Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[Pardalis]

You're correct that I don't doubt 11 and 175 hit the towers because there's video of it and the damage to the bldgs is consistent with plane impact.

But if you think DNA was tampered with in Washington, why can't the video be tampered with in New York? How do you know it's flight 11 and 175? It could be any plane, right? You can't know 100% for sure from the video alone that these were flights 11 and 175, even I who is convinced in the official story knows that. So why the double standard for evidence when it comes to the Pentagon?

The damage to the Pentagon and in Shanksville is not consistent with plane impact,

It is, this has been discussed before, and the NG special proves it is.

there are no videos made available of these events,

There is, and even if there was a better video, how could you be sure it wasn't tampered with, and as with the flight 11 and 165, how could you tell for sure? Why do you accept video evidence and not DNA evidence?

and there is little if any plane debris that has been conclusively identified as belonging to those flights

As just mentionned, the debris from flight 77 was recovered, the engines, the black box and FDR, the DNA of the passengers, the crew and the hijackers, and the eyewitnesses.

What more do you want? What would satisfy you?

 

[BigAl]

Do the videos conclusively prove that it was flights 11 and 175?

When considered in the context of ALL the evidence, yes.

Evidence always gets evaluated in consideration of ALL the evidence and eyewitnesses reports and technical evidence developed after the fact.

Twooders pick one bit of evidence and try to debate as if it is the only evidence. It never is.

There is a massive amount of physical evidence for all four aircraft impacts and this evidence is consistent with DNA, radar data, black boxes, and much much more, all consistant with the standard story.

Were the videos to be fake or some other plane than is claimed, why all the other evidence existed would be noticed and need explaining.

 

[Matthew Cline]

When considered in the context of ALL the evidence, yes.

Yes, I agree. I was asking that of RedIbis because (as far as I can tell) he's saying that "videos of some planes hitting the towers" + "impact effects which one would intuitively expect from planes hitting the towers" = "no doubt that the planes which impacted the towers were, in fact, flights 11 and 175" (since he didn't mention anything else that assuaged his doubts about exactly which planes hit the towers). The impact effects could have been caused by any planes of similar size carrying similar loads of jet fuel, so the impact effects can't be used to determine exactly which planes impacted, leaving only the videos to satisfy RedIbis that it was flights 11 and 175 in particular that impacted the towers.

Or maybe he means that "impact effects + the videos of the impacts + the DNA + everything else" is what convinces him.

 

[BigAl]

John Farmer's "The Ground Truth" is now available. So the truthers who were getting all excited about it previously will be handwaving away everything he has to say any moment now.

Farmer spoke today for 30 minutes or more on my local NPR radio station. He defiantly isn't a twoofer. The audio is in the link.

John Farmer, 9/11 Commission senior counsel, explains how the truth of 9/11 was obfuscated by a false version of events that the government presented to Congress, the 9/11 Commission, and the media. Drawing on newly released records, Farmer gives a comprehensive account of the events of that day in The Ground Truth: The Untold Story of an America Under Attack on 9/11.

http://www.wnyc.org/shows/lopate/episodes/2009/09/11/segments/140472​

 

[MikeW]

Farmer spoke today for 30 minutes or more on my local NPR radio station. He defiantly isn't a twoofer. The audio is in the link.

Thanks! Well worth a listen, if anyone else is interested - it'll keep me going until his book arrives, next week.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

So why the double standard for evidence when it comes to the Pentagon?

It's just how his mind malfunctions. Ask him about his standards of evidence for the Space Shuttle Columbia incident and the WTC7 collapse some time. It's a hoot.

 

[LashL]

It's amazing the lengths you have to go to maitain your bias. I'll repeat what I said earlier in the thread:

Your post does not even make any sense. Let's try this again.

In short, DNA evidence is compelling and important, but you cannot conclude that it definitively proves the existence of 77 at the Pentagon.

Unless you are positing that the DNA evidence was "faked" somehow and unless you can provide evidence in support of such a claim, the evidence of the existence and location of the DNA of all but one of the passengers of Flight 77 at the Pentagon does indeed definitively prove that it was Flight 77 that crashed into the building.

So step up or step off, RedIbis.

If you are suggesting that the DNA evidence was somehow tampered with or "faked" or something else, then come on out and say so. Don't tap dance around, just come out with it. State your position and state your case.

As I said, either step up or step off.

Well? What's it going to be?

 

[Matthew Cline]

If you are suggesting that the DNA evidence was somehow tampered with or "faked" or something else, then come on out and say so. Don't tap dance around, just come out with it. State your position and state your case.

To play Devil's Advocate: for the DNA to, in and of itself, prove that Flight 77 crashed at the Pentagon, there'd have to be sufficient evidence that the DNA evidence wasn't faked or tampered with. However, the evidence for that is insufficient, so the DNA evidence can't stand on its own. Of course, in a case like this, one type of evidence isn't used on its own, but multiplies pieces of evidence are considered, and if multiple strands of evidence converge not only do they support the conclusion, but they also support each other. But in this particular case, the damage the Pentagon suffered is not the damage you'd expect Flight 77 to cause. The claim that Flight 77 could cause the type of damage the Pentagon experienced is an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. However, the collection of evidence supporting that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon doesn't rise to "extraordinary", so "converging threads of evidence" can't be used to support the validity of the DNA evidence. Thus whether the DNA evidence is valid or not has to be considered in isolation, but when considered in isolation there isn't enough evidence to conclude that the DNA evidence is valid or to conclude that it's invalid, and when the validity of a piece of evidence is undecided it can't be used to support any conclusion.

Now, I personally don't think that "Flight 77 could cause the type of damage the Pentagon experienced" is an extraordinary claim, but RedIbis might, given that one of the reasons he gave for not doubting that flights 11 and 175 hit the towers was that the damage they caused was consistent with the damage you'd expect them to cause.

 

[Pardalis]

there'd have to be sufficient evidence that the DNA evidence wasn't faked or tampered with.

Why? Does every piece of evidence have to be proved not to have been tampered with before being exhibited in court? Do every cop, FBI agent and forensic expert have to be vetted and interrogated to make sure they didn't tamper with the proof? These are trained agents who took the samples and trained and professional DNA analysts who made the analysis, why doubt them?

That's the first I hear of it, that every proof has to pass that superfluous test. Do we have to test every scrap of metal from the Pentagon to prove they weren't tampered with?

Why start with the assumption they were tampered with or faked to begin with? You gotta have a reasonable reason to think that.

 

[MikeW]

I see a piece called "50 Questions on 9/11" got a mention on 911blogger. Can they really come up with 50 questions? Well, I suppose they did, but they're ignorant in the extreme - "Who is in the possession of the "disappeared" eight indestructible black boxes on those four flights?" - sigh.

9/11 truth: terminally stupid.

 

[Pantaz]

To play Devil's Advocate: for the DNA to, in and of itself, prove that Flight 77 crashed at the Pentagon, there'd have to be sufficient evidence that the DNA evidence wasn't faked or tampered with. ...

There is something that tends to get lost in these arguments about DNA -- The samples from the Pentagon (and the other sites) were obtained from BODY PARTS! It's not "CSI", where a tiny drop of blood is found on the floor.

 

[triforcharity]

Body PARTS, some not even connected to each other. Some more intact.

I will not post pictures of those pictures of the charred bodies, but I know they are out there.

 

[RedIbis]

To play Devil's Advocate: for the DNA to, in and of itself, prove that Flight 77 crashed at the Pentagon, there'd have to be sufficient evidence that the DNA evidence wasn't faked or tampered with. However, the evidence for that is insufficient, so the DNA evidence can't stand on its own. Of course, in a case like this, one type of evidence isn't used on its own, but multiplies pieces of evidence are considered, and if multiple strands of evidence converge not only do they support the conclusion, but they also support each other. But in this particular case, the damage the Pentagon suffered is not the damage you'd expect Flight 77 to cause. The claim that Flight 77 could cause the type of damage the Pentagon experienced is an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. However, the collection of evidence supporting that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon doesn't rise to "extraordinary", so "converging threads of evidence" can't be used to support the validity of the DNA evidence. Thus whether the DNA evidence is valid or not has to be considered in isolation, but when considered in isolation there isn't enough evidence to conclude that the DNA evidence is valid or to conclude that it's invalid, and when the validity of a piece of evidence is undecided it can't be used to support any conclusion.

Now, I personally don't think that "Flight 77 could cause the type of damage the Pentagon experienced" is an extraordinary claim, but RedIbis might, given that one of the reasons he gave for not doubting that flights 11 and 175 hit the towers was that the damage they caused was consistent with the damage you'd expect them to cause.

I'm not the devil you're advocating, but this is spot freakin' on.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Is there any characteristic you would have expected to be visible that would make it more like a plane impact. Because with a reinforced concrete wall the last thing I'm expecting to happen is for there to be a cartoon imprint of a plane. The damage also followed the path of the impact, columns were dislodged in the direction of motion, they were bent in the same direction as the plane impact. This is why most of the aircraft debris wasn't in the front lawn of the Pentagon. There were no injuries outside of the impact region that resembled blast induced types... Conspiratoids never cease to amaze me, although you don't come up with too many surprises...

 

[DGM]

I'm not the devil you're advocating, but this is spot freakin' on.

Actually there needs to be evidence the DNA evidence WAS tampered with. Got any? You can't start with the assumption it was and expect everyone to prove it wasn't.

 

[Matthew Cline]

Why? Does every piece of evidence have to be proved not to have been tampered with before being exhibited in court?

IANAL, but my understanding is that if the only piece of evidence is (for example) DNA then you'd need to prove that that single piece of evidence wasn't tampered with. Of course, that isn't the only piece of evidence, and with multiple threads of evidence converging on a single conclusion each piece of evidence supports the validity of the other pieces of evidence, but my intuitive understanding is that if you use "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" to raise the bar of evidence, and the evidence falls short of that, then you can't use the fact that the varying threads converge to say that each piece of evidence supports the others, because if the convergence did mean that they validated each other that would also mean that they had passed over the raised bar.

There is something that tends to get lost in these arguments about DNA -- The samples from the Pentagon (and the other sites) were obtained from BODY PARTS! It's not "CSI", where a tiny drop of blood is found on the floor.

To further play Devil's Advocate, there's the chain of custody for the evidence. So, before the Pentagon crash happens the Conspiracy chops and mangles the bodies of people other than the Flight 77 passengers, then plants them after the crash (or maybe plants them in the Pentagon before the crash). The body parts are collected and sent to the coroners, who then sends DNA samples to the labs. The person who moves the body parts from the Pentagon to the coroners could be a conspirator who replaces the parts found at the crash with the body parts of the Flight 77 passengers, and the person who takes the DNA samples from the coroners to the DNA lab could be a conspirator who swaps the DNA samples.

(I don't feel like playing Devil's Advocate as to where they'd get the non-Flight 77 bodies, or how they planted the pre-mangled body parts, so I'll leave it at that)

 

[triforcharity]

Matthew,

You are one sick individual, and I mean this from the bottom of my heart. Please do not make another post such as that please, ever again. It is sickening and is like you taking a huge dump of the victims' graves. Sick. Just sick.

 

[Matthew Cline]

Please do not make another post such as that please, ever again.

Thinking it over, performing thought experiments with the victims bodies was wrong of me. I apologize, and won't do it again.

 

[triforcharity]

Thank you sir. I accept your apologies in full. Don't do that **** anymore. Thanks Sir.

*Extends handshake to show no hard feelings.

 

[apathoid]

Just a thought.....I think it speaks volumes how certain truthers can still be so deeply in denial on the Pentagon crash when many(most?) in their movement have conceded that AA77 crashed there.

The evidence is for an impact is overwhelming.

• Plane parts identifiable to a B757(such as wheel assemblies, landing gear struts, an APU access door, fuselage skin with with AA markings as well as the Flight Data Recorder from AA77 which logged the pervious 25 flight hours) found at the scene.
• Engine parts identifiable as unique to an RB211(such as rotors, turbine shafts, and combustor cases) found at the scene.
• ATC Radar tapes show the flight path of flight 77 all the way from Dulles Airport up to where it disappeared below radar coverage in the vicinity of the Pentagon.
• Hundreds of eyewitnesses saw an airliner impact the Pentagon with their own two eyes, including ATC at nearby Reagan Airport as well as the flight crew of a C-130.
• DNA from each of the passengers and crew members who boarded flight 77 was found at the scene.
• Downed light poles, scars on a VDOT mast, tree damage and damage to a trailer(consistent with an engine strike and flap track strike) as well as numerous downed light poles....all in the flight path of the airplane from Radar and FDR data.
• Damage to Pentagons structural elements consistent with an airliner impact.
• All other AA aircraft; all other B757's worldwide are accounted for except the AA 757 that took off as flight 77.
• Airfone calls made by AA77 passengers to loved ones.

Evidence that something else happened

• ....
• ..
• oh and ...

So why are some truthers so sure that AA77 didn't impact the Pentagon? Either it's simply what they want to believe, mental illness, terminal stupidity, or their own preconceived notions of what plane crashes look like.

In the latter case, when the Sandia experiment is brought to their attention(you know, that's the one where a 20 ton jet disintegrates when it hits a reinforced concrete barrier), or examples of other high speed crashes on record in which the crash leaves no identifiable large wreckage...they flee from the debate, seldom to be heard from again.

Again, how people can be so badly in denial is fascinating. AA77 hit the Pentagon, get a life.

Oh and you can still have your little conspiracy fantasy in that case, but I admit that it's mush less interesting for you.