 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
221.165.250.250
In Reply to: Re: Internet film documentary on 9/11 posted by sjb on December 24, 2006 at 08:34:49:
They show footage of the pentagon in slow motion -- there is no plane anywhere to be seen -- what about their argument related to the blast hole size versus the size of the plane. Not to mention the wrong engine parts being found. As they note jey fuel cannot reach the temperature to Vaporize the materials in the plane.And the Flight 93 thing is just odd - I would really like for something to be done on that. The vaporization argument is about as intelligent as the "magic bullit" theory that Arlen Spector pawned off on the sheep for Kennedy's Death. Though it certainly has not hurt his career.
Follow Ups:
They show five frames of footage shot by a camera that only shot a frame every second or so. A plane or anything else going by at 500+mph isn't going to show up very well.The hole is about perfect for the fuselage of a 757. The wings and tail would come off. Who says the wrong engine parts were found? The makers of the film? How do you know that they're showing you everything that was found. How do you even know that that picture of the engine part came from the Pentagon crash site.
They show a periodic table and then tell us what jet fuel can and can't burn or melt, etc. Did you double check those figures or just take their word for it? What studies did they show in reagrds to the effects of that kind of impact against reinforced concrete and steel by the wing and tail sections?
By basically saying that what they've said and shown is the truth and dossn't leave out things that go against their argument you're certainly giving them a LOT of latitiude.
I'm not saying that there aren't legitimate question marks just that these "documentary" makers did a piss poor job of making a case that withstands even a little bit of scrutiny. And if they can't be honest about how they show you what they show you how can we trust them to be honest about what they're surmising.
Don't piss on my shoe and tell me it's raining.
Perhaps you are unacquainted with airframe structure? The load-bearing assembly is the wings, not the fuselage. Us passengers are nothing, compared to the engines and fuel tanks and other sub-structure supported by the wing assembly. If anything, one would expect *that* to make a mark, not the fuselage.As for, "They show five frames of footage shot by a camera that only shot a frame every second or so", the problem there lies in that fact that dozens of cameras (if not more) covered that most-highly-secure piece of property in the Capital area. Why have we not been shown what was captured on any of those others, huh, huh?
"Who says the wrong engine parts were found? The makers of the film? How do you know that they're showing you everything that was found." Perhaps you've not seen the film? In fact they show Pentagon types actually collecting parts strewn on the ground and sequestering them beneath large folds of blue canvas. What *were* those parts? If from an airliner, why not present them to the public?
"Did you double check those figures or just take their word for it?" (Ahem.) We assume *you* double-checked; so what did you find?
"And if they can't be honest about how they show you what they show you..." And how exactly were they dishonest? That's a mightly bold assertion! You've offered us nothing.
clark
First of all if you are saying they did a piss poor job with their evidence then where and what have you checked that illustrates where they have gone wrong? Simply writing on a forum that their facts are wrong does not make it so so you are just as guilty as saying that people watching the film are simpletons for "trusting" the evidence that they present.They interviewed the people who make the engine on that plane and the one at the crash site. It would be easy to check the information but since the government does not release anything of vital importance to get the facts you are left to go by the evidence you have left over.
I must say you are awfully willing to believe what the government doles out despite all of the incredible scientfic coincidences that they are asking us all to accept to buy what they dish out. Flight 93 could not scientifically vaporize. I mean the passport survives the jet fuel but the plane or skyscrapers do not. Wow it's not a magic bullit - it's a magic passport made from mystical alien paper of some sort.
Remember the point is to get people to ask questions not that they have all the answers. I would like to have had a list of sources on their film to back check. You can however clearly see explosivve charges on the towers -- all the eyewitnesses -- I guess they're all lying.
I know it's very tough to believe that a government - espeically the one you believe in - could ever do a single nefarious thing. After all nobody in government could ever do something corrupt in the name of money or power. - they truly believe in freedom for all and power to the people and freedom of choice and tolerance for all -- well unless your gay.
providing actual evidence then I don't know what to say. To argue back that my disappointment with how poorly they support their argument means that I believe the government's version of the events of that day is just silly and shows that you can't really support anything they're saying. I also can't help but notice that you didn't address any of the several points I made in two posts about the sloppiness of their presentation.To say that questions should be asked is obvious. I said so myself in my first response.
Also, I truly believe that pursuing these kinds of silly theories
Don't piss on my shoe and tell me it's raining.
The problem is that when people are called whackos for suggesting a plane did not hit the Pentagon is doing the real disservice. Why won't the government simply show the video footage? Unless in fact they are trying to cover up the fact that no plane hit it.Why does flight 93 have a confirmed landing at another airport - Why is the wreckage so appalingly light, why did WTC number 7 fall down? I mean that is probably the biggest head scratcher of all -- man those New York builders must be the worst in the world - I know Aerican cars are bad but geez must be the worst carpenters, builders and engineers on the planet.
It boils down to ludicrous explanations -- no way did those planes vaporize and no way do those towers fall down from Jet fuel and paper after an hour when a freaking B52 Bomber hits the Empire State Building and not only did that burn longer and hotter it is a weaker structure and it's still up.
The makers of the film are not saying they have the answer -- they just don't buy the canned government response -- they hypothesize that gee maybe it was a cruise missile because it is the same general size. The news reports had totally different eyewitness accounts -- some paid lackies? Who knows but it's a pretty big difference going from jet liner to small craft depending on who said what that day. Not to mention all the second third etc explosions everyone was hearing.
We're to believe that a bunch of apes with box cutters managed to take down 4 planes? If I was one of those planes I would have taken a pen and jabbed it into the guy's throat or eyeball and taken them down (and I'm not even American). Sorry I don't but the BS the gov't is doling out. That does not make the filmaker's 100% correct but there is a lot of smoke there that the government could clear up but isn't -- and why not? Please don't say National Security -- if there was any National Security 9/11 would not have happened!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
