and given the facts about the physical evidence at the site, the most plausible explanation is that all 85 witnesses are WRONG! Produce the physical evidence that proves "FLT77" was actually crashed into the Pentagon.
You are reversing the burden of proof here. It is not up to me to produce evidence in support of AA77 striking the Pentagon. It is your burden to prove it didn't. You cannot just dismiss eighty-five witness statements in such an off-hand fashion. If it was only a couple, perhaps, but eighty-five? That is not rational.
Whoever made that quote, is irrelevant as the quote has no weight to weight to it - meaningless. What is this that the crash was't investigated properly Bob? It was, by FBI.. Many had access to the sight, including firefighters. What is your point? NTSB was also involved but whether they were on site or not, doesn't matter cause what were they going to investigate? They usually want to know what caused the crash so that this knowledge can help saving lives. Guess what Bob? EVERYONE KNEW THE CAUSE - Jet was slammed into the building. what angle Bob? this is only confusing to you cause you don't know the facts and haven't being objective in your research. If you spend all day just reading truther BS then how are you supposed to be objective Bob? 1. 180+ bodies were recovered from the scene AND identified. 2. No Bob, it wasn't just 'minimal bits', pieces of the aircraft were all over the place 3. The voice data recorder and cockpit voice recorder were recovered at the scene 4. Flight 77 was an actual flight Bob, if it didn't hit pentagon where did it go? where are the passengers Bob? "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"
What I said is true, and you've now verified it: you're a troll. You've admitted that you won't look at the information people link to. And I'm enjoying the holes in yer logic here on the Internet. How hard is it to perform a Google search? To highlight text, right click, click on copy and then do a Google search with the applicable terms. What you're espousing, besides being a troll, is the laziness that is of epidemic levels on message boards these days. A whole bunch of diaper (*)(*)(*)(*)ting babies incapable of doing an ounce of research for themselves.
Let's recap, shall we? I initiate contact with post #20 pointing out that "Peer review isn't the infallible end-all-be-all holy grail that some have romanticized." You respond back in post #21, and the first word of yer post is "No". Was that 'No' not a pushback against what I had pointed out? If not, then what were you meaning by 'No' and the defense of peer review that followed? So it is simple, really: Do you believe that peer review is an infallible process?
How do you figure? If yer claimin' that it did, it is up to you to confirm that, eh? Or is this one of them statist fanboy moments where the belief that the government doesn't have to verify their claims 'cause they're above suspicion 'cause only good honorable folks work in government?
'No' was in agreement with you, as in 'no, they are not infallible', but it is not a reason to dismiss peer review, nor academic work on the subject. That is irrational.
There is evidence and he has been shown repeatedly that there is evidence, just not enough to satisfy him. Now the ball is in his court. That is not even worthy of a response, but I'll quote it in bold to let it stand for the stupid claim it is.
Ah okay. So you have met your burden of proof then and am not just pawning it off. And no, what you bolded and enlarged is not a stupid claim. It is widely used logic found here and elsewhere on the Internet where folks have let their flag lapel pins cut off the circulation to their brain. If it doesn't apply to you, then fine. But it does apply to so many others. I see it everyday.
This bit right here totally discredits the whole story, because if the excuse could be promoted that he so much as touched a recognizable fragment of the tail, where is it DOCUMENTED that said recognizable fragment existed at all? Like I said before, 9/11 is one VERY poorly documented disaster!
exactly, 'google' searches is how you guys educate yourselves and then feel like you can question physicists and scientists that actually are real experts in their field. lol. and again little boy, why am i going to waste my time looking up facts that even if true, don't prove anything? makes no difference. In the end, you and your truther friends have failed to produce ANY credible evidence in about 1 million posts here...
Fact, in the mainstream media reading press releases from the pundits + our "leaders" the assertion is made that 19 suicidal Arab fanatics hijacked 4 airliners .... ( etc ... ) however when asked for PROOF, all we get are lame excuses, and public servants who obviously have been derelict in their duties.
Have you not perused the evidence for the Moussaoui trial? http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/
I can, but I don't jump to conclusions either. You can't just dismiss it with the handwave of 'show trial'. The body of evidence is VAST.
True, and you are trying your best to discredit the evidence, but all I have seen is your opinion of the matter. Why should I believe you? I'm not trying to be objectionable, but it is just that it doesn't gel with me. There is a huge body of evidence that the defence could not refute and it is that simple.
Look at it this way, we are being expected to believe that for both WTC 1 & 2 an airliner crashed into the side of the building and made wing shaped gashes in the side of said buildings. and people are actually buying this crap? ..... what a CROCK!
I'm aware of your incredulity, but I'm afraid I don't share it, for I have viewed so much material in support of the events as they unfolded, that I consider many, if not all, of the arguments put forward by 9/11 truth to be questionable. I have also read all the arguments against the academic community, and invariably, they all contain errors of detail and logic. At least we can agree to disagree without resorting to attacking each other. I appreciate you taking the time with my requests.
This is so much more than simply "incredulity" its about common sense, you have an alleged airliner crash into a skyscraper and the airliner penetrates completely with the tail of the aircraft disappearing inside the building never to be seen again. Picture this, an aircraft flying at >500 mph in air, and suddenly the nose of the aircraft comes up against a wall, and not just any wall, but a wall composed of steel box columns, and the aircraft by the very nature of the laws of physics, must slow down, if in the first 5ft of nose crushing/penetration ( pick one.... ) the aircraft must decelerate by 10mph, what sort of forces are acting on the aircraft? the inertia of the jet engines impose forces on the engine mounts far in excess of what the hardware is designed to handle, and there is sufficient time for the stress to cause disintegration of the aircraft. so what special magic kept the aircraft together so it could make that now famous gash in the side of the skyscraper?
Ok, if you address this like a rational being your first question to yourself is, 'what am I missing here?' Many others have no problem with the way the aircraft struck the buildings, even many in 9/11 truth. I'm really having trouble comprehending why you find it so incredible.
It's been also pointed out to Bob,(by you.as well,I think),that a much smaller plane,flying at a lower speed punched a hole in the side of the steel framed and masonry empire state building And the B-25 has a GLASS nose
Hyperbole. And what's wrong with Google searches if one stays with .gov, .edu and media sites like the NYTimes, LATimes, WaPo, WSJ, FT, Times of London, etc etc? Nothing. There's nothing wrong with that. That's how research is done. Crack open a "smart person" book and you're gonna see sources from the domains and sites I've just mentioned. Which are the sources I've used since pretty much day one.
