• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Reasonable doubt...All truthers(and whoever esle) please read

tmd2_1 said:
What do I have to say? Well the first thing is, see the article above, it sums it up. Next I'm still waiting for you to do anything to show the claims you make. Easy to write words, much harder to do experiments.
Click to expand...
So you hand wave it away even though the evidence is right there in front of your face. Any fool can see it's the paint job and contour of the wingbox that is seen in the B&W photo.

Now do you actually see the problem? No matter what evidence is presented to you, you will ignore it. Everything that doesn't fit your fantasy will be ignored. You've just proven that. So tell me; why on earth should anyone go to the time and expense to do experiments when you have just categorically proven that you will wantonly ignore even the plainest of evidence?
 
Sunstealer said:
So you hand wave it away even though the evidence is right there in front of your face. Any fool can see it's the paint job and contour of the wingbox that is seen in the B&W photo.

Now do you actually see the problem? No matter what evidence is presented to you, you will ignore it. Everything that doesn't fit your fantasy will be ignored. You've just proven that. So tell me; why on earth should anyone go to the time and expense to do experiments when you have just categorically proven that you will wantonly ignore even the plainest of evidence?
Click to expand...

Did you read this part? Finally, from Seattle, back came a surprising, enigmatic reply: “We are not able to tell you what it is. Security reasons.”
Implied in that is the fact that "it" is something.
 
Has the definition of proof changed to "making bare assertions without anything to back them up"? Why didn't I get the memo?
 
EventHorizon said:
Has the definition of proof changed to "making bare assertions without anything to back them up"? Why didn't I get the memo?
Click to expand...

See these videos. This is who they insult, and say his experiments can't even be debunked because they were so poorly done. Yet they (and to my knowledge no one) has offered anything. I figured if it's so easy and all the science is totally on their side, it should be a piece of cake for them. So far nothing, and I'm not going to hold my breath waiting.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvQDFV1HINw&feature=channel_video_title
 
tmd2_1 said:
Already been done for me. People like him...say other people's experiments are wrong, yet offer none of their own.
Click to expand...
Nope, people like me who are educated to degree level in metallurgy and who have years of experience, can easily conclude that those "experiments" and "conclusions" are wrong by using the knowledge we have gained. We do not need to do experiments to prove other peoples' woeful, inadequate, ignorant and laughable conclusions wrong.

Jon Cole managed to show that thermite can be used to cut vertical columns using some rather unweildy apparatus but that is all he has done. Unfortunately you fall for all the other stuff because it suits you to do so and you don't have the education, experience or the will to look into why the rest of Jon Cole's videos are nonsense.

A classic example is when he burns loads of material around a steel beam then declares that there is no intergranular melting just by looking at the beam - it's hilarious. Yet you can't even reason or figure out why his conclusion is wrong. Hell you don't get it when it's been expressly pointed out to you. Eg: See GlennB's post above.

The first thing you should have asked when seeing Jon Cole's rubble pile burning experiment is "what temperature did the steel reach?", JC never provides this info because he didn't measure it. A basic but not surprising error. Those of us who know would never make such an elementary error, yet you don't have the ability to see that error nor the one determining the lack of micron sized inter-granular melting with the human eye.
 
Sunstealer said:
Nope, people like me who are educated to degree level in metallurgy and who have years of experience, can easily conclude that those "experiments" and "conclusions" are wrong by using the knowledge we have gained. We do not need to do experiments to prove other peoples' woeful, inadequate, ignorant and laughable conclusions wrong.

Jon Cole managed to show that thermite can be used to cut vertical columns using some rather unweildy apparatus but that is all he has done. Unfortunately you fall for all the other stuff because it suits you to do so and you don't have the education, experience or the will to look into why the rest of Jon Cole's videos are nonsense.

A classic example is when he burns loads of material around a steel beam then declares that there is no intergranular melting just by looking at the beam - it's hilarious. Yet you can't even reason or figure out why his conclusion is wrong. Hell you don't get it when it's been expressly pointed out to you. Eg: See GlennB's post above.

The first thing you should have asked when seeing Jon Cole's rubble pile burning experiment is "what temperature did the steel reach?", JC never provides this info because he didn't measure it. A basic but not surprising error. Those of us who know would never make such an elementary error, yet you don't have the ability to see that error nor the one determining the lack of micron sized inter-granular melting with the human eye.
Click to expand...

You just made my point...go out and show where that sulfur came from...very easy to write about it.
 
tmd2_1 said:
You just made my point...go out and show where that sulfur came from...very easy to write about it.
Click to expand...
Already done multiple times. I suggest you use the search function which you should have done before even posting on these forums. It would save all of us a lot of time.
 
GlennB said:
The "pod" is a visual effect derived from the natural contours of the aircraft and the livery...........

..........
767belly.jpg
Click to expand...

tmd2_1 said:
What do I have to say? Well the first thing is, see the article above, it sums it up. .
Click to expand...

In this case it is quite apparent in at least the photo I included from Glenn's post, that a 'pod' identical to the one on the WTC a/c is present.

Having shown that it is a natural part of the a/c it pointrs to the authors of your above article as being incorrect.

page 15 of THIS docuement shows the 'pods' above the wheels and below the fuselage.
A simple google search would have sufficed, why even ask Boeing, if indeed they were asked.
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
In this case it is quite apparent in at least the photo I included from Glenn's post, that a 'pod' identical to the one on the WTC a/c is present.

Having shown that it is a natural part of the a/c it pointrs to the authors of your above article as being incorrect.

page 15 of THIS docuement shows the 'pods' above the wheels and below the fuselage.
A simple google search would have sufficed, why even ask Boeing, if indeed they were asked.
Click to expand...

That newspaper is Barcelona's largest paper. I doubt they are going to make things up. Again this is not CT at all. They had awful lot of people look at it, and made a good determination that it was not a reflection or shadow. The manufacturer's statements speak for themselves. What else am I to conclude?
 
Sunstealer said:
Nope, people like me who are educated to degree level in metallurgy and who have years of experience, can easily conclude that those "experiments" and "conclusions" are wrong by using the knowledge we have gained. We do not need to do experiments to prove other peoples' woeful, inadequate, ignorant and laughable conclusions wrong.

Jon Cole managed to show that thermite can be used to cut vertical columns using some rather unweildy apparatus but that is all he has done. Unfortunately you fall for all the other stuff because it suits you to do so and you don't have the education, experience or the will to look into why the rest of Jon Cole's videos are nonsense.

A classic example is when he burns loads of material around a steel beam then declares that there is no intergranular melting just by looking at the beam - it's hilarious. Yet you can't even reason or figure out why his conclusion is wrong. Hell you don't get it when it's been expressly pointed out to you. Eg: See GlennB's post above.

The first thing you should have asked when seeing Jon Cole's rubble pile burning experiment is "what temperature did the steel reach?", JC never provides this info because he didn't measure it. A basic but not surprising error. Those of us who know would never make such an elementary error, yet you don't have the ability to see that error nor the one determining the lack of micron sized inter-granular melting with the human eye.
Click to expand...

So what tmd is saying is that your pointing out that Cole is basically claiming to have the vision of Superman is not good enough and that you should replicate Cole's 'experiment' and do it right.

Correct tmd?
 
tmd2_1 said:
That newspaper is Barcelona's largest paper. I doubt they are going to make things up. Again this is not CT at all. They had awful lot of people look at it, and made a good determination that it was not a reflection or shadow. The manufacturer's statements speak for themselves. What else am I to conclude?
Click to expand...

You can conclude, by looking at the pictures of other Boeing 767's and the Boeing drawings of 767s that the newpaper GOT IT WRONG.

Why, in the face of conclusive evidence that they got it wrong you would continue to claim they must be correct is ,,,,,,,,,,, um,,,,,,,,words fail me.

Would you like more pictures showing the faring where the wing meets the fuselage, where the landing gear retract into, of 767s?
 
jaydeehess said:
So what tmd is saying is that your pointing out that Cole is basically claiming to have the vision of Superman is not good enough and that you should replicate Cole's 'experiment' and do it right.

Correct tmd?
Click to expand...

Nope just saying do something...anything. It's easy to bash him, yet I know of nothing anyone else has done.
 
jaydeehess said:
You can conclude, by looking at the pictures of other Boeing 767's and the Boeing drawings of 767s that the newpaper GOT IT WRONG.

Why, in the face of conclusive evidence that they got it wrong you would continue to claim they must be correct is ,,,,,,,,,,, um,,,,,,,,words fail me.

Would you like more pictures showing the faring where the wing meets the fuselage, where the landing gear retract into, of 767s?
Click to expand...

The only retraction I want to see, is one from the Newspaper, or a statement from the manufacturer to the contrary.
 
tmd2_1 said:
The only retraction I want to see, is one from the Newspaper, or a statement from the manufacturer to the contrary.
Click to expand...

Have you showed them the pictures and the Boeing drawings and asked for a retraction?

Why do you need a statement from Boeing when actual pictures exist, dozens of them, as well as Boeing's own design notes available for all on the web?
Why so recalcitrant to admit that its obvious that the pod is nothing more than the wing faring?
 
paperboy05 said:
What experiments have you done to show it is indeed some sort of "pod"?
Click to expand...

Well we weren't talking about experiments in the forms of PODS. But you see it's already been done. I pasted this article already. Keep in mind this is all mainstream, this is Barcelona's largest newspaper. Very much mainstream.

"One morning last February a young reader came into the head offices of LaVanguardia.es with an idea in his head that had occurred to him as he was looking attentively at the videos and photos on 9/11.

There are reader/discoverers. They’re readers who get a chance to bring news out—provide their newspapers with an exclusive story. It is initiative which is gratefully received. These readers are efficient spontaneous reporters. That’s what’s happened in the case of the mystery of the plane which crashed into the WTC in new York on 11 September 2001.

Article: http://www.amics21.com/911/ombudsman2.html

Do not quote lengthy articles fully. Certainly don't do it twice on the same page.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Loss Leader
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom