(September 15, 2016 at 5:39 pm)abaris Wrote: Are you quite capable of looking up expert opinions on this? Or a you just content to resort to conspiracy bullshit just like the rest of the tinfoil crowd. I had you down for a religious dogmatic boardering on fanaticism, but you're quickly moving into outright idiot territory. Uninformed and spewing whatever you saw in some youtube video on the web.

Care to inform yourself or be chalked off as the usual idiot brand buying every bullshit that's served to them.

First of all I posted a video of a CNN reporter at the scene of the supposed plane crash into the pentegon, he said himself ON THE AIR that there was no evidence of a plane crash.

But you won't even attempt to address that.

I don't need an "expert" to tell me how to think, I'll make up my own mind thank you.

You guys keep acting like the government is above reproach. Must I remind you of the tuskegee syphilis experiments? Or the fact that the CIA was trafficking cocaine into the US in the 1980's?

(September 15, 2016 at 5:58 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: You guys keep acting like the government is above reproach. Must I remind you of the tuskegee syphilis experiments? Or the fact that the CIA was trafficking cocaine into the US in the 1980's?

Bush has been the worst since Nixon, far as I am concerned. But you have to ask yourself the questions I posted earlier. If you don't, you're just closing your eyes and ride with the tinfoil hunt. Also I repeatedly asked to look up expert opinions on the matter at hand, not some CNN reporter reporting while the jury was still out.

But you're obviously content with doing a youtube. Fine, so you're with the tinfoily bunch. I had you down for quite a lot of things, but that's a new one.

Nobody is acting like the government is above reproach. People are acting like you need this thing called 'evidence' to support your theory, not just science you're vaguely aware of. You have absolutely no answers to why there is no evidence other than "The government has done some shady things before!"

As for your CNN video link, it's a snipped clip. Nothing new, and certainly not unexpected from a truther.

A quote from that reporter: The Web sites often take statements out of context, such as this exchange from CNN in which I -- myself -- appear to be questioning whether a plane really hit the building: From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. In fact, I was answering a question based on a eyewitness account who thought the American Airlines plane landed short of the Pentagon. I was indicated there was no crash site near the pentagon only at the Pentagon
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/05/16/...newssearch

Let me guess, the reporter was paid off? How much did they give him? Has it been traced? Did they threaten to kill him, and if so, why didn't he simply sell the story to the highest bidder, and leave the country with his billions of dollars?

(September 15, 2016 at 6:03 pm)abaris Wrote:

(September 15, 2016 at 5:58 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: You guys keep acting like the government is above reproach. Must I remind you of the tuskegee syphilis experiments? Or the fact that the CIA was trafficking cocaine into the US in the 1980's?

Bush has been the worst since Nixon, far as I am concerned. But you have to ask yourself the questions I posted earlier. If you don't, you're just closing your eyes and ride with the tinfoil hunt. Also I repeatedly asked to look up expert opinions on the matter at hand, not some CNN reporter reporting while the jury was still out.

But you're obviously content with doing a youtube. Fine, so you're with the tinfoily bunch. I had you down for quite a lot of things, but that's a new one.

That particular cnn reporter was the pentegon correspondent, he was actually in the building when it was hit.

Yet he stated there was no evidence of a plane crash, yet you choose to ignore that fact. So who really is the one closing thier eyes?

(September 15, 2016 at 6:10 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: That particular cnn reporter was the pentegon correspondent, he was actually in the building when it was hit.

So how does that make him an expert? Is he trained to make that distinction? If so, posts some evidence of him being an expert on airplane crashes.

Other than that, I may repeat. There's an abundance of material out there by real experts in the particular fields involved. Have you looket at that? Or are you content on seeking out youtube material to suit your needs? I've been over this in the early years of this millennium. You obviously haven't.

A single CNN reporter stating there was no evidence for a plane crash is not a fact, it is an opinion. It's not evidence for anything other than he couldn't identify any large parts of an aircraft. Try watching the entire clip sometime, just so you get the proper context of his statement.

(September 15, 2016 at 6:13 pm)abaris Wrote:

(September 15, 2016 at 6:10 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: That particular cnn reporter was the pentegon correspondent, he was actually in the building when it was hit.

So how does that make him an expert? Is he trained to make that distinction? If so, posts some evidence of him being an expert on airplane crashes.

Other than that, I may repeat. There's an abundance of material out there by real experts in the particular fields involved. Have you looket at that? Or are you content on seeking out youtube material to suit your needs? I've been over this in the early years of this millennium. You obviously haven't.

Look genius, you don't have to be an expert to determine whether or not plane crashed into a freaking building.

Furthermore more I don't see how his words could be taken out of context

https://youtu.be/OHeYFTPG4KQ

http://www.democraticunderground.com/dis...z=view_all

Read that and let me know what you think.

You would be surprised how hard it actually can be to identify parts of a crashed aircraft, even those not involving a building and resultant fire.

(September 15, 2016 at 6:23 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Look genius, you don't have to be an expert to determine whether or not plane crashed into a freaking building.

See, that's the difference between us. You're credulous, as is proven in any post you make. You didn't even look at the animations provided by experts explaining in detail how an aircraft would do exactly that kind of damage. In short, you have to be an expert to determine if it was a plane or anything else. That's what training is for. You and I don't have that training. But I for one put more credit in the ones having it than some reporter, who's got nothing of that sort.

That's it, by the way. One of the multitude being out there since 2002. Not that I'm holding my breath for someone like you taking note.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L7ethKvY7U

(September 15, 2016 at 4:02 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(September 15, 2016 at 3:29 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: A big shiny aluminum plane crashed into the building one floor above the molten metal trails.  Coincidence?

Please explain how this molten metal located near the top of this huge skyscraper caused the building to collapse in on itself the way it did? I genuinely want to know.

A demolition team couldn't have done a better job.

I don't see that Jorm is making the argument you're ascribing to her. She's simply explaining the presence of molten metal. It's entirely possible, and in my layman's opinion highly likely, that it was caused otherwise -- namely, the failure of steel girders which had had their fire protection stripped by the impact and subsequently exposed to continuous high heat. That same heat likely melted the aluminum from the airplanes. The heat generated by the fires can both have brought down the buildings and, in that process, melted the aluminum.