Originally posted by .😖pace Opera:.
Ush- you said that the body of the plane was melted from the fumes just like the planes that hit the WTC. the only reason those planes melted was because of the extreme intensity of the heat and pressure that had built up in those few floors at the top of the buildings from the overlaying floors being pushed down ontop of it, not to mention the whole tumbling to the ground bit that probably helped distort most of the wreckage. with the pentagon, its different because there was not as much pressure being built up from tons of steel ontop of the wreckage like the WTC. it was in plain atmosphere. because it was out in the open, with no extreme amounts of pressure, and no thousand-foot plumet to the ground, its unlikely that there would be NO parts of the plane left to see in broad daylight except for a small little piece of steal that, honestly looks like it was planted there. that picture of the plane in those video stills looks more like a distortion in the picture, and if the plane hit the ground than you would see alot more dust and dirt rising from the field than you do in the video, especially going 300-400 mph.
It wasn't out in the open, it was inside an enclosed space in the middle of an aviation fuel fire so hot the firefighters couldn't get close. It melted.
And will people stop calling it a 747! Geez. One of the problems here is that the theorists don;t even check basic facts, from PVS saying there was no passenger list to people like Ya insisting it was a 747.
Ya, I have no idea why you think there is anything wrong with my posts. Yours are just dumb. I'm not going to go over it again. The points of evidence I have posted above are pretty conclusive and if you believe otherwise you are simply a fool. The evidence is MORE than enough for a Court of Law- and indeed has already been subject to investigations working to that standard, who also did a lot of work in identifying the terrorists who took over Flight 77 that this inanely dumb theory is trying to remove from the picture.
---
"Are you getting confused? It seems rather perverse to use the lack of clarity in the video as a case for your argument as this distortion is the very point of our discussion."
---
No, YOU are confused. Now pay attention. There is not the slightest bit of evidence for it being a missile or it not being a plane., The video DOES NOT CHANGE THAT.
As ALL the other evidence points towards it being a plane, then the lack of any clarity in the video does indeed make it useless to adding to the discussion at all. If there had actually been some reasonable doubt raised somewhere about it being a plane, then maybe. But not only is there no reasonable doubt, there is proof positive that it WAS a plane.
There is NO doubt that it was a plane other than in the mind of silly conspiracy theorists. Show me some actual evidence, then it can be listened to. Otherwise- sorry to break it to you, but yes, else you are being like Deano.
The video footage does NOT make it inconclusive. That is dumb. That is saying that something can only be proven if it is filmed, which is obvious horseshit. The EVIDENCE makes it conclusive. The video is simply irrelevant, for it neither proves nor disproves anything.
And as part of this being a discussion, I felt perfectly at liberty to point out how useless Bardock's points 3 and 4 were if you actually understood what was being discussed here. What is being discussed is people saying it cannot have been a plane because of the video. NO-ONE is saying it HAS to be a plane because of the video. So only my two points were relevant; Bardock's were a waste of time.
The ONLY 'evidence' we have that it is not a plane is that one camera failed to see anything. That is not actually evidence at all. To believe so, to believe that that creates a doubt, goes enormously against all reasonable application of rationality and common sense. Magee's post absolutely nails the issue- that's all there is to it. It is beyond flimsy.
Intellectual standards seem to be dropping rapidly. A shame.