Unless you have watched the video, there's really no need to comment. No one is denying that some planes hit some buildings on that day. The question is what planes and why. You really need to see the video if you wan to discuss the video. Please notice the thread's title. We are not discussing if 9/11 happened. We are discussing the contents of a video about it.
Interesting 9/11 video
- Thread starter Kittamaru
- Start date
Well, no, that's not really true: we were discussing the authenticity of the photos Trippy posted.
One thing I forgot to add to my last post: it is important to note that while there is a lot of evidence of the conventional explanation for the events, there is precisely zero evidence for any unconventional explanation. There is only speculation that the evidence for the conventional explanation could have been faked.
I got through 18 minutes and it is really painful to watch. It starts with the misuse of the word "theory": the term "conspiracy theory" is a misnomer: what they are is conspiracy lies, conspiracy idle speculation and conspiracy assumptions. In order to qualify as a theory, it must first have solid evidence behind it. Then, it moves on to tortured logic and misinterpretation of facts. Every few seconds is a new one -- we'd have to write a book to catch them all. A few:
1. Wrong claims about the hole in the Pentagon being big enough to swallow a plane.
2. Photos of lack of smoke/heat damage parts of the building that weren't on fire (duh): when the building collapsed it exposed parts that were not exposed to the fire.
3. Really stupid claim from someone with no qualifications that the Pentagon fuel fire should have burned for days and reduced it to the thickness of a pancake.
4. False claims (again/repeatedly) that there was no wreckage outside the Pentagon.
5. Illogical claim that evidence of any kind of coverup would be evidence for the conventional explanation being untrue. This is false because the Pentagon is a military installation with high security and it should be expected that evidence would be withheld.
Last edited:
Troll much?
I Posted a selection of the photos I found. You understand the law of the conservation of momentum don't you?
Where do you think most of the debris should have ended up?
There are no bodies in those photos because I deliberately avoided the photos with bodies in them, as I said I would.
Right... So, at a limit of three photos per post, how many photos do you want to see?
I Posted a selection of the photos I found. You understand the law of the conservation of momentum don't you?
Where do you think most of the debris should have ended up?
If you don't want to see them then why ask?
There are no bodies in those photos because I deliberately avoided the photos with bodies in them, as I said I would.
Yeah... Let's just ignore the other five photos and the explanation why the debris field should be expected to not be seen in some photos.
Arne.
Most of the plane would be made from light alloys with relatively low melting points.
So long as there is an intense fire, the missing plane body is not really a mystery.
Most of the plane would be made from light alloys with relatively low melting points.
So long as there is an intense fire, the missing plane body is not really a mystery.
Well, yes! This thread is about the film. Trippy didn't watch it, so why would we need to discuss his remarks about a film he didn't see?
These seem reasonable enough. (1) Can you explain what size the hole should be then? (2&3) How wold you know this? Who is it that has no qualifications? (4) Of course, there was some wreckage explain, but wreckage from what? The one published security camera shows that a plane did hit the Pentagon. The question is -what plane? And who, if any one much, was on it. An important part of the video, maybe not in the 18 minutes you graced with your watching, was that the second WTC plane was not the plane it seemed. So maybe the Pentagon plane was not either. (5) LOL! Falling for the gov't's old 'security reasons' bit to explain why they're not going to explain anything to anyone.
You see, it's really important to watch a film before commenting on why it is mistaken.
Watch the entire film, and then you can talk. As it is most of what you say is nonsense, idle wordplay and beside the point. If you insist on not watching more than eighteen minutes, why bother discussing the film at all.
I do not necessarily believe everything, or even anything, the film says. I am asking for explanations and counter-arguments to its arguments, but none of you are qualified since you never actually watched the film! And you you hold forth about why it is wrong. There is no way you can know this without seeing it in its entirety.
Please stop trying to come off as a logical, objective scientist when your only investigation is a quick glance at the evidence.
Correction. Last time I commented on it, I stated that I didn't watch it in its entirety, stated coherently why I hadn't watched it in it's entirety, and then subsequently elaborated in detail what my issue was with what had been said in the portion a post which, I note, you have completely ignored.
So to recap:
You have ignored my detailed explanation of what is wrong with the first five minutes of the video.
My post(s) were specifically to address Kitta's statement that he had been unable to find images of the debris, of which you expressed an objection to one of them - this is called cherry picking.
You have ignored the remaining five photos.
You have ignored my point regarding the conservation of momentum.
You have ignored the three links which offer in depth descriptions of the debris that was found inside the pentagon as well as explaining why some photos show no debris field.
Here's another link for you to ignore: ERROR: 'The Pentagon Attack Left Only a Small Impact Hole'
At some point I probably will force myself to sit through the entirety of the video despite your insipid whining, however, that will be at a time when I am not under workplace stress and actually have an hour to sit down and watch, well, anything.
Last edited:
I can't read your mind, so I don't know why you were or why you changed your mind and wanted to start avoiding what you were previously discussing.
The size of the hole that was made is the size it should be. Anyway, clearly, you haven't read the links Trippy provided, because this issue is discussed in detail.
Great! So does this mean you agree that the author/narrator of the video are lying when they say there was no wreckage? Beyond that:
As I said, a point-by-point debunking of this film would take a book-length post to start and years of discussion, which is utterly unreasonable of you to demand, particularly when you have proven yourself quite unwilling to put in any critical effort at all. The obvious errors and lies are plenty for me to deem the rest of the film unwatchable and I have no intent to take the debunking further. Those were just some quick, easy, obvious examples. Beyond that, I invite you to apply your own critical thinking skills and logic to the issue instead of just using an argument by flooding tactic. Basically, you're saying that if we're unwilling to write a book for you, our opinions are invalid -- despite the fact that you are similarly unwilling to do that. I've provided far more and better than you have - I see no evidence that you have watched any of the video - and that's enough for me.
How dare you accuse me of trolling! I am asking for opinions about a video you admit to not watching.
Pose as an objective, cool-headed science forum moderator much?
Sorry, I don't respond to stupid, baiting questions. Are you serious, or are you really this dense?
Do not talk down to me! Patronize much? You deliberately ignore the suppositions and questions of the video on this point because - oh yeah, that's right - you have never watched it!
This is a ridiculous question that could only be asked by someone who hasn't watched the video. What sort of scientific training have you had that makes it all right for you to make pronouncements on things you know nothing about. Moderate much?
:wallbang:
You only think you said this. Just like you think I asked to see bodies. Go back to your science books and learn about groundless suppositions.
Just so the other members know, I have reported Trippy for this contentless, flaming post. let's see if we get any acknowledgment that a moderator can be wrong.
Last edited:
Frankly, Arne, if I didn't already know moderators would see this post, I would report it for trolling and insults. There has been a lot of quality content in the thread, much of it provided by Trippy and none of which was provided by you. Practice what you preach.
This makes no sense whatsoever. I can't understand what you mean.
It is dishonest and provocative for you to accuse me of ignoring a video I could not possibly have known about. I was writing my previous post when Trippy posted that link. I get back to the discussion, and find you accusing me just for the sake of appearing right and good.
Now, you're just making stuff up. of course he never said there is no wreckage. You'll do anything to appear right, will you not?
The errors are only obvious if you haven't heard the man out and listened to all that he has to say. Is this your vaunted scientific method? Listen until your pre-determined opinion is touched upon, stop watching and dismiss the rest as bunk. Okay, thanks for teaching me about cool objectivity, Mr. Science.
My critical effort has been to watch the film and sincerely ask what others think. Yours has been to dismiss the video without watching it. If it makes you feel better to criticize my efforts than to make any real effort of your own, please do that then. Very impressive.
All I see is that you and Trippy want to be right without having watched the video. Now Trippy says he will have to watch it because of my complaints. Do I feel that I have won then? Is the "victory" mine? Not at all! I would have preferred Trippy just not speak belligerently and condescendingly in the first place.
If he had done that, he wouldn't have to watch the film at all!
That's not what I said, I said I hadn't watched it in its entirety, not that I had watched it period.
Ironic really.
I'm serious. Technicaly I only need to produce one photo of wreckage to disprove the hypothesis that there was none. Obviously you have some standard of evidence, some minimum requirement. I'm asking you what it is.
Hypocrite.
I asked you what you understood, not what the video had to say on it. Conservation of momentum predicts that much of the debris should have wound up inside the pentagon with some splashing back out. That's simple physics, and I'm fairly sure my view on that physics will remain unchanged even if I do watch the video.
Again, I asked you what you thought, not what the video said.
Where do I even start with this? For one thing, I've made no pronouncements, I have simply asked you questions, much like you claim to be here to do, and expressed an opinion based on my recollection of physics.
Not yet, but I will if I have to. Funny story - The 'On the Fringe' section had no moderator, so I suggested to James R, on the basis that I was effectively doing it anyway at the time, that he make me a moderator of the section. I then asked James R to make Kittamaru co-moderator with me in this section because of the amount of... I don't know, there are so many words I could use to describe some of the interactions on this forum.
You're right, I had intended to say this but got distracted, and because I got distracted it got moved from the 'To be done' pile to the 'Has been done' pile. It happens sometimes, mea culpa.
Here's what you said:
This is in the context of me stating that I had found photos of human remains at the pentagon and posting a series of photos which did not include said human remains.
Explain something - given that at this point the evidence is photographic, how am I supposed to present you with evidence that there were bodies without posting photos that you really don't want to see. Take a minutue to think about it. You've asked "where are the bodies?" In the context of this discussion, asking where they are as asking for proof that there were any. Asking for proof that there are any, when the only proof is photographic, is asking to see photos which you don't want to see - hence my comment./
Physician heal thyself.
See above.
Frankly!? Is that what you think you're being, frank? You and Trippy walked into this thread throwing out insults and accusations, and admit to not having watched the film the rest of us were discussing. You know the moderators will see these posts? (Before you said you can't read minds). They will see them because I have reported Trippy for ignorant behavior.
Of course that's what you see - even though it's totally untrue, bogus, a lie even.
I actually meant despite (or in spite of) here (i've corrected the original post).
And no, the point that I was trying to make here was that I'm not watching it because of your complaints, I would probably have come back to it anyway. That's the way it goes some times. I watch or read something, toss it to one side in disgust at the lack of professionalism or the mis-use of jargon, then come back to it and watch or read some more of it. Some times I will come back to something over a period of several days and watch it in several sittings. I do the same thing with food I dislike.
Nope. First stone was yours Arne. I commented that I couldn't stomach the misuse of Jargon and you laid into with ad-hominem nonsense such as this:
Source
Perhaps if you toned it down...
Me: "All I see is that you and Trippy want to be right without having watched the video."
Anyone can see that your sole agenda is to be correct, and yet you deny it. You dare to say it's 'totally untrue'!? That very statement shows that it is true - you have either not read or understood the discussion so far, and you just say things without thinking or looking at what's transpired. You can't just make pronouncements like that. And you call me a liar!
It's stupid to start in with the 'you hit me first - no, you hit me' argument. Are we four-year olds? Yes, I said that, in response to you habitual know-it-all attitude and misunderstanding of the terms 'theory' and 'conspiracy theory'. Well, no need to go over all that again. The salient point is your whole dismissive attitude. One could even accuse you of derailing the thread. Kittamaru started it off and said the video was interesting. He drew no conclusion. Then you decide that it's nonsense while amazingly admitting you hadn't watched it. That set me off because so many on this forum make pronouncements without knowing of what they speak. And worse yet, call themselves 'scientific' - and then I see a moderator doing it!
Anyone can see that your sole agenda is to be correct, and yet you deny it. You dare to say it's 'totally untrue'!? That very statement shows that it is true - you have either not read or understood the discussion so far, and you just say things without thinking or looking at what's transpired. You can't just make pronouncements like that. And you call me a liar!
It's stupid to start in with the 'you hit me first - no, you hit me' argument. Are we four-year olds? Yes, I said that, in response to you habitual know-it-all attitude and misunderstanding of the terms 'theory' and 'conspiracy theory'. Well, no need to go over all that again. The salient point is your whole dismissive attitude. One could even accuse you of derailing the thread. Kittamaru started it off and said the video was interesting. He drew no conclusion. Then you decide that it's nonsense while amazingly admitting you hadn't watched it. That set me off because so many on this forum make pronouncements without knowing of what they speak. And worse yet, call themselves 'scientific' - and then I see a moderator doing it!
All I see is that based on the overwhelming evidence, it borders on insane (or possibly goes well past that border) to come up with the delusion that the it was not fight 77 that hit the pentagon.
This was your response to my saying that you hadn't watched the video. If you were not merely grasping at straws here, you would see that I am equating having watched five minutes and misconstruing, with a full 1:1200 of not watching. So this goes to my point that you have no interest in anything save appearing to be correct about absolutely everything.
Really? One photo and the problem is all gone? I would ask if you are serious, but you have just said that you are. :shrug:
I cannot say precisely just now what my standard of evidence is, but I know it's more than some pasted internet photos that could be anything. And recall that I started out and have maintained no opinion either way about what the video purports. I only ask about it. And I get no help from you because you feel free to draw conclusions based on having scoffed at five minutes of over 70 minutes of material. (And you misunderstood the five minutes you did see - I can safely say that because I have the context of the entire video)
Again with the gratuitous insults. When I criticize you, it is because I feel you are not doing your job, and I tell you why I think so. You're response has largely consisted of denial and name-calling. Nice work!
Your physics may very well be sound, but physics and watching and understanding a 70-minute video are two different things. As usual you were showing attitude, it was not a straightforward question,- if you were any good at communication you would not even have posed such a snide question, but just explained the physics. Instead you came out with the snarky, "I Posted a selection of the photos I found. You understand the law of the conservation of momentum don't you?"
Again, I never offered any opinion of the video, that is to say, I have never made any conclusion. I have always merely wanted to follow the discussion, but you burst early onto the scene in post #2 or thereabout to quash any discussion. Moderate much?
I'm sure it must seem that way to you, but mostly you come off as Captain Snarky with a condescending attitude, posing as 'the learned scientist, but mostly just blowing warm, moist air
Mere obfuscation and a side issue - if you take a minute to think about it, of course anyone would know what I mean about not wanting to see dead bodies or why it wouldn't be very nice to see them posted here. I see you obtuse need to misunderstand what I meant as more proof of your just wanting to be right when you know you're wrong to comment on a video you haven't watched.
You say this meaning that too should be objective and scientific. Well, yes, I should be, and I think my one real claim here : watch a video all the way through and understand it before making willfully ignorant pronouncements about it - is objective enough.
Having said that. I have never presented myself as anything but a layman. I am not a scientist. And I am not a science forum moderator. So I have a lot more leeway, and there is no need to 'heal myself'. There's nothing wrong with me.
Then you don't see very far or very much. The video may be seen as suggesting that it was something other than flight 77 that crashed, but no one here has claimed what you suggest. So the delusions are all yours.
Has anyone commenting on this video watched it through and understood the implications? If not, I can't imagine why you would think anything you have to say about it is worth posting.
Hmmmmm:scratchin:, if this thread is any indication, that may be debatable.