Posted on 10/03/2021 8:34:54 AM PDT by joesbucks
Just to be clear, its not me you have to convince that 911 was real. 3000 Americans died that day. I dont tarnish their loss with conspiracy crap.
> “A wise man doesn’t argue with a fool.”
Yes. it was unwise of me to argue with a fool like you. That’s why I said Bye-Bye in #390.
So the floor is yours. argue away, about what I don’t care. Have at it, knock yourself out.
Understand. I was explaining generally about the information, and claims made on this thread. The claims both made by Wood and a FReeper are incorrect.
I get it. And now I have a stalker (Hostage). For someone whose home page is so proud of ‘prestigious academic’ background, he seems to have reach the 7th stage of life according to Shakespeare.
“”So you think the wings, fuselage, landing gear all incinerated with the heat of the explosion?””
Aluminum has a very low melting point, far below the temps of Jet A burning so it can easily melt. There’s also allot of Magnesium involved in the heavier structural parts and they also melt. Should the fire create such a draft that it heats up the Magnesium to it’s burning point and ignites you have a fire that will melt almost anything. So it’s possible that the fire if concentrated enough and hot enough could actually melt and vaporize many parts of a plane.
“”Would you say some AC portions were flung far on impact and should have been found?””
From what I seen on the impacts into buildings I would say you had far more penetration than you did dispersion. It’s hard to stop that much weight going at that speed, there’s just so much momentum. A horizontal or somewhat horizontal impact will disperse but a 90 degree impact doesn’t have any where to go but forward. Lead is very soft yet when fired at a steel plate fast enough will penetrate due to density and momentum. A loaded 747 weights over 900,000 pounds, now imagine that momentum at 650 MPH. They’re moving at about the same speed as a 45 ACP. I could figure out the actual ft/lbs of energy but I’m not sure my calculator can handle it.
“We Sank the KURSK, We Sank The KURSK”!!! Nuked Tin Foil Follies from a couple decades ago. Now that guy could come up with real whoppers before he got nuked from the site LOL. He had a Tin Foil buddy named after a faucet part too LOL.
You do realize that the headline is written by a Newsweek Newspuke Liar with name Jason Lemon don’t you?
Wood did not say no planes hit the Twin Towers. He said no plane hit WTC-7.
But he did say a missile hit the Pentagon which he does not support with facts. That said, there are head-scratching questions all over this damn subject.
The problem is so many FR commentators jump in believing this Puke’s false headline and immediately brand Wood as crazy. Maybe he is, maybe he’s not. But these commentators got played by the twisted headline thereby showing themselves to be fools.
What I do to prevent being fooled by a headline is check the source, check the author(s). If they are known liars, I skip it unless I’m curious about the comments. About 4 out of 5 times I find FR comments get it right. In this instance there’s a half dozen FR idiots making Wood their target. They don’t like people that fart on their little lynch party.
There has been a full frontal media assault on Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani, Sydney Powell, General Mike Flynn, Lin Wood and many, many others. That assault includes big blatant lies that go beyond politics and into criminal areas. These campaigns of lies are based on using taxpayer money. That means we all have a say in it.
Thank you, very good info.
It still seems that some AC remains would be found scattered about. Some have been reported found by third parties but never confirmed by NTSB. So officially, those planes disappeared entirely except for Flight 93 which crashed on the ground.
Wood is going out on a limb here with the comment that it was a missile that hit the Pentagon. He’s going to have to back that up at some point.
You’re like the child who discovers the skeptic’s argument and thinks it’s the height of wisdom. But I assume you aren’t a child and therefore have less excuse for behaving like one.
See https://history.defense.gov/portals/70/documents/pentagon/pentagon9-11.pdf
From your post 235, you write:
“Everything he said on video is factual.”
and you note:
“But then Wood went on to repeat what the investigation found, that there were no aircraft remains in the WTC or the Pentagon”
Neither of those statements are accurate when referring to aircraft remains at the Pentagon. From “Pentagon 09/11”:
1) From p. 19 - “Parts of the aircraft-including a tire part hurtled through the outer three rings of Pentagon offices, emerged from a so called "punch out" hole in the C Ring wall, and came to rest in A-E Drive. The planes voice recorder and flight data recorder were not recovered until several days later, 14 September.“
2) Between p. 82 and 83 - there is a photo titled “In A-E Drive, debris and airplane tire remnant”
3) From p. 160 - “The aircraft's flight data and cockpit voice recorders, the so~called"black boxes;' were found 14 September about 4:00 a.m. in the Pentagon near the hole in the inner C Ring wall”
From your post 261, you write:
“Wood referred to the official reports and those reports said no AC remains were found.”
1) Again, what “official reports” are you referring to? I’m using the report from the Historical Office of the OSD - it reports that AC remains were found.
and:
“All the usual fake news suspects chimed in with reports that AC remains were found but they were never proven.”
2) Yes, they were - see the report “Pentagon 09/11” and the answer above
“Wood is careful to make claims to facts backed by evidence. “
3) He isn’t in regards to AC remains in/near the Pentagon.
From your post 291:
“The OFFICIAL reports found no AC remains around WTC or the Pentagon.”
“The unofficial news stories were never proven.”
1) And again, that’s incorrect based on the report from the Historical Office of the OSD - it reports that AC remains were found.
2) And again, no idea what official reports you are referring to.
From your post 323:
“If a plane hit the Pentagon, where is the plane?
I wasn’t there so I don’t know.
But you apparently know everything. Were you there?
I wasn’t there so exactly who and what am I supposed to believe and why should I?
Why do people feel they can read something on the internet and come away knowing anything when they were never there to begin with?
There were photos and writing about finding AC debris but then there were people working in their offices inside the Pentagon who claim no AC debris was ever found. April Gallop is said to have literally climbed out of the wreckage of the Pentagon where the ‘plane’ hit saying there was zero AC debris.”
1) Please refer to the reference above from "Pentagon 09/11" - it reports that AC remains were found.
From your post 354:
“How do you know for sure? Were you an eye witness?
Are you saying people should believe what they didn’t see and hear?”
1) The vast, vast majority of people were not at the Pentagon, or WTC on 09/11. But as you point out that does not mean they can’t have a data informed viewpoint on what happened.
Am pinging you to see my post to Hostage that indeed aircraft remains were found at and in the Pentagon. Just an FYI.
Oh how interesting. But sorry, history.defense.gov compiles oral interviews and is not an official accident investigative source.
Eye witness testimony for flash accidents is notoriously unreliable, every good detective and investigator knows this:
Expert explains why eyewitness testimonies can be unreliable in solving crimes
https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/expert-explains-eyewitness-testimonies-unreliable-solving-crimes-51054920
Am I saying these oral interviews are a bunch of lies? No, I am saying I wasn’t there, I don’t know anything about what was witnessed because I wasn’t there.
Someone might say “But AC remains were recovered!”
I would respond “There are people that say differently.”
“You mean AC remains weren’t recovered?”
“I don’t know, I wasn’t there.”
“But you believe no AC parts were found!”
“No, I don’t believe that, I don’t disbelieve it, I wasn’t there, I am not a witness.”
“But there were witnesses to the plane hitting the Pentagon!”
“Well, I don’t doubt that but there were also reported to be witnesses who have a different view like this guy Bob Pugh in the following video”:
Pentagon Eyewitness Bob Pugh Tells His Story
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xtEJ4zrIPM
Is Bob Pugh in this video a moron or conspiracy theorist? He ‘seems’ reasonable to me but I can’t say one way or the other.
“A report was made that someone from the FBI recovered blackbox/flight recorders from Flight 77. You don’t believe that?”
“I can’t say they were recovered. I can say that someone said that someone said they were recovered.”
If someone criticized me for doubting an FBI connected person found the recorders, I would respond “Ever hear of James Comey? Andrew McCabe? Peter Strzok?”
Does that mean Lin Wood lied? No, it doesn’t. It means he has some explaining to do.
Could Lin be mistaken? He could be, do I know that he is? No.
If someone said a missile hit the Pentagon on 911, I would ask, “What happened to Barbara Olsen?” I would ask Lin this.
If someone said airliners crashing into the Twin Towers caused them to fall, I would ask, “What about WTC-8?”
If someone said you’re a kook because there is no WTC-8, I would say, “oh sorry, it was a typo, I meant WTC-7.”
“No, no you’re trying to lie you’re way out of it, you were caught saying a building that doesn’t exist fell on 911 la-la-la-la!”
I would say, “have fun.”
But what is clear is you took a history compilation off the internet and used it to push a view of something you didn’t see. Why didn’t you find the authoritative source, the NTSB investigation report?
It’s said the NTSB was ordered to be silent by the FBI. If that’s true, why? If the FBI has jurisdiction over the evidence found by the NTSB investigators, why haven’t they released it all by now? Some of it was released years after the fact. Does it’s partial release have something to do with what President Trump said? That we would learn who is really behind 911?
The point is you are not a witness in this but act like you are and you are judgmental about people that don’t follow your non-witness witness. Have fun being you.
Hmmm.
The report “Pentagon 09/11” is much, much more than oral history. The report provides footnotes to primary sources and includes photos of AC parts in the Pentagon.
But even that is not good enough because now, wait for it - a historical record complied by the Pentagon historical office is not...the NTSB report. Wow.
And all this after you claimed in post after post 291 “ The OFFICIAL reports found no AC remains around WTC or the Pentagon.” Hmm. How do YOU know what the “OFFICIAL reports contain? And WHAT official reports are you referring to? You never seem to answer that question. My guess is because you were caught out making a claim you can’t back up.
What is probably the most disquieting is the “You weren’t there so you don’t know” theme. It’s intellectually lazy and the same sort of line (“We weren’t there so we don’t know what happened”) that was trotted out by a couple of FReepers when Mike Lindell’s Cyber Symposium didn’t deliver on what was claimed by Lindell.
As you allude to, the NTSB Safety Board does not plan to issue a report., and that some documents were released in 2017. So for now, the report/book “Pentagon 09/11” issued by the OSD Historical Office is the most authoritative official document that is publicly available.
Good luck!
See post 414.
This is what we’re dealing with (in part “You weren’t there so how could you know?).
Oh well!
I think it’s the alcohol...
BTTT
Fuck off
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.