The Truther Challenge

[KP50]

What I want you to do is prove that Flight 77 could actually hit the light-poles, fly horizontally into the Pentagon at almost ground level without touching the ground and then cause the damage as shown.

You prove that it isn't possible...the burden of proof is on you remember.

Well let's start by accepting the CCTV footage is correct - then Flight 77 has to hit the Pentagon flying horizontally just off the ground. This also matches the supposed impact damage.

To hit the light poles it has to be on a descent due to the topography. There isn't time between poles and Pentagon, at high speed, to level a very large airliner. That isn't a scientific description but you can check out the Pilots for Truth site if you are interested. The basic requirement is that for the Pentagon to be hit by a plane flying level and low to the ground, the Pentagon would have to be raised up above the surrounding land - it isn't, it is actually well hidden within a well built up area.

[NorthernSoul]

And how do you explain the eye witnesses that saw the plane hit the light poles and then the pentagon?

If not Flight 77, what did hit the light poles and then the Pentagon?

[KP50]

And how do you explain the eye witnesses that saw the plane hit the light poles and then the pentagon?

If not Flight 77, what did hit the light poles and then the Pentagon?

Please source all eye-witnesses who claim this and can also be verified as in position to witness it. Because there are quite a number who claim the plane was nowhere near the light poles.

Who says anything hit the light poles at all? Why don't you work backwards from the impossible event and see where it leads?

[NorthernSoul]

This is not a complete list by any means however it is the only one I could find quickly.

http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudont ... nesses.htm

So nothing hit the light poles? Either they fell over on their own or some one came and chopped them down? I guess No-Planers come in all shapes and sizes.

[KP50]

This is not a complete list by any means however it is the only one I could find quickly.

http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudont ... nesses.htm

So nothing hit the light poles? Either they fell over on their own or some one came and chopped them down? I guess No-Planers come in all shapes and sizes.

Seems like you want to skirt around this event without looking into it in depth. Start with the angle of the flight before trying to get too smart, otherwise you are just a walking advertisement for your own ignorance. That flight has to hit the Pentagon horizontally, just above the ground - can that be done in a built up area such as that surrounding the Pentagon?

[TimmyG]

A coherent insider account.

A theory which is actually plausible and doesn't rely on the cruel torture of facts and logic. i.e. a theory which actually makes sense. Something less than 1000x more complicated and far fetched than the official theory.

Expert opinions from actual experts who have actually studied the event and actually submitted something serious for peer review (and no you can't submit a youtube video for peer review).

An alive hijacker or passenger

is the theory that a passport fell out of one of the jets as it hit the wtc, where it was promptly found on the street intact a plausible theory? is the theory that fires in steel framed buildings should cause them to collapse at free fall speed plausible? is the theory that larry silverstein should refer to a group of firefighters as 'it' and their removal from a building they weren't in as 'pulling', plausible?

its only more plausible than some of the alternate theories, to you, because it comes from an establishment body. It's entirely likely that any establishment body (NIST, FEMA, mainstream media) would form its idea of the truth based on an outcome which is more favorable to their own existence. If anyone within the establishment did a truly independent and critical analysis of the evidence, and concluded that branches of goverment/establishment/ linked corporations were responsible for 9/11, they would obviously be out of a job very quickly. as people like kevin ryan have been for asking questions.

this statement on its own is obviously not proof of an 'inside job', but until critics are willing to think about the nature of the system we live in, any debate between us is fairly pointless.

Expert opinions from actual experts who have actually studied the event and actually submitted something serious for peer review (and no you can't submit a youtube video for peer review).

what's an 'actual expert'? are there some special requirements? personally i think we've got quite a few on our side but i never went to actual expert school so maybe i'm wrong.

what's youtube got to do with anything? if NIST hosted a flash video file on their site as evidence for peer review would you consider it to be that? i get the impression you turn-your-nose up at youtube because anyone can put a video on there.

[NorthernSoul]

A coherent insider account.

A theory which is actually plausible and doesn't rely on the cruel torture of facts and logic. i.e. a theory which actually makes sense. Something less than 1000x more complicated and far fetched than the official theory.

Expert opinions from actual experts who have actually studied the event and actually submitted something serious for peer review (and no you can't submit a youtube video for peer review).

An alive hijacker or passenger

is the theory that a passport fell out of one of the jets as it hit the wtc, where it was promptly found on the street intact a plausible theory?

Yes, as it was not the only such item to do so.

is the theory that fires in steel framed buildings should cause them to collapse at free fall speed plausible?

The buildings did NOT fall at free fall speed I can't believe truthers are still telling themselves this.

is the theory that larry silverstein should refer to a group of firefighters as 'it' and their removal from a building they weren't in as 'pulling', plausible?

Oh dear, you truly are pedaling some very old and debunked claims here. By it Larry Silverstein ment the contingent of Firemen in building 7, a contingent is a thing, and thus an it. What else could Silverstein have meant by "Pull It" oh right thats right "Pull it" is used in CD all the time! Actually no sorry it isn't, in demolition it refers to strapping cables to a building and pulling it down using these cables, of course even if it did relate to CD, how would Silverstein have known that? He is not in that line of work...

its only more plausible than some of the alternate theories, to you, because it comes from an establishment body. It's entirely likely that any establishment body (NIST, FEMA, mainstream media) would form its idea of the truth based on an outcome which is more favorable to their own existence. If anyone within the establishment did a truly independent and critical analysis of the evidence, and concluded that branches of goverment/establishment/ linked corporations were responsible for 9/11, they would obviously be out of a job very quickly. as people like kevin ryan have been for asking questions.

Of course, thats right, these people who are all in on it are so afraid of losing their desk jobs that they won't go to Al Jazeera or another iunfriendly TV network and blow the conspiracy wide open? Then make millions out of selling their story. But Kevin Ryan is a brave freedom fighter, we should honour him with a statue or something. (My understanding is that he quit due to personal problems, but whatever you want to believe)

this statement on its own is obviously not proof of an 'inside job', but until critics are willing to think about the nature of the system we live in, any debate between us is fairly pointless.

Why don't you try debating rather than saying something, having it debunked, then moving on to your next lie only to come back to the original debunked lie later when you think everybody has forgotten about it?

Expert opinions from actual experts who have actually studied the event and actually submitted something serious for peer review (and no you can't submit a youtube video for peer review).

what's an 'actual expert'? are there some special requirements? personally i think we've got quite a few on our side but i never went to actual expert school so maybe i'm wrong.

Name 5

what's youtube got to do with anything? if NIST hosted a flash video file on their site as evidence for peer review would you consider it to be that? i get the impression you turn-your-nose up at youtube because anyone can put a video on there.

We turn our nose up at youtube because it is from poorly made youtube videos where Truthers do their "research"

[NorthernSoul]

This is not a complete list by any means however it is the only one I could find quickly.

http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudont ... nesses.htm

So nothing hit the light poles? Either they fell over on their own or some one came and chopped them down? I guess No-Planers come in all shapes and sizes.

Seems like you want to skirt around this event without looking into it in depth. Start with the angle of the flight before trying to get too smart, otherwise you are just a walking advertisement for your own ignorance. That flight has to hit the Pentagon horizontally, just above the ground - can that be done in a built up area such as that surrounding the Pentagon?

You remind me of a holocaust denier (are you a holocaust denier?) you ignore the big picture, the witnesses the wreckage, everything, just to pick out some tiny anomaly like there isn't enough poison on a particular brick, ahhhh inside job!!!!!

Why did the plane HAVE to hit the pentagon horizontally, no one is claiming it dive bombed...

[scubadiver]

This is not a complete list by any means however it is the only one I could find quickly.

http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudont ... nesses.htm

So nothing hit the light poles? Either they fell over on their own or some one came and chopped them down? I guess No-Planers come in all shapes and sizes.

Seems like you want to skirt around this event without looking into it in depth. Start with the angle of the flight before trying to get too smart, otherwise you are just a walking advertisement for your own ignorance. That flight has to hit the Pentagon horizontally, just above the ground - can that be done in a built up area such as that surrounding the Pentagon?

You remind me of a holocaust denier (are you a holocaust denier?) you ignore the big picture, the witnesses the wreckage, everything, just to pick out some tiny anomaly like there isn't enough poison on a particular brick, ahhhh inside job!!!!!

Then why do all you critics keep the campaigners arguing around in circles regarding the tiny details about the collapses when there are other just as important unanswered questions?

Why did the plane HAVE to hit the pentagon horizontally, no one is claiming it dive bombed...

That is just semantics. Something you critics love.

[Bushwacker]

To hit the light poles it has to be on a descent due to the topography. There isn't time between poles and Pentagon, at high speed, to level a very large airliner. That isn't a scientific description but you can check out the Pilots for Truth site if you are interested. The basic requirement is that for the Pentagon to be hit by a plane flying level and low to the ground, the Pentagon would have to be raised up above the surrounding land - it isn't, it is actually well hidden within a well built up area.

The Pentagon
[/b]

[pepik]

Well done Bushwhacker, you've killed that one.

For a few days (at most), before it springs phoenix-like from the ashes, proudly spreading its wings to fly with the other debunked conspiracy theories, like "free fall speed", which was spotted just recently.

[KP50]

Well done Bushwhacker, you've killed that one.

For a few days (at most), before it springs phoenix-like from the ashes, proudly spreading its wings to fly with the other debunked conspiracy theories, like "free fall speed", which was spotted just recently.

Good to see you apply rigorous science to all aspects of 9/11 pepik - you didn't even ask BW whether that was the side of impact or the angle the plane approached - yet here you are claiming a debunking. Best you try again just in case you wish to retain any shred of credibility.

[NorthernSoul]

And then here is KP50 not asking those same questions, why...incase the answers prove everything he has said previously to be incorrect...fear of being wrong...

[pepik]

Good to see you apply rigorous science to all aspects of 9/11 pepik - you didn't even ask BW whether that was the side of impact or the angle the plane approached - yet here you are claiming a debunking. Best you try again just in case you wish to retain any shred of credibility.

A) I've been to Washington several times (to visit the CIA of course, not the NWO, the NWO is in a secret base under Denver Airport), and its not exactly NYC skyscraper city, and B) The Pentagon is not even in downtown Washington, C) I had already checked Google maps which confirms the same thing (obviously something you didn't think of, hardworking and brilliant researcher that you are), and D) do you really think anyone would believe you wouldn't resort to a lame attempt to attack me if you could prove that you were right all along and there were actually buildings blocking the path? No. You've got nothing.

[KP50]

Good to see you apply rigorous science to all aspects of 9/11 pepik - you didn't even ask BW whether that was the side of impact or the angle the plane approached - yet here you are claiming a debunking. Best you try again just in case you wish to retain any shred of credibility.

A) I've been to Washington several times (to visit the CIA of course, not the NWO, the NWO is in a secret base under Denver Airport), and its not exactly NYC skyscraper city, and B) The Pentagon is not even in downtown Washington, C) I had already checked Google maps which confirms the same thing (obviously something you didn't think of, hardworking and brilliant researcher that you are), and D) do you really think anyone would believe you wouldn't resort to a lame attempt to attack me if you could prove that you were right all along and there were actually buildings blocking the path? No. You've got nothing.

A. Woop-de-doo. Who said anything about skyscrapers?
B. Nice one Sherlock.
C. Confirms the Pentagon isn't in downtown Washington?
D. I asked you to prove it, I want to see what you can come up with. So far we have a tourist picture of the Pentagon and some rhetoric.

[KP50]

And then here is KP50 not asking those same questions, why...incase the answers prove everything he has said previously to be incorrect...fear of being wrong...

Another valuable contribution, not sure how this forum got along without you for so long.

We are talking about the route that takes in light poles and alleged impact point, any other views of the Pentagon are irrelevant.

[pepik]

A. Woop-de-doo. Who said anything about skyscrapers?
B. Nice one Sherlock.
C. Confirms the Pentagon isn't in downtown Washington?
D. I asked you to prove it, I want to see what you can come up with. So far we have a tourist picture of the Pentagon and some rhetoric.

The fact that you are still standing by "well hidden, in a built up area" after that photo says volumes about the stupidity and pointless argumentativeness of the troof movement.

I mean seriously, a "tourist" picture? What did you want, a scientific picture? What exactly?

Keep digging, genius! Well hidden in a built up area! You couldn't make it up.

[sam]

A. Woop-de-doo. Who said anything about skyscrapers?
B. Nice one Sherlock.
C. Confirms the Pentagon isn't in downtown Washington?
D. I asked you to prove it, I want to see what you can come up with. So far we have a tourist picture of the Pentagon and some rhetoric.

The fact that you are still standing by "well hidden, in a built up area" after that photo says volumes about the stupidity and pointless argumentativeness of the troof movement.

I mean seriously, a "tourist" picture? What did you want, a scientific picture? What exactly?

Keep digging, genius! Well hidden in a built up area! You couldn't make it up.

Truther thought goes like this:

I've read on a CT site that the angles of approach and impact are impossible, therefore The Pentagon must be well hidden in a built-up area.

Actually checking any of this is not necessary, as it must be true. The CT site says so.

Ditto thermite cutting charges.

Ditto "free-fall" speed.

ditto
ditto
ditto

[KP50]

A. Woop-de-doo. Who said anything about skyscrapers?
B. Nice one Sherlock.
C. Confirms the Pentagon isn't in downtown Washington?
D. I asked you to prove it, I want to see what you can come up with. So far we have a tourist picture of the Pentagon and some rhetoric.

The fact that you are still standing by "well hidden, in a built up area" after that photo says volumes about the stupidity and pointless argumentativeness of the troof movement.

I mean seriously, a "tourist" picture? What did you want, a scientific picture? What exactly?

Keep digging, genius! Well hidden in a built up area! You couldn't make it up.

You do realise that we are only concerned with the flight-path into the 5 sided building don't you? The area that appears to be missing from the photo you posted ...... as I am sure you are aware.

The contention is that it is impossible for the plane to hit the Pentagon at the supposed impact point, while flying level just off the ground as per the released CCTV footage.

[KP50]

A. Woop-de-doo. Who said anything about skyscrapers?
B. Nice one Sherlock.
C. Confirms the Pentagon isn't in downtown Washington?
D. I asked you to prove it, I want to see what you can come up with. So far we have a tourist picture of the Pentagon and some rhetoric.

The fact that you are still standing by "well hidden, in a built up area" after that photo says volumes about the stupidity and pointless argumentativeness of the troof movement.

I mean seriously, a "tourist" picture? What did you want, a scientific picture? What exactly?

Keep digging, genius! Well hidden in a built up area! You couldn't make it up.

Truther thought goes like this:

I've read on a CT site that the angles of approach and impact are impossible, therefore The Pentagon must be well hidden in a built-up area.

Actually checking any of this is not necessary, as it must be true. The CT site says so.

Ditto thermite cutting charges.

Ditto "free-fall" speed.

ditto
ditto
ditto

Like a pack of angry dogs they circle their prey .......

[pepik]

Still digging! I can't believe it, this keeps getting better and better!

Keeping in mind of course, you have provided ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to back up your claim that the Pentagon is "well hidden in a built up area". Absolutely zero. Why is that KP? Why can you make claims, provide ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to back them up, and then just sneer when someone else makes actual effort?



Well hidden in a built up area? What a load of complete rubbish! The longer you stand behind it the bigger a fool you look.

[pepik]

This, for comparison, is an airplane landing in a built up area - Hong Kong's old airport. I've landed there, it was quite impressive.

Please explain how thousands of planes could land in HK over decades yet somehow the Pentagon is so "well hidden, in a built up area" that you couldn't even crash a plane there.

[KP50]

This, for comparison, is an airplane landing in a built up area - Hong Kong's old airport. I've landed there, it was quite impressive.

Please explain how thousands of planes could land in HK over decades yet somehow the Pentagon is so "well hidden, in a built up area" that you couldn't even crash a plane there.

I did not say you could not crash a plane there - your ability to miss the point of this is a little annoying at times. Do you even have any idea what this discussion is about?

[Bushwacker]

Well, KP50, you can easily end this discussion simply by proving your point, can't you? The old maxim is "he who asserts must prove", and you have made assertions about the topology of the area surrounding the Pentagon, so it is up to you to prove it. If you are correct, that should be quite simple for you.

[KP50]

Well, KP50, you can easily end this discussion simply by proving your point, can't you? The old maxim is "he who asserts must prove", and you have made assertions about the topology of the area surrounding the Pentagon, so it is up to you to prove it. If you are correct, that should be quite simple for you.

I could do that couldn't I? But I am rather enjoying the role of the sniping critic, a role you must know very well.

I asked pepik to prove that it was not impossible for the plane to impact the Pentagon flying level as per the CCTV image. So far all he has done is post aerial photos and a photo from Hong Kong. Which doesn't prove anything at all, hence he has failed. I am happy to give him more time if he needs it.

[pepik]

Perhaps you are forgot which example of your brilliance we are currently laughing at. So here's a reminder:

the Pentagon would have to be raised up above the surrounding land - it isn't, it is actually well hidden within a well built up area.

[Bushwacker]

Well, KP50, you can easily end this discussion simply by proving your point, can't you? The old maxim is "he who asserts must prove", and you have made assertions about the topology of the area surrounding the Pentagon, so it is up to you to prove it. If you are correct, that should be quite simple for you.

I could do that couldn't I? But I am rather enjoying the role of the sniping critic, a role you must know very well.

But actually that is not your role at all. Your role is of the careless troofer who has half understood or half remembered something on a conspiracy website, and regurgitated it without bothering to check back. Then when you are pulled up on it, you find you cannot justify it, so you have to resort to bluff, bluster, and trying to change the subject. It is a role we often see played out here, nothing new.

[NorthernSoul]

Well, KP50, you can easily end this discussion simply by proving your point, can't you? The old maxim is "he who asserts must prove", and you have made assertions about the topology of the area surrounding the Pentagon, so it is up to you to prove it. If you are correct, that should be quite simple for you.

I could do that couldn't I? But I am rather enjoying the role of the sniping critic, a role you must know very well.

I asked pepik to prove that it was not impossible for the plane to impact the Pentagon flying level as per the CCTV image. So far all he has done is post aerial photos and a photo from Hong Kong. Which doesn't prove anything at all, hence he has failed. I am happy to give him more time if he needs it.

Need I remind you that the burden of proof is on you?

[KP50]

Perhaps you are forgot which example of your brilliance we are currently laughing at. So here's a reminder:

the Pentagon would have to be raised up above the surrounding land - it isn't, it is actually well hidden within a well built up area.

So you are ignoring the point at hand ......

[KP50]

Well, KP50, you can easily end this discussion simply by proving your point, can't you? The old maxim is "he who asserts must prove", and you have made assertions about the topology of the area surrounding the Pentagon, so it is up to you to prove it. If you are correct, that should be quite simple for you.

I could do that couldn't I? But I am rather enjoying the role of the sniping critic, a role you must know very well.

But actually that is not your role at all. Your role is of the careless troofer who has half understood or half remembered something on a conspiracy website, and regurgitated it without bothering to check back. Then when you are pulled up on it, you find you cannot justify it, so you have to resort to bluff, bluster, and trying to change the subject. It is a role we often see played out here, nothing new.

I love it when you use that word "troofer". It really puts me in my place.

Nobody has pulled me up on anything yet, you haven't even posted a decent photo of the flight-path yet.