9/11

Just to play Devil's advocate here, I thought that were were to place little faith in eye witness accounts?

 
Villan Of The North - 9/10/2017 12:02

Just to play Devil's advocate here, I thought that were were to place little faith in eye witness accounts?
Click to expand...

Single, unconfirmed eyewitness accounts, yes. Hundreds of people, sitting on a freeway, seeing a plane crash into a building, no.

Eyewitness accounts are fallible, but when so many corroborate each other, they become more and more reliable.

I hope that helps.
 
Never heard of mass hyteria? Or the power of suggestion (take a look at Derren Brown as a master of this technique)?

 
Lol. Yes, I have, but there are techniques used to verify whether the information is accurate. Only 26 could identify it as an American Airlines jet. That actually helps the case. If everyone had, then that would be suspicious?
 
Transponders and Air Traffic control confirm it. A few identified it as a 757. Again, you'd expect this. Most wouldn't know what type of plane it was, but there are always some that can.

The debris also confirms it.
 
The transponder was turned off though, shortly before the flight was supposed have made its turn towards Washington, so ATC had no idea where it was.

I’m not doubting it was an AA 757, just whether it was definitely AA77.
 
HeathfieldRoad1874 - 9/10/2017 08:03

Come on Hawkins. I've shown you loads of evidence for it. There are plane parts visible and hundreds of people saw it happen from the freeway. There is no way you can take that.

If you look at the failings of the security forces in preventing it happening, it becomes very clear why investigations were hamstrung. It could have been prevented, as they had the intel, they just messed up big time.
Click to expand...


But no footage or pictures of the plane. Even 16 years later, nothing. The only thing I've seen is some crappy video which really just shows the explosion. Not good enough.

I'm not saying a plane didn't hit it, I just find it bizarre that the one thing the could clear the whole thing up is not there. There are lots of security cameras around the Pentagon. Wasn't there tapes confiscated from nearby private business's?

Debris and witnesses? Great. Almost there. Just shows us the plane and we can put it to bed.
 
Based on what was in the film series I watched, they were suggesting it was a part of the 'conspiracy' i.e. that the Twin Towers and WTC7 were flattened by controlled detonation, and the incident at the Pentagon was not caused by flight 77.

There is no reason why I am not allowed to question the official version of events if I so choose. All that is absolutely above doubt is the fact that two airliners flew into the Twin Towers, which subsequently collapsed; WTC7 also collapsed; there was an incident at the Pentagon; and there was an air traffic crash in Pennsylvania on the day of the disaster.

Everything else is fair game for discussion and examination.
 
Stephen Jay Hawkings - 9/10/2017 15:58

HeathfieldRoad1874 - 9/10/2017 08:03

Come on Hawkins. I've shown you loads of evidence for it. There are plane parts visible and hundreds of people saw it happen from the freeway. There is no way you can take that.

If you look at the failings of the security forces in preventing it happening, it becomes very clear why investigations were hamstrung. It could have been prevented, as they had the intel, they just messed up big time.
Click to expand...


But no footage or pictures of the plane. Even 16 years later, nothing. The only thing I've seen is some crappy video which really just shows the explosion. Not good enough.

I'm not saying a plane didn't hit it, I just find it bizarre that the one thing the could clear the whole thing up is not there. There are lots of security cameras around the Pentagon. Wasn't there tapes confiscated from nearby private business's?

Debris and witnesses? Great. Almost there. Just shows us the plane and we can put it to bed.
Click to expand...

Why would there be video? What security cameras would be pointing at the sky? The only one that caught it just didn't have the framerate or resolution to get a good image of a speeding plane. No CCTV would. Typically they record at 30 fps, and you would need hundreds of fps to freeze a plane in flight.

If it's not enough for you, then fair enough, but inferring anything from it is reckless, in my opinion.
 
JuanPabloAngel - 9/10/2017 16:03

Based on what was in the film series I watched, they were suggesting it was a part of the 'conspiracy' i.e. that the Twin Towers and WTC7 were flattened by controlled detonation, and the incident at the Pentagon was not caused by flight 77.

There is no reason why I am not allowed to question the official version of events if I so choose. All that is absolutely above doubt is the fact that two airliners flew into the Twin Towers, which subsequently collapsed; WTC7 also collapsed; there was an incident at the Pentagon; and there was an air traffic crash in Pennsylvania on the day of the disaster.

Everything else is fair game for discussion and examination.
Click to expand...

Well, the twin towers were definitely not caused by controlled explosions. I can disprove that in about 3 minutes from the science, mechanics, video footage and photos.

We used to have a member called murph, who worked in the aeronautical industry, and he identified jet parts in the wreckage that were from a jet that fitted the AA77 757. I fail to see why using a different plane could fit in with any theory?
 
HeathfieldRoad1874 - 9/10/2017 16:18

Why would there be video? What security cameras would be pointing at the sky? The only one that caught it just didn't have the framerate or resolution to get a good image of a speeding plane. No CCTV would. Typically they record at 30 fps, and you would need hundreds of fps to freeze a plane in flight.

If it's not enough for you, then fair enough, but inferring anything from it is reckless, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I'm just asking a question. Has the question been answered conclusively or is it all just if's, but's and maybes?

I'm not inferring anything. How does simply asking a valid question mean I'm inferring something?
 
Questions are what makes the world an interesting place. :35:

If only we had more answers, but it's not always possible. I'm not necessarily saying you are inferring anything, but others out there are.

I know you're too sensible to go down that route. :7:
 
I've just found something new. All the time I've taken over this, and still new information is out there.

An engineer has confirmed a that the rotor blade count is unique for that engine. 106. This exactly matches the debris pictures.

This is an interesting picture, as well.
 

Attachments

  • contrailscience.com_skitch_skitched_20130103_151957.png.jpg
    contrailscience.com_skitch_skitched_20130103_151957.png.jpg
    87.6 KB · Views: 0
HeathfieldRoad1874 - 9/10/2017 18:40

Questions are what makes the world an interesting place. :35:

If only we had more answers, but it's not always possible. I'm not necessarily saying you are inferring anything, but others out there are.

I know you're too sensible to go down that route. :7:
Click to expand...

lol, not so sure about sensible mate.

But yeah, really the point I'm making is that there are still questions there to be asked of the official story.

In fact, that's the reason I posted that David Icke video in the Conspiracy thread as he makes the point of asking questions of what's reported, but at the same time not jumping the gun and crying "false flag!" either. Although I assume you didn't watch that :17:
 
No I didn't watch it, but I didn't comment on it either!!! Never talk about something you know nothing about.

:19:

There is definitely a degree of ass covering here. There will always be questions, because the security forces screwed up big time. They had chances to stop it, and missed them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.