What hit the Pentagon? 9/11

[shawmutt]

What about the eyewitnesses? Answer; "They are part of the conspiracy". The conspiracy grows...................................and grows and grows and grows until it is so large, so inconceivable huge, that no man with so much as an ounce of common sense can fathom this being real.

Unfortunately none of the conspiracy theorists here can belly up to the bar and offer a number of people that they think were involved.

[Praxius]

Alright stop. There's a problem right there. The Boeing 757's "safe" angle of attack is irrelevant. You act as if that is the maximum possible angle of descent. It's the maximum possible angle... If you're landing cartons of eggshells on a runway. They weren't trying to land it, they were trying to crash it.

DING DING DING!!! WE HAVE A WEENER!!!

This is what I was saying all along.... no, it's probably not in the manual to fly that low because of instability when flying, but they were not trying to fly it any longer, they were trying to crash it......

[ruksak]

Quote by: shawmutt Unfortunately none of the conspiracy theorists here can belly up to the bar and offer a number of people that they think were involved.

The conspiracy nuts have only offered up one person, George Bush. He did it. After that I suppose we are to imagine a dark shadowy hoard of secret agents and string pullers.
Like I said, the conspiracy crowd would prefer to approach this issue in a microcosmic fashion. Focusing on individual instances creates the illusion of conceivability.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: ruksak I have this belief of people that subscribe to conspiracy theories. I feel it is a way for people to feel special, as if they know something that most other people don't know.

Well, that's speculative. My theory is that the media has the official story adherents lulled and passive. Who can best prove their speculation?

Quote by: ruksak If they were to ask the 9/11 commission if they think the Easter bunny had a hand in 9/11, they likely wouldn't honor the question with an answer either.

Do you enjoy strawman debates? Because otherwise I must call you a dishonest opponent...

Quote by: ruksak Forget the semantics involved with physics and trajectory. The mere logistics involved in a 9/11 conspiracy are impossible on any scale. Thousands of people would be involved. Hundreds of people must simply disappear. I'm sick of hearing these arguments that zoom in and focus on pin point aspects of physics, skyscraper engineering, melting temperatures of steel.

Gosh, if evidence makes you sick, there are hundreds of other threads here. Why don't you go opine on them? I wouldn't stick with something that made me sick.

Quote by: ruksak It's all inconsequential if you take into consideration the human factor of logistically pulling this together.

Well, bubba, SOMEBODY did it. I must assume it was a human but are you implying it was aliens or SkyNet or something?

Quote by: ruksak Every time a conspiracy aficionado's question is answered they fire back making the conspiracy grow. Exponentially, the conspiracy grows in order to answer questions like "What about the footage and documentation of the hijackers boarding the planes". Answer; "the footage was doctored and the voice recordings were fraudulent". The conspiracy grows.

Yes, conspirators do some dirty stuff. At issue in this debate is what is likely and what is unlikely, since neither side can produce reliable insiders to testify. Do you think it is advisable to accept the allegations of known liars like BushCo? Or should there be a forensic analysis and an investigation that takes every single question into account?

Quote by: ruksak What about the passengers aboard the plane that hit the Pentagon? Where did they go? Answer; "They were killed and their bodies were destroyed or hidden". The conspiracy grows.

Who knows? I would like to know who on the passenger manifest were in actual fact, the "hijackers". I think that all the passengers had bereaved families though. Eh, maybe not.

Quote by: ruksak What about the eyewitnesses? Answer; "They are part of the conspiracy". The conspiracy grows...................................and grows and grows and grows until it is so large, so inconceivable huge, that no man with so much as an ounce of common sense can fathom this being real.

But you have an ounce of common sense, huh? You're so smart you accept the official story at face value, no questions asked, just show you where to get in line for the century of warfare to come...Right?

Look. How could a guy like Hani Hanjour do aerobatics with a 757? He scared the piss out of the instructors when he took up a Cessna...

And the Defense Secretary of the United States never knew that there was an attack until his own building was hit, long after the NYC situation alerted the rest of the nation...?

You guys with your official story and your ounce of common sense, heh.

Wake up! There are sociopaths in the Halls of Power.

[ruksak]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Well, that's speculative. My theory is that the media has the official story adherents lulled and passive. Who can best prove their speculation?

You're proving my "speculation" correct in this very thread. You seem so proud of your pseudo-knowledge and unencumbered enlightenment. Which the rest of us aren't smart enough to put together.
EXAMPLE;

Quote by: PatrickHenry You guys with your official story and your ounce of common sense, heh. Wake up! There are sociopaths in the Halls of Power.

Here you reinforce the notion that you have knowledge and deep thinking that most of us trained rats can't see, as we are to busy nibbling our government cheese. You do well to prove my point.

Quote by: ruksak If they were to ask the 9/11 commission if they think the Easter bunny had a hand in 9/11, they likely wouldn't honor the question with an answer either.

Yes this is sarcastic, but much truth is said in jest. This was in response to your pondering as to why the 9/11 commission didn't answer every single question hurled at them. The point behind my smartarse retort was to make an extreme example of the fact that they cannot address every loony conspiracy based question.

Quote by: PH I would like to know who on the passenger manifest were in actual fact, the "hijackers". I think that all the passengers had bereaved families though. Eh, maybe not.

Actually the hijackers families were proud. Remember, they go to heaven and get 72 virgins. Or is it they get one 72 year old virgin? Anyway............now you question the validity of the hijackers, whos photos were held up in celebration of their martyrdom by Al Qaeda themselves. This would require that Al Qaeda themselves were in on this. The conspiracy grows......

Quote by: PH But you have an ounce of common sense, huh? You're so smart you accept the official story at face value, no questions asked, just show you where to get in line for the century of warfare to come...Right?

With this you make another famous mistake of the 9/11 conspiracy theorist. You assume that I didn't question the investigation. You assume that I just listened to what the TV told me and accepted it without a second thought. You assume to much. I've read it all, all viewpoints, all the evidence available. I've discussed this at great length and for myself, on my own volition, I came to the conclusion that it was terrorists that attacked us on 9/11. And no, I didn't vote for GW. I think hes an idiot.

Quote by: PH Look. How could a guy like Hani Hanjour do aerobatics with a 757? He scared the piss out of the instructors when he took up a Cessna...

Aerobatics????? HA!
That implies that the pilot was what? Loopty-loops?
An unskilled pilot would be expected to fly a plane in an erratic manner while attempting to line it up for impact. Are these the "aerobatics" you speak of?

[PatrickHenry]

ruksak, you are barely tolerable as a debate opponent due to your abusive style. But for grins, I will continue for a bit.

I am not a proud person; I pride myself on my humility.

Do you deny the reality of sociopathy? Do you accept that con artists are sociopaths? Do you see the connection between conning one victim and the ability to con the multitude?

What's amusing to me is how partisan folks of either of the two big Parties can see the dastardliness of those leading the opposing Party, but not their own Party's leaders. Not saying that you, ruksak, are one of those. I don't even know if you are an adherent of either head of the two-headed snake slithering through Washington. So it's not an accusation, just a general observation.

Hardcore Republicans accuse Hillary of the most heinous crimes. Everybody else accuses Bush. And they're likely both correct.

Why would you disregard questions that are relevant and have been asked by prominent citizens? Why would you diss them by calling them "loony conspiracy based questions" when they may be truly relevant to solving one of the largest crimes ever perpetrated in the USA? Why would you assume that government officials wouldn't ever tell enormous whoppers to enrich themselves and their friends, especially when they will control any investigations?

See, BushCo have been caught lying and doing the most nefarious deeds in the years after 9/11. Why would that behavior not have manifested itself in the days leading UP to September 11th? Do you really think these men have consciences?

You know ruksak, you say some funny things. You act like you have all the answers, but you miss the main points of the argument. For instance you say:

the hijackers families were proud

but you present no evidence but your own allegation. In fact, I have read or heard nothing about the families praising their "hijacker sons." Do you have a link for that? And what I was referring to was that all of the names on the passenger manifest were accounted for, in having survivors who could vouch for their identities. So what were the aliases used to board the planes?

If you did seriously question the investigation without bias, I am certain that you would encounter evidence that would send you into the CT camp. However, since you espouse the Official Story, I suspect that you simply lied about investigating sources. Now you probably don't care what I think of your integrity. This is just a discussion board after all. We will not be doing any business, so if I think you are a liar, it doesn't matter to you. Just like I don't care if you think I am a kook. But in debates, it helps to have at least some level of respect for your opponent. Not gonna happen here, I guess...

Anyhow to end this for the night...what I called aerobatics was an exaggerated reference to the 270 degree diving turn from 7000 feet to ground level immediately before the impact on the Pentagon. This feature of the end of Flight 77 has been confirmed. Military precision with a 757 from a pilot, Hani Hanjour who was denied rental of a single engine Cessna three weeks earlier because his flight skills were so poor.

Does this make sense to you?

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Praxius What's that? The walkway the guys at the Pentagon use to get to their cars quicker?

A bit of research shows that it is a subsided ditch between two manholes. The areas had been under construction for several years.
Pentagon Research

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Decider Your belated evidence contradicts your claims. Try again.

I read that part repeatedly. It refers to ground effect and that there is not much difficulty flying level at tens of feet.

I referenced that site to support the altitudes necessary to knock down light poles and the angle of attack.

Please don't be one of the rude people saying, "Try again" when you didn't correctly correlate the reference to my post.

Otherwise, Decider, since you failed to read my previous posts I'll repeat this for you with emphasis so maybe finally you and others like you will catch the point I'm making.

It is impossible for a 757 to have hit the Pentagon.

I don't doubt that it was something but given what I know about the Pentagon itself, the metal-concrete walls, and the materials used to make a 757, it is not possible.

The video from Purdue shows how the plane could take out the support columns... but there is nothing that addresses how the plane got through reinforced steel and concrete walls.

The planes that hit the WTC didn't snap the steel columns, it only stripped the protective covering and insulation from them. Yet a 757 hits the Pentagon and pierces one of the most solid and dense walls in existence?

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: ZNFYRH You're pulling the whole, "Since you can't prove the opposite then I'm right" fallacy. I don't argue that. It's not part of the topic.

No, I'm pulling the whole, "There are mountains of evidence as to what really happened" and also the whole "Ockham's razor says the simplest answer is likely to be true, and my answer is much simpler"...

I mark 1/2 mile at the halfway point between the orange dot and the Pentagon. See those buildings in 7 columns with the 8th isolated? 100 feet high. The wing of a 757 would have to clear those buildings. If you quickly check the width of a 757, using your own line, there is a problem.

Even if I assume you are correct, you didn't address my point about your silly "3 degree" maximum angle. Remember - this guy wasn't trying for a three-point landing that didn't spill the drinks in First Class.
Your supposition that a 757 cannot be forced to descend 100 feet over the distance of 1/2 mile, or even 1/4 mile, is plainly absurd. Would it be comfortable for those on board? Probably not, but in hindsight that was probably the most comfortable part of the last minutes of their lives.

The point is that in the entirety of Washington D.C. there is not a shred of clear video footage of a 60 ton airplane striking one of the most secure buildings on the planet.

LOL... Now you're just being ridiculous.

Here, watch me do it: There isn't a shred of clear video footage of a missile or A-10 airplane hitting the Pentagon. Therefore, your theory is wrong. How's that sound?

Personally, I LOVE this answer:

Quote by: The Decider There are SCORES of eyewitness accounts of a large passenger airliner hitting the Pentagon. That is evidence. There is an entire plane's crew and passengers unaccounted for in your conspiracy theory. Since you made the claim, you must prove that human remains and debris recovered from the crash site and family depositions and funerals have no relationship to the missing 757. The absence of a clear YouTube video does not negate other evidence. Murder convictions have been obtained with less.

Quote by: ZNFYRH The lack of evidence to support the 757 argument means I don't readily agree with the 757 argument.

The only reason you cite that there is a lack of evidence is that every piece of evidence we put in front of you is "part of the conspiracy" - which is typical tinfoil-hat-wearing horseshit.

Quote by: PatrickHenry Why would you disregard questions that are relevant and have been asked by prominent citizens?

No one has disregarded questions. The questions have all been answered time and time again, at which point the conspiracy nut decides that the answerer, or their evidence, is "part of the conspiracy"...

Why would you diss them by calling them "loony conspiracy based questions" when they may be truly relevant to solving one of the largest crimes ever perpetrated in the USA?

The first time a question is asked, it is relevant. Once clear and convincing evidence is presented and the correct answer is determined, denouncing that answer/evidence as "part of the conspiracy" and asking the question again is loony.

Why would you assume that government officials wouldn't ever tell enormous whoppers to enrich themselves and their friends, especially when they will control any investigations?

Cite where any of us said the government is always truthful, there, Mr. Strawman.
I agree the government has lied to the people in certain matters. But that does not affect the truth of this matter. Your logical fallacy is showing...

When you have eyewitnesses on the ground and the entire event watched live on television by billions, any evidence the government provides is superfluous.

If you did seriously question the investigation without bias, I am certain that you would encounter evidence that would send you into the CT camp.

I am even further - I did the evidence WITH bias. I WANTED to find a conspiracy by the government. For a long time I sought out information that would help me prove such a thing, as I am a government-hating whacko. The more research I did, however, the more I found that the true story of the 19 hijackers was what actually happened. I really tried to see a conspiracy, and it just isn't there.

However, since you espouse the Official Story, I suspect that you simply lied about investigating sources.

OK, now you're just being an asshole.

1) As I have addressed on this thread and elsewhere, calling it the "Official Story" is a deliberate attempt to appeal to government haters like myself. It is not an "Official Story", it is the same story found and reported by thousands of independent sources. Stop trying to convince us that this is the North Korean news agency publishing what happened.

2) It is a totally shit move to accuse someone of not investigating simply because they happen to have come to the same conclusion as the government. What the hell is your basis for accusing him of that?

But in debates, it helps to have at least some level of respect for your opponent. Not gonna happen here, I guess...

Certainly not by you.

Anyhow to end this for the night...what I called aerobatics was an exaggerated reference to the 270 degree diving turn from 7000 feet to ground level immediately before the impact on the Pentagon. This feature of the end of Flight 77 has been confirmed. Military precision with a 757 from a pilot, Hani Hanjour who was denied rental of a single engine Cessna three weeks earlier because his flight skills were so poor.

Uggh... Done to DEATH. See this link:
9-11 Review: ERROR: 'Pentagon Attack Maneuvers Preclude a 757'
Then quit it. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Quote by: ZNFYRH It is impossible for a 757 to have hit the Pentagon.

No it isn't. The fact that it was lucky doesn't make it untrue.

I don't doubt that it was something but given what I know about the Pentagon itself, the metal-concrete walls, and the materials used to make a 757, it is not possible.

What you know is wrong. Try some evidence.

The video from Purdue shows how the plane could take out the support columns... but there is nothing that addresses how the plane got through reinforced steel and concrete walls.

There are plenty of other sources that address that.

The planes that hit the WTC didn't snap the steel columns, it only stripped the protective covering and insulation from them. Yet a 757 hits the Pentagon and pierces one of the most solid and dense walls in existence?

Ok? And?

Here's what you're saying: "An apple tastes sweet. Therefore, a lemon tastes sweet." Third grade logic anyone?

And you still have not answered this problem:

1) You agree that American Airlines flight 77 crashed somewhere.
2) You say the government took control of it and crashed it.
3) You agree that something hit the Pentagon.
4) It would not be necessary for the attack to occur in a particular spot in the Pentagon for the American people to have the same reaction and the later series of events (Patriot Act, Iraq War, etc) to happen.
5) So why would the government conspirators not simply fly the plane (flight 77) down into the Pentagon? Why bother with the ridiculous complexity of ditching the plane, using a missile or an A-10, and covering that all up? Even more crazy, why do it in a manner that makes it look, as you say, like it was difficult for their story to be true?

Forget your so-called "scientific" evidence for a second and answer that simple question of logic.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: tivodan Your supposition that a 757 cannot be forced to descend 100 feet over the distance of 1/2 mile, or even 1/4 mile, is plainly absurd. Would it be comfortable for those on board? Probably not, but in hindsight that was probably the most comfortable part of the last minutes of their lives.

My argument is based on physics. A 757 cannot stabilize altitude at those speeds at an angle any greater than that. It never touched the ground or any surrounding buildings.

That means that the tail did not scrape the ground as the pilot flared to recover from an excessive dive angle.

Quote by: tivodan Here, watch me do it: There isn't a shred of clear video footage of a missile or A-10 airplane hitting the Pentagon. Therefore, your theory is wrong. How's that sound?

Since you seem intent on being rude, how about you tell me what my theory is.

Amazingly, I repeated my point in post 108 and you missed it. I would suggest before you start provoking and baiting you get your facts straight and stop assuming I think it was a missile or a fighter jet.

Quote by: tivodan The only reason you cite that there is a lack of evidence is that every piece of evidence we put in front of you is "part of the conspiracy" - which is typical tinfoil-hat-wearing horseshit.

Go back to where you quoted me. Focus on the word "readily."

I don't readily agree with the 757 theory.

I would need to see someone pull off the kind of maneuver I described at that speed and without touching the ground.

That is my only contention to the 757 theory.

How much clearer do I need to say it?

Also, do you think you can try to be civil? No matter how ridiculous you think something is, that doesn't mean it's acceptable for you to be belligerent.

Quote by: tivodan What you know is wrong. Try some evidence.

The walls of the Pentagon were made of reinforced concrete because of the unavailability of steel during WWII and the outer walls are, at best estimates, 3 feet thick.
http://renovation.pentagon.mil/history-features.htm

Reinforced concrete is made with metal or bars through it.

A fully fueled and full passenger 757 weighs 136 tons (123377.12 kg).

It decelerated from 250 MPH (111.76 mps) to 0 mps in .42 seconds (amount of time it took all 155 ft of 757 to hit a wall at 250 MPH), giving it an acceleration of 266.1 m/s^2.

Mass times acceleration gives you 32,830,651.6 Newtons. The nose of a 757 is roughly 4 meters squared, which means the pressure exerted by the 757 is 8,207,662.9 Pascals, or 8.2 Mega Pascals (MPa).

From Reinforced concrete - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Typical concrete mixes have high resistance to compressive stresses (about 4,000 psi (27.5 MPa)); however, any appreciable tension (e.g. due to bending) will break the microscopic rigid lattice resulting in cracking and separation of the concrete.

From Compressive vs. flexural strength - Troubleshooting Concrete Producer, The - Find Articles

For concrete with a compressive strength of 3000 psi, the corresponding calculated tensile strengths using these four approximations are 300, 367, 219, and 478 psi, respectively.

If the Pentagon were made from the stronger 4,000 PSI concrete and could withstand only 10% tension of 400 PSI, it would withstand 2.758 MPa before failing. Of course, how would the 3 feet of thickness come into play?

It took a read on How to Make Concrete - wikiHow and some additional research to see that the PSI ratings of concrete are based on 6 inches of thickness. And since we're talking about tensile strength, a wall 6 times thicker than the standard would have 6 times the strength... 16.548 MPa.

So tell me how a plane that delivers 8.2 MPa of force can penetrate more than 4 walls of 16.5 MPa tensile resistance?

And that's for normal concrete.

If the plane were truly moving at 500 MPH, then it would deliver 16.4 MPa to the wall, surely destroying it. But would it have then been able to completely pass through internal steel support columns, then another wall, then another wall, then more columns, then another wall?

Does that make sense to you?

And all this is if the Pentagon walls are using a normal concrete compound. Since it is reinforced concrete and the tensile strength of steel is in the hundreds (from Tensile strength - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) and the lowest grade of rebar adds 40 MPa of tensile strength (from concrete reinforcing bar (rebar) and Concrete and Steel: Complementary Opposites) I'm wondering how it was possible for a 757 to do that.

Quote by: tivodan Forget your so-called "scientific" evidence for a second and answer that simple question of logic.

Right... forget evidence and respond to logic.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: ZNFYRH My argument is based on physics. A 757 cannot stabilize altitude at those speeds at an angle any greater than that. It never touched the ground or any surrounding buildings.

Why would it stabilize? We're not trying to land a plane.

But while we're on the topic of landing, did you know that the angle of approach from hitting the lampposts along the highway to hitting the pentagon (about 600ft of run) where it did is about 1 ft of descent for every 20 ft? Not ridiculously steep at that point and certainly doable for a modern fly-by-wire jet.

That means that the tail did not scrape the ground as the pilot flared to recover from an excessive dive angle.

See above, there was not an "excessive" dive angle, it had leveled off by the time it got to that point.

Amazingly, I repeated my point in post 108 and you missed it. I would suggest before you start provoking and baiting you get your facts straight and stop assuming I think it was a missile or a fighter jet.

Your point is that something other than American Airlines flight 77 hit the Pentagon. You are wrong.

I would need to see someone pull off the kind of maneuver I described at that speed and without touching the ground.

That's funny, I thought you were all about the numbers. In that case, why don't you just read any of the hundreds of eyewitness accounts?

Do you see what just happened?
Me: A 757 hit the Pentagon and lots of eyewitnesses saw it.
You: The witnesses are wrong or liars, it's physically impossible.
Me: It's not physically impossible for reasons X, Y, and Z.
You: Well i don't believe it unless there are witnesses...

:rolleyes:

It decelerated from 250 MPH (111.76 mps) to 0 mps in .42 seconds (amount of time it took all 155 ft of 757 to hit a wall at 250 MPH), giving it an acceleration of 266.1 m/s^2.

First problem here... The deceleration was much faster. The time it took to stop does not equal the amount of time it took for all 155ft to impact the wall at 250mph, that is not an accurate measure of time of impact (just as auto impacts are not measured in the time it takes for the rear bumper to go all the way through to the impact point, which in many cases would be infinity).

The deceleration of the initial impact would have actually been on the order of miliseconds, which makes your force numbers a lot higher.

It took a read on How to Make Concrete - wikiHow and some additional research to see that the PSI ratings of concrete are based on 6 inches of thickness. And since we're talking about tensile strength, a wall 6 times thicker than the standard would have 6 times the strength... 16.548 MPa.

However, this is inaccurate. The concrete in the Pentagon would not have been built as 6 stacked walls each 6 inches thick. How much rebar did they ACTUALLY have as opposed to your assumptions?
Then, account for building techniques of the era.

Right... forget evidence and respond to logic.

I asked a question that should be simple to answer if I am wrong, so go ahead.

Again, it doesn't matter that the events as they happened are improbable. They happened. The physics isn't even reached because the logic is so overwhelming.

[ZNFYRH]

You prove arguments with evidence, not logic.

And no, I didn't say there would have to have been witnesses. I said I would have to see it happen.

Also, "stabilize" is the right word, because the 757 would have to be flying level for at least a quarter of a mile.

Your responses to my arguments don't present any facts or numbers.

You are referring to me to one side of the eyewitness accounts and ignoring the opposing eyewitness accounts... you aren't giving me any actual facts.

If I have to choose between math and an eyewitness, I'll choose the math until the eyewitness is me.

[shawmutt]

Ground effect conspiracy debunked (or for you conspiracy kooks, another enemy added to the fold)

Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us - Pentagon & Boeing 757 Ground Effect

That brings us to the question of whether an essentially untrained pilot like terrorist Hani Hanjour could have made these adjustments to fly the Boeing 757 into the Pentagon. While such fine corrections do require some degree of finesse and familiarity with an aircraft's flight characteristics, the level of expertise required is not excessive. We have shown that any influence of ground effect would have been quite small on Flight 77 given its high rate of speed and small angle of attack. The 757 was apparently in a shallow dive as well, further reducing its angle of attack such that any impact of ground effect would have been extremely small. In addition, many modern airliners are not directly flown by the pilot but by automated systems. Most newer aircraft even use fly-by-wire (FBW) systems that take control inputs from the pilot, process them by computer, and automatically make adjustments to the control surfaces to accomplish the pilot's commands. Though the 757 is not equipped with a fully digital FBW system, it does carry a flight management computer system (FMCS), digital air data computer (DADC), and autopilot flight director system (AFDS) that provide sophisticated control laws to govern the plane's control surfaces. The AFDS not only controls the plane when the autopilot is enabled, but Boeing recommends that these computerized systems always be in operation to advise the pilots on how to best fly the aircraft. The primary advantage of computerized control systems is that they can make corrections to an aircraft's flight path and help prevent the pilot from accidentally putting the plane into an uncontrollable condition. The 757's flight augmentation system is also designed to damp out aerodynamic instabilities, and computerized control systems often automatically account for ground effect by making adjustments to the plane's control surfaces to cancel it out.

[ZNFYRH]

shawmutt

That control system is the reason I don't think a 757 was in a steeper-than-3-degree dive. The computerized system would literally fight with the pilot over control.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: tivodan1116 The only reason you cite that there is a lack of evidence is that every piece of evidence we put in front of you is "part of the conspiracy" - which is typical tinfoil-hat-wearing horseshit.

My. I'm still hoping for some civility from you, tivo. We have been forum participants for a long time, not newbies looking for a reputation. I have argued with you before and had some regard for your arguments and ability to evidence them. But you are now descending into the vicious attack mode that makes a forum objectionable. Why the unnecessary reference to "tinfoil hat wearing horseshit?" Would you say that type of thing in front of a judge? As to your allegations that your evidence is unanswered while my evidence has been thoroughly answered, I just disagree. But let's be civil about it.

Quote by: tivodan1116 No one has disregarded questions. The questions have all been answered time and time again, at which point the conspiracy nut decides that the answerer, or their evidence, is "part of the conspiracy"... The first time a question is asked, it is relevant. Once clear and convincing evidence is presented and the correct answer is determined, denouncing that answer/evidence as "part of the conspiracy" and asking the question again is loony.

No need for the reference to "conspiracy nut." The questions remain unanswered. They have not been addressed, you are mistaken. I will continue to raise them, looking for answers.

Quote by: tivodan1116 Cite where any of us said the government is always truthful, there, Mr. Strawman. I agree the government has lied to the people in certain matters. But that does not affect the truth of this matter. Your logical fallacy is showing...

No need for the "Mr. Strawman" reference. It is good to get agreement that the government is frequently untruthful. If I understand your argument correctly, you are saying you believe they have been truthful in THIS matter, even if they have lied about other things. I believe they are lying about 9/11 generally.

Quote by: tivodan1116 When you have eyewitnesses on the ground and the entire event watched live on television by billions, any evidence the government provides is superfluous.

The "entire event" was not on TV. We have very little video evidence of the event at the Pentagon. Your allegation is misleading. The NYC attacks were recorded on video, so very few argue that there were no planes there. But to my knowledge, no one has produced video showing an airliner hitting the Pentagon. Such video is reported to exist and to have been confiscated by the FBI. I hope to see it someday. Until then, a plane crash there is somewhat suspect.

Quote by: tivodan1116 I am even further - I did the evidence WITH bias. I WANTED to find a conspiracy by the government. For a long time I sought out information that would help me prove such a thing, as I am a government-hating whacko. The more research I did, however, the more I found that the true story of the 19 hijackers was what actually happened. I really tried to see a conspiracy, and it just isn't there. OK, now you're just being an asshole.

No need to call your opponents names. But I see you label yourself a whacko as well, so no harm done. However there certainly is a conspiracy, not by Arabs, but by government. If you are unable to find it, IMO you are disingenuous in stating your desire to unearth it. There's plenty of evidence. I would direct any researchers away from certain theories that are obviously concocted to create an atmosphere of incredulity. Missile pods in NYC, James Fetzer's junk science, etc. serve only to muddy the waters. But NORAD stand down, freefall collapses of steel-framed buildings, eyewitness accounts of secondary explosions at the trade towers, the hurried cleanup campaign without forensic analysis. These show clearly a pattern of government collusion and coverup. As to the plane at the Pentagon, I still don't know.

Quote by: tivodan1116 1) As I have addressed on this thread and elsewhere, calling it the "Official Story" is a deliberate attempt to appeal to government haters like myself. It is not an "Official Story", it is the same story found and reported by thousands of independent sources. Stop trying to convince us that this is the North Korean news agency publishing what happened. 2) It is a totally shit move to accuse someone of not investigating simply because they happen to have come to the same conclusion as the government. What the hell is your basis for accusing him of that?

What's wrong with calling the official story the Official Story? Think of another label if you want to, because the alternative story accounts for the evidence much better. You don't need to call my suspicion that a member lied a "shit move." You don't ever suspect your correspondents of lying? IMO, he lied. You? I don't know. You could be an honest debater with a bit of an abusive style, and simply be viewing the evidence differently. I'm curious why you would take another debater's part when I suspect his integrity...

Quote by: tivodan1116