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.
No.
First, we are not willing to put up with increasingly absurd levels of skepticism.
"How do you know it was a plane if there's no wreckage?"
"How do you know that wreckage is from an airliner?"
"How do you know that is the wreckage of the right kind of airliner?"
"How do you know that was a part from the specific aircraft alleged to have hit the Pentagon?"
"How do you know that part wasn't planted there?"
FUD is not an argument.
Second, you insist upon your own subjective standards of proof. You say there's "no proof" without being able to demonstrate what is generally accepted in this type of investigation as a standard of proof. Your "common sense" is not a standard of proof.
Third, the question is not wheher some particular explanation is objective credible or incredible according to some independent, absolute standard of proof. Instead it's whether there is more and better evidence for one theory than for another. You seem to think the only reasonable course of action is to hold out for some supposed "critical mass" of proof, and that any conclusion drawn or held in the meantime is folly. We're quite willing to change our minds if the evidence suggests, as we have for example in the case of the Titanic. But just because you find grounds to quibble with what we currently believe doesn't compel us to stop believing in it unless you can provide something better on the whole.
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.
Hogwash. No one is claiming it's "undeniable" proof -- it's just better proof for our theory than any you've been able to come up with for your theory. If you even have a theory.
These aircraft are built to mil-std. specs.
No.
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.
An airliner has millions of parts, and only certain ones are so marked. And there is much more to military standards than simply part numbers.
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.
Your estimation of what is required for proof is simply your opinion. Since not every scrap of metal that can be obtained at a crash site will bear Boeing's markings, you can't necessarily demand that evidence is unacceptable unless such a thing is done.
They have failed to show that they have any such evidence for over five years now.
Begs the question of the necessity to show it.
I refuse to accept that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon simply because they say it did.
You're not being asked to. You're being asked to accept it because the evidence as a whole favors that explanation more easily than it favors any of the others that have been offered.
Why do most of the others here accept it without verifiable, conclusive proof?
Because our definitions of "conclusive" and "verifiable" differ from yours, and you don't seem able to justify your definitions. You ratchet up the standards of proof in order to make us seem unreasonable or overly trusting, when in fact we're simply favoring the best of all currently existing theories.
|