Sami Yli-Karjanmaa? [missile into Pentagon]

[Panoply_Prefect]

Cool, thanks. Any JREFers disagree with Lefty and think that Caustic Logic didn't cover all the bases with regards to Sami's article?

You've been trying to bait "Jrefers" as a group to start to re-debunk Samis claims - perhaps you would be better off using "search"? I believe that there are several threads covering the Pentagon attack. I only started this thread way back because of the speed my opponent were making claims.

On a sidenote I would imagine not all "Jrefers" answer any and all posts and that not all "Jrefers" would read an old re-bumped thread such as this one. It looks a bit as if you are just trying to make a "Look I was ignored on Jref, therefore I must be right"-claim. Then again, I might be wrong.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

You've been trying to bait "Jrefers" as a group to start to re-debunk Samis claims - perhaps you would be better off using "search"? I believe that there are several threads covering the Pentagon attack. I only started this thread way back because of the speed my opponent were making claims.

On a sidenote I would imagine not all "Jrefers" answer any and all posts and that not all "Jrefers" would read an old re-bumped thread such as this one. It looks a bit as if you are just trying to make a "Look I was ignored on Jref, therefore I must be right"-claim. Then again, I might be wrong.

Indeed, you are wrong. I am not your 'opponent'- I have taken no position on the validity of Sami's paper.
Since there is no "debunking" in the original four posts of this thread, I asked for some so that I can make a decision.
I could use the search function, but since you, "the debunkers" claimed it had been debunked, I thought it would just be easier to ask you. If you wouldn't mind helping me, I would be interested in a link to "the vertical stabilizer thread" Lefty refers to, as well as any other threads or links you had in mind.

 

[T.A.M.]

TLB:

Look at his claims. Take the keywords, go to google, and search for them with the word "JREF" in the search as well.

Stop asking others to do the searching and work for you (although I know in reality you do not want to see the debunks for these claims, you are merely posing).

TAM

 

[Pinch]

TLB,

Mebbe you can use some of your Troofer math to back up your case here. You know...that percentage stuff you must have been asleep during back in middle school.

Just trying to help.

Where's Glinda, the good witch when you need her? "Oh, rubbish! You have no power here. Be gone, before somebody drops a house on you, too."

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Look at his claims. Take the keywords, go to google, and search for them with the word "JREF" in the search as well.

Stop asking others to do the searching and work for you

I'm not interested in a debunking of the paper. I'm interested in the best debunking of the paper possible, which would be one all the debunkers agree on.
It is a simple yes or no question.
Do you have anything better than Caustic Logic's post?
If and only if, your answer is yes, will you need to give a source.
Is this such a hassle for the James Randi Educational Foundation members?
If you don't know anything about this paper your answer would necessarily be no.

 

[applecorped]

I'm not interested in a debunking of the paper. I'm interested in the best debunking of the paper possible, which would be one all the debunkers agree on.
It is a simple yes or no question.
Do you have anything better than Caustic Logic's post?
If and only if, your answer is yes, will you need to give a source.
Is this such a hassle for the James Randi Educational Foundation members?
If you don't know anything about this paper your answer would necessarily be no.

Educational is right. Now go educate yourself and stop waiting for others to do it for you.

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

I'm not interested in a debunking of the paper. I'm interested in the best debunking of the paper possible, which would be one all the debunkers agree on.

Define all debunkers. All "Jrefers"? Everyone reading this thread? Everyone ever not buying into the missile theory?

It just silly, either you are truly interested, and then do what I did after starting this thread, use search. Requesting "all debunkers" or "all Jrefers" or even "Jrefers" to as a group make a statement is silly, and frankly bears the Mark of Wooo, indicative of a person just interested in making the cheap shot I hinted in my previous post.

And if you feel that there is no "best debunking of the paper possible" to find, and you feel that you need such, why not compile it yourself.

 

[T.A.M.]

I'm not interested in a debunking of the paper. I'm interested in the best debunking of the paper possible, which would be one all the debunkers agree on.
It is a simple yes or no question.
Do you have anything better than Caustic Logic's post?
If and only if, your answer is yes, will you need to give a source.
Is this such a hassle for the James Randi Educational Foundation members?
If you don't know anything about this paper your answer would necessarily be no.

1. I do not think you are interested in anything more then poking and prodding.

2. YES, it is a hassle, to provide links to papers or discussions here, to counter points that have been reviewed on this site over and over and over and over.

3. The forum is not an organization. The JREF forum is merely a forum run by the foundation. It neither represents the foundation, nor comprises (neccesarily) members of the foundation.

4. It is retarded to think that you are going to have some one provide you with some "master debunk" agreed to by "all debunkers", but then again, you know that already, don't you?

TAM

 

[Mangoose]

"the intact cable spools in the trajectory of the aircaft are incompatible with the information on the impact contained in the Report."

Nope. Two were tipped and distorted, which fits the impact altitude the real plane was at. The others were further back and passed over untouched and stayed put or rolled a bit on wake.

It was worse than that. There were 6 cable spools in neat groups on the lawn prior to the attack. After the attack, there were 5 spools in disarray. In the position where the spools were prior to the attack, all would have fit under the fuselage except for one which would have been hit by one of the engines. Hence the missing spool was probably destroyed in the crash.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Who provided that overlay of the outline of the aircraft against the facade? It looks to me too far to the left. With the location of the generator, I would say that the egine (which was probaby what hit the generator, should have hit roughly near column 18, perhaps very little to the left. This would account for the depth of the impact damage to the facade, because the wing would still be quite rigid just outboard of the engine.

Could be. I used the ASCE's graphics as a guide. If I put it too far left, (and who would know about that more than Lefty?) it's by a few feet.

Caustic might not have seen the thread in which we disusssed the imprint of the vertical stabilizer to the left of column 13 (as best I recall) that sort of resembled the mark that the vertical stabilizer of the Betty that hit the Hinsdale left.

I did miss that, and the tailfin issue is not one I've looked at as closely as, say, the right wing damage. I've seen others looking at minor cracks in the facade, and maybe it was upright. Let's just say either it was or wasn't, and whatever damage there was or wasn't is consistent with one or the other, as opposed to the relative lack of damage indicating no plane.

It was worse than that. There were 6 cable spools in neat groups on the lawn prior to the attack. After the attack, there were 5 spools in disarray. In the position where the spools were prior to the attack, all would have fit under the fuselage except for one which would have been hit by one of the engines. Hence the missing spool was probably destroyed in the crash.

I don't think I've seen a pre-impact photo with the spools, that I noticed. I'd be curious how far pre-impact and relevant it was. Two tipped and warped and a third missing would be interesting. Do you have a link?

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Look at his claims. Take the keywords, go to google, and search for them with the word "JREF" in the search as well.

Done. Searching for 'Sami Yli-Karjanmaa' yields only two threads (the rest are links to his site). None deal with his claims.
When looking up his claims specifically, the results are even worse. E.g. his first claim turns up zero hits on google.
So what debunking were you refering to?

 

[GlennB]

Done. .....When looking up his claims specifically, the results are even worse. E.g. his first claim turns up zero hits on google.
So what debunking were you refering to?

Strange. I copied+pasted "42º approach angle is not possible for a B-757" into Google and it led me straight to post #10 in this very thread.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Strange. I copied+pasted "42º approach angle is not possible for a B-757" into Google and it led me straight to post #10 in this very thread.

So what debunking was Beachnut refering to at the beginning of this thread?

 

[GlennB]

So what debunking was Beachnut refering to at the beginning of this thread?

Ah - so what you meant to say was that there were no Google references to those claims - using the website's exact words - prior to the existence of this thread, as opposed to "zero hits" period.?

 

[Brainache]

So what debunking was Beachnut refering to at the beginning of this thread?

Probably just about every post written by skeptics on the topic of "Missile at the Pentagon" in the last seven years.

Just how do hundreds of witnesses mistake a missile for a large commercial aircraft? Even the CIT heads acknowledge that missiles aren't easily mistaken for 757s.


What kind of missile could cause the kind of damage that we see in the pictures of the Pentagon?

Where was this missile fired from?

What is so difficult about steering a plane into such a wide target?

What happened to the passengers and crew of Flt 77?

I realise that these are just questions, but if you try to answer them honestly you might realise that the whole question of a missile at the Pentagon on 9/11 is pretty stupid.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Probably just about every post written by skeptics on the topic of "Missile at the Pentagon" in the last seven years.

Just how do hundreds of witnesses mistake a missile for a large commercial aircraft? Even the CIT heads acknowledge that missiles aren't easily mistaken for 757s.


What kind of missile could cause the kind of damage that we see in the pictures of the Pentagon?

Where was this missile fired from?

What is so difficult about steering a plane into such a wide target?

What happened to the passengers and crew of Flt 77?

I realise that these are just questions, but if you try to answer them honestly you might realise that the whole question of a missile at the Pentagon on 9/11 is pretty stupid.

So in other words, you, like Beachnut and Panopoly Prefect, haven't even read the page you're supposed to be debunking. It is a critique of the ASCE report- the word "missile" doesn't even appear on the page.

 

[beachnut]

So in other words, you, like Beachnut and Panopoly Prefect, haven't even read the page you're supposed to be debunking. It is a critique of the ASCE report- the word "missile" doesn't even appear on the page.

His conclusion is total garbage.

The Pentagon Building Performance Report by the American Society of Civil Engineers fails in its attempt to show that the structural damage caused to the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001 was caused by a crash by a Boeing 757 aircraft. Belief in the official B-757 story implies belief in physically impossible and inexplicable phenomena. More generally, no proof of the return of Flight 77 to the Washington area has been presented. On the contrary, e.g. any security camera recordings that would really show what hit the Pentagon have not been made public. (In May 2006, two series of still photos from security cameras were released, but they contain no evidence of a Boeing 757. See www.flight77.info and www.judicialwatch.org/flight77.shtml.)

The most natural explanation for the numerous errors in the Report is that it is a part of the disinformation campaign by the US authorities - the purpose of which is to prevent the truth regarding 9/11 from being revealed and thus to protect the perpetrators of those atrocities.

What an real dumb guy, he posts to a web site with aircraft parts proving a 757 was flown into the Pentagon. What a dolt, the photos show thousands of parts from 77! (but this has a story, maybe... )

A 757 did crash into the Pentagon, this guy is pure fiction. Read his work as much as you want, even if there are errors in the Pentagon Report, the idiot conclusions by this truther are false and pure anti-intellectual claptrap.

So for you to prove this guy has merit, you have to prove his conclusions. You can't so try some other stupid failed conclusions.

Debunked due to stupid conclusions. This case is closed, and your lack of evidence will not stop you from spewing more hearsay and junk ideas. 1 2 3 spew

BTW, it is a fact 77 hit the Pentagon; your lack of evidence to show otherwise is noted on every post you make.

What debunking? His conclusions are DEBUNKED. Bad for you, all your "ample evidence" is a fantasy in your case. I will list your evidence to support the failed conclusions.
1.

 

[firecoins]

A commercial jet liner with people on it was purposly crashed into the Pentagon. This is not in question. Any theory suggesting otherwise is based in fantasy and is debunked.

 

[Brainache]

So in other words, you, like Beachnut and Panopoly Prefect, haven't even read the page you're supposed to be debunking. It is a critique of the ASCE report- the word "missile" doesn't even appear on the page.

You're too clever for me TLB! You caught me.

I haven't read the page, only the parts quoted in this thread. Having read many Truther Pentagon "theories" in the past two years, I saw nothing new in any of those quotes. The "missile" bit comes from the thread title.

Does Sami Yli-Karjanmaa ever state what he believes happened so that others can test his claims against the available evidence, or is he another no-claimer?

 

[T.A.M.]

TLB:

Look at his claims. Take the keywords, go to google, and search for them with the word "JREF" in the search as well.

Stop asking others to do the searching and work for you (although I know in reality you do not want to see the debunks for these claims, you are merely posing).

TAM

Done. Searching for 'Sami Yli-Karjanmaa' yields only two threads (the rest are links to his site). None deal with his claims.
When looking up his claims specifically, the results are even worse. E.g. his first claim turns up zero hits on google.
So what debunking were you refering to?

So you could find no threads when you took the claims he makes, and did a cross reference, ON GOOGLE, with the word JREF?

I do not believe you for one, and secondly, I will not be lured into doing your ****ing research for you.

TAM