9/11 and conspiracy theories

[Beto]

Alrighty then... as I suggested in another thread, this one will be just to chat about 9/11 and other conspiracy theories. With so many websites solely devoted to them, I don't think addressing the issue here is "dangerous" to anyone.

So, to get things started I'll mention the "peculiarities" I find in the 9/11 event that I don't feel are sufficiently addressed by the government. I'm particularly interested in some incontrovertible images and sounds, since anything else implies trusting the mainstream media and the accused party.

First off, about the WTC 7. The NIST recently released a report blaming the fires for the collapse of the building. I'm no engineer so I can't really judge. Though looking at how the building falls it seems like a bunch of bs to me. More relevant is Silverstein's statement. During an interview, Silverstein claimed to have decided, in conjunction with the Fire Commander to "pull" the building. Now, it's often claimed he meant pull the firefighters out, but his exact phrase was "pull it". The transcript goes like:

"I said 'you know we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull, and then we watched the building collapse."



People say it comes down to what we want to hear. For the life of me, and despite definitely not wanting to hear what I do, I can't see how this could relate to pull people out. Also relevant was the fact that no firefighters were in the building at this time. They were outside walking away from the building, fact caught on amateur video:

"It's blowin' boy." ... "Keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming down soon." ... "The building is about to blow up, move it back." ... "Here we are walking back. There's a building, about to blow up..."



"Blow up"? It's hard to believe the firefighters were expecting a steel framed building to collapse because of internal fires, when later it's considered a "freak accident", and totally unexpected.

OK, that's enough about WTC 7. Now something about Flight 93.



Leaving aside the "feel" of the clip, and whether or not the "scar" was there before 9/11, this is NOT a plane crash site. Scattered debris here and there don't make a plane crash site. The bulk of the fuselage should be right there, where nothing can be seen. Show me another crash site even remotely similar to that one.

That's enough for now, I guess.

[Furrowed Brow]

Well, if we actually saw any sign of aircraft parts (apart from one or two dubious engine parts and ridiculously clean fuselage pieces several yards away), never mind actual seats, it would make it easier to believe.

Don’t know if you’ve already found these pictures. As well as aircraft parts be warned there are pictures of charred human remains.Link A
More pics and some of the same pics again hereLink B

Pending a better forensic analysis the still frame from the CCTV footage of a silver object entering frame right, this looks to be the correct scale for a 12ft 4’’ diameter fuselage as compared to the building which is 77ft high.

Also google pictures of 757 in American airlines livery. Then google pictures of a cruise missile. Whatever the CCTV is showing it ain’t a 0.52m diameter cruise missile, and if it looks like anything it the nose of a silver 757.

The problem isn't the size of the hole. That is a straw man.

What was the point of the picture then?

Look at the Pentagon footage. A couple of frames after the initial blast we can observe the explosion isn't concentrated on the engines or wings, and is already coming from inside the Pentagon.

I don’t see any engine or wings. But then there was much better footage of flights 11 and 175 and there I saw no explosions coming from their engines or wings. I saw a fireball coming from inside the building out. I’m assuming the majority of flight 77 went the same way, and ended up inside the building it hit.

I put up the link to the footage of an airliner's engine touching the ground and the ball of flames that follows. None of that was observed, either when the engine allegedly hit the ground, or when the left wing hit the facade.

Notice the lawn, where the engine is supposed to hit, zilch.

According to the data you put in the same post the engine struck the ground as the nose hit the façade of the building. I have not got an exact figure but the engine is mounted around 60ft back from the nose. that puts the engine strike a maximum of 60ft(approx) from the building.

Dimesnions 757

From the nose hitting the facade the engine still has time to travel closer to the façade before hitting the ground. I’m not sure the length of the yellow fire truck in the picture. I’d say 30ft was a reasonable guess. Take a close look at the shadow. Though you can’t see it, the back of the truck is either inside or on the shadow edge. Pending a forensic analysis it looks to me like another fire truck will fit between the one in picture and the building. Whatever the exact distance it is some where around 60ft. That puts engine strike inside the area marked by the shadow, and not on “the lawn� in sunshine. Not that this proves much, except maybe not to get too excited about the pics.

The wing hits, the diesel ignites, and flaming diesel should be spread around burning for a considerable amount of time, at least something remotely similar to what allegedly happened in the towers. Is that the wrong analysis of an impact with a wing full of diesel? Why the notorious difference between the towers and the Pentagon? Is there footage of burning diesel?

I see the Pentagon on fire. I saw the twin towers on fire. There was no diesel on fire outside of the twin towers after the initial explosion.

There's no diesel burning like what allegedly happened in the towers, not even for a few seconds. There's an explosion and that's it.

There was a fire. The explosion was also better contained by the Pentagon building, so the fire ball goes up and back out the hole in its façade. Quite clearly a fire inside the building is the outcome.

Look at what happens when an airliner's engine hits the ground, then look at the Pentagon footage, and tell me if it's likely that happened.

In that footage I see plane and engine hit ground and a short delay before an explosion. True the film is slowed down but some distance is travelled before any explosion. Again you might be able to come up with a more forensic figure, but from playing the footage over half a dozen times it looks to me to be around one half to one airplane length. Flight 77 had to travel around 100 ft and as you report takes 0.1 seconds to do that. (I make that 680 mph approx). C-nub might like to apply some more maths, but I get flight 77 at or inside the building before we might expect to see an explosion.

This is the analysis I would like you to make. Does the Pentagon footage look at all like what should be expected from a 757 hitting the facade, one engine touching the ground when the nose hits the facade, and at least one of the wings being left behind?

When did the wing get left behind? Is that the official report? The wing was traveling at 680mph and heading towards the main building, and as C-nub as kindly shown the engine attached had a heck of a lot of momentum and nothing was going to stop it.

[Beto]

First of all, thanks for indulging me in your attempt to take my arguments seriously. Must be hard.

Don’t know if you’ve already found these pictures. As well as aircraft parts be warned there are pictures of charred human remains.Link A
More pics and some of the same pics again hereLink B

You're just assuming there are charred human remains. Nice appeal to emotion.

IMO these are hardly conclusive pictures of a 757 crash, when there are so many inconsistencies that warrant an assumption of "governmental lying" (I'm gonna start saying that instead of "conspiracy"). This is the problem, it's far too easy to plant a couple of items inside the Pentagon in advance, or that odd piece of unscorched fuselage in the lawn when the time comes. A couple of items can't be enough to demonstrate an actual 757 hit the Pentagon. Allegedly, there's actual footage, and actual black boxes available. There's no good explanation for concealing the footage, but the boxes aren't disclosed to the media to "spare the families"? A huge percentage of the world's population thinks 9/11 was "fishy" at best (as confirmed by recent poles), and they're concerned about a few families? Of the pilots? It's completely hypocritical and very suspicious.

Pending a better forensic analysis the still frame from the CCTV footage of a silverfish object entering frame right, this is the correct scale for a 12ft 4’’ diameter fuselage as compared to the building which is 77ft high.

Where can you distinguish a "silverfish object" from that footage? We'll have to agree to disagree on this point, since I can't see anything that resembles the nose of a 757, never mind the color. And how long are people supposed to wait for a better forensic analysis? And who does it? A government agency, without ever bothering to disclose details? People are squabbling over that insignificant and near-undecipherable piece of footage, with much better footage and black boxes available. Does that make sense?

Also google pictures of 757 in American airlines livery. Then google pictures of a cruise missile. Whatever the CCTV is showing it ain’t a 0.52m diameter cruise missile, and if it looks like anything it the nose of a silver 757.

Since you're making calculations, why aren't these correct?

http://website.lineone.net/~bosankoe/analysis.htm

As for the "cruise missile", determining what it was is less important than what it wasn't. If it wasn't a 757, it could have been a great many things. But it is the government who is claiming it was a 757, and if proven it wasn't, what it actually was is less relevant, don't you agree?

The problem isn't the size of the hole. That is a straw man.

What was the point of the picture then?

Didn't I write the point immediately after that quote?

I don’t see any engine or wings. But then there was much better footage of flights 11 and 175 and there I saw no explosions coming from their engines or wings. I saw a fireball coming from inside the building out.

Flights 11 and 175 had a whole bunch of diesel burning around for a long time. That's the relevant point, since the building facades had little in common.

I’m assuming the majority of flight 77 went the same way, and ended up inside the building it hit.

Ah, but it seems I'm not as entitled to my own assumptions.

According to the data you put in the same post the engine struck the ground as the nose hit the façade of the building. I have not got an exact figure but the engine is mounted around 60ft back from the nose. that puts the engine strike a maxim mum of 60ft(approx) from the building.

Dimesnions 757

From the nose hitting the faced the engine still has time to travel closer to the façade before hitting. I’m not sure the length of the yellow fire truck in the picture. I’d say 30ft was a reasonable guess. Take a close look at the shadow. Though you can’t see it, the back of the truck is either inside or on the shadow edge. Pending a forensic analysis it looks to me like another fire truck will fit between the one in picture and the building. Whatever the exact distance it is around 60ft. That puts engine strike somewhere inside the area marked by the shadow, and not on “the lawn� in sunshine. Not that this proves much, except maybe not to get too excited about the pics.

Wait a second, I'm not the one claiming the engine struck the ground. It's the official version, probably to account for the lack of facade damage on the left. I'm assuming.

I see the Pentagon on fire.

C'mon, I'm not talking of a puny flame on the inside that starts conspicuously late. I'm talking of a wing with diesel that doesn't penetrate the facade, and an engine that hit the ground. These are the big immediate fires that should be observed but aren't.

I saw the twin towers on fire. There was no diesel on fire outside of the twin towers after the initial explosion.

The buildings aren't comparable.

icon_confused2 There was a fire. The explosion was also better contained by the Pentagon building, so the fire ball goes up and back out the hole in its façade. Quite clearly a fire inside the building is the outcome.

But again, if the left wing didn't go through it, it wouldn't just explode and vaporize completely, there should be noticeable remains of the wing and plenty of diesel burning around.

In that footage I see plane and engine hit ground and a short delay before an explosion. True the film is slowed down but some distance is travelled before any explosion. Again you might be able to come up with a more forensic figure, but from playing the footage over half a dozen times it looks to me to be around one half to one airplane length. Flight 77 had to travel around 100 ft and as you report takes 0.1 seconds to do that. (I make that 680 mph approx). C-nub might like to apply some more maths, but I get flight 77 at or inside the building before we might expect to see an explosion.

Yes, but there would be a noticeable trail regardless, agree?

When did the wing get left behind? Is that the official report? The wing was traveling at 680mph and heading towards the main building, and as C-nub as kindly shown the engine attached had a heck of a lot of momentum and nothing was going to stop it.

This is indisputable. The left facade shows no sign of a wing going through it. Engine, perhaps, but wing? No way.

[Furrowed Brow]

You're just assuming there are charred human remains.

Nope. The pics are definitely of charred human remains.

Nice appeal to emotion..

Only seems correct to give a warning. The pictures stand evidence. Agreed any appeal to emotion is meaningless as evidence, but so too is dismissing them because they might appeal to the emotions of the viewer. The pictures stand. You need to show how they are plants and who planted them.

Then you need to given a convincing explanation as to why any agency would take the risk of rigging a crash scene when flights 11 and 175 – real flights -would have been sufficient to give the hawks in Bush’s administration their Pearl Harbor. There’s incompetence and then theirs moronic stupidity. And rigging a crash at the pentagon is moronic stupidity given flights 11 and 175. Rigging the towers to blow would have been equally moronic. The planes were sufficient for a pearl harbor moment. The craziest part of the conspiracy theory is it don’t make sense as a conspiracy.

IMO these are hardly conclusive pictures of a 757 crash, when there are so many inconsistencies that warrant an assumption of "governmental lying" (I'm gonna start saying that instead of "conspiracy").

There are pictures of remains, there are pictures of airplane parts. It you assume they are lies then you affirm your belief they are lies.

This is the problem; it's far too easy to plant a couple of items inside the Pentagon in advance, or that odd piece of unscorched fuselage in the lawn when the time comes. A couple of items can't be enough to demonstrate an actual 757 hit the Pentagon.

Yes they can.

But there are more than a couple of parts. From Link A and B I count 7 distinct objects that to my untutored eye are plane parts. Then are several piles of mashed up stuff that would need to expert to sift through, but could be plane parts. And even if we go with you “placed there theory� they could still be mashed up plane parts. Now either they got their under their own direction or they were placed there, but the fact they are there demonstrates debris consistent with a 757 is in situ. So then we come back to what you see is real, or it is not.


Also from link B.

• Size of 757 matches the initial size of hole in the building - somewhere between 13 and 16 feet (757 is 13 feet wide/high)
• Rims found in building match those of a 757
• Small turbine engine outside is an APU
• Same engine has been clearly stated to not match a Global Hawk engine
• Blue seats from 757 laying on ground in photos
• Part of "American" fuselage logo visible in more than 1 photo
• Engine parts photographed inside match a Rolls-Royce RB211
• Structural components photographed in wreckage match Boeing paint primer schemes
• Large diesel generator in front of building hit by a large heavy object
• Large diesel engine outside is spun towards the building - could not be result of bomb blast or missile explosion
• Multiple eye witnesses say they saw an airliner
• Multiple eye witnesses say they saw an airliner hit the Pentagon
• 60+ bodies, matching the passenger list and flight crew roster identified and returned to families from Pentagon wreckage

Allegedly, there's actual footage, and actual black boxes available.

Why accept the legitimacy of an alleged black box, and reject the legitimacy of actual airplane parts, and bodies, and an actual flight 77. If you dismiss these as plants or lies then why accept an alleged black box.

There's no good explanation for concealing the footage, but the boxes aren't disclosed to the media to "spare the families"?

You’ve moved from an alleged to “there is no good reason to…�. This is not an argument.

A huge percentage of the world's population thinks 9/11 was "fishy" at best (as confirmed by recent poles), and they're concerned about a few families? Of the pilots? It's completely hypocritical and very suspicious.

And a huge percentage of the world’s population believes in a deity. C’mon. Not an argument.

Where can you distinguish a "silverfish object" from that footage?

I edited the typo from my post. There’s now no silverfish.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this point, since I can't see anything that resembles the nose of a 757, never mind the color.

The picture you posted is a bit green. This BBC footage shows a “white streak�, given the sunlight and the poor quality if the footage, that’s easily silver. Other picture I’ve see on online are more grey. I see an object way to big to be a missile, therefore it has to be a plane. That much we’re agreed. Okay after playing this about thirty times and stopping and playing it again I started to see a 757….with American Ariline logo down the side….. .....okay not an argument.

And how long are people supposed to wait for a better forensic analysis?

The link you posted: the guy has obviously gone to a whole lot of effort. To counter would take a project of similar size. However, it needs proper peer review. Until then, despite the gargantuan effort, it’s not worth anything. Get a top university physics department to make the same analysis and then back that up with a couple more universities and you’ve got a theory.

In the meantime I don’t think it even needs a forensic analysis for the point to be made. A couple of minutes comparing the height of the Pentagon to the object are going to show it is way bigger than a cruise missile. The object is too big. If it is a plane or a drone plane then why is that idea acceptable, but not the 757? If a plane could have done it then why dismiss the one and only known prime suspect – flight 77.

As for the "cruise missile", determining what it was is less important than what it wasn't. If it wasn't a 757, it could have been a great many things. But it is the government who is claiming it was a 757, and if proven it wasn't, what it actually was is less relevant, don't you agree?

Nothing is proving the conspiracy case other than the preconception that the physical evidence has to be a lie. Why is that so painful to accept? Because of the pictures you’ve posted on this forum? As I said they are consistent with 757. You think the analysis given in that link stands up? Great take it to a university. I’m back route learning and have a couple of things on, but give me a month and some free time and I might take on the guys argument myself.

And who does it? A government agency, without ever bothering to disclose details? People are squabbling over that insignificant and near-undecipherable piece of footage, with much better footage and black boxes available. Does that make sense?

No. There is nothing to squabble over. There are plane parts, there are bodies, there is missing flight 77, there are already two other planes hitting buildings, and a third hitting the ground.

The problem isn't the size of the hole. That is a straw man.

What was the point of the picture then?

Will someone please explain how this picture does NOT prove beyond reasonable doubt that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon?

Are we agreed that pic is worth diddly?

]I’m assuming the majority of flight 77 went the same way, and ended up inside the building it hit.

Ah, but it seems I'm not as entitled to my own assumptions.

We’ve all got our presumptions. On 9/11 a jet plane ended up inside each of the twin towers. This is not an assumption. For all the obvious reason I then extrapolate that on 9/11 a third plane ended up inside another building. Given the twin towers this assumption is not extraordinary. Given plane parts, bodies etc etc the case for has a momentum equal to a 600mph jet hitting a reinforced building.

Wait a second; I'm not the one claiming the engine struck the ground. It's the official version, probably to account for the lack of facade damage on the left. I'm assuming.

But you are trying to show the official version stinks and has to be false; and you’ve posted pictures to show how there is something wrong with the official version, and I’ve now given arguments against two pictures you’ve posted showing why your doubts are unfounded.

C'mon, I'm not talking of a puny flame on the inside that starts conspicuously late. I'm talking of a wing with diesel that doesn't penetrate the facade, and an engine that hit the ground. These are the big immediate fires that should be observed but aren't.

I’ve watched the film you linked of the plane crash. There is a delay between impact and explosion. That is a fact. It is a fact you presented to support the conpsiracy theory. Another point you posted was the time 0f 0.1 secs and the distance between strike and building. This is an “official fact� belonging to the official line that you distrust. I’m saying the two are consistent. I agree there’s going to be an explosion. I’m just pointing out the information you have cited is consistent with that explosion occurring at or inside the building. Which is what we see.

The buildings aren't comparable.

Certainly they are of a different design. Flights 175 and 11 are not close to the ground. But why does that make the outcome of the Pentagon event fundamentally different to the Twin towers? You want more debris and a trail, but if the last 60ft before the building is where the plane strikes ground, you are only going to find, other than a few light parts that get blown clear, debris inside the building or close to the mouth of the hole. If the building was not in the way then you are going to get a trail, and dispersed debris.

Yes, but there would be a noticeable trail regardless, agree?

Not so noticeable. As I’ve point out the engine strike the grounding could not have occurred “on the lawn� if the official account is correc tin respect of the engine strike. I’m not sure where the official account says the engine strike was, but the trail has to start inside that shadow. Also the plane was not hitting the ground on the end of a parabola; it had been flying very low and straight for the building; its kinetic energy going forward and very little down. Any scraping or gauging in those last few feet masked by building collapse.

Given that the missile theory don't fly then we have a plane hitting the Pentagon. The consparicists' plane also leaves no trail. why?

This is indisputable. The left facade shows no sign of a wing going through it. Engine, perhaps, but wing? No way.

What was the engine originally attached to? Wherever the engine went the wing followed until they separated. They could not have separated before reaching 100ft from the building, and may not have separated until they hit the building. In the process of separating they are still traveling forward towards the building with huge momentum. Given that momentum, the short distance there is no need to assume any part of the plane had to strike the ground before hitting the building. The official report says the engine struck the ground. Which would have literally been as the fuselage began to open a hole in the building. The engine striking the ground means the wing was already separated thus the plane was already in pieces, or the plane was tipped. In either scenario it’s no longer showing the building its full 124ft wingspan.

[Beto]

You're just assuming there are charred human remains.

Nope. The pics are definitely of charred human remains.

I must be missing something. I saw nothing of the sort in the link you gave. Could you be more precise as to which picture has these "charred human remains"? There are pictures of corpses, which were presented in the 2006 U.S. v. Moussaoui trial, but we have to establish something here. We are both arguing under two distinct premises. I argue the U.S. government is lying about 9/11, you are arguing they are not (at least to the conspiracy level, right?). You must understand that operating under my premise, details that weren't immediately available, and that are easy to manipulate, are hard to be admitted as evidence. The photos presented at the trial, five years later, is one example. They're very focused on the corpses and you can't see the surroundings. I'm sure you agree these pieces of "evidence" aren't compelling from the conspiracist perspective, when the accused party is nothing short of the most powerful nation on Earth. I admit that operating under your premise any evidence is good. But also keep in mind there are strange occurrences in the twin towers, wtc 7, flights 77 and 93, government declarations, videos of Bush and Silverstein, etc. It's their sum that makes me believe the U.S. government and Silverstein Properties (at least) facilitated the terrorist attack, and to some extent, helped with the damage.

Then you need to given a convincing explanation as to why any agency would take the risk of rigging a crash scene when flights 11 and 175 – real flights -would have been sufficient to give the hawks in Bush’s administration their Pearl Harbor. There’s incompetence and then theirs moronic stupidity. And rigging a crash at the pentagon is moronic stupidity given flights 11 and 175. Rigging the towers to blow would have been equally moronic. The planes were sufficient for a pearl harbor moment.

As to why the Pentagon was specifically targeted, I confess I am at a loss. Conveniently though, the portion hit was undergoing final stages of renovation so it wasn't entirely functional (if at all), and the plane allegedly made a fantastic u-turn (by an incompetent pilot) to hit that part of the building.

There are pictures of remains, there are pictures of airplane parts. It you assume they are lies then you affirm your belief they are lies.

Let's just agree the pictures are sufficient from your side but insufficient from mine. I'm assuming we're both honest as to what we see, and what we don't see.

But there are more than a couple of parts. From Link A and B I count 7 distinct objects that to my untutored eye are plane parts. Then are several piles of mashed up stuff that would need to expert to sift through, but could be plane parts. And even if we go with you “placed there theory� they could still be mashed up plane parts. Now either they got their under their own direction or they were placed there, but the fact they are there demonstrates debris consistent with a 757 is in situ. So then we come back to what you see is real, or it is not.

I have no problem conceding that the few pieces observed could be from a plane, and even specifically from a 757.

Why accept the legitimacy of an alleged black box, and reject the legitimacy of actual airplane parts, and bodies, and an actual flight 77. If you dismiss these as plants or lies then why accept an alleged black box.

Honestly, I wouldn't. You got me there. However, the fact that they aren't disclosed is much worse. As bad as the footage the FBI immediately apprehended from the freeway, the hotel, and the gas station. You must admit, that with nothing to hide, these non-disclosures are very suspicious.

You’ve moved from an alleged to “there is no good reason to…�. This is not an argument.

Forgive me, but it is. I don't think the boxes exist, and the unwillingness to release them corroborates that assumption. What do you mean "this is not an argument"?

A huge percentage of the world's population thinks 9/11 was "fishy" at best (as confirmed by recent poles), and they're concerned about a few families? Of the pilots? It's completely hypocritical and very suspicious.

And a huge percentage of the world’s population believes in a deity. C’mon. Not an argument.

Weeeeeeak analogy. The U.S. had every reason to disclose the footage, and no reason to keep it hidden. Unless you know of one.

The picture you posted is a bit green. This BBC footage shows a “white streak�, given the sunlight and the poor quality if the footage, that’s easily silver. Other picture I’ve see on online are more grey. I see an object way to big to be a missile, therefore it has to be a plane. That much we’re agreed. Okay after playing this about thirty times and stopping and playing it again I started to see a 757….with American Ariline logo down the side….. Wink .....okay not an argument.

Are you sure you're not referring to what is officially regarded as smoke from the right engine?

The link you posted: the guy has obviously gone to a whole lot of effort. To counter would take a project of similar size. However, it needs proper peer review. Until then, despite the gargantuan effort, it’s not worth anything. Get a top university physics department to make the same analysis and then back that up with a couple more universities and you’ve got a theory.

When was any FEMA or NIST report independently peer-reviewed?

In the meantime I don’t think it even needs a forensic analysis for the point to be made. A couple of minutes comparing the height of the Pentagon to the object are going to show it is way bigger than a cruise missile. The object is too big. If it is a plane or a drone plane then why is that idea acceptable, but not the 757? If a plane could have done it then why dismiss the one and only known prime suspect – flight 77.

They had time to "custom-fit" something. Does that sound desperate? In the event of a conspiracy how unlikely is it? This should be factored in.

Nothing is proving the conspiracy case other than the preconception that the physical evidence has to be a lie. Why is that so painful to accept?

If I see 2% of what I believe is the likely amount of physical evidence the crash should produce, isn't it reasonable to question it?

Because of the pictures you’ve posted on this forum? As I said they are consistent with 757. You think the analysis given in that link stands up? Great take it to a university. I’m back route learning and have a couple of things on, but give me a month and some free time and I might take on the guys argument myself.

I'm certainly not the best conspiracist around. There's only so much effort I'm willing to dispense on this, and I don't expect you to go out of your way either. Even if we don't agree on a conclusion, good arguments will stand.

(...)there is missing flight 77(...)

It's missing alright. Missing from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. And it isn't the only one.

(...)and a third hitting the ground.(...)

We'll get to that later if you're up for it. That crash site is bloody ludicrous. Now there's a magic plane for ya.

Are we agreed that pic is worth diddly?

Of course not. I maintain that the observed damage would be acceptable with the wings staying behind, with all the baggage it carries. For instance, over 10000 gallons of burning diesel.

The following was more of the same. we don't agree as to what we see, and that can't really be helped.

[Furrowed Brow]

admit that operating under your premise any evidence is good.

The issue is not that evidence can be trusted but is the evidence consistent with a 757 hitting the Pentagon. You have tried to show that some pictures are inconsistent with a 757. I have challenged this. From where I’m sitting across the pond your advocacy of the conspiracy theory hangs on

A) Distrust of your government taints the evidence for you.
B) A persistent statement of what you would expect to see in the pictures.

B is important, because I’ve now made a couple of stabs at analyzing the pics to show how/why they can be consistent with a 757. Instead of trying to rebut the 757 interpretation, show the flaws in the reasoning etc, you are restating your expectations.

As to why the Pentagon was specifically targeted, I confess I am at a loss.

Hold that thought or lack of a thought. But it is not just the Pentagon. Flight 93 too, which you also seem to have doubts about. If there was a conspiracy then the conspirators knew two planes would be flying into the Towers. Why risk the Pearl Harbor affect by inventing a third and fourth crash? There is no political need, and it is an insane and needless risk.

Conveniently

though, the portion hit was undergoing final stages of renovation so it wasn't entirely functional (if at all), and the plane allegedly made a fantastic u-turn (by an incompetent pilot) to hit that part of the building.

First: I will take that fantastic U-turn seriously when the argument is peered reviewed.

Okay this is the kind of thing I mean. On the site you linked I’ve now downloaded the pics into Jasc paint. I make the height f the building 102 pixels given the software I have. Your guy gets 112 pixels. There are some other discrepancies with his perspective lines. I’m going to work on it some more and maybe I’ll post a pic of my results, but at present I make the diameter of the fuselage of the outline of the he provides some 25% too big. Of course I could have made a mistake, maybe there is some issue with the software etc. Which proves at least one point. To be done properly this requires some serious software, real experts, the original film, and peer review.

Second: plenty people were killed in the towers. If there was a conspiracy why two different methodologies? One where people are expendable pawns and another where efforts are made to limit loss of life. This displays two different psychologies. One utterly ruthless, the other much less so.

Let's just agree the pictures are sufficient from your side but insufficient from mine. I'm assuming we're both honest as to what we see, and what we don't see.

The pictures are consistent with the 757 hitting the Pentagon. That is my point. I don’t have to prove the 757, or the evidence for it, the conspiracy theorists have to show why the 757 cannot have happened. You have tired to do this, with an alternative analysis on the table you seem to be suggesting it’s a question of perspective. This is insufficient. You need to debunk the alterantive now offered.

I’ll repeat an example. You’ve supplied a link to a short film that shows a plane crash. I’ve given my assessment as to what I see: which the plane traveling around half to a full plane’s length before its fuel begins to explode. I say what I see supports the view that flight 757 has time to hit a steel object 100ft from the Pentagon travel some distance at the best part of 600mph and end up inside the pentagon before we see an explosion. So if you see something else on that example film of a plane crash, tell me what you see and I’ll compare and reassess my analysis.

You disagree the wing of 757 will end up inside the building. But that’s an additional argument. I’ve posted some question below.

Weeeeeeak analogy.

Appeal to popular opinion is still not an argument.

The U.S. had every reason to disclose the footage, and no reason to keep it hidden. Unless you know of one.

The recovery of the boxes for flight 117 and 11 is moot, and the condition and contents of flight 77 is also moot. But let’s run with this for a second. Flights 117 and 11 were real planes, but the government denies knowledge of the existence of their boxes, while admitting the existence of a box for flight 77. It makes no sense to lie about boxes you do have but say you have not got, and a box you don’t have but say you have got. And on the premise the government are telling the truth regarding Flight 77 then they are in a no win situation. If they release they just stoke the conspiracy theory further.

However, I don’t see the need to defend the behavior of the US Government. Let’s assume they have something to hide. Maybe there were conversation with the hijackers, maybe attempts at negotiation, maybe the hijackers reveal some important information, maybe someone is shown up as being completely incompetent, I don’t know….but the whatever light you like to view the behavior of the US government, their behavior is still not inconsistent with flight 757 hitting the Pentagon.

When was any FEMA or NIST report independently peer-reviewed?

when does any government report of any government in the world have an external peer review process unless a second report or additional enquiries are commissioned. To be true everyone has a perfect right to challenge their findings and point out any mistakes. But if a university publishes a paper with the same argument as the website you found they would need a peer review.

Forgive

me, but it is. I don't think the boxes exist, and the unwillingness to release them corroborates that assumption. What do you mean "this is not an argument"?

Sorry mixing up black boxes. I withdraw the point.

I maintain that the observed damage would be acceptable with the wings staying behind, with all the baggage it carries. For instance, over 10000 gallons of burning diesel.

OK. Questions.
1/ If a wing was traveling at around 560mph 100ft away from the building and going. Where will it be 0.12 seconds later? (I think the figure you quoted of 0.1 is a tad too quick).
2/ If striking an object 100ft from the building, when will the fuel ignite?
3/ how much fuel will leak from the wing before it ignites.
4/ Given the direction and momentum of wing and fuel where will they end up 0.2 seconds after passing the 100 ft mark? And how much fuel and debris will not reach the building?
5/ If the plane is tipped, or wing detached or starting to detach from the plane what argument demonstrates it is implausible for wing and fuel to end up inside the building with the damage pattern observed.
My answers are 1/ at or inside the pentagon 2/ how longs a piece of string, but certainly a fraction of second is a given. 3/ Depends how badly the wing is compromised but given momentum very little until the wing comes to rest, and what does leak is also going one way – straight for the Pentagon. So, 4/….All of it will reach the building – the question is then how much gets thrown back by any explosion or bounce off the building – again very little. 5/?? So really it comes down to 5. I suspect there are probably arguments against the plane being tipped. I have not yet worked out the geometry. Maybe some one has already made a stab. So far I’ve not seen an argument against but it is my second preference. The more thought I put into it the more it seems to me the plane will be tipped with the wing buckled/detaching. Ok that is me assuming a real 757. But why is that scenario so implausible that it is not a reasonable explanation? Where does this analysis go wrong?

That last question is important. If it is not obviously flawed or repairable given criticism then this particular stool upon which the conspiracy theory rests can bear no weight.

[Beto]

The issue is not that evidence can be trusted but is the evidence consistent with a 757 hitting the Pentagon. You have tried to show that some pictures are inconsistent with a 757. I have challenged this. From where I’m sitting across the pond your advocacy of the conspiracy theory hangs on

A) Distrust of your government taints the evidence for you.

Again, like I said, I think it's perfectly reasonable to question the available "evidence" if its abundance falls under a reasonable threshold.

B) A persistent statement of what you would expect to see in the pictures.

B is important, because I’ve now made a couple of stabs at analyzing the pics to show how/why they can be consistent with a 757.

From my perspective it takes an unreasonable amount of optimism to agree with you.

Instead of trying to rebut the 757 interpretation, show the flaws in the reasoning etc, you are restating your expectations.

Expectations added to several arguments you don't address, like the suspicious apprehension of footage, from 3 distinct places, so fast it's mind boggling, and the convenient absence of Flight 77 from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. But I guess we all have our opinion as what we think is a reasonable amount of coincidences and circumstantial evidence.

But it is not just the Pentagon. Flight 93 too, which you also seem to have doubts about.

No building to hide that one.

If there was a conspiracy then the conspirators knew two planes would be flying into the Towers. Why risk the Pearl Harbor affect by inventing a third and fourth crash? There is no political need, and it is an insane and needless risk.

To settle this "they would be more competent" issue, we must factor in the knowledge and confidence of the U.S. government (or any other government), that the majority of its people are very prone to be entertained to the point of allowing a great margin of error. Heck, it worked on me for a while. And it still IS working. Despite my convictions I'm entertained enough not to get too depressed about it, and there's only so far I'm willing to go.

First: I will take that fantastic U-turn seriously when the argument is peered reviewed.

Refer to last line.

If there was a conspiracy why two different methodologies? One where people are expendable pawns and another where efforts are made to limit loss of life. This displays two different psychologies. One utterly ruthless, the other much less so.

I would think this argument is for a conspiracy. People in the Pentagon are much less likely to be expendable. Just another "coincidence".

The pictures are consistent with the 757 hitting the Pentagon. That is my point. I don’t have to prove the 757, or the evidence for it, the conspiracy theorists have to show why the 757 cannot have happened. You have tired to do this, with an alternative analysis on the table you seem to be suggesting it’s a question of perspective. This is insufficient. You need to debunk the alterantive now offered.

I don't agree. 9/11 was the excuse the U.S. needed to undertake a series of actions, such as the subsequent unilateral strike in Afghanistan, that make it liable to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that there was no manipulation of events. You think the government doesn't have to justify the omission of footage, but I beg to differ. If there is doubt in people's minds, to the extent of the same pictures I showed being used in the Japanese Parliament to question the whole thing, the U.S. are the ones with the obligation to prove it was a 757. The accusers amount to nations, and the level of proof you presume to suffice does not. Not at this level of inquiry.

I’ll repeat an example. You’ve supplied a link to a short film that shows a plane crash. I’ve given my assessment as to what I see: which the plane traveling around half to a full plane’s length before its fuel begins to explode. I say what I see supports the view that flight 757 has time to hit a steel object 100ft from the Pentagon travel some distance at the best part of 600mph and end up inside the pentagon before we see an explosion. So if you see something else on that example film of a plane crash, tell me what you see and I’ll compare and reassess my analysis.

I've already conceded that the left engine could have penetrated the facade, but in which case it should have been recovered. Do you think it's reasonable to assume these Rolls-Royce RB211 are fragile enough so that virtually nothing remained of either of them? Again, I think you have to be exceptionally optimistic.

Appeal to popular opinion is still not an argument.

I'm not arguing the conspiracy is true because many people believe it is. I'm arguing the U.S. government should disclose requested information because many people are suspicious, and this is a fact. How is this non-disclosure admissible despite the Freedom of Information Act? Another opportune Act of Congress comes into play, doesn't it?

But let’s run with this for a second. Flights 117 and 11 were real planes, but the government denies knowledge of the existence of their boxes, while admitting the existence of a box for flight 77.

Real planes don't make real flights. Just saying...

It makes no sense to lie about boxes you do have but say you have not got, and a box you don’t have but say you have got. And on the premise the government are telling the truth regarding Flight 77 then they are in a no win situation. If they release they just stoke the conspiracy theory further.

I conceded that despite the argument I offered I wouldn't regard the box as compelling evidence.

However, I don’t see the need to defend the behavior of the US Government.

As a non-U.S. citizen, I do.

OK. Questions.
1/ If a wing was traveling at around 560mph 100ft away from the building and going. Where will it be 0.12 seconds later? (I think the figure you quoted of 0.1 is a tad too quick).
2/ If striking an object 100ft from the building, when will the fuel ignite?
3/ how much fuel will leak from the wing before it ignites.
4/ Given the direction and momentum of wing and fuel where will they end up 0.2 seconds after passing the 100 ft mark? And how much fuel and debris will not reach the building?
5/ If the plane is tipped, or wing detached or starting to detach from the plane what argument demonstrates it is implausible for wing and fuel to end up inside the building with the damage pattern observed.
My answers are 1/ at or inside the pentagon 2/ how longs a piece of string, but certainly a fraction of second is a given. 3/ Depends how badly the wing is compromised but given momentum very little until the wing comes to rest, and what does leak is also going one way – straight for the Pentagon. So, 4/….All of it will reach the building – the question is then how much gets thrown back by any explosion or bounce off the building – again very little. 5/?? So really it comes down to 5. I suspect there are probably arguments against the plane being tipped. I have not yet worked out the geometry. Maybe some one has already made a stab. So far I’ve not seen an argument against but it is my second preference. The more thought I put into it the more it seems to me the plane will be tipped with the wing buckled/detaching. Ok that is me assuming a real 757. But why is that scenario so implausible that it is not a reasonable explanation? Where does this analysis go wrong?

That last question is important. If it is not obviously flawed or repairable given criticism then this particular stool upon which the conspiracy theory rests can bear no weight.

Sorry, but there are already too many assumptions here, which I'm not prepared to recognize. The flight path is criticized by many people. What do you think of http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/? Could this constitute peer-review of the NTSB report?

[Beto]

More on the motive for the Pentagon strike. It's a fact that 3.3 trillion dollars (no typo) were missing from the Pentagon budget, and allegedly the area struck was housing the budget analysts that were meant to investigate the missing funds.

Actually, I wasn't aware so many people allegedly died at the Pentagon:

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade. ... ctims.html

Doesn't that list seem a little inflated for a block undergoing extensive renovation? Anyway, there are a few budget analysts in the list that seem to corroborate.

This isn't pocket change. It's something like 8000 dollars for every American citizen.

[Furrowed Brow]

Again, like I said, I think it's perfectly reasonable to question the available "evidence" if its abundance falls under a reasonable threshold.

This I do not deny you. But who sets the threshold? What assumptions are they making and what assumptions are they ignoring?

From my perspective it takes an unreasonable amount of optimism to agree with you.

Given what I have already said about the pics what sentence is unreasonably optimistic?

Expectations added to several arguments you don't address,

One argument at a time: presently I’m focused on the picture of the hole in the Pentagon, the footage of the approaching object, the 100ft mark, the speed, and the relatively limited amount of large debris, and what we might expect to see in those pictures on the assumption flight 77 was real. If as I suggest the conspiracy interpretation of those picture is without merit, then the missing data may well be evidence of something, but it will not be evidence of a non existent flight 77. I’m willing to tackle all the arguments, but one at a time.

But I guess we all have our opinion as what we think is a reasonable amount of coincidences and circumstantial evidence.

Now I’m fully drawn in I’m happy to do this blow by blow, fact by fact. But to do that you need to begin to respond in detail to the alternative I’ve offered you. Otherwise please concede that the pictures - as far as debris and damage to the pentagon - are consistent with the impact of a 757.

I don't agree. 9/11 was the excuse the U.S. needed to undertake a series of actions, such as the subsequent unilateral strike in Afghanistan, that make it liable to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that there was no manipulation of events.

I have no doubt that events were manipulated, and information deliberately withheld to suit the political aims, and perhaps to save the political skins of those in power. But not in the way the conspiracy theory has it. I have no doubt that government lie and act dishonorably. I’m not here to defend the US government. What I’m desperately trying to raise to your attention is that the conspiracy theory, i.e. a 757 did not fly into the Pentagon, is not grounded in physical fact, but rather on a certain set of assumptions and a peculiar inability to test the physical evidence for consistency with the existence of flight 77.

You think the government doesn't have to justify the omission of footage, but I beg to differ.

They do not need to justify the conclusion a 757 flew into the Pentagon, because there is nothing to defend on that point. The picture evidence is consistent with flight 77.

If there is doubt in people's minds, to the extent of the same pictures I showed being used in the Japanese Parliament to question the whole thing, the U.S. are the ones with the obligation to prove it was a 757.

Not really. If someone digs up some real evidence, or if some well respected scientist or university do the math and support the conspiracy then yes. But then nothing is decided until the math is tested over and over gain. At the moment all you’ve got is a skeptical attitude: one that sustains itself with an unwillingness to address the challenges to the conspiracy interpretation.

The accusers amount to nations, and the level of proof you presume to suffice does not. Not at this level of inquiry.

Nations? A Japanese senator is not a nation.

Appeals to the opinions of politicians are no better than appeal to popular opinion. If the Japanese government come out and say we’ve done the math, and flight 77 is not possible, then yes, now that I would take very seriously. But one more person, even a Japanese politician standing up to confirm that they have their doubts, then I’ve got to ask the question why? And if they raise a picture of the hole in the pentagon with the wingspan of a 757 superimposed then watch my brow furrow. If they start doing the trigonometry of flight paths then great, give it to some real experts to test, and publish for proper peer review.

I've already conceded that the left engine could have penetrated the facade,

Excellent. And the rest of the wing?

But in which case it should have been recovered. Do you think it's reasonable to assume these Rolls-Royce RB211 are fragile enough so that virtually nothing remained of either of them? Again, I think you have to be exceptionally optimistic.

I think the RB211 is a robust piece of equipment that will withstand being flown into the side of the Pentagon at 500mph as well as any comparable piece of equipment. An impact that brings the engine from 500mph to zero in a distance of …what…less than 500ft..... how much of your average motorcar will be left over after such an impact. I suggest about this much. I also suggest we can bat the accusation of who is being optimistic backwards and forwards.

Part of the problem I feel, after trawling over some of the conspiracy websites is this reoccurring phrase “we should expect to see�. To which my immediate response is why should we? What assumptions are these expectations drawn from?

But I think my answer lies here:

Sorry, but there are already too many assumptions here, which I'm not prepared to recognize.

I’m using the distances and timing of the official account as supplied by you. In a nutshell you have just said you are refusing to recognize the possibility of flight 77., and thus all your expectations are skewed to not seeing flight 77. Why so much energy put into raising the conspiracy, and asserting a certain set of expectations, and so little effort into testing the official implications of the assumptions of flight 77. My suggestion to you is don’t get carried away with what other people say and work it out for yourself. If these are too many questions then they can be summed up: on the assumption that flight 77 was traveling at around 500mph, where would all its debris and fuel end up before they exploded? You don’t need to repeat what you would expect to see given your assumptions; the question does not ask that. It asks what you would expect to see given these assumptions. If you feel unable or are unwilling to address the question I shall take that to mean that you concede that your previous argument that the explosion being seen to come from within the building no longer stands as an argument against flight 77.

I also ask again. Please take on my analysis. Show me where, how and why I am being unreasonable.

[Beto]

Again, like I said, I think it's perfectly reasonable to question the available "evidence" if its abundance falls under a reasonable threshold.

This I do not deny you. But who sets the threshold? What assumptions are they making and what assumptions are they ignoring?

I think it's reasonable for me to question the evidence because I set the threshold based on crash comparisons. It is my subjective opinion that both flights 77 and 93 are conspicuously devoid of wreckage.

Given what I have already said about the pics what sentence is unreasonably optimistic?

Indulging the amount of observable wreckage as sufficient.

One argument at a time: presently I’m focused on the picture of the hole in the Pentagon, the footage of the approaching object, the 100ft mark, the speed, and the relatively limited amount of large debris, and what we might expect to see in those pictures on the assumption flight 77 was real. If as I suggest the conspiracy interpretation of those picture is without merit, then the missing data may well be evidence of something, but it will not be evidence of a non existent flight 77. I’m willing to tackle all the arguments, but one at a time.

I fear I'll loose you after the Pentagon, so I'm trying to squeeze other considerations in.

Now I’m fully drawn in I’m happy to do this blow by blow, fact by fact. But to do that you need to begin to respond in detail to the alternative I’ve offered you. Otherwise please concede that the pictures - as far as debris and damage to the pentagon - are consistent with the impact of a 757.

*shrug* It's much more consistent with a missile (or whatever) strike and with poorly planted evidence. Which isn't to say it isn't consistent with a 757 crash. I just think the latter is to a very unlikely degree. Does this level of concession suffice?

I have no doubt that events were manipulated, and information deliberately withheld to suit the political aims, and perhaps to save the political skins of those in power. But not in the way the conspiracy theory has it. I have no doubt that government lie and act dishonorably. I’m not here to defend the US government. What I’m desperately trying to raise to your attention is that the conspiracy theory, i.e. a 757 did not fly into the Pentagon, is not grounded in physical fact, but rather on a certain set of assumptions and a peculiar inability to test the physical evidence for consistency with the existence of flight 77.

The problem isn't just the crash. While trying to make things "fit" in the Pentagon, we must also assume the disclosed information regarding the flight path is accurate, and this is a very big gray area, with several pilots pointing out impossibilities and unlikelihoods. To agree the physical evidence is consistent with flight speeds and flight heights, these premises ought to be much more well established.

Nations? A Japanese senator is not a nation.

Appeals to the opinions of politicians are no better than appeal to popular opinion. If the Japanese government come out and say we’ve done the math, and flight 77 is not possible, then yes, now that I would take very seriously. But one more person, even a Japanese politician standing up to confirm that they have their doubts, then I’ve got to ask the question why? And if they raise a picture of the hole in the pentagon with the wingspan of a 757 superimposed then watch my brow furrow. If they start doing the trigonometry of flight paths then great, give it to some real experts to test, and publish for proper peer review.

No, no, it was an unrelated comment. By "nations" I meant the sheer amount of people that are suspicious of 9/11. Using the Japanese senator to validate the pictures would be an appeal to authority. What I was doing was demonstrating it was in the US best interest to disclose information that would dismiss doubt among foreign parliaments, which are much more relevant than any Tom, Dick and Harry... or Beto.

[Furrowed Brow]

Does this level of concession suffice?

Nope

*shrug* It's much more consistent with a missile (or whatever) strike and with poorly planted evidence.

You’re repeating the same assertions but have stopped arguing.

Okay you are hooked on what you feel is a distinct lack of debris. But you are failing to address the points about the momentum of the plane and its speed, and the massive deceleration. If you are comparing these pictures to other crashes, which ones? Ones where the plane was flying straight at a reinforced building? Or ones where the full energy of the crash was mitigated by the plane parts continue to travel and bounce for some distance. And by distance I mean hundreds of yards. Show me a picture of a plane engine that has hit the ground at 500mph and stopped within a couple of hundred feet of first impact. Not half a mile or more, just a few hundred feet, and I wager you are going to see a very big hole in the dirt with not much but mashed up stuff to see in the hole. Maybe something like the picture I linked you to. The same goes for the rest of the plane.

Also if the majority of the plane is inside the pentagon when it explodes - while there is now a hole that is ready made to release much of that energy - unlike an open area crash there is a still a building surrounding most of that energy. What do you think is the point of this experiment? . Reduced volume is another factor that will make the end result markedly different to expectations if your expectations are based on pictures of open area crashes.

So the point is that the amount of and size of the debris is bang in the middle of high probability and you really need to return to any analysis of the pictures that is telling you something else. The debris is not poorly planted. If it is planted it has been done exceptionally well. This then means the planted evidence theory is pretty much meaningless. Moreover: the planted evidence theory needs to posit a conspiracy + another object hitting the Pentagon, while the 757 theory only needs to posit a 757.

At this point I suspect you will want to draw on other pieces of evidence, such as flight paths and missing data etc, but stop and take a breath. Each of these is like a steppingstone. You need to make sure that the first steppingstone – the analysis of the cash pictures – is correct. And I’m saying it ain’t.

So: The object that struck the pentagon can’t be a missile. The object is too big. This party of the theory can be dismissed right off. (But we can look at the pictures if you want and thrash out the details.)

Another plane then: the crash site gives us no reason to posit another plane. If you want to posit another plane then you can do so...... but for other reasons. Let’s say those reasons are missing data, that some people say the proposed flight path is impossible/improbable, and suspicious government behavior. I’m hoping you will be able to see that this list does not add up to another plane. And it as this point you really need to start shrugging.

Which takes you back to your anlysis of the debris. To make that list begin to work as a sign of conspiracy you need to make sure you've got a full and correct analysis of the crash site and debris. I'm saying you've got it wrong becuase you are not asking the right questions as evinced by your unwwilingness to answer my questions.

Of the three further areas of evidence just mentioned only one is meaningful. Government behavior and missing data means diddly. A 757 either did or did not crash into the Pentagon. The only evidence for this is the physical evidence. However, if the flight path turned out to be impossible or at least highly improbable then game on. But as I keep pointing out the math needs full and proper peer review.

However after making a preliminary stab at my own analysis of the pictures provided on that page you linked I’m wondering whether even expert review is necessary. There seem to me to be discrepancies and unanswered questions there. So I’m not so sure that page at least is in a fit state to present for a proper expert review. We can make our own effort to dig into the details of these claims here. But before we move on we need to get a clear understanding as to the merits of the picture evidence and what the pictures can tell us.