|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
pilots for 9/11 truth get flight recorder data, and prove pentagon story impossible.
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| pilots for 9/11 truth get flight recorder data, and prove pentagon story impossible.
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| FatesWebb |
Through a freedom of information act request the pilots for 9/11 truth have obtained the flight recorder data on flight 77. Analysis of this data shows the official story was a lie. there are discrepencies in the official story, and the flight recorder data. This includes the fact that the light poles could not have fallen due to the plane, and the plane did not fly the path we were told.
For some reason the data stops well before the impact, so you cannot even be sure that the plane even did hit the building.
You will notice in the right margin the altitude of the aircraft on the middle instrument. It shows 180 feet. This altitude has been determined to reflect Pressure altitude as set by 29.92 inHg on the Altimeter. The actual local pressure for DCA at impact time was 30.22 inHg. The error for this discrepancy is 300 feet. Meaning, the actual aircraft altitude was 300 feet higher than indicated at that moment in time. Which means aircraft altitude was 480 feet above sea level (MSL, 75 foot margin for error according to Federal Aviation Regulations). You can clearly see the highway in the below screenshot directly under the aircraft. The elevation for that highway is ~40 feet above sea level according to the US Geological Survey. The light poles would have had to been 440 feet tall (+/- 75 feet) for this aircraft to bring them down. Which you can clearly see in the below picture, the aircraft is too high, even for the official released video of the 5 frames where you see something cross the Pentagon Lawn at level attitude. The 5 frames of video captured by the parking gate cam is in direct conflict with the Aircraft Flight Data Recorder information released by the NTSB. More information will be forthcoming as we come to our conclusions on each issue. We have contacted the NTSB regarding the conflict between the official story and the FDR. They refuse to comment.
more information at http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html |
|
|
| nunpuncher |
well if you listen he says if the people who did this and that.. and then shot the plane down .so either he meant took down or he thinks who ever shot it down were the same people who bombed spain england and the mess hall ... so what do do you think fw |
|
|
| tourette_ticker |
So there is this huge conspiracy, the gov't faked plane crashes, planted explosives, framed Muslims, hid or murdered people on planes and on and on and on....
But after they have had these flight recorders all this time, they didn't even bother to make fakes for them to back up their story. Some conspiracy. :rolleyes: |
|
|
| vegaseric |
| Quote: The pilots' number 1 priority is the safety of the passengers. Number 2 priority is to get them to their destination on time. Pilots dont just give up their airplane to someone with a knife.. regardless of what the press has told you about The Common Strategy prior to 9/11. |
That's a quote from the website......since when did pilots start second guessing pilot who died in this process? Since when did one pilot make the regulations of "giving up your airplane?" Oh well, they're all dead so what can we do now? It's funny how a lot of heroes came out after everyone died. |
|
|
| Halcyon |
Quote: Originally posted by FatesWebb
Through a freedom of information act request the pilots for 9/11 truth have obtained the flight recorder data on flight 77. Analysis of this data shows the official story was a lie. there are discrepencies in the official story, and the flight recorder data. This includes the fact that the light poles could not have fallen due to the plane, and the plane did not fly the path we were told.
For some reason the data stops well before the impact, so you cannot even be sure that the plane even did hit the building.
You will notice in the right margin the altitude of the aircraft on the middle instrument. It shows 180 feet. This altitude has been determined to reflect Pressure altitude as set by 29.92 inHg on the Altimeter. The actual local pressure for DCA at impact time was 30.22 inHg. The error for this discrepancy is 300 feet. Meaning, the actual aircraft altitude was 300 feet higher than indicated at that moment in time. Which means aircraft altitude was 480 feet above sea level (MSL, 75 foot margin for error according to Federal Aviation Regulations). You can clearly see the highway in the below screenshot directly under the aircraft. The elevation for that highway is ~40 feet above sea level according to the US Geological Survey. The light poles would have had to been 440 feet tall (+/- 75 feet) for this aircraft to bring them down. Which you can clearly see in the below picture, the aircraft is too high, even for the official released video of the 5 frames where you see something cross the Pentagon Lawn at level attitude. The 5 frames of video captured by the parking gate cam is in direct conflict with the Aircraft Flight Data Recorder information released by the NTSB. More information will be forthcoming as we come to our conclusions on each issue. We have contacted the NTSB regarding the conflict between the official story and the FDR. They refuse to comment.
more information at http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html |
Well, if you were in charge of the administration, and you wanted to hide the truth of what happened to the plane, the very first thing you would have to do is find the black box recorder and fuck up the recording....... |
|
|
| Halcyon |
Quote: Originally posted by vegaseric
That's a quote from the website......since when did pilots start second guessing pilot who died in this process? Since when did one pilot make the regulations of "giving up your airplane?" Oh well, they're all dead so what can we do now? It's funny how a lot of heroes came out after everyone died. |
*cough*JFK*cough* |
|
|
| acefree |
i thought there was no plane in shanksville :( |
|
|
| Stickman |
Quote: Originally posted by acefree
i thought there was no plane in shanksville :( |
There's no plane in the ditch. Something got blown out of the sky in the area. There's a difference. |
|
|
| acefree |
Quote: Originally posted by Stickman
There's no plane in the ditch. Something got blown out of the sky in the area. There's a difference. |
oh. i try to follow along , but u guys dont make it easy :( |
|
|
| Halcyon |
Quote: Originally posted by acefree
oh. i try to follow along , but u guys dont make it easy :( |
Well, be careful what you say... because they'll tell you to watch the video or go back to bed if you ask too many questions.... |
|
|
| Timmy |
| Why no video of the pentagon being hit? Thats one of the most secure buildings in the world. There must have been 100 top of the line cameras with a view of that crash, but all we get is grainy shit from some hotel vid camera from miles away. Whats up wit dat? |
|
|
| Stickman |
Quote: Originally posted by Timmy
Why no video of the pentagon being hit? Thats one of the most secure buildings in the world. There must have been 100 top of the line cameras with a view of that crash, but all we get is grainy shit from some hotel vid camera from miles away. Whats up wit dat? |
Because if you think the gov't is hiding something you hate America. Stop asking for proof, stop hating Bush, stop hating America. |
|
|
| tourette_ticker |
I'll ask again. If the government pulled off this huge hoax, why did they not (a) destroy the data recorders or (b) fake new ones that would back up their story.
This makes no sense. |
|
|
| tourette_ticker |
Quote: Originally posted by Timmy
Why no video of the pentagon being hit? Thats one of the most secure buildings in the world. There must have been 100 top of the line cameras with a view of that crash, but all we get is grainy shit from some hotel vid camera from miles away. Whats up wit dat? |
There "must have been" 100 cameras with a view? Do you have any evidence of this, or is it just a guess on your part? |
|
|
| Stickman |
Quote: Originally posted by tourette_ticker
There "must have been" 100 cameras with a view? Do you have any evidence of this, or is it just a guess on your part? |
It has been figured out that there were over 80 cams on the flight route that would have picked it up. For instance the tapes that did pick up something were confiscated right after the attack. Surely, you're familiar with the gas station tape, the Sheraton, etc.
Ever been to the Pentagon? There are cams everywhere in the parking lots. |
|
|
| tourette_ticker |
| 80 cams along the flight route that would have picked it up? Were they pointed in the air? Were the ones in the parking lots to monitor the parking lots or the building? Would they show the plane? How many frames per sec do they produce? How long are the tape loops? Were they all archived? Proof please. |
|
|
| tourette_ticker |
ok Stick,
How long am I supposed to stay with this thing until I see the "proof" of these 80 cameras with views. Or is it like what I have seen in it so far anyway, all conjecture with no evidence?
Do have any "proof" outside of this "film" of the 80 cameras that should have had a view of the plane. If not, you need to retract that statement. |
|
|
| FatesWebb |
Quote: Originally posted by tourette_ticker
I'll ask again. If the government pulled off this huge hoax, why did they not (a) destroy the data recorders or (b) fake new ones that would back up their story.
This makes no sense. |
who is to say this isnt fake? it does stop well before the impact, so why? |
|
|
| FatesWebb |
Quote: Originally posted by tourette_ticker
80 cams along the flight route that would have picked it up? Were they pointed in the air? Were the ones in the parking lots to monitor the parking lots or the building? Would they show the plane? How many frames per sec do they produce? How long are the tape loops? Were they all archived? Proof please. |
here is proof in writing from the DOJ that the tapes exist.... not that I believe everything they are saying. but if the tapes exist why not release them?
|
|
|
| tourette_ticker |
Quote: Originally posted by FatesWebb
who is to say this isnt fake? it does stop well before the impact, so why? |
well you claim here that the data proves the official story to be a lie:
Quote: Originally posted by FatesWebb
Through a freedom of information act request the pilots for 9/11 truth have obtained the flight recorder data on flight 77. Analysis of this data shows the official story was a lie. there are discrepencies in the official story, and the flight recorder data. This includes the fact that the light poles could not have fallen due to the plane, and the plane did not fly the path we were told. |
Why would they not fake data that backed up their story? |
|
|
| FatesWebb |
Quote: Originally posted by tourette_ticker
well you claim here that the data proves the official story to be a lie:
Why would they not fake data that backed up their story? |
maybe they tried to, but didnt get it right? or maybe this is an actual FDR but the plane pulled up at the last second not hitting the building hence the missing ending.
So finally your admitting that the official story is not adding up, this is a step in the right direction. |
|
|
| Stickman |
Quote: Originally posted by tourette_ticker
ok Stick,
How long am I supposed to stay with this thing until I see the "proof" of these 80 cameras with views. Or is it like what I have seen in it so far anyway, all conjecture with no evidence?
Do have any "proof" outside of this "film" of the 80 cameras that should have had a view of the plane. If not, you need to retract that statement. |
Listen man, in the spirit of the holiday season I'm cool with you and I appreciate you debating the issues, but you can chill with what I need to do.
Your strategy is pure provocation. Your defending a position which is asking me, and basically everyone else in the world, to not ask basic, logical questions.
Think about it for a second. How many cameras do you think were in position to catch some of the flight path? NONE??? Are you a fucking idiot?
Now, how much footage, and what quality footage have we SEEN???
You really stun me with your complete absence of curiosity.
Sorry, but I want logical answers to these questions. You seem fairly comfortable being completely deceived. |
|
|
| tourette_ticker |
Quote: Originally posted by FatesWebb
maybe they tried to, but didnt get it right? or maybe this is an actual FDR but the plane pulled up at the last second not hitting the building hence the missing ending.
So finally your admitting that the official story is not adding up, this is a step in the right direction. |
Nope, sorry Fates. You are reaching again. I am said your story doesn't add up. |
|
|
| FatesWebb |
Quote: Originally posted by tourette_ticker
Nope, sorry Fates. You are reaching again. I am said your story doesn't add up. |
yep and my story is the official one. see you seem to think I post opinions... but they are simply facts about the official story. and how they dont add up. so by you saying it doesnt make sense that the flight path doesnt line up to the official story, your actually agreeing with me.
show me where I posted an opinion? |
|
|
| FatesWebb |
So, lets go on what we have. The last known altitude reported for AA77 was 7000 feet. And travelled 33 miles in 5 minutes. Thats 6.6 miles per minute or 396 knots (Update: FDR data shows 325 knots average airspeed. 9/11 Commission Report is inaccurate). Then the aircraft began a 330 degree spiraling dive, leveling at 2200 feet to accelerate to the Pentagon while continuing descent. He started the maneuver at 7000 feet, 396 knots, dove almost 5000 feet within a 330 degree turn and covered 5 miles in about 3 minutes. The final speed of 530 mph (460 knots) was calculated by damage done to the pentagon since the FDR was unusable according to the 9/11 Commission report. Update: FDR is now available and the 9/11 report is inaccurate in terms of impact speed.
So lets take an avg speed throughout the dive of 430 knots (7 miles/min). We know a standard rate turn is 2 mins for 360 degrees. So lets say he completed the turn in just under 2 minutes. Since we dont know bank angles or speed. That means he was descending at better than 2500 fpm dropping almost 5000 feet only gaining 30 knots. No problem for guys like you and me, but for Hani? We'll get to him later...
Once this maneuver was completed, without going into a graveyard spiral, he started to pull out of the descent at 2200 feet and accelerated only 30 knots more at full power to 460 knots in a descent from 2200 feet to the pentagon in about a minute (Whats Vmo at sea level for a 757? Flap speed? Since it looks like he may have found the flap handle only accelerating 60 knots from 7000 feet, the from 2200 feet at full power). AA77 crossed the highways, knocking down light poles, entered ground effect, didnt touch the lawn and got a 44 foot high target (Tail height of 757) into a 77 foot target completely, without overshooting or bouncing off the lawn, or spreading any wreckage at 460 knots. With a 33 foot margin for error. Wow, impressive. Takes a real steady hand to pull that off. I know it would take me a few tries to get it so precise, especially entering ground effect at those speeds. Any slight movement will put you off 50 feet very quickly. Im sure we all would agree.
So, who pulled off this stunt?
Hani Hanjour. Reported to have 600TT and a Commercial Certificate (see quotes right margin). Hani tried to get checked out in a 172 a few weeks prior at Freeway Airport in MD. Two seperate CFI's took Hani up to check him out. Baxter and Conner found that Hani had trouble controlling and landing a 172 at 65 knots. Bernard, the Chief CFI, refused to rent him the 172. I have instructed many years. I have soloed students in 172's when i had 300 hours as a CFI. How anyone could not control a 172 at 600TT and a Commercial is beyond me. Flight Schools keep going till you "get it" if you are a bit rusty, and then rent you the plane. They are in business to make money after all. .right? The Chief CFI basically refused any further lessons and basically told him to get lost. All this can be confirmed through google searches.
Later, a week after Sept 11. Bernard, the Chief CFI, made a statement saying, "although Hani was rejected to rent a 172, i have no doubt he could have hit the pentagon." What?? Bernard, who didnt even fly with Hani, doesnt know the maneuver involved, where the plane hit, the speeds, etc etc.. says he has no doubts that he could hit the pentagon? Sure, my grandma could hit the pentagon. How about looking into the maneuver before making that statement? He made that statement while the pentagon was still smoking for petes sake. A bit of monday morning quarterbacking if you ask me. A common theme among inexperienced pilots. This also can be verified via google searches.
So, to sum up. Hani Hanjour, took a 757, with zero time in type, did the maneuver described above, a 400 knot 330 degree sprialing dive at 2500 fpm, only gaining 30 knots, then 30 knots more descending from 2200 feet at full power, with a very steady hand as to not overshoot or hit the lawn, inside ground effect, at 460 knots impact speed, but was refused to rent a 172 cause he couldnt land it at 65 knots? C'mon... sounds like a bad B movie... Please see right margin for more testimony regarding Hani and his training.
My conclusion is, the manever looks possible, for guys like me and you. But for Hani? unlikely. He either got REALLY lucky, or someone/something else was flying that plane. Sure wish we had clear video of a 757 hitting the pentagon to silence all these "Conspiracy theorists". They want us to believe the pentagon is only covered by a parking gate camera? C'mon...
For anyone wanting to do further research on the subject. Almost all the circumstances surrounding 9/11 have similar scenarios. Hell, they didnt even match up the parts found at each site to their airframes via maintainence logs. There is an article out there that states all the parts were returned to United two weeks after Sept 11. Why... so they could refurbish them to put in their parts dept? This is evidence from a crime scene. You dont give it back to the airline. They claim insurance and its over with. |
|
|
| tourette_ticker |
Quote: Originally posted by Stickman
Listen man, in the spirit of the holiday season I'm cool with you and I appreciate you debating the issues, but you can chill with what I need to do.
Your strategy is pure provocation. Your defending a position which is asking me, and basically everyone else in the world, to not ask basic, logical questions.
Think about it for a second. How many cameras do you think were in position to catch some of the flight path? NONE??? Are you a fucking idiot?
Now, how much footage, and what quality footage have we SEEN???
You really stun me with your complete absence of curiosity.
Sorry, but I want logical answers to these questions. You seem fairly comfortable being completely deceived. |
Stick you have me all wrong. I think the government is evil by nature. That is why I am a Libertarian. I am for as small and limited of a government as possible. Much like the giants of men who wrote our Constitution had in mind.
Questioning the government at every level is the PATRIOTIC thing to do. However, questions alone will never make me change my view of what happened that day. For example the camera. Just because you suppose there were a bunch of camera does not make it so. Show me the PROOF that there were 80 some cameras that should have been in position to catch the flight, and I will then be ready to ask the next logical question. What the fuck happened to the tapes. But until we know the tapes actually existed, that question is worthless. Get it?
As to if I am a fucking idiot, I sure don't think so - but if I am, I guess I wouldn't know... |
|
|
| Stickman |
| Great article, Fates. What's the source? |
|
|
| tourette_ticker |
Quote: Originally posted by FatesWebb
So, lets go on what we have. The last known altitude reported for AA77 was 7000 feet. And travelled 33 miles in 5 minutes. Thats 6.6 miles per minute or 396 knots (Update: FDR data shows 325 knots average airspeed. 9/11 Commission Report is inaccurate). Then the aircraft began a 330 degree spiraling dive, leveling at 2200 feet to accelerate to the Pentagon while continuing descent. He started the maneuver at 7000 feet, 396 knots, dove almost 5000 feet within a 330 degree turn and covered 5 miles in about 3 minutes. The final speed of 530 mph (460 knots) was calculated by damage done to the pentagon since the FDR was unusable according to the 9/11 Commission report. Update: FDR is now available and the 9/11 report is inaccurate in terms of impact speed.
So lets take an avg speed throughout the dive of 430 knots (7 miles/min). We know a standard rate turn is 2 mins for 360 degrees. So lets say he completed the turn in just under 2 minutes. Since we dont know bank angles or speed. That means he was descending at better than 2500 fpm dropping almost 5000 feet only gaining 30 knots. No problem for guys like you and me, but for Hani? We'll get to him later...
Once this maneuver was completed, without going into a graveyard spiral, he started to pull out of the descent at 2200 feet and accelerated only 30 knots more at full power to 460 knots in a descent from 2200 feet to the pentagon in about a minute (Whats Vmo at sea level for a 757? Flap speed? Since it looks like he may have found the flap handle only accelerating 60 knots from 7000 feet, the from 2200 feet at full power). AA77 crossed the highways, knocking down light poles, entered ground effect, didnt touch the lawn and got a 44 foot high target (Tail height of 757) into a 77 foot target completely, without overshooting or bouncing off the lawn, or spreading any wreckage at 460 knots. With a 33 foot margin for error. Wow, impressive. Takes a real steady hand to pull that off. I know it would take me a few tries to get it so precise, especially entering ground effect at those speeds. Any slight movement will put you off 50 feet very quickly. Im sure we all would agree.
So, who pulled off this stunt?
Hani Hanjour. Reported to have 600TT and a Commercial Certificate (see quotes right margin). Hani tried to get checked out in a 172 a few weeks prior at Freeway Airport in MD. Two seperate CFI's took Hani up to check him out. Baxter and Conner found that Hani had trouble controlling and landing a 172 at 65 knots. Bernard, the Chief CFI, refused to rent him the 172. I have instructed many years. I have soloed students in 172's when i had 300 hours as a CFI. How anyone could not control a 172 at 600TT and a Commercial is beyond me. Flight Schools keep going till you "get it" if you are a bit rusty, and then rent you the plane. They are in business to make money after all. .right? The Chief CFI basically refused any further lessons and basically told him to get lost. All this can be confirmed through google searches.
Later, a week after Sept 11. Bernard, the Chief CFI, made a statement saying, "although Hani was rejected to rent a 172, i have no doubt he could have hit the pentagon." What?? Bernard, who didnt even fly with Hani, doesnt know the maneuver involved, where the plane hit, the speeds, etc etc.. says he has no doubts that he could hit the pentagon? Sure, my grandma could hit the pentagon. How about looking into the maneuver before making that statement? He made that statement while the pentagon was still smoking for petes sake. A bit of monday morning quarterbacking if you ask me. A common theme among inexperienced pilots. This also can be verified via google searches.
So, to sum up. Hani Hanjour, took a 757, with zero time in type, did the maneuver described above, a 400 knot 330 degree sprialing dive at 2500 fpm, only gaining 30 knots, then 30 knots more descending from 2200 feet at full power, with a very steady hand as to not overshoot or hit the lawn, inside ground effect, at 460 knots impact speed, but was refused to rent a 172 cause he couldnt land it at 65 knots? C'mon... sounds like a bad B movie... Please see right margin for more testimony regarding Hani and his training.
My conclusion is, the manever looks possible, for guys like me and you. But for Hani? unlikely. He either got REALLY lucky, or someone/something else was flying that plane. Sure wish we had clear video of a 757 hitting the pentagon to silence all these "Conspiracy theorists". They want us to believe the pentagon is only covered by a parking gate camera? C'mon...
For anyone wanting to do further research on the subject. Almost all the circumstances surrounding 9/11 have similar scenarios. Hell, they didnt even match up the parts found at each site to their airframes via maintainence logs. There is an article out there that states all the parts were returned to United two weeks after Sept 11. Why... so they could refurbish them to put in their parts dept? This is evidence from a crime scene. You dont give it back to the airline. They claim insurance and its over with. |
Fates, I don't know that I have the knowledge necessary to render an opinion on this. But I will take a look at it. |
|
|
| FatesWebb |
Quote: Originally posted by tourette_ticker
Stick you have me all wrong. I think the government is evil by nature. That is why I am a Libertarian. I am for as small and limited of a government as possible. Much like the giants of men who wrote our Constitution had in mind.
Questioning the government at every level is the PATRIOTIC thing to do. However, questions alone will never make me change my view of what happened that day. For example the camera. Just because you suppose there were a bunch of camera does not make it so. Show me the PROOF that there were 80 some cameras that should have been in position to catch the flight, and I will then be ready to ask the next logical question. What the fuck happened to the tapes. But until we know the tapes actually existed, that question is worthless. Get it?
As to if I am a fucking idiot, I sure don't think so - but if I am, I guess I wouldn't know... |
I already showed you proof, from the FBI and DOJ. above in this very thread. |
|
|
| Stickman |
Quote: Originally posted by tourette_ticker
Stick you have me all wrong. I think the government is evil by nature. That is why I am a Libertarian. I am for as small and limited of a government as possible. Much like the giants of men who wrote our Constitution had in mind.
Questioning the government at every level is the PATRIOTIC thing to do. However, questions alone will never make me change my view of what happened that day. For example the camera. Just because you suppose there were a bunch of camera does not make it so. Show me the PROOF that there were 80 some cameras that should have been in position to catch the flight, and I will then be ready to ask the next logical question. What the fuck happened to the tapes. But until we know the tapes actually existed, that question is worthless. Get it?
As to if I am a fucking idiot, I sure don't think so - but if I am, I guess I wouldn't know... |
You really don't even bother reading these threads do you?
You just bluster on.
Read Post #21 |
|
|
| FatesWebb |
Quote: Originally posted by Stickman
Great article, Fates. What's the source? |
from the pilots link in post 1 |
|
|
| tourette_ticker |
Quote: Originally posted by Stickman
You really don't even bother reading these threads do you?
You just bluster on.
Read Post #21 |
yes I just bluster on. There is no admission in what I see there that there is any specified number of tapes. But don't let that bother you, it's just bluster. |
|
|
| tourette_ticker |
Quote: Originally posted by Stickman
You really don't even bother reading these threads do you?
You just bluster on.
Read Post #21 |
And whatever that thing at the bottom from the FBI said there was only one tape that showed it. |
|
|
| FatesWebb |
Quote: Originally posted by tourette_ticker
And whatever that thing at the bottom from the FBI said there was only one tape that showed it. |
hmmm, where is it? why is it not released? and it says only 1 showed it hitting the pentagon not only 1 showed it all all. |
|
|
| tourette_ticker |
Quote: Originally posted by FatesWebb
hmmm, where is it? why is it not released? and it says only 1 showed it hitting the pentagon not only 1 showed it all all. |
Is that not the grainy one or two frames they released? If not, I am with you - I can see no reason not to release the tape. |
|
|
| Halcyon |
I think asking basic questions and even more complex questions of our government and why they do things and especially about what has happened is essential to keeping them accountable for certain actions. And of course they would love for all Americans to be complacent and accept the 'truth' they give. I think Tourette-ticker as well as some others of us are just having a hard time believing the extent at which the Government went to creating a reason to go to Iraq? What was the ultimate goal of creating such an elaborate set up for 9/11? To go to Iraq? I mean, it seems far-fetched that the government would go to so much planning and extensive cover-up techniques to plan a 9/11 just to go to Iraq with no WAR STRATEGY or EXIT PLAN!?
I guess what I'm asking is.... do you think they spend millions of dollars and months of time setting up the WTC with explosives, faking airplane crashes, putting hijackers on planes with box cutters and killing thousands of innocent american citizens only to go to Iraq and then fuck that up!? |
|
|
| FatesWebb |
| I dont think I know. only because I believe in the laws of physics, and that they do not waiver. |
|
|
| oat |
Quote: Originally posted by Stickman
Listen man, in the spirit of the holiday season I'm cool with you and I appreciate you debating the issues, but you can chill with what I need to do.
Your strategy is pure provocation. Your defending a position which is asking me, and basically everyone else in the world, to not ask basic, logical questions. |
So in other words, don't question anything you have to say, don't provoke you by actually asking you to defend your stance and above all blindly believe what you say and just ask panty ass questions so you can provide grainy tape footage of matchbox cars and toy airplanes crashing into a papier mache pentagon..... |
|
|
| Halcyon |
Quote: Originally posted by FatesWebb
I dont think I know. only because I believe in the laws of physics, and that they do not waiver. |
My point is, I got stickman telling me to watch the video or go to bed, because I ask some questions.... what's the point of getting pissed off at people who refuse to ask questions of the government, only to tell people who ask YOU questions on why you say the things you do to basically watch the video or fuck off?
I thought everyone was pretty aware that this stupid cpu I am on has no ability to play video other than simple moving .gifs. You tube is worthless to me on this video, so I am in the dark and have to rely on people telling me what the video is about. But I guess that's a pretty stupid thing to do. Guess I should 'go to bed'.
The laws of physics are pretty solid. You can't CHANGE the laws of physics, but there are ways to make it look as though the laws of physics can change. The Mystery Spot in Santa Cruz mountains is a PRIME example of being able to make it look like the laws of physics are out of whack. |
|
|
| tourette_ticker |
Quote: Originally posted by oat
So in other words, don't question anything you have to say, don't provoke you by actually asking you to defend your stance and above all blindly believe what you say and just ask panty ass questions so you can provide grainy tape footage of matchbox cars and toy airplanes crashing into a papier mache pentagon..... |
That's pretty much how I sum up his position. |
|
|
| FatesWebb |
| hal, give me an address of where I can ship the dvd to. fateswebb at gmail dooot com. |
|
|
| tourette_ticker |
Quote: Originally posted by Halcyon
The Mystery Spot in Santa Cruz mountains is a PRIME example of being able to make it look like the laws of physics are out of whack. |
Is that the place where water seems to flow uphill? |
|
|
| Halcyon |
Quote: Originally posted by tourette_ticker
Is that the place where water seems to flow uphill? |
Not just water... they have a little wooden like, ramp on the ground and they put a marble on the bottom of the ramp and then the marble rolls UP the ramp UPHILL. They have another area in the little shack that has a bar across the top, and it looks straight across and the when someone hangs on it. Gravity should pull you straight down while you're hanging on it right? But people always hang off to the right or left to a good degree.
It's mostly optical illusions, IMO. The trees however (and this one is kind of wierd, I have no explanation for this unless this is some wierd kind of tree), their trunks grow in a wierd spiral corkscrew shape... the tree trunks!
And yes, FW, if you feel it is that important for me to watch, I will email you right now. |
|
|
| Halcyon |
Quote: Originally posted by FatesWebb
hal, give me an address of where I can ship the dvd to. fateswebb at gmail dooot com. |
Email sent |
|
|
| FatesWebb |
| snail mail sent. |
|
|
| Halcyon |
Quote: Originally posted by FatesWebb
snail mail sent. |
[Scotty Ferrall]
Youdaman!
[/Scotty Ferrall] |
|
|
| Billyfromsphily |
Quote: Originally posted by Halcyon
My point is, I got stickman telling me to watch the video or go to bed, because I ask some questions.... what's the point of getting pissed off at people who refuse to ask questions of the government, only to tell people who ask YOU questions on why you say the things you do to basically watch the video or fuck off?
I thought everyone was pretty aware that this stupid cpu I am on has no ability to play video other than simple moving .gifs. You tube is worthless to me on this video, so I am in the dark and have to rely on people telling me what the video is about. But I guess that's a pretty stupid thing to do. Guess I should 'go to bed'.
The laws of physics are pretty solid. You can't CHANGE the laws of physics, but there are ways to make it look as though the laws of physics can change. The Mystery Spot in Santa Cruz mountains is a PRIME example of being able to make it look like the laws of physics are out of whack. |
Is this what I am guilty of Halcyon? |
|
|
| Halcyon |
Quote: Originally posted by Billyfromsphily
Is this what I am guilty of Halcyon? |
What's that? |
|
|
| Halcyon |
Quote: Originally posted by Billyfromsphily
Is this what I am guilty of Halcyon? |
Umm..... sort of.... the difference between what I was doing and what you were doing was that you were just attacking his character and using profanity and not debunking any of his facts or asking questions..... just attacking.
I asked some questions.... and stickman essentially told me to view the video and shut the fuck up.... |
|
|
| Billyfromsphily |
| How much profanity did I use and how much did he use? |
|
|
| Halcyon |
Quote: Originally posted by Billyfromsphily
How much profanity did I use and how much did he use? |
Look whatever, if you want an e-fight, we can go to Members Chat... I mean SFN Lounge and go have it out...
The point was you're NOT GUILTY of anything... you're free to do and say whatever the fuck you want, what do I care? I was just trying to point out bashing the dude over and over and over again really doesn't accomplish anything, and certainly doesn't get your point across.
I'll say it again, I think you're an intelligent poster, and I enjoy your posts thoroughly. I just think it's beneath you to spend all day attacking someone online over and over again.... I think you're better than that.
I was just trying to show you all that.
And yes, he used profanity and you used profanity.... and I use profanity, and everyone uses profanity... the profanity wasn't the main point I was trying to make... sorry if I came across unclear |
|
|
| Billyfromsphily |
Quote: Originally posted by Halcyon
Look whatever, if you want an e-fight, we can go to Members Chat... I mean SFN Lounge and go have it out...
The point was you're NOT GUILTY of anything... you're free to do and say whatever the fuck you want, what do I care? I was just trying to point out bashing the dude over and over and over again really doesn't accomplish anything, and certainly doesn't get your point across.
I'll say it again, I think you're an intelligent poster, and I enjoy your posts thoroughly. I just think it's beneath you to spend all day attacking someone online over and over again.... I think you're better than that.
I was just trying to show you all that.
And yes, he used profanity and you used profanity.... and I use profanity, and everyone uses profanity... the profanity wasn't the main point I was trying to make... sorry if I came across unclear |
You are missing my point. I was trying to show how all the vitriol has built up and I am not the only one who was the beneficiary of the profanity. It stared somewhere and it came from the conspiracists first. They show a long record of demeaning anyone who challenges them. I only ask that equal time be given to the genus of this who started what story.
If you come to the site with a premise, then be ready to answer all questions and not demean the questioner. The have to defend their premise. We are not here to prove it for them which is what they want you to do when they answer a question with a question.
I don't have a problem with you and I come off as sarcastic and skeptical because I have 30 years experience in construction and I have never seen such incomplete and partial explanations standing on their own as proof. |
|
|
| Halcyon |
Quote: Originally posted by Billyfromsphily
You are missing my point. I was trying to show how all the vitriol has built up and I am not the only one who was the beneficiary of the profanity. It stared somewhere and it came from the conspiracists first. They show a long record of demeaning anyone who challenges them. I only ask that equal time be given to the genus of this who started what story.
If you come to the site with a premise, then be ready to answer all questions and not demean the questioner. The have to defend their premise. We are not here to prove it for them which is what they want you to do when they answer a question with a question.
I don't have a problem with you and I come off as sarcastic and skeptical because I have 30 years experience in construction and I have never seen such incomplete and partial explanations standing on their own as proof. |
I found nothing in this post I disagree with. You are absolutely correct.
Sorry if I misunderstood what you were trying to say. I understand now. |
|
|
| zimmie |
What happened to those people on that phony plane?....Where is the plane?
We're all those fireman and police on the scene in on the plot?
LMAO |
|
|
| johnni37 |
Zimmie, go away mult. You have no interest in shit and haven't read squat on either side of the ledger. All you do is try to stir shit up and use your assinine acronyms and piss off and pop up somewhere else.
If you have half a fucking brain read the 911 commission report so you at least know the position you so steadfastly stand in front of, shithead. |
|
|
|
|
|
