because you have a faith based blind belief in it despite no evidence. The official story has never been proven. All you have is the government's word. If this were a cut and dried case, why do you think so many credible experts doubt it?

Scepcop wrote:The FBI even admitted that they have no hard evidence linking Osama Bin Laden to 9/11, so why do you take it as gospel truth?


Nor was there any "hard evidence" linking Al Capone to the racketeering, extortion, rum running and murder which occurred in Chicago during Prohibition.

So he never ordered those crimes, huh?


What? What kind of a stupid comparison is that? Without hard evidence, what do you have to convict someone? Of course there's hard evidence linking Al Capone. Show me your proof.

Scepcop wrote:Do you consider yourself an objective truth seeker and thinker, or defender of orthodoxy?


Neither.


Oh so you admit you're not objective huh? Explain your bias.

Scepcop wrote:If you really felt that all the evidence contradicted the official story, would you disagree with it honestly, or deny it due to your allegiance to anything official and by the establishment?


And what allegiance is that? Do you really not see how lying about "no evidence" "vapourization" and "allegiance" says some very unflattering things about you?


I'm not lying. You are. The photos and reporters said there was no debris.

If all the evidence contradicted the official story, it wouldn't be the official story. It's kind of like the name given to alternative medicine which has been proven to be effective.

They call it "conventional medicine."


"All wars are based on deception" - Sun Tzu

You are very ignorant about power, lies and history.

Scepcop wrote:If Flight 77 vaporized, then how come some of the hijackers were found to still be alive?


Since it did not vapourize, and some of the hijackers were *not* found to still be alive, I fail to see your point. You *do* know that the BBC has admitted their error in reporting that some were, citing the fact that confusion arose due to them having had common names, right?


It did vaporize. If not, where is the debris? Where is the debris for Flight 93?

Perhaps the BBC were coerced or ordered to retract their story.

Scepcop wrote:said that he heard a huge explosion from the BASEMENT level of the WTC that happened BEFORE the plane hit, ABC edited it out and made it look like he said that the plane caused the explosion he heard.


He did not claim the explosion was from the basement, he said that he was in the basement when he heard it.


Yes he did. Go see it on YouTube. Now why are you lying and being dishonest now? He said the explosion was FROM THE BASEMENT LEVEL between the B2 and B3 levels. It's on YouTube. Go watch it!



I await your apology!

He also saw a worker from the basement come up with his skin peeling off. And also the sprinkler system in the basement went off too!

Scepcop wrote:And if the official story is true, and the media have nothing to hide, then why don't they report William Rodriguez's testimony accurately, along with many others?


Why don't you try actually *documenting* the inaccuracy you claim, as well as these "many others?"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pi0bDy-6m3o

Also, see these testimonials read by David Ray Griffin from all the witnesses who heard explosions at the GROUND LEVEL of the WTC!





GET EDUCATED!!!!!!!!!
“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: Skeptics, what's your take on these expert statements?

Postby Scepcop » 30 Jul 2009, 23:02

Hey skeprogue,
Do you see any plane debris in these photos? Where's the WINGS????????????????

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001 ... 14a_hr.jpg

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001 ... 39c_hr.jpg
“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


Return to PseudoSkeptic Fallacies

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests