normal = Turbonium
bold = mine

That's just a favorite straw man argument, PW - instead of accepting the request for proof as reasonable at face value, tag me as a "typical CT" that wouldn't accept it as genuine by claiming they are still fake parts.

Mind that your "request for proof" is preceded by your own dismissal of all proof for the official story. Furthermore, not every request for proof is valid "at face value". Just an example, I think your demand for rebuilding flight 77 and searching for bombs is a total waste of money as this practice is done only if the cause of destruction is not known with as goal to prevent this failure in the future. If you fly a plane into a building, it doesn't matter if they had bombs aboard (give me 1 reason why they would have bombs on board if they go head on into the building anyway). Why would we spend all the money on reconstructing the craft and -very unlikely- find that they had a bomb on board as well. What would that help us? Could we do anything with that info to prevent this crash from happening in the future? No. We can never build an airplane to withstand a head on crash with a building, even if we'd protect it against bombs as GLARE cargo boxes could do but they're not used because they cost too much). There is no benefit in your request for a very expensive research into a crash where the intentional foundation of the crash is obvious. It will not prevent anything in the future, nor make it any more clear that it was the hijackers' intent to destroy the plane and lots of lives.

First of all, it's not as if you can just take a few days and crank out authentic looking duplicates for all of the many thousands of parts and assemblies in a 757. Pulling that off would take a master stroke of workmanship, time and dedication - I would certainly not go so far as to still believe it was faked to such a minute degree.

But in the same time you do believe such a conspiracy could have been done? Making a whole plane with all its passengers disappear? Making everyone at the pentagon believe that it was a plane that crashed into it? Furthermore, Al-7075 and Al-2024 tend to melt more or less in fire. The hull is only guaranteed for 90 seconds in an outside fire. So you wouldn't have every single piece of 757 with readable marks left after hitting the pentagon head on and bursting into flames.

Asking for solid, conclusive evidence is in no way whatsoever a case of "moving the goalposts"! That's the easy way out, by trying to twist it around into nothing but a "CT tactic". It doesn't wash. Not trying to be preachy, but demanding proof for an unproven claim stands by itself as the inherent right of every citizen to demand from his or her elected representative.

Do you have any source saying no serial numbers or wrong serial numbers were found on the parts?

The problem is you tend to accept most or all of these things outright as iron-clad "evidence" without ever questioning them - even on a single issue. Anything left out or not revealed prompts a knee-jerk response that it is all "irrelevant" if it hasn't been disclosed, or it is classified "in our best interests" or "for reasons of national security". All those are gestures of implicit trust in our gov't that if it isn't disclosed they are doing so for our benefit.

Or maybe it's just that the alternative for a logical official theory is a highly complex grand conspiracy with no evidence?

Let's hear all the black box recordings and ATC tapes (if any still exist that weren't destroyed against regulations already).

Or maybe they were simply destroyed when they hit the pentagon head on and engulfed in flames and debris? Ever heard that a black box has something like an ultimate load?

Let's see all the airport surveillance videos of the "hijackers" checking in - they have not released even one from that day! And let's see the evidence for Flt. 77 - the actual, concrete evidence that proves the story. We pay them to represent our best interests and they are supposed to be working for us[/u], not the other way around.

You dispute all evidence that is given, though you ask for more. It certainly appears that you'll be convinced by that piece of evidence that is not given yet - always. There is a nice list of evidence above. Does that mean anything to you? And again, do you have a more likely alternative for, oh let's say where in the world flight 77 and its passengers went to?


What's saddest of all is that so many are willing to accept the story that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon without worrying about insignificant details like actual proof.

I see proof on many fronts. Only you dismiss it. PLus you offer no alternative that is even a bit likely in my opinion.

Your standards for satisfactory evidence seem to consist primarily of providing links to photos of a small piece of crumpled up metal or whatever and saying "See - there's the undeniable proof!" That's laughable, frankly.

Look at the list. There's eye witnesses, there's a whole flight with passengers gone. There's surrounding damage. there's a lot. You ridiculize the evidence.

These aircraft are built to mil-std. specs. That means an aircraft assembled with thousands of parts, each stamped with a unique identifying number which can be traced back to the exact aircraft to which they belong. It is simply impossibile for a Boeing 757 to crash into the Pentagon and not be able to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt from the debris.

mil-std. specs. That sounds so sexy. But it's wrong. Many if not all parts of a commercial airliner have a serial into them so they can be traced. But commercial airliners are NOT built to military specs. There is a clear distinction between the two in all regulations. Again, do you have proof that no or incorrect serials were found at the pentagon?

They have failed to show that they have any such evidence for over five years now.

So you assume they don't have the evidence. Do you know whether they have no evidence? You expect them to put every detail of these researches on the internet. Is that the logical thing to expect? Is that common practice? Is that obligatory? Is that just necessary for those who aren't convinced by the evidence given yet? Or do you simply use it to try to find holes in the official story?

I refuse to accept that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon simply because they say it did. Why do most of the others here accept it without verifiable, conclusive proof? I honestly can't understand why.

Because unlike you, I tend to see a lot more things pointing to a 757 hitting the pentagon that "they simply said it did". Again you're dismissing, ignoring and ridiculizing the evidence given. Check the list. Again, please give a remotely possible and likely possibility for what happened to flight 77 and its passengers, and what happened to the pentagon in that case.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.