IPB




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Ron Wieck's RMS Titanic Witness Thread, Split from R. Mackey "Nothing to Debate" thread

KP50
post Mar 15 2009, 01:38 AM
Post #1



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 841
Joined: 14-May 07
From: New Zealand
Member No.: 1,044



QUOTE (RonWieck @ Mar 15 2009, 06:20 PM) *
Could someone tell me how to use the quote function?

It is fairly easy to work out and might help you get your point across - although I would suggest it is fairly garbled in the first place.

Nice work with "Penta-conmen" - clever pun. Did they hand-pick the witnesses? Those witnesses they hand-picked who were originally quoted as observing the light-poles being struck who later admitted that they never actually saw that happen?

You can wave your hands about with all the huge amount of evidence that you have, but how about finding the detailed account of a single eye-witness (other than Lloyd England, the cab driver) who saw a plane hit the light-poles. Five light-poles, busy highways etc etc, you'd think there would be dozens eager to tell their tale. Instead we find a dozen eye-witnesses who saw a plane in a position well away from the light-poles. All of them corroborating each other in the position of the plane. Who are you going to believe? And why? Ron, have you ever stood underneath a low-flying plane? Do you find it hard to work out whether it passed to your left or your right? What about a dozen people getting that simple question wrong?

If the plane didn't hit the light-poles, it was an inside job. Do you at least accept that for a statement to work forward from?

QUOTE
So, we have a number of people who recall seeing the plane hit the Pentagon. Most of them give descriptions consistent with the available data. A few describe a flightpath inconsistent with that data. ALL of them agree that the plane hit the building. From this hopelessly flimsy premise, unscrupulous, deluded cranks have attempted to conjure up a fantastic hypothesis that is contradicted by a mountain of physical evidence.

Many describe a different flightpath - but none of them describe your "correct" flightpath. That's not flimsy, Ron, that's inescapable logic. If it means all sorts of 3 letter agencies are corrupt and involved, then it means they are corrupt and involved. I fear you might have been duped, Ron, and the flightpath and the lightpoles are your key to working out the puzzle. Does that worry you when you try to sleep at night? It scares the sh*t out of me. It seems you have a choice, you can either stay in your cosy left wing/right wing world and think that you actually have a mainstream media who will break this sort of story or you can realise that we have all been lied to for decades - and 9/11 was the biggest lie of all. All you have to do is work it out for yourself.

And one more deal with you Ron, if you don't call me a crank I won't call you ignorant. whistle.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
grizz
post Mar 15 2009, 03:15 PM
Post #2


aka Oceans Flow


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,211
Joined: 19-October 06
From: Oregon
Member No.: 108



I know it's pointless to waste my typing skills on you, but I have a couple of questions, Ron. This is a test of your knowledge.

QUOTE (RonWieck @ Mar 14 2009, 09:20 PM) *
Wreckage of AA Flight 77 was found at the Pentagon, along with remains of all but five of the passengers and crew. Those remains were identified by DNA testing conducted at the Dover Port Mortuary.

Where is that wreckage, and where is the positive identification of the crashed aircraft?

Also, can you tell me where the passenger remains were found, and how they got there?

QUOTE
I must insist that no one here has made an honest effort at research.

I must insist that you don't know what you're talking about.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Mar 15 2009, 04:29 PM
Post #3



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



QUOTE (grizz @ Mar 19 2009, 02:15 PM) *
I must insist that you don't know what you're talking about.


Ditto.

The identification (allegedly assisted by DNA matching) was done at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, not the Dover Port Mortuary.

There is no documentation for chain of evidence. No one can say where those remains came from. All we know is that the AFIP identified nearly all (63 of 64 I think?) of the supposed passengers, and that no Arabs or alleged hijackers were identified. Thomas R. Olmsted, M.D. looked into this -

http://web.archive.org/web/20050318024200/...article_tro.htm

QUOTE (RonWieck @ Mar 19 2009, 12:20 AM) *
I must insist that no one here has made an honest effort at research.


THAT's a laugh !
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Mar 15 2009, 07:54 PM
Post #4



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 1-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (RonWieck @ Mar 15 2009, 06:32 PM) *
You continue to ignore, AS YOU MUST, my observations regarding the survivors of the Titanic.

Hi again Ron.

Although I don't quite catch the "relevance" of the 14 April 1912 RMS Titanic/iceberg incident (ocean liner vs. ice) to the Pentagon events (alleged aircraft vs. DoD HQ), I'm fully willing to split off a Titanic thread if you would prefer. Here are a couple of resources on the 1912 Titanic incident that I found recently:

http://www.titanic-nautical.com/RMS-Titanic-Iceberg-FAQ.html

http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/

Just let me know if you would like to dive into those icy Titanic waters further Ron. Also, I think you might have missed a few questions before the 3 of mine that you did approximately answer- thank you for that much BTW.

You don't drive a "dodge" do you? wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RonWieck
post Mar 15 2009, 08:53 PM
Post #5





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 74
Joined: 14-March 09
Member No.: 4,201



QUOTE (Sanders @ Mar 15 2009, 05:29 PM) *
Ditto.

The identification (allegedly assisted by DNA matching) was done at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, not the Dover Port Mortuary.

There is no documentation for chain of evidence. No one can say where those remains came from. All we know is that the AFIP identified nearly all (63 of 64 I think?) of the supposed passengers, and that no Arabs or alleged hijackers were identified. Thomas R. Olmsted, M.D. looked into this -

http://web.archive.org/web/20050318024200/...article_tro.htm



THAT's a laugh !



It's 2009 and people are still trotting out Olmstead's thoroughly debunked rubbish. Sad, but when you've got absolutely nothing, you may as well recycle ancient junk:


http://911myths.com/html/no_hijackers_on_the_manifests.html

http://911myths.com/html/autopsy_list.html


(From the book Pentagon 9/11, "Identifying the Dead," pp. 178-181):

"The location and nature of the emergency, overlapping layers of jurisdiction, and statutory regulations that governed military operations added a legal dimension to identifying and laying to rest the remains of the dead, both military and civilian. Normally, the Commonwealth of Virginia exercised authority over crimes committed within its borders. But the unusual circumstances of an attack on U.S. soil by by foreign terrorists and the resultant national emergency caused the Departments of Justice and Defense to assume jurisdiction. Navy Captain Glenn Wagner, director of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP). decribed that decision:

'So jurisdiction became a very important aspect since it clearly was an act of terrorism and the FBI was running the operation. The FBI and the US Attorney General really wanted to keep this on the federal side and were relieved to get confirmation that the Pentagon was [an] exclusive[ly] federal jurisdiction and that there wouldn't have to be any more state involvement than was absolutely necessary in the search and recovery. At that particular point the AFIP in the mobilization of our resources and the mobilization of DoD resources became a priority.'

The FBI, in consultation with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, directed AFIP to carry out forensic identification at the Dover Port Mortuary at Dover Air Force Base, Delaware, the Defense Department's only active port mortuary. Virginia's chief medical examiner requested and received a letter from the U.S. attorney general relieving the state of forensic and mortuary responsibilities. Death certificates would be issued at Dover on behalf of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Until forensic activity shifted away from the Pentagon to Dover, AFIP senior staff coordinated on-site with the FBI, Arlington County Fire Department, and state law enforcement officials, as well as their own chain of command, headed by the military district of Washington. All parties worked together to recover remains while preserving crime scene evidence. AFter being photgraphed and labeled in a controlled area, twice daily beginning on the 13th, in the continuous custody of the FBI the remains were transported under Virginia State Police and Fairfax County motorcycle officer escort from the Pentagon to Davison Army Airfield at Fort Belvoir, some 15 miles south of the Pentagon. From there Army CH-47 Chinook helicopters transported them 100 miles northeast to the Dover Port Mortuary. To ensure proper legal custody and continuous evidentiary control, FBI agents accompanied the remains until they were released to the medical examiner in Dover..."

Look, I'm not going to reproduce an entire chapter that sets out in exhaustive detail the forensic procedures that were carried out. Suffice it to say that if you had any genuine interest in the subject, you would take the trouble to inform yourself.


I'm in no position to speculate on the cause of your breathtaking ignorance. Perhaps you are very young and have decided that embracing fantastic, anti-American myths is way of spitting at all forms of authority. I can relate to that, but remember the words of Dean Vernon Wormer: "Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son." If you are not very young, you have made the decision to exclude reason and logic from your life. Nothing I can say will make the slightest impression on you.

ALL of the hijackers' names appeared on the passenger manifests (hint: that fact explains why the day after the attacks major newspapers were able to publish diagrams showing the seating positions of the terrorists). Unless I've missed my guess, however, demonstrating for the zillionth time that the CNN VICTIMS list is not a passenger manifest won't stop you from promoting this nonsense. Bear in mind that if you do it a hundred times, you will be wrong a hundred times.

We established with certainty that the AFIP conducted its forensic investigations at the Dover Port Mortuary. We established beyond reasonable doubt that the chain of custody was tightly controlled. What's left?

You can go the Craig Ranke route by flapping your arms and screeching that the FBI is in on it. But people who possess critical thinking skills begin to yawn when it turns out that your fantasy requires EVERYONE to be part of the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy. Please understand why those of us who have read the relevant material have no patience with the fabrications of those who reject reality and despise the truth.

Ask yourself why the CIT refuses to interview members of the FBI, the police, the fire department, or any branch of the military. Most of us know the answer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RonWieck
post Mar 15 2009, 09:02 PM
Post #6





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 74
Joined: 14-March 09
Member No.: 4,201



QUOTE (dMole @ Mar 15 2009, 08:54 PM) *
Hi again Ron.

Although I don't quite catch the "relevance" of the 14 April 1912 RMS Titanic/iceberg incident (ocean liner vs. ice) to the Pentagon events (alleged aircraft vs. DoD HQ), I'm fully willing to split off a Titanic thread if you would prefer. Here are a couple of resources on the 1912 Titanic incident that I found recently:

http://www.titanic-nautical.com/RMS-Titanic-Iceberg-FAQ.html

http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/

Just let me know if you would like to dive into those icy Titanic waters further Ron. Also, I think you might have missed a few questions before the 3 of mine that you did approximately answer- thank you for that much BTW.

You don't drive a "dodge" do you? wink.gif




Yes, you surely do catch the relevance of the stunning disparity in survivors' memories. Eyewitnesses to a disaster, or any traumatic event, often disagree on matters of detail. Their memories converge on the broad nature of the event. Following the CIT approach, one would conclude from the disagreement over whether or not the ship broke in half that it didn't sink at all. Again, this is not complicated: most eyewitness to the crash of AA Flight 77 give testimony consistent with the physical evidence; a few do not. The physical evidence trumps the hazy memories of the people describing an impossible flight path.

It can't be repeated often enough that THE CIT WILL < NEVER > ASK THE CHERRY-PICKED WITNESSES TO RESOLVE THEIR MUTUALLY-EXCLUSIVE CLAIMS.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Mar 15 2009, 09:15 PM
Post #7



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



I never even mentioned the manifests - I understand the difference between a list of victims and a list of passengers. That 9/11myths site is crap. The hijackers weren't "passengers" and, I guess, weren't identified, so that's why none of their names were included on any lists? Sounds like BS to me.

However I will concede and stand corrected on the Dover location where AFPI did their work. I did not know that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Mar 15 2009, 09:17 PM
Post #8



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 1-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (RonWieck @ Mar 15 2009, 08:02 PM) *
It can't be repeated often enough that THE CIT WILL < NEVER > ASK THE CHERRY-PICKED WITNESSES TO RESOLVE THEIR MUTUALLY-EXCLUSIVE CLAIMS.

Oh, sorry then Ron. I AM NOT "THE CIT" if you are interested in relevance BTW. Perhaps you should try here for that "line of questioning:"

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?

EDIT: Also Ron, in the future please don't presume/assume to tell me what I know, don't know, or "catch."
QUOTE
"Yes, you surely do catch the relevance of the stunning disparity in survivors' memories"


How are you coming along on those earlier "dodge" questions by the way Mr. Wieck?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RonWieck
post Mar 15 2009, 09:24 PM
Post #9





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 74
Joined: 14-March 09
Member No.: 4,201



QUOTE (Sanders @ Mar 15 2009, 10:15 PM) *
I never even mentioned the manifests - I understand the difference between a passenger list and a manifest. That 9/11myths site is crap. The hijackers weren't "passengers" and, I guess, weren't identified, so that's why none of their names were included on any lists? Sounds like BS to me.

However I will concede and stand corrected on the Dover location where AFPI did their work. I did not know that.



Do you begin to see how pointless all of this is? The passenger manifests were available to the major dailies. They used the manifests to explain extraordinary events to their readers. CNN and a few other organizations published lists of VICTIMS. Now, any confusion is the result of agenda-driven fantasists deliberately distorting the facts.

No, the 911myths site is not crap. It is an invaluable resource for anyone sincerely interested in learning about the jihadist attacks. You are quick to smear material you are totally incapable of disputing. You have found absolutely no incorrect information on 911myths.com.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 15 2009, 09:38 PM
Post #10



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,727
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (RonWieck @ Mar 15 2009, 10:02 PM) *
It can't be repeated often enough that THE CIT WILL < NEVER > ASK THE CHERRY-PICKED WITNESSES TO RESOLVE THEIR MUTUALLY-EXCLUSIVE CLAIMS.


Actually, they have. You just havent looked for it or asked. CIT has had email dialog with many, including Lagasse and Brooks. Lagasee stands by his statement he saw the plane on the north path. He bets his life on it.

Brookes also stands by his statement of the North Flight Path and now is confused on whether the aircraft actually hit the pentagon.

Im sure CIT will elaborate when they get a chance to stop by.

The question is... why hasnt one "debunker" interviewed any of the witnesses asking your same question? Or have they? ... but they refuse to reveal the results due to the fact it puts a damper on your "debunking" efforts. Why havent you gone to Arlington yet Ron? Why havent yo made phone calls? You claimed the NTSB did comment on their data, you have failed to produce source. Were you lying?

All your hand waiving of "debunked!" is just that. Hand waiving. None of your BS has debunked any of the data provided by the govt which does not support an impact. Many of your cohorts have speculated as to why they think the NTSB shows what it does. Speculation is not a "debunk" and is the reason Mackey will not tackle any debate with actual hard data and instead finds "No Plane Theories" a more important topic. The fact that not one "debunker" has gone to Arlington to interview witnesses, and would rather spend their days and nights arguing on the internet... also speaks volumes.


QUOTE
From there Army CH-47 Chinook helicopters transported them 100 miles northeast to the Dover Port Mortuary. To ensure proper legal custody and continuous evidentiary control, FBI agents accompanied the remains until they were released to the medical examiner in Dover


... and of course you 100% trust this chain of custody.... lol


Enough said...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RonWieck
post Mar 15 2009, 09:38 PM
Post #11





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 74
Joined: 14-March 09
Member No.: 4,201



QUOTE (Turbofan @ Mar 15 2009, 10:32 PM) *
Right...I'm ineducable, but you can answer one of my questions to show your understanding of
the information and prove Mackey's expert graph presentation to be correct?

What a joke. You know what Ron didn't answer? Two reasons:

1. He doesn't know/understand the FDR data

2. There is zero FDR data to allow the aircraft to enter Mackey's diving arc!!!!!!!! LMAO!!! laughing1.gif

Ryan Mackey is a JOKE and so is anyone that believes his graph is based on the FDR. It's IMPOSSIBLE
yet you swallow it up like a good little GL.

Ron try to show some skill before talking down to me. rolleyes.gif

Any day, any time you want to put one of your monkey boys up against me, or my contacts -
just say the word.

I'm waiting and I'm calling you out.



No, you're not calling out anyone. You're still running from the gigantic flaw in your fantasy.

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE CHERRY-PICKED WITNESSES ARE ASKED TO RESOLVE THEIR MUTUALLY-EXCLUSIVE CLAIMS?

Inquiring minds want to know and, frankly, are pretty tired of inquiring.

You were crushed by real experts on the Randi forum. There is nothing to suggest that you know what you're talking about. But, if you're serious about appearing on 'Hardfire' to debate someone who will expose your errors, I'll see what I can arrange.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RonWieck
post Mar 15 2009, 09:44 PM
Post #12





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 74
Joined: 14-March 09
Member No.: 4,201



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 15 2009, 10:38 PM) *
Actually, they have. You just havent looked for it or asked. CIT has had email dialog with many, including Lagasse and Brooks. Lagasee stands by his statement he saw the plane on the north path. He bets his life on it.

Brookes als stands by his statement and now is confused on whether the aircraft actually hit the pentagon.

Im sure CIT will elaborate when they get a chance to stop by.

All your hand waiving of "debunked!" is just that. Hand waiving. None of your BS has debunked any of the data provided by the govt which does not support an impact. Many of your cohorts have speculated as to why they think the NTSB shows what it does. Speculation is not a "debunk" and is the reason Mackey will not tackle any debate with actual hard data and instead finds "No Plane Theories" a more important topic.




... and of course you 100% trust this chain of custody.... lol


Enough said...



Ooops! But LaGasse has utter contempt for the CIT frauds. As always, you are forced to avoid the main issue: Many people observed a plane hit the Pentagon from a path consistent with the physical evidence. A tiny handful either claim, or have been guided to claim, that the plane flew a path inconsistent with the evidence. The evidence trumps the eyewitness accounts.

Tell us again why the "Government" went to a lot of trouble and thoughtfully provided data that doesn't support its story. Maybe they just got confused?


I trust the chain of custody until you provide the first shred of evidence that your preposterous fantasy has ANY basis in reality.

This post has been edited by RonWieck: Mar 15 2009, 09:47 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 15 2009, 09:49 PM
Post #13



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,727
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (RonWieck @ Mar 15 2009, 10:33 PM) *
Research involves interviewing rescue workers,


See the endorsement of CIT's work from a Rescue worker on their home page... http://thepentacon.com

QUOTE
FAA personnel,


Still trying to track down "John Anthony" of the FAA who suggested a translator for Hani to continue his "training" although it is illegal to do so and the FAA should have immediately conducted a 709 ride.

QUOTE
FBI agents,


See Pandora's Black Box Chapter Two and the recording with the FBI "PENTBOM" team...

QUOTE
and forensic examiners.


We have no doubt the "forensic examiners" were given human remains.

Again Ron, let us know what you find out on your trip to Arlington telling the witnesses they were confused regarding the North path.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RonWieck
post Mar 15 2009, 10:10 PM
Post #14





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 74
Joined: 14-March 09
Member No.: 4,201



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 15 2009, 10:49 PM) *
See the endorsement of CIT's work from a Rescue worker on their home page... http://thepentacon.com



Still trying to track down "John Anthony" of the FAA who suggested a translator for Hani to continue his "training" although it is illegal to do so and the FAA should have immediately conducted a 709 ride.



See Pandora's Black Box Chapter Two and the recording with the FBI "PENTBOM" team...



We have no doubt the "forensic examiners" were given human remains.

Again Ron, let us know what you find out on your trip to Arlington telling the witnesses they were confused regarding the North path.



In other words, you will never do basic investigative journalism. You will NEVER confront the people who handled the aircraft wreckage and observed the charred bodies strapped to their seats.

You continue to smear, with no justification whatever, the forensic examiners: Why the dishonest scare quotes? They are, of course, REAL forensic examiners.

When will you explain to the far greater number of witnesses who described the flight path supported by the physical evidence that they are confused. Never? Why not?

Bad job, Rob.

This post has been edited by RonWieck: Mar 15 2009, 10:12 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Mar 15 2009, 10:13 PM
Post #15



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



QUOTE (RonWieck @ Mar 19 2009, 09:24 PM) *
Do you begin to see how pointless all of this is? The passenger manifests were available to the major dailies. They used the manifests to explain extraordinary events to their readers. CNN and a few other organizations published lists of VICTIMS. Now, any confusion is the result of agenda-driven fantasists deliberately distorting the facts.

No, the 911myths site is not crap. It is an invaluable resource for anyone sincerely interested in learning about the jihadist attacks. You are quick to smear material you are totally incapable of disputing. You have found absolutely no incorrect information on 911myths.com.


I mispoke, I corrected my original post (as you were quoting it) - to read "the difference between a list of victims and a list of passengers". I understand that what CNN published was a list of VICTIMS. So you don't have to get your shorts all up in a knot.

This however, got my shorts in a knot: "Most eyewitnesses support the flight path consistent with the physical evidence; a handful describe, or have been led by agenda-driven "interviewers" to describe, a path inconsistent with the evidence. ALL of them claim to have seen a plane hit the Pentagon."

I'm not as fluent in this business of the witnesses as some others around here, but I've read alot of witness accounts, and I don't remember ONE where someone actually said they saw the plane crash into the Pentagon, much less all of them. There may have been a couple that said as much, there may be none in fact if you go back to what they actually said (I know of one such instance), I don't know for sure - but I know they didn't ALL (your caps/bold) claim to see the plane hit the building, as you insist.

As for 9/11myths, it's not the information they print, it's the claims they pick to debunk. Admittedly, there are a lot of claims floating around which, while reflecting serious holes in the official account, get verbalized on the net by people who take liberties or don't know what they're talking about. These are the claims 9/11myths choose to debunk. The question of missile batteries at the Pentagon for example. No, there is no evidence for any missile defense systems in place at the Pentagon. Does that mean there aren't any? Who knows, I'm sure that's classified stuff - but if they got missiles on the roof of the White House and the Secret Service puts missiles on the roofs of hotels when the president stays there, does it seem plausible that the US would leave the headquarters of the military completely undefended? So, 9/11myths trots out all their documentation that there is no evidence that there are missile batteries in place at the Pentagon, and so the myth is debunked, much like Popular Mechanics approaches the subject.

That's why I said it was crap.

Here's their page titled "How could the passengers bodies be identified, when the plane was destroyed by fire?"
http://911myths.com/html/bodies_identified.html

It says:

QUOTE
Itís difficult to destroy DNA. Essentially you need a complete cremation, turn even bones to ash, and that doesnít happen easily...


Then it goes on to describe the temperatures (1800 F, etc.) needed to cremate a body.

They skirt the issue and change the question - DNA is in fact relatively easy to destroy. It becomes denatured (the strands come apart) above 100 C and the chemical bonds that hold the nucleotides together fall apart not far above that ... 130 - 150 C? Autoclaves in hospitals routinely sterilize instruments by exposing them to a temperature around 120 C for 15 minutes I think. Try and get a good DNA sample from a cooked chicken ... you can't! But that's a far cry from cremating a chicken (bones and all) till there's nothing left but ash. The original "myth" that 9/11myths takes on is one about the identifying of passengers, i.e. DNA, and they turn it into a lesson on how hot crematoriums operate at. Apples and oranges.

And where is the debunking of the FDR results on their website? It ain't there.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RonWieck
post Mar 15 2009, 10:18 PM
Post #16





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 74
Joined: 14-March 09
Member No.: 4,201



QUOTE (Sanders @ Mar 15 2009, 11:13 PM) *
I mispoke, I corrected my original post (as you were quoting it) - to read "the difference between a list of victims and a list of passengers". I understand that what CNN published was a list of VICTIMS. So you don't have to get your shorts all up in a knot.

This however, got my shorts in a knot: "Most eyewitnesses support the flight path consistent with the physical evidence; a handful describe, or have been led by agenda-driven "interviewers" to describe, a path inconsistent with the evidence. ALL of them claim to have seen a plane hit the Pentagon."

I'm not as fluent in this business of the witnesses as some others around here, but I've read alot of witness accounts, and I don't remember ONE where someone actually said they saw the plane crash into the Pentagon, much less all of them. There may have been a couple that said as much, there may be none in fact if you go back to what they actually said (I know of one such instance), I don't know for sure - but I know they didn't ALL (your caps/bold) claim to see the plane hit the building, as you insist.

As for 9/11myths, it's not the information they print, it's the claims they pick to debunk. Admittedly, there are a lot of claims floating around which, while reflecting serious holes in the official account, get verbalized on the net by people who take liberties or don't know what they're talking about. These are the claims 9/11myths choose to debunk. The question of missile batteries at the Pentagon for example. No, there is no evidence for any missile defense systems in place at the Pentagon. Does that mean there aren't any? Who knows, I'm sure that's classified stuff - but if they got missiles on the roof of the White House and the Secret Service puts missiles on the roofs of hotels when the president stays there, does it seem plausible that the US would leave the headquarters of the military completely undefended? So, 9/11myths trots out all their documentation that there is no evidence that there are missile batteries in place at the Pentagon, and so the myth is debunked, much like Popular Mechanics approaches the subject.

That's why I said it was crap.

Here's their page titled "How could the passengers bodies be identified, when the plane was destroyed by fire?"
http://911myths.com/html/bodies_identified.html

It says:



Then it goes on to describe the temperatures (1800 F, etc.) needed to cremate a body.

They skirt the issue and change the question - DNA is in fact relatively easy to destroy. It becomes denatured (the strands come apart) above 100 C and the chemical bonds that hold the nucleotides together fall apart not far above that ... 130 - 150 C? Autoclaves in hospitals routinely sterilize instruments by exposing them to a temperature around 120 C for 15 minutes I think. Try and get a good DNA sample from a cooked chicken ... you can't! But that's a far cry from cremating a chicken (bones and all) till there's nothing left but ash. The original "myth" that 9/11myths takes on is one about the identifying of passengers, i.e. DNA, and they turn it into a lesson on how hot crematoriums operate at. Apples and oranges.

And where is the debunking of the FDR results on their website? It ain't there.



There was no "debunking" of the FDR results. The data are consistent with a crash into the Pentagon. Turbofan was exposed as a know-nothing by real experts.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 15 2009, 10:19 PM
Post #17



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,727
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (RonWieck @ Mar 15 2009, 11:10 PM) *
In other words, you will never do basic investigative journalism. You will NEVER confront the people who handled the aircraft wreckage and observed the charred bodies strapped to their seats.


In other words, you will NEVER go to Arlington to confront witnesses who bet their life on the North Flight Path opposite the physical damage.

Ron, "never" is a strong word and P4T has only so many resources and alot of conflicting data to sift through. Not to mention growing the organization with verified professionals (yeah, we have to verify them since your cohorts like to play games). We would like to talk with people who discovered aircraft wreckage. We'll get to it eventually. hopefully. But, it's not a priority since the FBI/NTSB never positively identifed such wreckage as coming from N644AA. Im sure many people picked up wreckage at the pentagon. Heck, there's pictures of it. This doesnt mean it came from N644AA and has never been proven as such by the govt. You just take their word for it. We (you know, aviation professionals, Aircraft Accident Investigators, FDR Experts.. et al), want answers.

Also, the "passengers strapped to seats" has been debunked.

QUOTE
You continue to smear, with no justification whatever.


We are "smearing" them by saying we have no doubt they were given human remains? Ron, you been drinknig tonight?

QUOTE
When will you explain to the far greater number of witnesses who described the flight path supported by the physical evidence that they are confused. Never? Why not?


When will you produce a witness who supports the south flight path? There is no such thing as 104 Impact witnesses. When is your trip to Arlington to confront North Path witnesses? Never?

Bad job Ron... wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Mar 15 2009, 11:06 PM
Post #18


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



QUOTE (RonWieck @ Mar 16 2009, 03:44 AM) *
Ooops! But LaGasse has utter contempt for the CIT frauds.


You're still just a big ol' windbag with 0 attention span aren't ya Ron? rolleyes.gif

FYI. Lagasse has contempt for conspiracy theorists, don't conflate the two.

Here is an excerpt from an e-mail to Craig from Lagasse:

The only reason I continue
to talk to you is at least you had the balls to question
these things to my face. Wether or not I agree with you at
least we had a decent dialog and you realize I am not some
brainwashed stooge..


He also wanted to know...

I would love to know who discredits what I
say about where the plane flew?


You should contact him. Be a man about it, Ron.

I can post more, but you seem to be on top of your buffoonery tonight so I doubt any of it will make a dent.

This guy can't be for real. I mean come on...

This post has been edited by Aldo Marquis CIT: Mar 15 2009, 11:08 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
grizz
post Mar 16 2009, 12:44 AM
Post #19


aka Oceans Flow


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,211
Joined: 19-October 06
From: Oregon
Member No.: 108



Clearly this is all a waste of our time. Who cares if some partisan blowhard knows the truth? Ron Wieck will be left in the dust bin of historical irrelevancies.

But I would still like answers to my questions please, just to see if your ignorance of the facts is as deep as it appears.

QUOTE
Where is that wreckage, and where is the positive identification of the crashed aircraft?

Also, can you tell me where the passenger remains were found, and how they got there?

You get extra credit if you know the answer to the second question. I wouldn't spend much time on the first question, though, because it has no answer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RonWieck
post Mar 16 2009, 06:45 AM
Post #20





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 74
Joined: 14-March 09
Member No.: 4,201



QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Mar 16 2009, 12:06 AM) *
You're still just a big ol' windbag with 0 attention span aren't ya Ron? rolleyes.gif

FYI. Lagasse has contempt for conspiracy theorists, don't conflate the two.

Here is an excerpt from an e-mail to Craig from Lagasse:

The only reason I continue
to talk to you is at least you had the balls to question
these things to my face. Wether or not I agree with you at
least we had a decent dialog and you realize I am not some
brainwashed stooge..


He also wanted to know...

I would love to know who discredits what I
say about where the plane flew?


You should contact him. Be a man about it, Ron.

I can post more, but you seem to be on top of your buffoonery tonight so I doubt any of it will make a dent.

This guy can't be for real. I mean come on...



Some of us might notice that LaGasse firmly believes that he saw a plane crash into the Pentagon. He acknowledges that Ranke is truly nuts, as opposed to being a cynical fraud like Griffin.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th December 2014 - 06:34 PM