user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
The answer is in every credible and respected dictionary.
Voted : FALSE
False a theory in science is supported with facts but not completely proven to be true.
^what this guy said.
Voted : TRUE
true yet certan facists who shall remain nameless think there facts.
by seon on Tue Aug 08, 06 12:10am
[+]
False as your grandmother's teeth.
Voted : FALSE
A theory is an assessment built on a base of data.
A hypothesis is a speculative statement. The two are not equivalent.
The answer is in every credible and respected dictionary?!?
You lazy git ... you couldn't even provide the quiz answer?!?
Good grief Cathexis, can you not recognize a facetious question? No educated person should have to look up the answer. I'm surprised you wouldn't know the difference between theory and proven fact, thus seeing the obvious, that this is a sardonic ballot. You will find sardonic in your dictionary near sarcasm. Unless you are too lazy to search!
The ballot pic is awesome, btw
Voted : FALSE
A theory is NOT a hypothesis.
A hypothesis is a POSSIBLE explanantion yet to be tested scientifically.
Hypothesis becomes theory when it is backed up by valid, verifiable and reliable evidence.
Famous theories: Relativity, Newton's Gravitation, Evolution
No, sorry but you are wrong. Once a theory is investigated, tested and proven it becomes "law".
Newton's Theory is now "Law of Gravity".
Unless it is proven it is always a theory and only a theory.
I said look it up didn't I?
"And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
L. Moran
Next!
"The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena."
J. Wilson
A Law is NOT the next step up from a theory - I guess that choosing Newton was a bad example but strike that example from my list and the rest still holds true.
There will NEVER be a Law of evolution or a law of relativity.
Now who needs to do some research?
Voted : TRUE
Albert Einstein knew that a theory is nothing more than speculation.
"If my theory of relativity is proven successful, Germany will claim me as a German and France will declare that I am a citizen of the world. Should my theory prove untrue, France will say that I am a German and Germany will declare that I am a Jew."
A theory is nothing more than a theory, unless proven true.
Next.
One of the wilder stories circulating about Sept 11, and one that has attracted something of a cult following amongst conspiracy buffs is that it was carried out by 19 fanatical Arab hijackers, masterminded by an evil genius named Osama bin Laden, with no apparent motivation other than that they "hate our freedoms."
Never a group of people to be bothered by facts, the perpetrators of this cartoon fantasy have constructed an elaborately woven web of delusions and unsubstantiated hearsay in order to promote this garbage across the internet and the media to the extent that a number of otherwise rational people have actually fallen under its spell.
Normally I don't even bother debunking this kind of junk, but the effect that this paranoid myth is beginning to have requires a little rational analysis, in order to consign it to the same rubbish bin as all such silly conspiracy theories.
These crackpots even contend that the extremist Bush regime was caught unaware by the attacks, had no hand in organizing them, and actually would have stopped them if it had been able to.
Blindly ignoring the stand down of the US air-force, the insider trading on airline stocks - which remains uninvestigated, the complicit behaviour of Bush on the morning of the attacks, the controlled demolition of the WTC, the firing of a missile into the Pentagon and a host of other documented proofs that the Bush regime was behind the attacks, the conspiracy theorists stick doggedly to a silly story about 19 Arab hijackers somehow managing to commandeer 4 planes simultaneously and fly them around US airspace for nearly 2 hours , crashing them into important buildings, without the US intelligence services having any idea that it was coming, and without the Air Force knowing what to do.
The huge difficulties with such a stupid story force them to invent even more stupid stories to distract from its core silliness, and thus it has escalated into a mythic fantasy of truly gargantuan proportions.
It's difficult to apply rational analysis to such unmitigated stupidity, but that is the task which I take on in this article. However, it should be noted that one of the curious characteristics of conspiracy theorists is that they effortlessly change their so called evidence in response to each aspect which is debunked. As soon as one delusion is unmasked, they simply invent another to replace it, and deny that the first ever existed.
Eventually, when they have turned full circle through this endlessly changing fantasy fog, they then re-invent the original delusion and deny that you ever debunked it, thus beginning the circle once more. This technique is known as "the fruit loop" and saves the conspiracy theorist from ever having to see any of their ideas through to their (il)logical conclusions.
According to the practitioners of the fruit loop, 19 Arabs took over the 4 planes by subduing the passengers and crew through the use of guns, knives ,box cutters and gas, and then used electronic guidance systems which they had smuggled on board to fly the planes to their targets.
The suspension of disbelief required for this outrageous concoction is only for the hard core conspiracy theorist.
For a start, they conveniently skip over the awkward fact that there weren't any Arabs on the planes.
If there were, one must speculate that they somehow got on board without being filmed by any of the security cameras and without being registered on the passenger lists.
But the curly question of how they are supposed to have got on board is all too mundane for the exciting world of the conspiracy theorist.
With vague mumblings that they must have been using false ID ( but never specifying which IDs they are alleged to have used, or how these were traced to their real identities), they quickly bypass this problem, to relate exciting and sinister tales about how some of the fictitious fiends were actually searched before boarding because they looked suspicious.
However, as inevitably happens with any web of lies, this simply paints them into an even more difficult corner. How are they supposed to have got on board with all that stuff if they were searched ? And if they used gas in a confined space, they would have been affected themselves unless they also had masks in their luggage.
"Excuse me sir, why do you have a box cutter, a gun, a container of gas, a gas mask and an electronic guidance unit in your luggage?"
"A present for your grandmother? Very well sir, on you get."
"Very strange", thinks the security officer. "That's the fourth Arabic man without an Arabic name who just got on board with a knife, gun or box cutter and gas mask. And why does that security camera keep flicking off every time one these characters shows up? Must be one of those days I guess..."
Asking any of these basic questions to a conspiracy theorist is likely to cause a sudden leap to the claim that we know that they were on board because they left a credit card trail for the tickets they had purchased and cars they had rented. So if they used credit cards that identified them, how does that reconcile with the claim that they used false IDs to get on to the plane?
But by this time, the fruit loop is in full swing, as the conspiracy theorist tries to stay one jump ahead of this annoying and awkward rational analysis. They will point to the fact that the hijackers passports were allegedly found at the crash scenes. "So there!" they exalt triumphantly, their fanatical faces lighting up with that deranged look of one who has just a revelation of questionable sanity.
Hmm? So they got on board with false IDs but took their real passports with them? However, by this time the fruit loop has been completely circumnavigated, and the conspiracy theorist exclaims impatiently "Who said anything about false IDs? We know what seats they were sitting in! Their presence is well documented!" And so the whole loop starts again.
"Well, why aren't they on the passenger lists?"
"You numbskull ! They assumed the identities of other passengers!" And so on…
Finally, out of sheer fascination with this circular method of creative delusion, the rational sceptic will allow them to get away with this loop, in order to move on to the next question, and see what further delights await us in the unravelling of this marvellously stupid story.
"Uh, how come their passports survived fiery crashes that completely incinerated the planes and all the passengers? "
The answer of course is that its just one of those strange co-incidences, those little quirks of fate that do happen from time to time. You know, like the same person winning the lottery four weeks in a row. The odds are astronomical, but these things do happen...
This is another favourite deductive method of the conspiracy theorist. The "improbability drive", in which they decide upon a conclusion without any evidence whatsoever to suggest it, and then speculate a series of wildly improbable events and unbelievable co-incidences to try to support it, shrugging off the implausibility of each event with the vague assertion that sometimes the impossible happens (just about all the time in their world).
There is a principle called "Occam's razor" which suggests that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the simplest explanation is most likely to be correct.
Having for the sake of amusement, allowed them to get away with the silly story of the 19 invisible Arabs, we move on to the question of how they are supposed to have taken over the planes.
Hijacking a plane is not an easy thing to do. Hijacking it without the crew being able to alert Air Traffic Control (ATC ) is almost impossible. The crew needs only to punch in a four digit code to alert ATC to a hijacking. Unconcerned with the awkward question of plausibility, the conspiracy buffs maintain that on that Sept 11, the invisible hijackers took over the plane by the crude method of threatening people with box cutters and knives, shooting and stabbing passengers to try to lure the crew out of the cockpit and spraying gas (after they had attached their masks, obviously). And yet, miraculously they were able to take control of the plane without the crew first getting a chance to punch in the hijacking code.
Not just on one plane, but on all four. At this point in the tale, the conspiracy theorist is again forced to call upon the services of the improbability drive.
So now that our incredibly lucky hijackers have taken control of the planes, all four pilots fly them with breath taking skill and certainty to their fiery end, all four pilots unflinching in their steely resolve for a swift meeting with Allah. Apart from their psychotic hatred of "our freedoms", it was their fanatical devotion to Islam which enabled them to summon up the iron will for this dreadful deed.
Which is strange, because according to another piece of hearsay peddled by the conspiracy buffs, these guys actually went out drinking and womanizing the night before their great martyrdom, even leaving their Korans in the bar -really impeccable Islamic behaviour - and then got up at 5am the next morning to pull off the greatest covert operation in history. This also requires us to believe that they were even clear headed enough to learn how to fly the huge planes by reading flight manuals in Arabic in the car on the way to the airport. We know this because they supposedly left the flight manuals there for us to find.
It gets better. Their practical training had allegedly been limited to Cessnas and flight simulators, but this was no barrier to the unflinching certainty with which they took over the planes and skilfully guided them to their doom. If they are supposed to have done their flight training with these tools, which would be available just about anywhere in the world, its not clear why they would have decided to risk blowing their cover to US intelligence services by doing the training in Florida, rather than somewhere in the Middle East, but such reasoning is foreign to the foggy world of the conspiracy theorist, too trapped in the constant rotation of the fruit loop to make their unsubstantiated fabrications seem even semi- believable.
Having triumphantly established a circular delusion in support of the mythical Arabs, the conspiracy theorist now confronts the difficult question of why there's nothing left of the planes. Anybody who has seen the endlessly replayed footage of the second plane going into the WTC will realize that for a plane to instantly blow itself up into nothing like that, it would have to be packed with explosives. Planes do not and cannot blow up into nothing in that manner when they crash.
But lets humour the conspiracy theorists and suppose that this crude cartoon designed to hide whatever really hit the building was actually a real plane.
Did the mythical Arabs also haul a huge heap of explosives on board, and mange to deploy them in such a manner that they went off in the exact instant of the crash, completely vaporising the plane? This is a little difficult even for the conspiracy theorist, who at this point decides that its easier to invent new laws of physics in order to keep the delusion rolling along.
There weren't any explosives. It wasn't an inside job. The plane blew up into nothing from its exploding fuel load!
Remarkable! Sluggishly combustible jet fuel which is basically kerosene, and usually burns at about 400c has suddenly taken on the qualities of a ferociously explosive demolition agent, vaporizing 70 tons of aircraft into a puff of smoke. Never mind that a plane of that size contains around 23 tons of steel and titanium, of which even the melting points are about four times that of the normal combustion temperature of kerosene. And forget about the boiling point of these metals, which is what would be required to vaporize a plane. And then there's about 47 tons of aluminium to be accounted for. In excess of 15lbs of metal for each gallon of kerosene.
For the conspiracy theorist, such inconvenient facts are vaguely dismissed as "mumbo jumbo". This convenient little phrase is their answer to just about anything factual or logical. Like a conjurer pulling a rabbit out of a hat, they suddenly become fanatically insistent about the devastating explosive qualities of kerosene, something hitherto completely unknown to science, but just discovered by them, this very minute.
Determinedly ignoring the fact that never before or since in aviation history has a plane vaporised into nothing from an exploding fuel load, the conspiracy theorist relies upon Hollywood images, where the effects are always larger than life, and certainly larger than the intellects of these cretins.
"Its a well known fact that planes blow up into nothing on impact!" they state with pompous certainty. "Watch any Bruce Willis movie!"
"Care to provide any documented examples? If it's a well known fact, then presumably this well known fact springs from some kind of documentation - other than Bruce Willis movies ?"
At this point the mad but cunning eyes of the conspiracy theorist will narrow as they sense the corner into which they have backed themselves and plan their escape by means of another stunning back flip.
"Ah, but planes have never crashed into buildings before, so there's no way of telling." they counter with a sly grin.
“Well, actually planes have crashed into buildings before and since, and not vaporised into nothing.”
"But not big planes, with that much fuel ! ", they shriek in hysterical denial.
“Or that much metal to vaporise. “
"Yes, but not hijacked planes !"
"Are you suggesting that whether the crash is deliberate or accidental affects the combustion qualities of the fuel?"
"Now you're just being silly".
Although collisions with buildings are rare, planes frequently crash into mountains, streets, other aircraft, nosedive into the ground, or have bombs planted aboard them, and don't vaporise into nothing. What's so special about hitting a building?
But by now, the conspiracy theorist has once again sailed happily around the fruit loop. "Its a well documented fact that planes explode into nothing on impact."
Effortlessly weaving back and forth between the position that its a "well known fact" and that "its never happened before, so we have nothing to compare it to", the conspiracy theorist has now convinced themselves (if not too many other people) that the WTC plane was not loaded with explosives, and that the instant vaporisation of the plane in a massive fireball was the same as any other plane crash you might care to mention. Round and round the fruit loop…
But the hurdles which confront the conspiracy theorist are many, and they are now forced to implement even creative more uses for the newly discovered shockingly destructive qualities of kerosene. They have to explain how the Arabs also engineered the elegant vertical collapse of both the WTC towers as well as building 7, and for this awkward fact the easiest counter is to simply deny that it was a controlled demolition, and claim that the buildings collapsed from fire caused by the burning kerosene.
This makes it necessary to sweep aside the second law of thermodynamics and propose kerosene which is not only impossibly destructive, but also recycles itself for a second burning in violation of the law of degradation of energy. You see, it not only consumed itself in a sudden catastrophic fireball , vaporising a 70 ton plane into nothing, but then came back for a second go, burning at 2000C for another hour at the impact point, melting the skyscraper's steel like butter. And while it was doing all this it also poured down the elevator shafts starting fires all through the building. When I was at school there a little thing called the entropy law which suggests that a given portion of fuel can only burn once, something which is readily observable in the real world, even for those who didn't make it to junior high school science. But this is no problem for the conspiracy theorist. Their insane eyes glinting madly, they claim that a few thousand gallons of kerosene is enough to
: completely vaporise a 70 ton aircraft
: have enough left over to burn so ferociously for over an hour at the impact point that it melted massive steel construction beams ( melting point about double the maximum combustion temperature of the fuel ).
: still have enough left over to pour down the elevator shafts and start similarly destructive fires all through the building.
Kerosene really is remarkable stuff! How chilling to realize that those kerosene heaters we had in the house when I was a kid were deadly bombs, just waiting to go off. One false move and the entire street might have been vaporised. And never again will I take kerosene lamps out camping. One moment you're there innocently holding the lamp - the next - kapow! Vaporised into nothing - along with the rest of the camp site - with still enough of the deadly stuff left to start a massive forest fire.
These whackos are actually claiming that the mythical raging inferno allegedly created by this miraculously recycling, and impossibly hot burning kerosene melted or at least softened the steel supports of the skyscraper. Oblivious to the fact that the smoke coming from the WTC was black, which indicates an oxygen starved fire -therefore not particularly hot, they trumpet an alleged temperature in the building of 2000 C , without a shred of evidence to support this curious suspension of the laws of physics.
Not content with this ludicrous garbage, they then contend that as the steel girders softened they came straight down instead of buckling and twisting and falling sideways.
Since they're already re-engineered the combustion qualities of kerosene, violated the second law of thermodynamics, and re-invented the structural properties of steel, why let a little thing like the laws of gravity get in the way?
All three buildings fell in a time almost identical to that of a free falling object, dropped from that height, meaning that its physically impossible for it to have collapsed by the method of the top floors smashing through the lower floors. But according to the conspiracy theorists, the laws of gravity were temporarily suspended on the morning of Sept 11.
It appears that the evil psychic power of those dreadful Arabs knows no bounds. Even after they were dead, they were able, by the power of their evil spirits, to force down the towers at a speed physically impossible under the laws of gravity, had it been meeting any resistance from fireproofed steel structures, originally designed to withstand many tons of hurricane force wind as well as the impact of a large passenger jet straying off course.
Clearly, these conspiracy nuts never did their science homework at school, but did become extremely adept at inventing tall tales for why.
"Muslim terrorists stole my notes, sir"
"No miss, the kerosene heater blew up and vaporised everything in the street, except for my passport."
"You see sir, the school bus was hijacked by Arabs who destroyed my homework because they hate our freedoms."
Or perhaps they misunderstood the term "creative science" and mistakenly thought that coming up with such rubbish was in fact, their science homework.
The ferocious heat generated by the ghastly kerosene was, according to the conspiracy theorists, the reason why so many of the WTC victims can't be identified. DNA is destroyed by such heat. This is quite remarkable, because according to the conspiracy theorist, the nature of DNA suddenly changes if you go to a different city. That's right! If you are killed by an Arab terrorist in NY, your DNA will be destroyed by such temperatures. But if you are killed by an Arab terrorist in Washington DC, your DNA will be so robust that it can survive temperatures which completely vaporise a 70 ton aircraft.
You see, these loonies have somehow concocted the idea that the missile which hit the pentagon was not a missile at all, but one of the hijacked planes. And to prove this unlikely premise, they point to a propaganda statement from the Bush regime, which rather stupidly claims that all but one of the people aboard the plane were identified from the site by DNA testing, even though nothing remains of the plane. The plane was vaporised by the fuel tank explosion, maintain these space loonies, but the people inside it were all but one identified by DNA testing.
So there you have it. The qualities of DNA are different, depending upon which city you're in, or perhaps depending upon which fairy story you're trying to sell at any particular time.
This concoction about one of the hijacked planes hitting the Pentagon really is a howler. For those not familiar with the layout of the Pentagon, it consists of 5 rings of building, each with a space in between of lower building height. Each ring of building is about 30 to 35 ft deep, with a similar depth of lower level space between the rings.
The missile which the Bush regime fired into it, went in at about a 45 degree angle, punching a neat hole less than 20 ft wide, less than 20 ft high through three rings-about 250 ft into the building
A little later a section of wall about 65 ft wide collapsed in the outer ring. Since the plane which the conspiracy theorists claim to be responsible for the impact had a wing span of 125 ft and a length of 155 ft , and a tail height of 40 ft, and there was no wreckage of the plane, either inside or outside the building, and the lawns outside were still smooth and green enough to play golf on, this crazy delusion is clearly physically impossible.
But hey, we've already disregarded the combustion qualities of kerosene, the properties of DNA, the laws of gravity, the second law of thermodynamics, and invented imaginary properties for building materials, so what the hell - why not throw in a little spatial impossibility as well ?
I would have thought that the observation that a solid object cannot pass through another solid object without leaving a hole at least as big as itself is reasonably sound science. But to the conspiracy nut, this is "mumbo jumbo". It conflicts with their mad delusion, so it must be wrong although trying to get then to explain the specifics of how it could be wrong is a futile endeavour.
Conspiracy nuts fly into a curious panic whenever the Pentagon missile is mentioned. They shriek that the plane was vaporised by it's exploding fuel load and point to the WTC crash as evidence of this behaviour.
(Fruit loop warning !! )
Like an insect which has just been sprayed, running back and forth in its last mad death throes, they first argue that the reason the hole is so small is that plane never entered the wall, having blown up outside, and then suddenly back flip to explain the 250 ft deep missile hole by saying that the plane disappeared all the way into the building, and then blew up inside the building (even though the building shows no sign of such damage).
As for what happened to the wings - here's where they get really creative. The wings snapped off and folded into the fuselage which then carried them into the building, which then closed up behind the plane like a piece of meat.
When it suits them they'll also claim that the plane slid in on its belly, (ignoring the undamaged lawn) while at the same time citing alleged witnesses to the plane diving steeply into the building from above. How they reconcile these two scenarios as being compatible is truly a study in stupidity.
Once they get desperate enough, you can be sure that the UFO conspiracy stuff will make an appearance. The Arabs are in league with the Martians. Space aliens snatched the remains of the Pentagon plane and fixed most of the hole in the wall, just to confuse people. They gave the Arabs invisibility pills to help get them onto the planes. Little green men were seen were seen talking to Bin Laden a few weeks prior to the attacks.
As the nation gears up to impeach the traitor Bush, and prevent his endless war, it's not helpful to have these idiots distracting from the process by spreading silly conspiracy theories about mythical Arabs, stories which do nothing but play into the hands of the extremist Bush regime.
At a less serious time, we might tolerate such crackpots with amused detachment, but they need to understand that the treachery which was perpetrated on Sept 11, and the subsequent war crimes committed in "retaliation" are far too serious for us to allow such frivolous self indulgence to go unchallenged.
Those who are truly addicted to conspiracy delusions should find a more appropriate outlet for their paranoia.
It's time to stop the loony conspiracy theories about Sept 11
noun: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena
noun: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena
The truth hurts doesn't it traitor shill?
when you allow yourself to see it, you'll know.
Ever notice that tinhat Ken likes to bury the truth with his long copy and paste lies.
Albert Einstein knew that a theory is nothing more than speculation.
"If my theory of relativity is proven successful, Germany will claim me as a German and France will declare that I am a citizen of the world. Should my theory prove untrue, France will say that I am a German and Germany will declare that I am a Jew."
A theory is nothing more than a theory, unless proven true.
Next.
you continue to prove my point, jinn. you see what you want to see. that einstein quote is in no way inconsistent with the actual definition of a theory. but you want it to be, so in your mind, it is.
Voted : FALSE
Jinn, you're wrong. And anecdotal comments from a scientist are pointless.
Einstein did not create his theory from nothing - he had to combine the work of many scientists before him - chiefly Maxwell, Lorenz and Gallileo.
His work was built on known theories (that's right THEORIES) and his work was not considered theory until proven correct.
He did not publish as a theory - he knew it would have to wait for experimental and observational verification to achieve that status. In your quote he simply got it wrong.
Einstein wrong?! Yep, the guy wasn't perfect you know - just a human being.
*Sigh*
That's your response?!
I take it that was a sigh that means "I have no real, valid point any more".
Glad you get it now.
*sigh*
"....The ferocious heat generated by the ghastly kerosene was, according to the conspiracy theorists, the reason why so many of the WTC victims can't be identified.... DNA is destroyed by such heat. This is quite remarkable, because according to the conspiracy theorist, the nature of DNA suddenly changes if you go to a different city. That's right! If you are killed by an Arab terrorist in NY, your DNA will be destroyed by such temperatures. But if you are killed by an Arab terrorist in Washington DC, your DNA will be so robust that it can survive temperatures which completely vaporise a 70 ton aircraft.
You see, these loonies have somehow concocted the idea that the missile which hit the pentagon was not a missile at all, but one of the hijacked planes. And to prove this unlikely premise, they point to a propaganda statement from the Bush regime, which rather stupidly claims that all but one of the people aboard the plane were identified from the site by DNA testing, even though nothing remains of the plane. The plane was vaporised by the fuel tank explosion, maintain these space loonies, but the people inside it were all but one identified by DNA testing.
So there you have it. The qualities of DNA are different, depending upon which city you're in, or perhaps depending upon which fairy story you're trying to sell at any particular time..."
Random excerpt from sublime post above
Read it and choke on it shills.
Can you explain why they found and identified every passenger but one in the pentagon wreckage?
Or where those people picking up body fragments in on it too?
False - they did not identify every body, nor were they allegedly identified at the Pentagon site but at a medical lab later. The only identifications made at the missile strike site were of Pentagon employees.
Show me or direct me to a photo were 'passenger' body parts can be clearly seen being picked up from the non-wreckage, the non-wreckage because NO plane hit, as Donald Rumsfeld let slip when he declared a missile hit the Pentagon just after the attack, a missile that can be seen in the laughable videos they released subsequently, before the propaganda lies cranked into action and changed his account.
The US government lie machine also tells us the plane completely vaporised on impact - yes all that titanium and steel was completely vaporised on impact and yet most of the passengers were intact enough for their vaporised - then cremated - bodies' DNA to be identified.
You truly are gullible Narrow Mind of Ignorance, you trust your morally bankrupt and rotten to the core government and believe all the lies you are spoon fed.
Get a brain, use your initiative and start asking questions.
missile: an object that is projected at a target.
stones, javelins, exocets and planes can all be used as missiles.
Of course the body parts were identified in a lab - using DNA analysis amongst other things. What did you expect - Oh sure, thats my fathers knee bone. Think for a second.
Melting point of Aluminium (what a plane is mostly made of) = 660 degrees celcius. Crematorium furnace temperature (which still leaves remains) = up to 1150 degrees celcius.
See (911research.)(wtc7.net) (/pentagon/) (evidence/)(photos/) (index.html#parts)
for some photographic evidence of both bodies and plane wreckage - its all there for you to find.
I have asked many questions about this - in fact I began from the position that there was a conspiracy. Evidence changed my mind.
Conspiracy theorists have no evidence just the anomalies that they hunt out and wrongly attribute to their bogus claims and spurious conjecture.
{for some photographic evidence of both bodies and plane wreckage - its all there for you to find.
by wideheadofknowledge on Sun Aug 27, 06 10:11pm}
Well, don't be lazy..back your claims with cited sources, links, and quotes. You can do that - unless maybe you're only spouting off at the mouth like neothe1 usually does.
er, the URL is there (albeit disguised) in my post.
Go there and see the pictures for yourself - or are those dead bodies shills too?
No, but they may be just staff from the Pentagon. No evidence of them being on a plane.
What about the engines? Oh, yes, the USUAL EXCUSE - VAPORIZED! Rubbish 
check the photos - there are clearly discernible engines.
What's rubbish is YOU claiming that anyone other than conspiracy theorists state that the entire plane vaporised.
No official story says the entire plane vaporized.
remember that the remains were IDENTIFIED. Or were the doctors that analysed the DNA shills too?
{check the photos - there are clearly discernible engines.
by wideheadofknowledge on Mon Aug 28, 06 4:16pm}
There is a photo of a single (1 only) engine compressor from an unidentified engine and plane. Nothing to indicate what plane, nothing to indicate that it was in a crash as it very tidily is placed to one side and shows NO MELTING OF METAL, and NO BURNS. It looks just like a piece of scrap from a junkyard.
There is also a single (1 only) rotor assembly from something other than a 757/767, with 3 different photos of exactly the same item. The rotors are too short, and the part is too small. I've seen 757/767 rotor assemblies before and they are far bigger than that. The one in the photos is TINY in comparison.
Not the really interesting thing about that site is the lack of damage to the Pentagon from plane wings and engines hitting the walls. I guess the mythical 757/767 passenger jet (with the TOO SMALL ENGINES) must've folded up it's wings before it hit the walls of the Pentagon, right?
{ remember that the remains were IDENTIFIED.
by wideheadofknowledge on Mon Aug 28, 06 4:16pm}
Um....so where's the EVIDENCE of them being on a plane? Also, who gave the doctors the DNA samples, and who checked the DNA samples? Not the doctors doing the autopsies, I presume, since they wouldn't be qualified. They would've sent the DNA samples to someone else to be checked. Who gave the original DNA to be checked against? I don't believe passengers boarding planes are usually asked to give DNA samples before boarding planes, or is that a new security procedure in the policestate USA?
So the DNA samples were taken from relatives right? Except that there's a problem with that, because many of those listed names on the passenger lists have no living relatives. So many orphans among the passengers, it's amazing. Such a high proportion, not all of them, but way too many to be acceptable by normal statistics.
{No official story says the entire plane vaporized.
by wideheadofknowledge on Mon Aug 28, 06 4:16pm}
Now that's an outright LIE. Until people started questioning it, the excuse about the planes being vapourised (along with their blackboxes) was the official story for all four planes. Nobody among the 9/11 sceptics believed it.
Pentagon witness #1
MIKE WALTER: I will never forget that day, trapped in traffic and then I rolled down the window and heard the sound of the jet overhead. I wasn’t surprised. I worked in the USA today building in Roslyn nearby and we were used to seeing a lot of choppers coming to the helipad at the Pentagon and a lot of commercial jets heading to Reagan which is nearby. But for some reason I looked up and saw the underbelly of the jet as it gracefully banked, then I watched in shock as the jet basically lined up the Pentagon in its sights and began to scream towards the mammoth structure. I watched as it continued to dip from the sky, diving towards the Pentagon. There are some trees that are adjacent to 27 the road I was stuck on, so the jet went out of sight momentarily. Then I picked it up as it struck very low into the Pentagon. The wings folded back and it was like watching someone slam an empty aluminum can into a wall. The jet folded up like an accordion. There was a huge fireball. There was the initial shock of what had just happened. All of the drivers seemed to be in a trance. Then suddenly it ended when a woman began to scream, “They just hit the Pentagon, get back, get back.” She backed her SUV back and forth until she was able to create a crease and then she sped out of the area on the emergency lane. That’s when all hell broke loose as people began trying to get out of the area any way they could, some went forward, and others turned their cars around and drove in the wrong direction. All in an effort to get out of the area.
{ What's rubbish is YOU claiming that anyone other than conspiracy theorists state that the entire plane vaporised.
by wideheadofknowledge on Mon Aug 28, 06 4:16pm}
Another OUTRIGHT LIE. The 9/11 sceptics such as myself have ALWAYS questioned the story of the planes being vapourised. We have NEVER tried to claim that they were, and it's been in fact the opposite.
It was the USA news media, acting as the USA government's propaganda mouthpiece that spread the LIES about the planes being vapourised because people wanted to see the evidence of the blackboxes (also originally claimed to have been vapourised).
{Pentagon witness #1
by Jinn_the_Kafir on Mon Aug 28, 06 8:33pm}
Very nice, Jinn, now as you know, witnesses by themselves are unreliable - which is why we need the supporting evidence of the videos and seismic data about this alleged plane crash. With 85 CCTVs that would've been aimed in the direction to catch images of the apparently invisible plane, it should be easy for the USA government to show clear video images of the supposed plane hitting the Pentagon. BUT THEY DON'T.
Instead, they relased a few cherrypicked images of an explosion. They relesed the same few cherrypicked images again strung together to create a NON-video, which yet again showed NO PLANE.
So, when are we going to see REAL evidence of a huge passenger jet hitting the Pentagon? Like from those 85 cameras.
Mike Walter was working for Gannet Publishing at the time. Strangely, nearly all the Pentagon "plane impact" witnesses either worked for Gannet Publishing or worked at the Pentagon. Very strange that almost nobody in the nearby hotels, the gas station, people passing by on the roads, etc.... from other than the Pentagon and Gannet Publishing saw anything.
Just show us the videos from those other 85 CCTVs (unaltered and unedited) then I'll be convinced.
And somebody needs to explain how that huge passenger jet was flying with the TOO SMALL ENGINES!
MIKE WALTER: I knew it was a big commercial airline. I saw the AA on the side so I knew it was an American Airlines passenger jet. I was surprised at how graceful and slow the banking of the jet appeared to be, and how quickly it accelerated after it had lined up the Pentagon.
Pentagon Witness #2
RICHARD BENEDETTO: "I heard an airplane. A very loud airplane. ... I heard the airplane coming from behind me. ... So I looked up, and I saw this airplane coming, heading straight down toward the ground. It was an American Airlines airplane, I could see it very clearly. ... The plane went down and for a split second it was out of my line of vision because there was a bridge there and a hill. ... I didn't actually see the impact... I didn't see any flaps, it looked like the plane was just in a normal flying mode but heading straight down, sharply down. It was straight. No flopping. It was going pretty straight. ... The only thing we saw on the ground outside there was a piece of a -the tail of a lamp post."
Pentagon Witness #3
Deb Anlauf
14th-floor room in the Sheraton National Hotel in Arlington
Anlauf was watching TV coverage of the Trade Center burning shortly before 9:30 a.m. when she decided to return to her 14th-floor room from another part of the hotel. Once in her room, she heard a "loud roar" and looked out the window to see what was going on. "Suddenly I saw this plane right outside my window," Anlauf said during a telephone interview from her hotel room this morning. "You felt like you could touch it; it was that close. It was just incredible. "Then it shot straight across from where we are and flew right into the Pentagon. It was just this huge fireball that crashed into the wall (of the Pentagon). When it hit, the whole hotel shook."
Pentagon Witness #4
William Middleton Sr., a grounds keeper.
William Middleton Sr., was running his street sweeper through the cemetery when he heard a harsh whistling sound overhead. Middleton looked up and spotted a commercial jet whose pilot seemed to be fighting with his own craft. Middleton said the plane was no higher than the tops of telephone poles as it lurched toward the Pentagon. The jet accelerated in the final few hundred yards before it tore into the building. "My sweeper has three wheels. I almost tipped it over as I watched," Middleton said.
Pentagon Witness #5
Steve Storti, retired fireman on the balcony of his apartment building which is less than a mile away from the Pentagon in Crystal City.
He looked up to see a passenger plane with the trademark stainless-steel fuselage and stripes of American Airlines. It was way off the normal flight pattern for Reagan National, said Storti, who had been living in the Crystal City section of Arlington for about two years. The plane was also alarmingly low, passing behind nearby apartment buildings that were only several stories high. ... Time seemed to slip into slow motion as he watched the plane cross over Route 395, tip its left wing as it passed the Navy annex, veer sharply and then slice into the Pentagon. "I remember thinking that whoever is flying this knows what they're doing," Storti said. "The plane traveled straight as an arrow. It didn't waver and it didn't flip from side to side." Storti watched the plane slide silently into the Pentagon "like a car entering a garage."
Pentagon Witness #6
Tim Timmerman, a pilot who was at his 16th floor appartment over looking the pentagon.
From live CNN interview moments after crash.
(Franken is the reporter)
FRANKEN: You are a pilot. Tell us what you saw.
TIMMERMAN: I was looking out the window; I live on the 16th floor, overlooking the Pentagon, in a corner apartment, so I have quite a panorama. And being next to National Airport, I hear jets all the time, but this jet engine was way too loud. I looked out to the southwest, and it came right down 395, right over Colombia Pike, and as is went by the Sheraton Hotel, the pilot added power to the engines. I heard it pull up a little bit more, and then I lost it behind a building.
And then it came out, and I saw it hit right in front of -- it didn't appear to crash into the building; most of the energy was dissipated in hitting the ground, but I saw the nose break up, I saw the wings fly forward, and then the conflagration engulfed everything in flames. It was horrible.
FRANKEN: What can you tell us about the plane itself?
TIMMERMAN: It was a Boeing 757, American Airlines, no question.
FRANKEN: You say that it was a Boeing, and you say it was a 757 or 767?
TIMMERMAN: 7-5-7.
FRANKEN: 757, which, of course...
TIMMERMAN: American Airlines.
FRANKEN: American Airlines, one of the new generation of jets.
TIMMERMAN: Right. It was so close to me it was like looking out my window and looking at a helicopter. It was just right there.
Just show us the videos from those other 85 CCTVs (unaltered and unedited) then I'll be convinced.
And somebody needs to explain how that huge passenger jet was flying with the TOO SMALL ENGINES!
The problem partly is that, the USA government has been caught lying so many times, INCLUDING THE USE OF FALSE WITNESSES that they aren't exactly trustworthy on their own.
We need VIDEOs of the plane impact.
Pentagon Witness #7
Div Devlin in hotel room with his family.
"As we sat upon the bed watching in absolute silence my oldest son, John aged 12, pointed out the window yelling, "Dad look how low that plane is!" I looked but saw nothing and was sure it was just another of the myriad of low flights on their final approach into the airport. While looking out the window a low rumble was heard and smoke began to billow up into the sky."
You do recall the "Babies stolen from incubators" storytelling from a FAKE Kuwaiti nurse during the first Gulf War lead up?
This sort of thing happens to many times with the USA government.
They lied about the Gulf of Tonkin Incident too.
We need VIDEOs of the plane impact.
By the way, this Pentagon witness says something rather unusual;
TWO PLANES!
Keith Wheelhouse
"Her brother, Wheelhouse, of Virginia Beach, spotted the planes first. The second plane looked similar to a C- 130 transport plane, he said. He believes it flew directly above the American Airlines jet, as if to prevent two planes from appearing on radar while at the same time guiding the jet toward the Pentagon.
As the hijacked jet started its descent, "it's like it stepped on its gas pedal," Wheelhouse said. "As soon as he did that, the second plane banked off to the west."
Since when did eye witnesses (hundreds of them) become useless in investigations? When is enough witness testimony good enough for the tinhat people? Is your whole case for NO PLANE (a missile) theory a lack of good video? Millions of crimes have been solved without video. But now that's suddenly not good enough for you because you believe the government is out to get you? And you think the pentagon decided this was a good day to fire a missile at itself? Now who is more believable?
That is correct Lovelynice, but there is nothing mysterious about it. A C-130 cargo plane had departed Andrews Air Force Base en route to Minnesota that morning, as do many scheduled military flights from military bases.
The flight crew of the C-130 reported seeing an airliner heading into Washington "at an unusual angle." Airtraffic control officials instructed the propeller-powered cargo plane "to let us know where it's going,"
Unfortunately A C-130 goes slower than a 757 jet, however the C-130 pilot followed the aircraft and reported it was heading into the Pentagon. Sadly, the crew of a military cargo plane watched helplessly on Sept. 11 as a hijacked airliner plunged into the Pentagon.
This concurs with Pentagon Witness #8.
Soon after the crash(Within 30 seconds of the crash) I witnessed a military cargo plane(Possibly a C130) fly over the crash site and circle the mushroom cloud. My brother inlaw also witnessed the same plane following the jet while he was on the HOV lanes in Springfield. He said that he saw a jetliner flying low over the tree tops near Seminary RD in Springfield, VA. and soon afterwards a military plane was seen flying right behind it. I think this was also a reason for the false threat of another plane about to crash which caused rescuers to have to evacuate for a short time after the initial crash.
^The above witness #8 is Allen Cleveland, brother-in-law to Keithwheelhouse.
"now as you know, witnesses by themselves are unreliable"
by Lovelynice on Mon Aug 28, 06 8:41pm
Remember that the next time your cursor hovers over a bunch of irrelevant quotes about "demolition" at the twin towers.
Thanks.
^Excellently put!
{"now as you know, witnesses by themselves are unreliable"
by Lovelynice on Mon Aug 28, 06 8:41pm
Remember that the next time your cursor hovers over a bunch of irrelevant quotes about "demolition" at the twin towers.by wideheadofknowledge on Mon Aug 28, 06 11:48pm}
as long as you remember that with the WTC witnessses to explosions and controlled demolitions, that there is video evidence showing lines of explosions blowing out the floors before the falling debris could reach those floors, and there's seismic data showing impossibly short tremors revealing the use of explosives in those controlled demolitions.
Unlike the Pentagon, where there is NO VIDEO OF A PLANE, and NO SEISMIC DATA showing a plane impact.
Got your dissecting equipment ready? Ok, then lets go!
"as long as you remember that with the WTC witnessses to explosions and controlled demolitions"
Which we established as irrelevant and worthless evidence....
"that there is video evidence showing lines of explosions blowing out the floors before the falling debris could reach those floors"
There's video showing proof that the floors near the centre of the building collapsed before the external structure - completely in line with the official explanation. What you see is debris being forced out by air pressure as the levels above collapse. No squibs, no mystery.
"and there's seismic data showing impossibly short tremors revealing the use of explosives in those controlled demolitions."
No there's not. There is a misleading version of the seismograph that compresses the first part of the spikes by using an inappropriate x axis.
"Unlike the Pentagon, where there is NO VIDEO OF A PLANE"
The fact that the plane and the passangers were found and identified seems to offer no barrier to this madness.
"and NO SEISMIC DATA showing a plane impact."
Wait! Is seismic data measuring collapses or impacts? Compared to the heavily fortified structure of the Pentagon a plane is nothing. It is essentially aluminium and small (very small) peices of other stuff. Why would an impact into the Pentagon show a significant vibration in the earth's crust? Can the theorists show any othe seismograph readings from air crashes showing seismic tremors?
The reason why this kind of argument is so poisonous is that, if you lack the intellectual capabilities, it all looks so persuasive.
I started off, a long time ago, convinced that there was a conspiracy. All I did was examine the evidence that is there in the public domain.
Why don't I believe in a conspiracy any more? There is NO EVIDENCE.
{"as long as you remember that with the WTC witnessses to explosions and controlled demolitions"
Which we established as irrelevant and worthless evidence....
by wideheadofknowledge on Wed Aug 30, 06 11:38pm}
No YOU havent. The witnesses saw explosions. They recognised them as explosions. The FDNY firemen described them as explosions as well, and they would certainly recognise what explosions look like, and many described the collapses as controlled demolitions. There is also VIDEO showing explosions blowing out the floors BEFORE the falling debris could reach those floors, and the seismic data showing the tremors were TOO SHORT to be blamed on the collapses.
Unlike the Pentagon witnesses, the WTC witnesses are supported by VIDEO and seismic data.
Describing all this as "irrelevant and worthless" is just bullshit.
{There's video showing proof that the floors near the centre of the building collapsed before the external structure - completely in line with the official explanation. What you see is debris being forced out by air pressure as the levels above collapse. No squibs, no mystery.
by wideheadofknowledge on Wed Aug 30, 06 11:38pm}
In WTC 1 & 2, the collapses happen at those points, but what about WTC 7?
You can't dismiss WTC 7's obvious controlled implosive demolition in the same sentence with the same excuses, and it's mere presence has already blown away your excuses about there not being previously prepared demolition charges in the buildings.
The physics continues to prove you wrong. You've cited Dr Frank Grreening, and yet even his mathematical formula showed that total collapse was impossible, and that collapse would be arrested at an early stage. Nobody has succeeded in simulating those collapes, except as controlled demolitions.
Your excuses about "debris being forced out by air pressure" are likewise more bullshit, because the EXPLOSIONS were recognised as EXPLOSIONS by the witnesses, and recognisable as EXPLOSIONS on video as well. Again, the seismic data with the TOO SHORT tremors shows your official excuses as lies. They can't explain why "debris being forced out by air pressure" would be occurring several floors below the falling debris in long straight lines with radial symmetry around the building, because such a thing would be impossible.
There were squibs. There's no mystery, because all three buildings were plainly demolished by controlled demolitions.
You continued attempts to take each aspect of the destruction of those buildings in isolation in an attempt to deny the evidence and the witnesses can never work.
Compared to the heavily fortified structure of the Pentagon a plane is nothing.
by wideheadofknowledge on Wed Aug 30, 06 11:38pm
Um....so what? The plane impact is not going to be any softer or gentler merely because it's hitting a different building.
{Can the theorists show any othe seismograph readings from air crashes showing seismic tremors?
by wideheadofknowledge on Wed Aug 30, 06 11:38pm}
I don't believe that there is any, including the plane impacts into the twin towers.
Do you know why?
Because the tremors that were said to be from the plane impacts hitting the twin towers actually occurred 14 and 17 seconds BEFORE the planes actually hit the buildings.
But at the same time as people down in the basements and lobby witnessed the effects of very powerful explosions. The "supersonic fireball" theory that's an official attempt to explain that away doesn't work.
Strange how you try to pretend that the same passenger planes htting buildings high up away from the ground would make a seismic tremor, but yet claim that a similar impact into a building close to the ground would not.
{Why don't I believe in a conspiracy any more? There is NO EVIDENCE.
by wideheadofknowledge on Wed Aug 30, 06 11:38pm}
There's enormous amounts of evidence. Ignoring it won't make it go away. Pretending that it doesn't exist, won't make it go away. Saying "There is no evidence"is simply a LIE.
You can keep saying "there is no evidence" until doomsday, but you won't make the evidence go away, nor will you convince anyone by saying it.
{"Unlike the Pentagon, where there is NO VIDEO OF A PLANE"
The fact that the plane and the passangers were found and identified seems to offer no barrier to this madness.
by wideheadofknowledge on Wed Aug 30, 06 11:38pm}
Still means nothing, because witnesses by themselves are unreliable. Everyone still remembers the "Babies stolen from incubators" lie of that fake Kuwaiti nurse who was neither a nurse nor a Kuwaiti, during the propaganda campaign before the 1st Gulf War. The plane parts don't match; I've seen the pictures, there's very little plane debirs, and those engine parts ARE TOO SMALL for a 757/767 ! The bodies were claimed to be identified, but "how"? By DNA? They weren't burnt beyond recognition, so how do we know that those bodies were just Pentagon staff and not passengers on any plane?
Show us the videos of a plane hitting the Pentagon. If it really happened, then there would be plenty of videos from those 85 CCTV cameras. That in in five years, such video evidence has never been released, and only a few cherrypicked images put together to make a NON-video (which isn't at all a video) makes it suspiciously likely that the USA government is hiding the truth about what really hit the Pentagon.
At least the WTC witnesses to explosions and the controlled demolitions are supported by video evidence showing lines of explosions blowing out the floors before the falling debris could reach those floors, and there's seismic data showing impossibly short tremors revealing the use of explosives in those controlled demolitions.
Voted : FALSE
Theories are based on circumstancial evidence which may be in and of themselves theories. (partially) This results in conclusions which are desired by the theorist.
Voted : FALSE
The average ordinary person's 'theory' Is often no more than an opinion or idea, conjecture..
BUT, a Scientific Theory is far more than someones everyday 'theory'. A Scientific Theory is not mere opinion, but is concerned with Objectivity, Investigation, Research, lots of relevant Data, Experimentation, and professional intelligent Examination and Consideration of all the Data, Understanding and Evaluation and Rational Conclusions about all the Data..!
My 'theories' don't really county.. Scientific Theories are far more valid and useful..!
Voted : FALSE
Are you ID in disguse?!?
Voted : TRUE
I'm really tired, so I put true.
|
|
