Well... I was kind of looking for pictures or a video or something, heh... mostly because I haven't seen any of the debris yet, and when I google it, I get a lot of stuff for conspiracy sites about how it's missing and few good actual images of the supposed wreckage.
Interesting 9/11 video
- Thread starter Kittamaru
- Start date
Well... I was kind of looking for pictures or a video or something, heh... mostly because I haven't seen any of the debris yet, and when I google it, I get a lot of stuff for conspiracy sites about how it's missing and few good actual images of the supposed wreckage.
Hey Kitt, above is my post #8 - this thread. See my and your emboldened lines. Ain't this what you sciencey fellers call 'spooky action at a distance'?
I will have to read over that later, when I'm more awake, to sift through the fact and the embellishment (been awake since 4:30am, spent almost 5 hours driving today due to having to go to a remote site to help shut it down and my brain is friiiiiied) but as for the "spooky action at a distance" not sure - again, cannot brain, has the dumbz atm
To be perfectly frank, I have a lot of trouble with discussions like this. It's 2014 and this happened in 2001 and there is a massive amount of information out there, so I have a really hard time accepting such a claim of ignorance even when your tone is perfectly level-headed sounding. Rather than just spoon feed you something that you should already know, I'll try to help you find it yourself. So:
What, exactly, have you googled? Have you used google image search? Have you read any official reports? Used any generally accepted reliable sources?
And:
That's a separate problem. A belief problem. It would seem that you are aware that the evidence exists, you just aren't sure you believe it. I'm not sure it is possible to answer it, but I'll ask anyway: what will it take for you to believe evidence you see?
We recently had a long discussion with a crackpot who eventually begrudgingly acknowledged that photos of debris exist. But even after that he said the evidence was planted and showed pictures of people collecting debris who he said were instead planting it. At some point, what one chooses to believe is simply that: a choice. Showing him the evidence really didn't matter -- his choice was already made. It has been 13 years: have you seen much and made a choice? Or have you really just not been paying any attention at all for 13 years and really don't know?
Well, no; what I mean is that there is such a plethora of information on the internet regarding this, that the few times I have decided to dig into it to any sort of depth, I quickly find myself losing interest mostly for not being able to find good, credible sources. I will find a lot of sites claiming incredible things (the passengers were stolen from the airplane, that's why there were no bodies! - seriously?) and things I simply can't judge for sure are or are not crank (such as the video I posted - the pictures used paint a pretty simple story when mixed with the basic knowledge I have of building design, but those images seem to have been carefully selected simply to support their argument)
I guess, in the end, part of the issue is I don't care enough to really sort all the chaff from the wheat - as you said, it was over a decade ago... and even if it were to happen again, my chances of being able to do anything about it are slim to nil.
What would it take for me to believe what I see? Mainly a neutral source that isn't trying to either A) Prove some kind of giant government conspiracy nor B) Trying to carry some political motive nor C) Trying to paint one side or the other as "ebil". I simply want the raw facts... but unfortunately, in modern media reporting, raw facts don't sell as well as embellishment and drama.
I appreciate your candor. So where does that leave us? It doesn't really seem possible to me to provide you acceptable proof one way or another.
The best I can offer for an independent source is probably Popular Mechanics. They put an impressive effort into debunking the conspiracy theories. They may have a pro-US bias, but they do not have a government affiliation or attachment to any particular administration.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-pentagon#flight77debris
Other than that, terrorists are helpful in that the craft requires that they take credit for their crimes in order to be most effective. So you could just accept Bin Laden at his word, considering that the crime got him killed and he made only one dismissive attempt to deny it, while speaking clearly about it in other contexts.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/may/02/bin-laden-war-words-quotes
To be honest, I wasn't aware that Bin Laden had ever attempted to deny involvement - that is news to me! And I apologize - I'm not trying to be obstructive in this matter, merely objective; this is made difficult in part because of my own bias in it - I remember the terror of seeing this unfolding... I was thirteen, home alone after school, watching this unfold and absolutely terrified of the idea that Flight 93 might have been headed for Three Mile Island (we live a scant few miles away from it) and all I could do was stare at the TV and wonder to myself how it is that someone could hate another country so much that they would resort to this.
I got completely swept up in the idea of "seeking vengeance against those that hurt us" and it wasn't until years later that I started to really question the what-if's and the methods we brought to these supposed terrorist countries, as well as the lives lost in pursuit of this "justice". I dunno, just leaves a weird pit in my stomach that doesn't seem to have a remedy... all this loss of life over... well, over what? The inability to see past our menial differences and acknowledge that, in the end, we are all members of the same class- the human race...
Funny, when I google it I get, among other things, an image of one of the bodies...
Conspiracy nutters can be very persuasive and appear quite scientific and professional to a lay person.
The three most notable that I'm aware of are 9/11, Moon landing hoax, and Alien UFO's.
The simple application of common sense and logic in my opinion, easily accounts for the first two, for many reasons that most are aware of.
The third is also highly unlikely and defies common sense and logic also, in the way that a supposed advanced Alien presents himself, anal probe and all.
The three most notable that I'm aware of are 9/11, Moon landing hoax, and Alien UFO's.
The simple application of common sense and logic in my opinion, easily accounts for the first two, for many reasons that most are aware of.
The third is also highly unlikely and defies common sense and logic also, in the way that a supposed advanced Alien presents himself, anal probe and all.
Perhaps it is the search criteria I'm using? If I do, say,"9/11" "pentagon" "wreckage" "plane" I get this:
https://www.google.com/search?q="9/...SY0QXB_YHYCQ&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&biw=1600&bih=775
https://www.google.com/search?q="9/...i4GIDA&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAA&biw=1600&bih=775&dpr=1
http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm , for example, seems like it could be good, but most of the links are defunct and there are limited quoted passages and no images on the local site
I dunno, like I said - perhaps I simply haven't put the time/energy into it I should have. If that be the case, then it is entirely on me.
Perhaps it is the search criteria I'm using? If I do, say,"9/11" "pentagon" "wreckage" "plane" I get this:
https://www.google.com/search?q="9/...SY0QXB_YHYCQ&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&biw=1600&bih=775
https://www.google.com/search?q="9/...i4GIDA&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAA&biw=1600&bih=775&dpr=1
http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm , for example, seems like it could be good, but most of the links are defunct and there are limited quoted passages and no images on the local site
I dunno, like I said - perhaps I simply haven't put the time/energy into it I should have. If that be the case, then it is entirely on me.
ERROR: 'The Pentagon Attack Left No Aircraft Debris'
Photos Of Flt 77 Wreckage Inside The Pentagon Exclusive Photos & Story
Examining Ground Debris Landing Gear Evidence
That's it? What does that prove? A bit of plastic that says AA in the grass? Where is this grass? Even if all of these photos are authentic, they aren't much for a whole 757. And I don't really want to see them, but where are the bodies?
Isn't that enough? Airplane parts land in your yard on a regular basis?
This wasn't a landing, and no, planes have a lot more parts than that.
Are you being serious? I really can't tell. Are you really asking to see every part of the plane before you will believe it was a plane? Do you not recognize that when planes crash at high speed in high energy impacts (head-on), they disintegrate mostly into unrecognizable little bits? Flight 93 was the same way, but had the benefit of no building debris mixed with the airplane debris. So the tiny, unrecognizable bits of airplane debris couldn't be mistaken for anything else.
Also - "landing" in this context is not referring to an airplane landing on a runway (again, can't tell if serious), it was referring to what happens when you drop an object onto the ground. Since airplane parts aren't dropping onto your lawn on a regular basis, it shouldn't take a lot of photos of airplane parts in and around the Pentagon to accept that it was probably hit by an airplane.
That's self-contradictory. "Authentic" is authentic: if the photos of airplane parts in/around the Pentagon are authentic, by definition they prove that an airplane crashed into the Pentagon.
Can you not admit the possibility that we are being mislead about what happened on 9/11? That's the real issue. Neither you or I know just what sort of a crash site a 757 hitting the Pentagon would have left. If you watched the appropriate part of the video, along with a few other bits that make the second 'passenger' jet to hit the Twin Towers a questionable assumption, then you could talk.
That question is pointlessly broad: the scientific method dictates that no theory can ever be 100% proven so it is correct, but pointless, in all cases to say that the opposite is "possible". So what? 99+% proven is good enough for me on 9/11 and good enough to enable you to have confidence that your computer won't spontaneously explode while you are typing on it due to all of the protons in it simultaneously decaying and destroying the earth. What you suggest is an appeal to/exaggeration of ignorance: we can't know everything so we should assume we know nothing. Wrong question. The right question is which possibility is better proven. And the answer, by a mile, is that we have a high degree of confidence that a plane hit the Pentagon.
You aren't even hitting on the interesting questions. These questions are mundane and beside the point. Why did someone from the FAA cut up all the tape recordings of the air traffic controllers recorded on that day? Why were Bin Laden's relatives allowed to leave the country? Why were they here?
People are definitely trying to mislead us (google "loose change" for a good example.) Fortunately they are in the minority.
It's not a questionable assumption. There are video records, still pictures, air traffic control radar returns, recordings of air traffic control conversations with the pilots and documentation of phone calls from passengers on the plane. Body parts were recovered and matched to passengers on the manifest. The impact of the second plane was confirmed far beyond a reasonable doubt.