Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 18 of 18 FirstFirst ... 81415161718
Results 171 to 177 of 177
  1. #171
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    288
    dp:

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Excellent work L67! That's a stunning example of how people delude themselves with confirmation bias, and spread their delusion to others.

    1) The video was deliberately edited to exclude the data that would have made it clear what Rumsfeld was actually talking about.

    2) Deluded conspiracy theorists accept whatever they think "confirms" their delusion without checking the facts and then spread the deception to other deluded conspiracy theorists.

    Good work!
    Richard, why do you always expose whenever a conspiracy theorist is proven false, but never address any of the proven accusations? Barbara Honegger lectured on how she interviewed this lady at the Pentagon for 2 hours, under oath:

    The Toronto Hearings on 9/11- Barbara. Honegger Day 2
    Eyewitnesses and Evidence of Explosions at the Pentagon
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2YrUq2Y_C4

    She also shows how two different Pentagon clocks, and this lady's wrist watch, all fried at the time of the explosion at the Pentagon, 9:31-32 AM (not the official 9:37:46). How would a jet do that? She also said that when she hit her on button for her computer, the computers in her area, all burst into flames.

    What about the skilled air pilots that say they couldn't pull off what this bad Sessna trained pilot presumably succeeded in doing? Why not question the inability to fly a Boeing 757 at that altitude, or how it didn't rip up the grass with the underside of the jet? Why do you ignore all this, but seem all to ready to rally around a false video, as though that was the only fact under scrutiny?
    dp:

    Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 2 Timothy 2:15

  2. #172
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    Richard, why do you always expose whenever a conspiracy theorist is proven false, but never address any of the proven accusations? Barbara Honegger lectured on how she interviewed this lady at the Pentagon for 2 hours, under oath:

    The Toronto Hearings on 9/11- Barbara. Honegger Day 2
    Eyewitnesses and Evidence of Explosions at the Pentagon
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2YrUq2Y_C4

    She also shows how two different Pentagon clocks, and this lady's wrist watch, all fried at the time of the explosion at the Pentagon, 9:31-32 AM (not the official 9:37:46). How would a jet do that? She also said that when she hit her on button for her computer, the computers in her area, all burst into flames.

    What about the skilled air pilots that say they couldn't pull off what this bad Sessna trained pilot presumably succeeded in doing? Why not question the inability to fly a Boeing 757 at that altitude, or how it didn't rip up the grass with the underside of the jet? Why do you ignore all this, but seem all to ready to rally around a false video, as though that was the only fact under scrutiny?
    The video that TheForgiven shared is a blatant deception that is immediately easy to PROVE is a deception. The stuff you post is not like that. It's mostly just ambiguity and innuendo. The video you posted is three freaking hours long! I'm not going to waste my time with that. If you have EVIDENCE that is easily demonstrated like the video that L67 debunked, then please present it. You don't have anything like that. You pose loaded questions like "how could those untrained terrorist turn that big plane?" You can't prove anything with questions like that.

    So again, I have asked you many times to present the BEST EVIDENCE you have that exposes the conspiracy, and you have not even tried. I'm sorry to say that I'm not surprised. I cannot find any difference between your claims and those of the classic conspiracy theorists who deny that we landed on the moon. Sorry, but your adamant refusal to present objectively verifiable evidence leaves me no other option.

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  3. #173
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    666
    Quote Originally Posted by TheForgiven View Post




    American Airlines and Flight United have been using Pratt and Whitney engines since the 1970's;
    NOT General Electric (GE) engines. Taking a look at a photo of an aircraft engine recovered from the WTC attacks, it is not readily easy to identify the specific engine:
    Correct. However, it's NOT a GE engine. Period.



    Quote Originally Posted by TheForgiven View Post
    We're told that this was one of the engines from Flight United 175, being a 767 engine. But is this correct? The answer will be quite obvious. Take a very close look at the cooling ducts with small tubes near the end of the combustor. Can you see it? If not, look at this particular cooling duct which fits the engine recovered from the WTC's:
    Yes, it's correct. Radar data PROVES it was flight 175 that crashed into the south tower. We have it on radar from take off to crash. Plus, all the videos and eyewitness's that prove it was flight 175.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheForgiven View Post
    Attachment 1302

    Now see if you can find it on the engine; it should be obvious.

    The cooling duct you see in the picture is designed to fit the JT9D-7A/7F/7 engines, NONE of which were installed on 767's. The JT9D-7A (and above) were older engines which were installed on 747's from the 1970's. None of the JT9D engines were large enough to provide sufficient thrust for the 767, except the JT9D-7R4 engines installed on some late 80's 767's. However, the cooling duct for the JT9D-7R4 engine is PN 801123 (the flat round cooling duct), which is not installed on the engine recovered from Murray Street. [Note: Since the 90's, all 767's were fitted with the PW4000 series engines, which are totally different from the JT9D-7R4 series, or the much older 747 engines].[/B].


    Here is the duct commonly used by 767's:

    Attachment 1303
    The JTD9-7R4D uses aderated and modified version of the basic JT9D fitted to United's 747s. The same engine family will share a lot of common features.

    http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchi...oard%22%20JT9D


    Also, those two piece parts are part of an assembly, not independent of one another.

    HPT Stage 1 Cooling Duct Assembly has 24 holes on the outer flange. The part has to be photographed that way because of the TOBI tubes.

    The HPT Stage 1 Cooling Duct (TOBI Configuration 2) is NOT an assembly and therefore cannot be considered to do the same job as the assembly, it is simply a partof an assembly.

    Notice it also has 24 holes, which means it bolts to the same section as the assembly. Now what do you notice about the photo compared to the first? That's right the holes are on top whereas the first photo the holes are on the bottom. Therefore this part is photogarphed "upside down" relative to the first part. Therefore it's impossible to see if it has TOBI tubes or whether another part with TOBI tubes is attached to this (and may be others) to form a full assembly.

    You can't demonstrate why the 7R4D couldn't have either one of the two pieces or both. You are making unfounded claims based on nonsense.




    Quote Originally Posted by TheForgiven View Post
    And yet none of the engines recovered from the WTC attacks were identified (as of yet) as possessing PN 769316, 781765, or 786692.
    Those parts aren't even OEM. You have no freaking idea whether a 7R4D could or did have the above parts.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheForgiven View Post
    So this leaves us with a very important question. I know for a fact that American Airlines and Flight United use strictly Pratt and Whitney engines (although some of their smaller planes use the CFM-56 engines), and not GE engines. THEREFORE, what planes hit towers 1 and 2 since they are clearly not from Flight United nor from American Airlines?
    They did strictly use Pratt and Whitney engines, but there is no question the engines are from flight 175. It's time to lay waste to your idiotic claims.

    Here is United Airlines "flight 175" a month before it crashed.

    Name:  20010911-1-P-d-1-500.jpg
Views: 25
Size:  24.7 KB

    There is no question those are 7R4D engines.

    Now all we have to do is examine these pictures of flight 175 before it crashed into the south tower.

    Name:  airlinerST_1.jpg
Views: 25
Size:  40.2 KB

    Name:  kc4f74ed9f.jpg
Views: 25
Size:  130.3 KB

    Name:  unknown_comp_shadow640.jpg
Views: 25
Size:  53.4 KB

    There is no question that this is flight 175.




    Quote Originally Posted by TheForgiven View Post
    Some 911 Liars claimed that Flight United 175 used an old 747 engine (JT9D-7A/7F/7J), and cross fitted these technological designs into a more fuel efficient engine JT9D-7R4 engine. But as you can NOW SEE, the cooling duct for the JT9D-7R4 engine DOES NOT MATCH the cooling duct from the recovered engine. So we now know they are lying their butts off!
    The liars are the so called "truthers".

    Also, Pratt and Whitney worked with NASA to come up with the 7R4D. You said this on post #13 Now a few years ago, some information came out that a former Pratt & Whitney engineer teamed up with NASA to help improve fuel efficiency on their planes. So SUPPOSEDLY they took the cooling duct manifold and joined it with a Pratt & Whitney, which became a new model comprised of both GE and Pratt & Whitney technology. Conveniently, a photo appeared with an older 747 using this so-called newer engine. But a total lack of proof that Flight United or American Airliners were never contracted for the so called "improved design" of the 747 engines. And why would they take older 747 engines and install them on new 767's?

    Unless of course we buy into the theory that a Pratt employee teamed up with NASA to improve OLDER MODEL 747 Pratt & Whitney engines.

    Well, you're wrong again. Read it for yourself. http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...1984020708.pdf



    Quote Originally Posted by TheForgiven View Post
    In conclusion, it should be clear that the planes which struck the towers were not part of American Airline or Flight United since the recovered engine does not identify with current use, as denoted by the turbine cooling duct installed on the recovered engine. [B]Thus, the planes belonged to another agency.
    You're a freaking nutjob.

    Have you told the passengers of United 175 yet? They'll be so glad to hear that their plane didn't crash. I know that for the past 13 years, most of them have been operating under the assumption that they were dead.

    They'll be so glad to hear they're not.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheForgiven View Post
    What's my theory? I believe the planes belonged to the CIA or the Air Force, but I can neither confirm, nor deny who owned those planes.

    And since neither airlines use the recovered engine, the question remains again, "WHO'S PLANES WERE THEY?"
    As for the engine, you have never proved what engine was on Flight 175. Amazingly, RADAR debunks your CLAIMS on all counts. 175 was tracked by multiple RADAR sites from takeoff to impact. How do you explain that? You don't, you move on to the next silly claim so stupid it hurts, never thinking about what proves what 175 was. But you can't do the physics, the logic, the evidence, RADAR, etc to keep you from falling for lies based on ignorance and fantasy.
    Attached Images Attached Images    
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace - Jimi Hendrix


  4. #174
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    288
    dp:

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    So again, I have asked you many times to present the BEST EVIDENCE you have that exposes the conspiracy, and you have not even tried. I'm sorry to say that I'm not surprised. I cannot find any difference between your claims and those of the classic conspiracy theorists who deny that we landed on the moon. Sorry, but your adamant refusal to present objectively verifiable evidence leaves me no other option.

    Richard
    Richard, I haven't even tried? Are you kidding me? Do you just brush aside all of my questions and videos and challenges for people to question 911 (I could have added to that the July 7, 2005 subway bombing ... much the same, and the March 11, 2003 Madrid bombing ... much the same), Iraq, Afghanistan, the Arab Spring, Ukraine, Syria, Benghazi, ISIL/ISIS/IS/AlQaeda/AlCIAda/ and the current back door take-down in Syria, probably all eventually leading to taking out Iran? Add to that, my days spent in viewing and posting the 2011 Toronto Hearings for 911 Truth.

    And all you can say is that I haven't even tried to present the BEST EVIDENCE. I guess you can qualify your BEST EVIDENCE with blatant denial of what I have presented.
    dp:

    Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 2 Timothy 2:15

  5. #175
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    Richard, I haven't even tried? Are you kidding me? Do you just brush aside all of my questions and videos and challenges for people to question 911 (I could have added to that the July 7, 2005 subway bombing ... much the same, and the March 11, 2003 Madrid bombing ... much the same), Iraq, Afghanistan, the Arab Spring, Ukraine, Syria, Benghazi, ISIL/ISIS/IS/AlQaeda/AlCIAda/ and the current back door take-down in Syria, probably all eventually leading to taking out Iran? Add to that, my days spent in viewing and posting the 2011 Toronto Hearings for 911 Truth.

    And all you can say is that I haven't even tried to present the BEST EVIDENCE. I guess you can qualify your BEST EVIDENCE with blatant denial of what I have presented.
    Your "questions" are not objectively verifiable evidence. I asked for evidence, and you presented questions.

    I gave you an example of what would constitute evidence. The video that TheForgiven posted was designed to deceive. L67 proved that. Have you presented any evidence that can be proven? If so, please remind me of it.

    The fact that you see "conspiracies" in essentially every event that hits the news does not help your case. It is exactly what I would expect from a deluded conspiracy theorist. Do you also include the Boston bombing and the Sandy Hook shooting? Is there no end to the "conspiracies" you see?

    Bottom line: Do you have any PRINCIPLES by which do discern between true conspiracies and delusions? If so, please explain them, and give examples of some famous conspiracy theories you have debunked using your principles.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  6. #176
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    666
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Excellent work L67! That's a stunning example of how people delude themselves with confirmation bias, and spread their delusion to others.

    1) The video was deliberately edited to exclude the data that would have made it clear what Rumsfeld was actually talking about.

    2) Deluded conspiracy theorists accept whatever they think "confirms" their delusion without checking the facts and then spread the deception to other deluded conspiracy theorists.

    Good work!
    Richard,

    You're exactly right. It's almost painful to watch the conspiracy theorists go off the deep end. It's no different than the poor suckers who follow the likes of Harold Camping.

    But, it's no surprise they think this way when they listen to people like this. This is the founder of AE911 truth. They are one of the big time pushers of this nonsense.

    He's pretty convincing.

    When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace - Jimi Hendrix


  7. #177
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by L67 View Post
    Richard,

    You're exactly right. It's almost painful to watch the conspiracy theorists go off the deep end. It's no different than the poor suckers who follow the likes of Harold Camping.

    But, it's no surprise they think this way when they listen to people like this. This is the founder of AE911 truth. They are one of the big time pushers of this nonsense.

    He's pretty convincing.

    I wouldn't use the word "almost."

    Wow. The dude in that video is a total nutjob. A cardboard box is supposed to simulate the collapse of the top 15 stories of a 110 story skyscraper? Does he have any concept of the load that structure bears just sitting there, let alone when it's been compromised by the impact of 80,000 KG of mass moving at 590 mph???

    The thing that is most telling fact is the lack of skepticism displayed by the conspiracy theorists which makes them very gullible and vulnerable to every variety of deception. Nothing could be more absurd than for them to call themselves "truthers."
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •