Thread: A standard of evidense

What do you pro-official version people think of the analysis put forward by the "American Society of Civil Engineers" which is shown in this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaHdtl8KAGg
(22:50 time mark)

Here's a video I just found about some witnesses to the plane's flying over the Pentagon.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKbT9r-6IPQ"]New Documentary-The Pentagon Witnesses 6 of 9 - YouTube[/ame]

Originally Posted by Scott

What do you pro-official version people think of the analysis put forward by the "American Society of Civil Engineers" which is shown in this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaHdtl8KAGg
(22:50 time mark)

I'm thinking ASCE Purdue got it right, and the guy 'analyzing' the computer simulation is misrepresenting what it shows. That graphic is about the movement of the fuel, interpretation of other elements is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Scott

Here's a video I just found about some witnesses to the plane's flying over the Pentagon.
New Documentary-The Pentagon Witnesses 6 of 9 - YouTube

Witnesses? You have one guy who was somehow both in the south parking lot and on the east dock at the same time. He says it was ten seconds after the impact. Tell me, how far away would a plane travelling 500+ mph be in ten seconds? He sounds a bit confused to me.

Try again.

Originally Posted by Wolverine

I ponder something, I guess it is directed more towards the "truthers" than the other conspiracy theorists.

Why display such an absence of any standard of evidence?

Why believe these far flung theories that would involve hundreds if not thousands of people that have no basis in reality?

Why continuously ignore the fact your arguments have been debunked?

Meh.

I think because truth, in many cases, has an element of relativity (and I don't mean scientifically *snicker*).

When someone introduces an idea or event that is distressing or goes against what some people believe, some interpret the event/idea differently. They see evidence (or in some cases create evidence) that backs up their interpretation, instead of creating an interpretation based on fact.

Originally Posted by happy fun dude

I've not said it was an inside job.. I've not accused anybody of plotting this attack.

And I'm not trying to get anybody off hook.. But I do think you should prove guilty the people you lock up.. Do you not agree? Are you a supporter of extrajudicial detention?

You, however, unlike me, seem quite certain about who was behind the attack so I will wait patiently for you to tell me what your best evidence is.

I've already given you the evidence. You couldn't refute it, but still insist nobody knows who was responsible for 9/11, which everyone knows is "wink wink" code for Al Qaeda didn't. Do you think people don't recognize what it is you're doing? That's funny!

Originally Posted by Scott

What do you pro-official version people think of the analysis put forward by the "American Society of Civil Engineers" which is shown in this video?

Originally Posted by Hannibal

I'm thinking ASCE Purdue got it right, and the guy 'analyzing' the computer simulation is misrepresenting what it shows.

Standard truther operating procedure. Quote-mine, clip quotes, misrepresent statements and on and on and on. If the evidence of an inside job is so strong, why do truthers have to mislead that way to "prove" their point.

ALL MEDIA LIED . . . uh huh.

Originally Posted by Scott

Here's a video I just found about some witnesses to the plane's flying over the Pentagon.

At 2:50 in . . .

Although Roosevelt was incorrect about the time and assumes what he saw was "another plane" flying away from the Pentagon immedidately after the explosion, neither witnesses nor official records support 2 planes near the Pentagon at the time of the attack.

What about the C130??

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFTNPEmZHXE"]C-130 Pilot Tells his story on Flight 77 - Pentagon - YouTube[/ame]

Of course the truther dismisses the story at the end with typical conjecture, assumption, accusation and misrepresentation but NO EVIDENCE!!!!!!

Originally Posted by DDave

Standard truther operating procedure. Quote-mine, clip quotes, misrepresent statements and on and on and on. If the evidence of an inside job is so strong, why do truthers have to mislead that way to "prove" their point.

ALL MEDIA LIED . . . uh huh.



At 2:50 in . . .



What about the C130??

C-130 Pilot Tells his story on Flight 77 - Pentagon - YouTube

Of course the truther dismisses the story at the end with typical conjecture, assumption, accusation and misrepresentation but NO EVIDENCE!!!!!!

The pilot is very careful with his choice of words when describing the aircraft. He says the aircraft was painted in a AA paint scheme, he does not confirm the aircraft being a Boeing 757, nor does he confirm it being a commercial aircraft at all.


Try again

Originally Posted by 10aces

Try again

Try reading the entire thread next time, okay?

Scott posted a link to a video that claimed that neither witnesses nor official records support 2 planes near the Pentagon at the time of the attack.

There was a C130 in the area at the time of the attack as the pilot's statement confirms.

Personally, I reject pretty much all conspiracy theories. And I can't think of but 2 or 3 that I come even close to accepting.

They simply do not make sense. I mean, look at the number of people that would have to be involved for most of them. The numbers would run into the hundreds, of not thousands of individuals.

Not to mention the time frames involved. It takes the Government years to just make up it's mind as to what brand of toilet paper to buy 4 years from now. Yet we are supposed to believe that monster conspiracies pop up and occur flawlessly within months.

That just does not happen.

To see exactly what would happen in a real life "Conspiracy", look at Watergate. That was a simple burglary. The Government itself was not even involved in this. And nobody died. Nobody was even hurt. No property was damaged.

Yet the 3# man in the FBI went to the press to tell what he knew.

Do people really believe that nobody would do the same for what would be mass murder? That is simply stupid to even think that would be the case.