Ed Pentagon - TruthMakesPeace

[Dave Rogers]

General Stubblebine is certainly qualified to speak on his analysis of photos, his job for years.

You will note, in the photographs in post #318 of this thread, pictures showing extensive damage to the lowest storey of the Pentagon, consistent with impact from the wings of a Boeing 757. If General Stubblebine states that this damage, which we can clearly see in photographs, is not shown by photographs, then we do not conclude that the damage does not exist; we conclude that General Stubblebine is incompetent at the analysis of photographs, despite his many years of experience.

Dave

 

[TruthMakesPeace]

awesome.... So the idea that you were from the Citizens Investigation group is right... coolness.

You have a tendency to jump to conclusions. If you read my posts, I do not believe in a Fly Over, which is CIT's main point. I went to check out Storti's Point of View out of my own skepticism.

EVERY other crash?

Dale Leppard, Air Crash Investigator for 48 years, said "never once" had he heard of a crash where the black boxes were not found.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqewYask17o 3:45 minutes in

A drone would be a smaller jet, then it would have had less impact, less damage to the pentagon due to the lower mass. Wouldn't it have been easier just to crash a jet into the pentagon?

A jet did crash in to the Pentagon. Drone is probably not the best word, if it implies a smaller jet to you. "Remote controlled jet" would be better.

How big is this conspiracy now? The SEC, the NTSB, the FBI, the folks who had to prep the drone, fuel the drone, remote control the drone, or the people who had to load the explosives into the luggage bay, the people who had to rig the gas , and the people who had to fly the jets by remote control into the building...

People fueling the jet with remote control modifications were simply fueling another aircraft at the airport. There was no reason for them to suspect anything out of the ordinary. Your mentioning them shows a desperation to "build up the numbers" of people involved, to make it sound unrealistic.

How many? We need a New Investigation to find out how many. My guess? Probably under 100 people, not "thousands", acting on a strict need-to-know basis, with orders from Cheney, could pull it off. You only need one person at the top of any agency involved. Everyone else follows orders, no explanation required, especially if they think it is all part of a drill.

 

[TruthersLie]

continuing to discredit this source is major general stubblebine himself. In a talk given in 1992 he states he is psychic. http://www.remoteviewing.com/remote-viewing-history/remote-viewing-research-lecture.html

Now let me get back to the sort of the psychics versus the remote viewers because I don't admit this and God and this is on tape too, Jesus Oh Boy! I am not a trained remote viewer, I am not a natural psychic, OK? However, I do get, I am highly visual and I do get lots of interesting images; about two months before the fires actually occurred in the Middle East, before Hussein actually set fire to the oil wells. I had seen an incredibly dramatic image; and it was of a huge fire; now the fire, I can see this incredible set of black smoke and I could see vertically what to be sticks, you know, I could see the base of, and I concluded that is was a forest fire, OK? and so i took it out of Kuwait and I moved it somewhere else in the world because there are no trees in Kuwait to have a forest fire with, you know, logic tells you that there are no trees, therefore you cannot have a forest fire, therefore, it cannot be Kuwait, boom, all right? Wrong! Wrong! The minutes those pictures came on TV I knew instantaneously that that's what I had seen, and what I had missed were the trees with oil rigs, OK?

If only he was trained in RVing, then he would have known it was going to be Kuwait.

and life on mars

We have looked at Mars, we have looked at UFOs, we spent some time looking at Mars, tomorrow I believe that you are going to hear a presentation on the Mars phenomena, and if I am correct, that you will be told that there are structures on the surface of Mars. I will tell you for the record that there are structures underneath the surface of Mars that cannot be seen by the Voyager cameras that went by in 1976, which is what you are going to hear tomorrow; I will also tell you that there are machines on the surface of Mars and there are machines under the surface of Mars that you can look at, you can find out in detail, you can see what they are, where they are, who they are and a lot of detail about them.

Oh wait.. he must have been RVing the transformers movie trailer

more? Ok

(Question on Mars machinery).

Its moving, the machinery is moving, so I don't know, if its from a leftover civilization its got a long-live battery, its better than any of the dolls we put out on Christmas, I tell you, OK?

(Question on more of the same).

Yeah, its a structure, that's what I say, there are structures on the surface, and incidentally I don't want to take thunder away from anyone tomorrow, because you are going to get a chit-chat about that tomorrow and I don't want to trail on somebody else's toes, all I that I am saying is that there are structures on top, there are structures underneath, there are machines on top ahhhh I got a UFO!!! (Laughter) Zooong and another alien hits the dust. OK, we need to warp this in short order.

 

[TruthMakesPeace]

Loose Change

That stupidity came from Dylan et. al.'s vapid, stupid failure to get proper basic information. This is the hole they said was too small:

False accusation. In Loose Change Final Cut (5.4 million views as of today) Dylan is showing the outer wall as he says it is too small near the 15 minute point. He never said the C Ring Hole was too small. On the contrary, he implies it is too big (23 min.). Get your information correct.

There have been better theories to answer the questions since Dylan made his videos in 2005, but the basic questions are the same. Why is the outer hole too small? I do not agree with his missile theory. Explosives in the jet just prior to impact explain a lot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E3oIbO0AWE

 

[TruthersLie]

You have a tendency to jump to conclusions. If you read my posts, I do not believe in a Fly Over, which is CIT's main point. I went to check out Storti's Point of View out of my own skepticism.

Whatever you say champ

Dale Leppard, Air Crash Investigator for 48 years, said "never once" had he heard of a crash where the black boxes were not found.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqewYask17o 3:45 minutes in

wow... amazing. Have you even bothered to do your OWN research? Because I can tell you he is wrong. Look it up and then come back and apologize for telling whoopers because you didn't check your claims (wow.. what does that remind us of? oh... the put orders, the SEC is involved in covering it up, the missing 85 tapes, and the rest)

go look it up.

A jet did crash in to the Pentagon. Drone is probably not the best word, if it implies a smaller jet to you. "Remote controlled jet" would be better.

As has already been explained to you, to refit the jets with the required hardware would have taken weeks and anyone on board would have noticed immediately.

how do you land a jet, take the passengers off of it, then put them on the drone w/out any radar picking it up?

People fueling the jet with remote control modifications were simply fueling another aircraft at the airport. There was no reason for them to suspect anything out of the ordinary. Your mentioning them shows a desperation to "build up the numbers" of people involved, to make it sound unrealistic.

argument from ignorance noted. All airports track who does what, and when it happens. Why are there NO missing aircraft besides for the 4 jets on 9/11?

Your idea that folks wouldn't notice a drone painted to look like an american airlenes jet is rather simplistic...
especially if like most truthers you think it was CIA/NSA or even the military... which means there aer people who saw a drone which is painted to look like an american airlnes jet by dozens of people... at a minimum.

How many? We need a New Investigation to find out how many. My guess? Probably under 100 people, not "thousands", acting on a strict need-to-know basis, with orders from Cheney, could pull it off. You only need one person at the top of any agency involved. Everyone else follows orders, no explanation required, especially if they think it is all part of a drill.

ROFLMAO... yes the mindless automotons...The blank faced government drones.
You have already implied that the SEC covered up insider trading. You have stated that NIST lied, that the NTSB lied, that other government agencies lied... your numbers at in the hundreds if not thousands already.

you might want to finish one subject before gish galloping into others. Like the Put orders, the 85 tapes, etc... Because you hae had your ass handed to you about Stubblebine.

 

[TruthersLie]

wowsers..

it took me all of 15 seconds to google
unrecovered fdr's
and look what i found.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unrecovered_flight_recorders

OMG. Your googlefu really sucks. No wonder you can't figure out put orders, missing 2.3 trillions, missing 85 tapes or figure out how ******* crazy your "experts" are.

 

[TruthMakesPeace]

Like the Put orders, the 85 tapes, etc... Because you hae had your a*s handed to you about Stubblebine.

You keep repeating the same questions that have been answered.
1. Put orders on AA were indeed puts, not normal buys.
2. 85 tapes - still not all released, none showing a plane prior to impact.
3. General Stubblebine is certainly qualified to evaluate the photos.
You have not provided any evidence to the contrary.

 

[funk de fino]

Why is it that on 9/11 the FDRs were not recovered as they have been on every other crash, even from the bottom of an ocean?

This is a complete and utter lie. Air France Airbus Flt 447 from Brazil. No FDR or CVR found yet. Crashed in 2009.

 

[TruthersLie]

You keep repeating the same questions that have been answered.
1. Put orders on AA were indeed puts, not normal buys.
2. 85 tapes - still not all released, none showing a plane prior to impact.
3. General Stubblebine is certainly qualified to evaluate the photos.
You have not provided any evidence to the contrary.

I keep on repeating them because you keep on lying about them.

1. ONE us firm made 95% of the buys... and they lost money. Did you contact the investigators yet to ask if they are honest or not?

2. the 85 tapes have been described to you and none of them had information ont hem about the jets, but you keep repeating this lie

3. the man beleives he can walk through walls. he believes there were ancient civilizations on mars which left behind structures and machines that are STILL RUNNING. He believes he is psychic and can perform psychic healing.
ETA: See posts 340 and 343 for your "expert" to show just how ******* crazy he is.

Yup that is a credible "expert." you might just want to check into your claims before you make them. They make you look like a fool...

(how about the latest whopper you tried to pass off about EVERY FDR being recovered EVEN AT THE BOTTOM OF THE OCEAN.

oopsie.

 

[TruthMakesPeace]

unrecovered fdr's
and look what i found.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unrecovered_flight_recorders

The list has 12, and includes the questionable 9/11 FDR losses. There is testimony by Mike Balone, that they really were found at the WTCs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqewYask17o

Even 12 is a small number out of the hundreds of airline crashes.
http://www.planecrashinfo.com

My statement still stands:
Dale Leppard, Air Crash Investigator for 48 years, said "never once" had he heard of a crash where the black boxes were not found.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqewYask17o 3:45 minutes in

I found Dale Leppard on the web and emailed him this link. Still it is suspicious that on the same day so many black boxes were not found. Even more suspicious, or should be to critical thinkers, is that none of the data from the WTC FDRs have been made public.

 

[TruthMakesPeace]

More TrutherLies claims without sources

I keep on repeating them because you keep on lying about them.
1. ONE us firm made 95% of the buys... and they lost money.

No. You keep claiming that without a source. You are hereby challenged to show a source. And not the ambiguous the 9/11 Report sentence about "as part of a strategy..." which can be taken either way (normal or put). You need to provide the data source for this sentence, so we can see for ourselves the specific amount, terms and timing of the purchase in question.

Common sense tells us that the transaction was noteworthy and mentioned in the Report, because it was suspicious that the investors made money from 9/11. At least we can say it was unusual. If the investors lost money, as you claim without verifiable source, it would not even be mentioned in the Report. Thousands of people lost money on 9/11 and they were not mentioned in the report, nor investigated, because there was nothing suspicious or unusual about it.

2. the 85 tapes have been described to you and none of them had information ont hem about the jets,

Critical thinkers don't want someone to "describe" photos to us. We want to see them for ourselves. You haven't seen them, nor has anyone else in the public been permitted to. You keep talking about photos after the plane hit. Who cares about those? No photo has ever been released showing a plane just before and during its hitting the Pentagon. It will be on the front page of every newspaper if it ever is. Why not release the photos?

What could they be hiding? As a skeptic, distrustful of a government that has lied to the public again and again, my suspicion is that photo analysis, by thousands of truth seekers, will show the plane on a trajectory different from the official story, and blowing up just prior to impact.

3. General Stubblebine

Even if General investigated unusual things, as did Einstein, that is irrelevant. He still worked as an expert analyzing photos, as head of that division in Army Intelligence. You would need to come up with some example of where he was proven wrong on the specific task of photo analysis.

One of his "successes" had a less than 25% chance of being correct. Flip a coin and you have better odds.

That is true only if there are 2 possibilities. "My success rate was around 28 per cent," says Joe McMoneagle, studied at the Stanford Research Institute, and won the Legion of Merit at the NSA. Through Remove Viewing, he located Russian military assets out of countless possible locations. Finding 28% is pretty good. According to his site, he has solved missing persons cases. (I have not researched his claims, just heard about him today, and have no opinion on him at this time.) www.McEagle.com

 

[Justin39640]

You keep repeating the same questions that have been answered.
1. Put orders on AA were indeed puts, not normal buys.
2. 85 tapes - still not all released, none showing a plane prior to impact.
3. General Stubblebine is certainly qualified to evaluate the photos.
You have not provided any evidence to the contrary.

Put orders are an everyday transaction on Wall St.

Who would point 85 cameras at the sky? I would think (and hope) that almost all were looking at parking lots, pathways, and doors all from a high vantage point with a decent angle. Probably a bunch staring at walls as well.

It doesn't matter if he's qualified, he's obviously mistaken. It's OK, he's only human (one that walked purposely into walls hundreds of times )

 

[Andy_Ross]

How was the aircraft 'remote controlled? How were the passengers and crew gassed?
We already have a thread where this is being claimed.
Why wasn't the extra hardware noticed by the ground crews?
They would have spotted mysterious new boxes, pipes and wires as soon as they were fitted.

 

[ladmo]

So what if the General is quirky, so is Monk and he solves crimes every week.

 

[Justin39640]

So what if the General is quirky, so is Monk and he solves crimes every week.

I think this is more like asking Inspector Gadget or Mr. Magoo.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

By definition, Appeal to Authority is only wrong if the person is NOT an Authority. It is a misnomer. A "Fallacious Appeal to Authority" or "Appeal to Irrelevant Authority" is a logical fallacy. That is, citing someone who "is not a legitimate authority on the subject."
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

You are not even reading that right. Since your comprehension is off, try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of a claim is not related to the authority of the claimant, and because the premises can be true, and the conclusion false (an authoritative claim can turn out to be false). It is also known as argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect), argumentum ad potentiam (Latin: argument to power), or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it).

On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism.

Relevant parts highlighted. And yes, that's what you're trying to do re: Stubblebine. He is most definitely not infallible in principle and should not be exempted from criticism. Which is exactly what you're doing here.

As said before: It doesn't matter who says a thing, it matters what they say. Weight is given to "authorities" (experts, etc.) because by and large, they strive to be correct and properly lean on fact when employing their expertise. But the reason it's not an absolute out is because you have people like Stubblebine who've squandered whatever trust they have by supporting claims contradicted by the reality of physical evidence. Again: Authority means nothing when the authority puts forward false information. You cannot hide from this. And you cannot use Stubblebine as a bludgeon to raise doubt about what happened at the Pentagon, not in the face of all the multiple lines of evidence clearly putting FL77 there.

 

[triforcharity]

The list has 12, and includes the questionable 9/11 FDR losses. There is testimony by Mike Balone, that they really were found at the WTCs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqewYask17o

Even 12 is a small number out of the hundreds of airline crashes.
http://www.planecrashinfo.com

My statement still stands:
Dale Leppard, Air Crash Investigator for 48 years, said "never once" had he heard of a crash where the black boxes were not found.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqewYask17o 3:45 minutes in

Even if ONE was not found, it proves that what you said is incorrect.

So is your expert. Sometimes that happens. Even experts are human.

I found Dale Leppard on the web and emailed him this link. Still it is suspicious that on the same day so many black boxes were not found. Even more suspicious, or should be to critical thinkers, is that none of the data from the WTC FDRs have been made public.

There were no FDR/VCR recovered at GZ. They were never designed to stand up to the abuse that they would have undoubtedly endured.

 

[DGM]

In Loose Change Final Cut (5.4 million views as of today)

Why did you feel the need to tell us how many views "loose change final cut" has had? Is this how you judge all your evidence?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Why did you feel the need to tell us how many views "loose change final cut" has had?

Because he likes to employ fallacies as arguments.

In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges: "If many believe so, it is so."...

... It is logically fallacious because the mere fact that a belief is widely-held is not necessarily a guarantee that the belief is correct; if the belief of any individual can be wrong, then the belief held by multiple persons can also be wrong.

 

[Dash80]

so cicorp there was a 757 in AA colours? Good you're half way there to realizing what everyone else knew.. on September 11. Jeeez!