you know what's astonishing?

[toasty]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

But what I can tell you is this: to go from the fact that you I can't exactly prove which part of the aircraft caused that hole to far-reaching, unsubstantiated statements like "there was no aircraft" or "there was no 757" or "the government caused it" is a ridiculous and does not constitute good science. Much more direct evidence would be necessary for a rational person to make that conclusion.

For me, this says it all. Were there unexpected results at both the WTC and Pentagon sites? Obviously. Do they warrant further study to figure out why things happened as they did? Sure, why not. The conclusions that people seek to draw from those things, however, belie their claimed reliance upon science, because the scientific method would not allow someone to reach those conclusions.

[chunky]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

It does not at all necessarily follow that the hole was made by the nose or body of the plane.

I can't prove the exact second-by-second details of exactly how that hole came to be, because I just don't have the data. The best explanation I have heard is that the hole was made by some chunk from the landing gear apparatus on one side that somehow separated from the rest of the mass of the plane. But I can't say that is exactly what happened, because I don't have all of that data.

Surley whatever made that hole was big enough not to of disintegrated impact. Which contradicts what the fire chief was told about the lack of plane parts at the scene

[floridaorange]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

^Fire chief is probably "in on it."

For me, this says it all. Were there unexpected results at both the WTC and Pentagon sites? Obviously. Do they warrant further study to figure out why things happened as they did? Sure, why not. The conclusions that people seek to draw from those things, however, belie their claimed reliance upon science, because the scientific method would not allow someone to reach those conclusions.

Toasty, what would you know about presenting evidence for judgment based on a series of alleged events using witnesses and supportive information?

[chunky]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

^Fire chief is probably "in on it."

You obviously didn't read your own link

[floridaorange]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

^If I hadn't read it, I would not have posted it, come on chunky

[yesme]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.asp

i cant believe you used this link, lol.

but let me say that the reason they give for putting down the sand on the lawn is hgihly suspect.

i mean who here thinks that a couple ton truck is going to be sliping in the grass.....lmfao

really? thats the best they could come up with? i park moving trucks on grass all the time, sometimes i park them on snow, thats if i'm feeling i wont need sand and gravel to drive a couple ton truck on something so slippery

[chunky]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

I can't prove the exact second-by-second details of exactly how that hole came to be, because I just don't have the data. The best explanation I have heard is that the hole was made by some chunk from the landing gear apparatus on one side that somehow separated from the rest of the mass of the plane. But I can't say that is exactly what happened, because I don't have all of that data.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.asp

According to this website the hole was made by one of the engines punching through the second ring So the engine remained nice and circular through 2 walls then fell into little bits then disintegrated.

[yesme]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

The conclusions that people seek to draw from those things, however, belie their claimed reliance upon science, because the scientific method would not allow someone to reach those conclusions.

thats great

the scientific method and all.

so tell me.

when nist tested the metal and found none of it above a certain temp, why say the fire was 4 times hotter then the test results?

is that the scientific method?

how about when they tested them and found that the steel would of held more weight, with a hotter fire they they lied about for alot longer then the towers stood?

should that theory not be tossed out?

according to people in the field, part of the scientific method is to allow your data to be open for other investigators to test your theory.

is that not correct?

and if the theory can not be repeated, is it not thrown out?


maybe you better rethink agreeing with the government theory least you be laughed out of the scientific community.

[yesme]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

According to this website the hole was made by one of the engines punching through the second ring So the engine remained nice and circular through 2 walls then fell into little bits then disintegrated.

funny thing is, the hole is like 5 times the size of the engine., must of been shady construction or sumting.




not really seeing anything of size to make this hole here either, engine or land gear, maybe if we wish real hard on a star.

[chunky]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

Maybe I'm wrong here but if the engine is where the aircraft burns the fuel surely it has to be able to withstand the heat of the fuel burning

[toasty]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

thats great

the scientific method and all.

so tell me.

when nist tested the metal and found none of it above a certain temp, why say the fire was 4 times hotter then the test results?

is that the scientific method?

how about when they tested them and found that the steel would of held more weight, with a hotter fire they they lied about for alot longer then the towers stood?

should that theory not be tossed out?

according to people in the field, part of the scientific method is to allow your data to be open for other investigators to test your theory.

is that not correct?

and if the theory can not be repeated, is it not thrown out?


maybe you better rethink agreeing with the government theory least you be laughed out of the scientific community.

And you'd be laughed out of the English-speaking community. Alas, I digress.

Here's the point: I'm not the one that claims to know what happened here. I agree, there are some quirky things about how this all played out, but it doesn't follow from that that there was no plane at all or that the US was in on it. You cannot purport to rely upon science to bring you to the conclusion that the story we're being told isn't accurate, and then cast science into the ether when you take the completely unfounded next step to reach the wild-ass conclusions that you reach.

[yesme]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

Maybe I'm wrong here but if the engine is where the aircraft burns the fuel surely it has to be able to withstand the heat of the fuel burning

your correct sir, min operating temp for those engines is 650oC. for hours.

the fire in the pentagon burned for 20 mins and was no where near those temps.

as we can see from this picture



you can see the burn line on the left hand side of the building on the inside, notice that on the third floor, left hand side, there is a stool, with a book open, pages are NOT burned at all.

pretty intense fire eh?



oh btw, a debunking of the snopes link for you florida.

http://911review.org/Wiki/snopespentagonrumor.html

[yesme]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

And you'd be laughed out of the English-speaking community. Alas, I digress.

Here's the point: I'm not the one that claims to know what happened here. I agree, there are some quirky things about how this all played out, but it doesn't follow from that that there was no plane at all or that the US was in on it. You cannot purport to rely upon science to bring you to the conclusion that the story we're being told isn't accurate, and then cast science into the ether when you take the completely unfounded next step to reach the wild-ass conclusions that you reach.

with all that now said.

does the government theory as i laid out in my last post, anything closely related to scientific method?

or should they toss that theory?

also, should outside experts be allowed to review the data?

oh, btw no one in america speaks proper english, so they would be laughing at you as well sir

[toasty]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

with all that now said.

does the government theory as i laid out in my last post, anything closely related to scientific method?

or should they toss that theory?

also, should outside experts be allowed to review the data?

oh, btw no one in america speaks proper english, so they would be laughing at you as well sir

Before I spend any more effort on this, perhaps you can answer a question I posed in another thread on this topic, to which I've never gotten a response as far as I'm aware:

If it wasn't Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon, what became of Flight 77?

AFAIC, until that question is answered, it's kinda silly to continue to discuss whether or not a plane hit the Pentagon.

[chunky]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

If it wasn't Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon, what became of Flight 77?

What your asking for is for people to speculate on something they cannot answer. But like I said in the other thread if the US Government where willing to release 4 stills of Flight 77 before it hit the Pentagon they could of released 4 in focus and with an aircraft actually in them. They must have literally thousands of them and it makes the story a bit more believable.