|
Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11? (pg. 120)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
:stongue: :stongue: ahhh, same old trancer-x.
and actually, ive done a whole lot of due diligence in here. sure, lots of ad hominem attacks as well, but most of those in here are just as abusive so i dont feel too bad about it. we even have a qualified civil engineer popping in from time to time to show you all the scientific error of your ways.
in all seriousness though, its good to have you back. despite our differences i love your articulate nature. i look fwd to seeing your contributions in this here thread :) |
lol
Well, you can take a kid out of the mean streets of Baltimore but you can't take the 'mean streets of Baltimore' out of the kid.
Yeah, I still need to work on my patience. I know ;) I'm trying. |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
i only moved over to the PDD in the past year so i dont recognize you but as long as you can string together more articulate and well sourced arguments than your fellow tinfoil hatter culrout...... ill be more than happy to engage in intelligent debate.
just dont mention thermite or controlled demolition and we will get along splendidly :D
now my one question about this whole pilots for 911 group is if they indeed found this data on the publicly obtained black box data, dont you think the gov would have adultered teh data to prove its theories if it were indeed a cover up? it just doesnt make sense to me that they would let something like this leak out.... |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
^^exactly! wheres the common sense? my problem with too many of the CTs is that they fail this common sense test. just like people pointing at the BBC reporting the collapse of building 7 prematurely- as if someone from the govt let their secret plot slip :haha: for some reason we're meant to believe that the government were able to engineer the top-down collapse of a massive skyscraper without anyone noticing their involvement, but they dont have the presence of mind to alter a black box? please.
and more importantly, no CT has a plausible explanation for what happened to the passengers, crew and plane (or why the hundreds of witnesses that saw the plane hit are somehow incorrect). they don't explain what hit those lamp posts if the plane didnt. but most importantly, they don't explain why on earth the government would bother with a charade at the pentagon when they already had the real deal with the WTCs??
whats really more telling however, is the repitition of known fallacies in that article
| quote: |
(1) The hit point at the Pentagon was too small to accommodate a 100-ton airliner with a 125-foot wingspan and a tail that stands 44 feet above the ground; the kind and quantity of debris was wrong for a Boeing 757: there were no wings, no fuselage, no seats, no bodies, no luggage, no tail! Not even the engines were recovered, and they are practically indestructible.
(2) Of an estimate 84 videotapes of the crash, the three that have been released by the Pentagon do not show a Boeing 757 hitting the building, as even Bill O'Reilly admitted when one was shown on "The Factor". At 155 feet, the plane was more than twice as long as the 77-foot Pentagon is high and should have been visible. There are indications of a much smaller plane, but not a Boeing 757.
(3) Indeed, the aerodynamics of flight would have made the official trajectory--flying more than 500 mph barely above ground level--physically impossible, because of the accumulation of a massive pocket of compressed gas (air) beneath the fuselage; and if it had come it at an angle instead, it would have created a massive crater; but there is no crater and the official trajectory is impossible. |
given how poor the research of the 9/11 movement tends to be, and their complete lack of finishing their theory with a plausible explanation for explaining the bodies, personal effects and plane debris at the crash site, i find their analysis completely dubious and not to be trusted. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| um, so trancer- why would the government shoot down its own plane that was part of their elaborate plan? |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
They got it through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
I don't think that you can alter black box data but I could be wrong.
|
older FDR (flight data recorders) as well as CVR (cockpit voice recorders) used magnetic tape to store data, newer models use solid state technology (RAM memory sticks) to store data. since both are rewritable mediums, any and all of the data can be altered if you know how the data storage system works for that particular medium. in short, since it isnt ROM data, anything goes. |
|
|
| culorut |
| quote: | Originally posted by colonelcrisp
older FDR (flight data recorders) as well as CVR (cockpit voice recorders) used magnetic tape to store data, newer models use solid state technology (RAM memory sticks) to store data. since both are rewritable mediums, any and all of the data can be altered if you know how the data storage system works for that particular medium. in short, since it isnt ROM data, anything goes. |
The FDR originated from the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board).
If there was nothing to hide then the NTSB sent the original data as per the Freedom Of Information Act request. Some data was missing though, about 30-45 seconds of the flight I recall.
This flight path does not match the "official" story flight path either.
|
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| you still havent answered anybody's questions regarding the passengers, dead bodies etc. until you can provide plausible explanations for these you havent got a leg to stand on :rolleyes: |
|
|
| culorut |
And you still have not answered why the bull story you believe in contradicts itself time and time again.
It's no wonder why you rant on and on slaving over this thread, the official story has your petty little mind all mixed up.
What sucks even more is you realize the majority of people disagree with you also.
Poor soul. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
And you still have not answered why the bull story you believe in contradicts itself time and time again.
It's no wonder why you rant on and on slaving over this thread, the official story has your petty little mind all mixed up.
What sucks even more is you realize the majority of people disagree with you also.
Poor soul. |
^^ which is a typical response i would expect from a CTer unable to bridge the gap between fact and fantasy. ask a simple question, get attitude and ignorance in return. good work child.
and again, "the majority" of people that disagree with me (on TA) are complete morons. exceptions being trancer and shaolin. not that it matters, ive already attempted to explain logical fallacies to you, but (again) its obvious you are incapable of understanding.
as for supposed "contradictions", considering your complete lack of ability to assess dubious research (i still laugh about your BBC argument, serious LOL) it really isnt enough for you to label something a contradiction. indeed, its quite telling when you can carry on about "contradictions" yet fail to answer your own, ie what happened to flight 77 really? idiot.
i hope you try harder in your highschool studies coz i think real life is going to be a bit of a shock for you :stongue: |
|
|
| culorut |
| quote: | | i hope you try harder in your highschool studies coz i think real life is going to be a bit of a shock for you |
Well past all the schooling child. :rolleyes:
In fact I am probably much older and definitely wiser than you. |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
Well past all the schooling child. :rolleyes:
In fact I am probably much older and definitely wiser than you. |
the biggest flaw with their "theory" is that they have no data from the actual impact. all they have is the approach. which it may well describe the last heading, altitude and trajectory of the plane, it is not conclusive at all. planes flying at such low altitudes experience all sorts of wonky phenomena caused by the interaction with the airfoil and ground air currents. cold air pockets can cause vertical loss of altitude, downwash vaccum under the wings etc. there is no conclusive evidence to prove either side without the last 30 seconds of data. and frankly if the NTSB wanted to cover up a huge conspiracy, i doubt they would have made the data so obviously flawed that a bunch of pilots can figure out their ruse..... |
|
|
|
|
