starbug1

Please JustStuit' date=' I've said many times that the pictures taken of the Pentagon are controversial. Some show rubble and some do not. I've acknowledged that wings and tail would break off in such a crash. They do not do so without leaving any such indication and moreover they do not bend back and follow the rest of the planes fuselage into the building. Now, for all of the sites I've been directed to, I think I have one that should be looked at. Look at the pictures here, and tell me how you can discount these as unusable evidence for the conspiracy. http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm They have an unidentified object on frame. It cannot be proved plane or missile either way. I'm pretty sure I mentioned that this was WTC building number seven. This is not the north tower or south tower that were hit by two airplanes. It was a 47 floor building that was not hit by a plane. The two main towers collasped straight down, and no part of this affected the structure of building number 7. It is in the pictures. It is in the footage. Clouds of dust and debris do not cause a building to implode or collapse, even if this building had small fires on a few floors. are you sure you know what you are saying? The only thing for you to do is to watch the DVDs. I believe someone said Loose Change was found for a free download on Google. And I posted the 9/11: Confronting the Evidence link for a free DVD. There is very little effort involved in downloading or ordering a free DVD. A very important DVD. These extra details and inside knowledges have been enough to prove that this is not a conspiracy theory. Not to everybody, it isn't I know what you're saying, but that's not what we're trying to do here. ...I'm still waiting for someone who has seen the DVDs

I have already said that the original pictures taken right after impact, there was nothing in the form of plane wreckage on the lawn. I've read the site, and I've seen the picture, which disagree with the pictures I've seen. The only security camera footage shows an object that can't be made out. There is just as much reason to believe it is a missile than it is a plane. The eye-witness accounts you listed are almost laughable. All but three of them made no mention of a plane actually hitting the Pentagon. 1/3 of the testimonies trying to prove what we were told to believe are addressing directly to what they thought was a plane hitting the Pentagon. 1/3 is not even majority, and is a pathetic number to consider for your "proof." I'm actually trying to debate this sensibly. Bascule, if you want to debate this the right way, that's fine. Making profane and impatient remarks all the time, assuming you have all the evidence isn't going to go over well. You could at least try to consider the evidence I'm giving, try to disprove what I've said without directing me to a site I've already said to have read. I have posted a link for the DVD, and I've posted other evidence that has been abruptly ignored. I've already said that the Pentagon only showed ONE SINGLE HOLE. No wing impact, no roof damage or even marks to show tail impact, and no engine impact. Little fire and smoke damage. ORIGINALLY, no wreckage on the lawn, as seen in the photographs. Denial for any firefighters to do an interview. There was also bodies found and easily identified in the Pentagon, when supposedly the fire was "so hot that it disintegrated much of the plane."

Trying to accuse me of ignorance doesn't work when you stated, "it was supposed to be a surprise attack." Anyone can see that you mean "the terrorist attacks of 9/11" not just the attack on the Pentagon. Just because the majority of the citizens of New York didn't think it was a surprise attack may not mean it's right, but it is a fact. This is insignificant to your claim that "Planes are fragile." Why doesn't it happen? Says who? The buildings collapsed before the fire was extinguished, and several thousand gallons of jet fuel certainly didn't help things. It's been proved it doesn't. Experts say that it can't happen. ONCE AGAIN: no plane crashed into WTC #7. My other questions have still been neglected.

Almost half of New York said they didn't think so. You didn't read it right. the building had no marks of where a tail or wings would have hit. also, this makes an argument on how a plane crashing in to the World Trade Centers couldn't bring them down. How could them if they are so fragile, they wouldn't leave much damage, right? The Bush administration said fire fatigued the steel and caused the building to collapse. This does not happen. Let me ask you, have you ever seen a building completely ablaze? After the fires are extinguished, what's left is a steel frame and the outline of windows, at the very least. All pictures of ground zero show all seven buildings in rubble. Note the the WTC main buildings, fell straight down. Now for those of you who don't believe they were detonated, this still doesn't prove how the other buildings collapsed. Remember that building seven imploded and fell straight down. Get a copy of the free dvd. It's worth a look at: Confronting the Evidence How to burn a copy: https://secure.reopen911.org/copythedvd.htm

i missed the smiley at the end of my statement to show my sarcasm.

True; but in practical measurement, infinite 9's cannot exist,..so I guess the question I asked isn't pertinent to the original proof. my mistake.

Truth I read the link bascule, and I see evidence there as I see it in the conspiracy websites. Both sides have plenty of evidence, and the incredulity is also thrown both ways. Really, from what I've gathered, there is more 'logical fallacy' on the side saying they were terrorist attacks.

All of this is mentioned by people other than me on the links I gave. The wikipedia article to start. I'm still going over the dvds collecting information.

????

using the assumption that .99999999999 = 1...In any practical circumstances wouldn't this rounding be an error. The methods make sense, but all it is really doing is rounding; would this be an errant miscalculation in anything that needed to be precise, say, in engineering or watchmaking?

Not even close. How is it that you are so sure of yourselves? I'm willing to look over the evidence any of you can show. Bascule, the pathological meme would prove both ways. It may be that the supposed truth is the BiG lie. You may be believeing in the BIG lie. Explain that one.

Okay, while I'm checking that sites information and comparing it to what I've found, I want you or someone else to try to falsify at least some of the claims made HERE

Yes, conspiracy theories are pathological memes. I never believe them. Unless of course there is evidence to prove the theory true. I was absolutely a skeptic at first. that is why I did the extra research. For parsimony: the resources are there, I've looked at the Wikipedia links. Here for instance, which tell you the hard facts. I also checked all the presented information Here, which gives you the "conspiracy" aspect. I've also checked the outside sources, the external links, and I've taken it from both sides, I've thought about it logically. As much as I hate the whole idea of a "conspiracy theory," I believe it. As for logical reasoning supported by evidence, that is exactly what I have found. The DVDs especially go into extensive detail about what exactly happened. I'll say again, I was very skeptical at first, though it is VERY hard to deny the explanations and evidence they show. Also note: the DVD, 9/11 Confronting the Evidence, is presented in an unbiased format. The narrator/commentator never comes out to say it was a conspiracy, he puts all of the gathered evidence, footage, and interviews and follows the accounts logically. To be honest, I'm actually surprised. I thought that you, Bascule, would be one of the ones that believed otherwise. I'll first look at the evidence from your link: " While Meyssan did not offer an explanation, many people did. For example, there are several accounts saying that only a missile could have hit the pentagon because there is absolutely no wreckage of the plane left, no fuselage, no engines, and corresponding damage to the pentagon. The pictures of the wreckage are minimal and substantially lacking to prove an entire plane crashed there. The picture of the tires were proved to be not the type found on the 757 that supposedly crashed at the Pentagon. Furthermore, the damage inflicted on the Pentagon was much less than if a 757, even with less than half a tank of fuel could have inflicted. So to say that: is faulty and misleading. How much damage? The fifth ring may have been penetrated, but try and find any pictures or evidence that show or give solid damage on any rings other than the first three. Explain how the roof is undamaged after a plane blows up inside. Would there not be any fire damage? Not even a collapse past the first ring? The damage inside the Pentagon is minimal. When you look at the photos, there is relatively no fire damage. A plane would burn up and leave at least some evidence that a fire lasted for any time at all. things inside the pentagon, right at the crash site, are still intact. This is only done by the explosion of a missile. This is the wrong question. A 757 can crash into the ground floor. They are making it too easy. the fact is that the plane was twice as long as the impact hole, and twice as high. I don't remember the exact dimensions, but superimpose a 757 over the the dimensions of the hole, and they don't match up. there is no evidence where the wings should have clipped off, no wings were even found. No evidence of where the tail impacted, no tail was found. Firstly, the light poles are bent in the opposite direction that the plane clipped them in. The eyewitness accounts of hearing a plane that low are fallacious. If indeed a plane flew above cars and people, low enough to reach the bottom floor of the pentagon in time, by means the people and cars would have been blown off the road, or at least moved, by the power of the jet engines. None of this happened. No eye witness accounts can even accurately atest to seeing a plane. they only (thought they) heard one. Jet fuel does not explode and extinguish under thirty minutes. That amount of jet fuel does not burn down considerably for several hours or more. The burning point of titanium alloy (not sure of the exact element) was proven to higher a higher melting point that that at which jet fuel burns. How do you explain how most of the plane, including the wings and engines, get incinerated in a "huge fireball." When that fireball isn't even hot enough to melt let alone incinerate the metal? I believe I've already mentioned what happened here. When you look at this photo or any of the Pentagon you will see the impact zone. There is nothing left on the lawn. There is no damage to the grass. No wing marks where they hit after they supposedly "bent towards the fuselage before they followed the plane in". They explain: There is no logic or evidence at all for this answer. If you look at this picture OF THE IMPACT, you'll see no wreckage and minimal fire damage. On the inside of the building there is no damage. the collape is only on the first ring. Although 9/11: Confronting the Evidence has better clips, this video does pretty good giving a rundown on the crash. http://www.elchulo.net/files/pentagon.swf

would weather have a factor in any of this?

I was in a bad mood when I posted this. The guy ruthlessly rids himself of his girlfriend when I don't have one. It disappointed me.

Recently, I have been researching the events of 9/11. I hadn't given it much though before, and to be honest it really didn't interest me very much. It was just a terrorist attack that endlessly plagued the news. I was outraged, of course, because all of those people died, and now we would be going to "official" war against terrorism, but that didn't change the fact that I was only 13, and none of that would ever phase me. Not so of late. I was given a couple of DVD's by my uncle, who is a powerful debater when it comes to politics and all that. I watched them and they blew my mind. I was on the edge of my seat, taking in every word carefully. For the first time I took an interest into politics. For the first time I really considered the depravity of the Bush administration. For the first time I realized how obvious 9/11 was when the facts are all layed out for you. the terrorist attacks on the track center were a deliberate event. 9/11 was a conspiracy. I talked to some of my friends and their parents about it surreptitiously just to see what they thought. None of them were any wiser than what they were told from the newspapers and news on tv, when it is so apparent for anyone really knowledgeable on the matter that it was a conspiracy. It kind of blew my mind, initially, that everyone thought it was a terrorist attack, plain and simple. The ignorance is what killed me, and I couldn't even debate the matter because they wouldn't know enough anyway. Obviously, some of you know this already. And for those who don't believe 9/11 was a conspiracy, I'm prepared to change your mind. I, of course, can't give you the DVDs, but I can tell you what they are, and I can feed you links that accurately explain the same stuff. I watched: 9/11 Confronting the Evidence, and Loose Change

To be honest, Valentine's day was more eventful when we were in elementary school, when we made those decorated shoeboxes where everyone went around putting in valentines.

recent rise and/or long term affect as a health concern? the problems arising from high blood pressure?

Would becoming bipedal and losing hair have anything to do with our genitals becoming exposed? Now, to me, this would be a big push towards loinclothes and ultimately more and more clothing.

the waveeditor nor the wavepad work on a mac.

I retested myself and I'm about the same. I also found an ancient article disproving speed reading: So this article is saying that speed reading is scanning, and has no realistic proof otherwise. I don't necessarily believe this because it was written several years ago, and new evidence has come into light. The wikipedia articles disprove the above article and so do the accounts I've read online. I think you can learn how to significantly raise reading level while maintaining comprehension. This article is BS.

I always thought it was fungus-singular --- fun-j-eye, fung-eye plural, moreso fung-eye. I've never heard any different.

Were Cheney and Whittington wearing the bright orange hunting jackets and caps you're supposed to wear? If they were...I think it's very hard for accidents like that to happen unless you are a) drunk b)colorblind c)with an idiot friend.