Everyone can give his opinion, I don't think many people here have a problem with that. Everyone can give his opinion, even when it is outside of his experties. Again, no problem.
But people should not try to give their opinion more weight by acting as if they have some expertise when they have none. And that is exactly what the Scholars for Truth do.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

So, what is your expertise? Just curious.

I was trained in formal writing as part of the work I had to do towards a Degree in Chemistry and I'm a writer who and as such I'm used to placing specific themes into my works.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

Perhaps. But it is what I am trying not to do. And ehm, how is it relevant to this particular exchange?

Well, on that basis, would you agree that the earlier topic was outside your expertise?

Okay, here are some questions for the group that thinks the something OTHER than AA77 hit the Pentagon. I'm asking becuse I have yet to see a direct answer to any of them.

The official version states that flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Others have put forth different theories, such as a cruise missile, truck bomb, or other aircraft. If any of these are true, Where did flight 77 go?

The only answer that makes sense is that the plane was flown to a remote location, completely off radar (somehow) and all crew and passengers were killed. Either that or all of them, including the news agency (CNN?) staffer that was the first to be identified as a passenger on that flight, were ALL in on it. If anyone one the flight were not in on it, why would they remain silent about what really happened?

If 'They' had really intended to kill all the passengers of the plane in the first place, why not just use the plane that was supposed to be used?

This is why I have such a hard time with these theories. If it was a government conspiracy to hit the Pentagon, why not just have 5 guys from the government do what (most of) the rest of the world believed happened in the first place. Adding military planes and weapons to the mix, then having to dispose of AA77 so completely is where any talk of a conspiracy here falls apart for me.

It would seem to me that the most basic principle in ANY conspiracy would be to make the actual events fit the lie as closely as possible.

The 'Lie': A group of Taliban terrorists took over an airplane and crashed it into the Pentagon.

Possible Truth(tm) #1: A group of Government Operatives disguised to look like Taliban Terrorists took over an airplane and crashed it into the Pentagon.

Possible Truth(tm) #2: Pilots from AA77 were either involved or coerced to say they were being hijacked. As the plane flew an over the Pentagon, a second aricraft, possibly a stealth fighter or B-52, launched a cruise missle or flew into the side of the building as AA77 switched to stealth mode and flew off without radar signature to a secret location were the loyalties of all on board were confirmed in such a way as to ensure they would never admit to surviving that day. The others had loyalty pressed upon them in the form of death.

Why is #2 or some variant of it more palatable than #1?

__________________
I'm not evil.
An evil person would do the things I think up.

Well, on that basis, would you agree that the earlier topic was outside your expertise?

Not really. If someone tries to tell me that the theme in my writing, or that the meaning of a passage in my writing is something other than I deem it to be, then I have full right to tell them they are wrong. If someone reads a chemistry paper I wrote and claims it means something other than I wrote it to mean, again I have the full right to tell them they are wrong. Are you claiming that I don't have this right and that I have to submit to the subjectiveness of the readers?

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

Okay can someone help out a dim witted Australian here

Why?

What exactly is the conspiracy. A missle hitting the building....fired by who? why? - What posssible out come was to be achieved. Everyone in the US military would know what a tough old bird that building is. It is so over engineered as be almost frightening.

An aircraft other than the Flight 77 - again whats the agenda...To cover up a military aircraft accident...Okay I can live with that. But any other sort of aircraft? Why?????

But!!!!!

Lets assume everything from left over Skylab wreckage to last weeks TV dinner tray hit the building.....Then what happened to Flight 77?

Maybe I am supposed to already know this stuff...But truthfully I dont have a clue!

Lets assume everything from left over Skylab wreckage to last weeks TV dinner tray hit the building.....Then what happened to Flight 77?

That's the basic point isn't it. If you are going to say that flight 77 hit the Pentagon, fly flight 77 into the Pentagon!!!!!!

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

It is relevant because you seem to be trying to show an inconsistency in "us" (the debunkers), since we are against people discussing things outside of their competence when we disagree, but don't have problems with people doing it when we agree.
As that was the impression that you gave to me, I just wanted to clarify that the expertise/no expertise distinction is not made on such a basis, but that the distinction is made between people giving weight to their opinion because they have relevant expertise, and people giving weight to their opinion because they have irrelevant but for a layman impressive expertise.
Both sides can still be right or wrong, but chances are that the true expert will be much more often right than the self proclaimed one. And when someone or some organization starts out by deceiving people in such a way as Scholars for Truth does, then it is hard to trust them in other domains. They try to convince people by using their title and acting as if they are doing a scientific investigation, and they try to give the impression of looking for the truth while they have already decided what they will find.
But even then, if with irrelevant expertise and political preset motives, they would somehow uncover some interesting anomaly, we would be willing to discuss it (that's what the Conspiracy forum is for, and that's what we have done in many of the 9/11 threads). As it is, I haven't seen one serious anomaly they have unearthed that was not discussed previously, and many of their so-called anomalies are so ridiculous that it is hard to look at anything they produce in a serious way. It is hard to stay objective when you are confronted with such a track record as SfT has.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

Where did flight 77 go?

I don't know. The evidence for the Pentagon isn't very convincing to me. Too many unresolved questions.

The only answer that makes sense is that the plane was flown to a remote location, completely off radar (somehow) and all crew and passengers were killed. Either that or all of them, including the news agency (CNN?) staffer that was the first to be identified as a passenger on that flight, were ALL in on it. If anyone one the flight were not in on it, why would they remain silent about what really happened?

I don't think they are all in the witness protection program, or hiding in some remote jungle, or whatever. Another possibility has been suggested - that the plane was flown over the Ocean and blown up. It's all speculation.

If 'They' had really intended to kill all the passengers of the plane in the first place, why not just use the plane that was supposed to be used?

The viability of being able to fly a 757 into the side of the Pentagon is a major point of contention, and therefore could be a primary reason for not using one. It would be, if not impossible, then at least very difficult to accomplish with any precision.

This is why I have such a hard time with these theories. If it was a government conspiracy to hit the Pentagon, why not just have 5 guys from the government do what (most of) the rest of the world believed happened in the first place. Adding military planes and weapons to the mix, then having to dispose of AA77 so completely is where any talk of a conspiracy here falls apart for me.

Please explain what you mean by having 5 guys do it? Do you mean send five guys out to fly four planes and hit the towers, etc?

It would seem to me that the most basic principle in ANY conspiracy would be to make the actual events fit the lie as closely as possible.

I agree. But any plan on such a large scale is almost certain to include compromises and contingencies. Say that, as part of your plan, you want to have a 757 hit the Pentagon. But you know, or later realize, that the chances of pulling it off with an actual 757 are slim to none? You can try to beat the immense odds against you and use the 757, or come up with an alternative plan that has a much greater chance of success. Using something capable of a precise hit, and diverting and destroying the 757 at a discrete location - over the Ocean, for example.

The 'Lie': A group of Taliban terrorists took over an airplane and crashed it into the Pentagon.

Possible Truth(tm) #1: A group of Government Operatives disguised to look like Taliban Terrorists took over an airplane and crashed it into the Pentagon.

Possible Truth(tm) #2: Pilots from AA77 were either involved or coerced to say they were being hijacked. As the plane flew an over the Pentagon, a second aricraft, possibly a stealth fighter or B-52, launched a cruise missle or flew into the side of the building as AA77 switched to stealth mode and flew off without radar signature to a secret location were the loyalties of all on board were confirmed in such a way as to ensure they would never admit to surviving that day. The others had loyalty pressed upon them in the form of death.

Why is #2 or some variant of it more palatable than #1?

I'm not exactly sure of your point. I don't believe any one of your three scenarios is what actually happened.

Thing is, nobody knows. Most conspiracy theorists focus on evidence for their conspiracy instead of making clear what their conspiracy theory really contains.

__________________
Spread the Love!

An impeachment is a kind of trial, is it not? So that is also some kind of public investigation.

No, the impeachment is simply an indictment. In order to be removed from office for "high crimes and misdemeanors," the President of the United States must first be impeached by a simple majority of the House of Representatives. If any articles of impeachment are passed by majority vote of the House, the President is then tried by the Senate, with the Chief Justice of the United States presiding. A 2/3 majority vote is required for conviction, which results in the President's removal from office.

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

Instead of realising that hitting the Pentagon with a 757 is nearly impossible (why would that be? It is one of the biggest buildings in the world, and with a height of 24 meter isn't that low either), and then replacing it by a fighter or a missile, wouldn't it be better to realise that the hit of the Pentagon, while good to emphasize how vulnerable the US is (from an outside enemy point of view), isn't necessary to give you a reason to attack a foreign country, when that foreign country has already destructed your two tallest tower buildings.
The missile or fighter plane theory makes the conspiracy unnecessary complicated, and highly increases the risk of it being uncovered (what with all the witnesses, both before the explosion and during the recovery of the remains?).

And what was the use of crashing a plane in a field in Pennsylvania in your conspiracy?

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

I don't know. The evidence for the Pentagon isn't very convincing to me. Too many unresolved questions.

Such as?

The viability of being able to fly a 757 into the side of the Pentagon is a major point of contention, and therefore could be a primary reason for not using one. It would be, if not impossible, then at least very difficult to accomplish with any precision.

You're assuming that the plan was to fly into the side of the Pentagon near the first floor. Just hitting the Pentagon anywhere would have been less difficult, as the building is such a large target. Also, there is some evidence that American 77's primary target was the White House, and the Pentagon was actually the secondary target (being extremely easy to spot from the air).

I agree. But any plan on such a large scale is almost certain to include compromises and contingencies. Say that, as part of your plan, you want to have a 757 hit the Pentagon. But you know, or later realize, that the chances of pulling it off with an actual 757 are slim to none? You can try to beat the immense odds against you and use the 757, or come up with an alternative plan that has a much greater chance of success. Using something capable of a precise hit, and diverting and destroying the 757 at a discrete location - over the Ocean, for example.

This begs the question of why "they" even needed to attack the Pentagon. Destroying the World Trade Center wasn't enough of an excuse to attack Afghanistan and Iraq?? Why would "they" take the huge additional risk of the conspiracy's being exposed, for some tiny incremental gain? This is a huge hole in all of the September 11 conspiracy theories. Also, if "they" felt the need to attack some target in Washington, why not make it the Capitol building? As I've pointed out before, this would be a great way to get (what's left of) Congress to vote for war. Or, why not the Supreme Court, so that Bush could have appointed nine new justices? In short, if the Pentagon was such a difficult target to hit, why would "they" not have changed the target, rather than use a missile that would have been visible to dozens of witnesses?

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

Chief among them for me is how did no one notice AA77 do anything other than cease to exist after the Pentagon was hit? No radar, no witnesses, no passengers, no crew.
I’m not sure I understand why hitting a building that size is any more difficult than hitting a runway. I know a little about ground effect and how it affects helicopters, but is there really enough of a cushion under a 757 to keep it from dropping below 77 feet at that speed? If so, how do they crash?
well, no, 5 guys or so per plane. Or have a guidance system like those used on cruise missiles installed on the plane to take the human factor out of it.
But if you know before the event that a 757 cannot do what you need it to do, why not change the plane to one that can? If the 757 w deemed too difficult to crash into a building that size, why not use an Airbus, or DC-10, or even a FedEx or UPS plane. Why go through all the trouble to set up a pane that “they” know won’t really be used, only to attack it with something so completely dissimilar, like a missile? Why that plane? That flight? Maybe the real plan was to kill the guy in seat 14 b, and the other 3000 people were just to throw the investigators off the track.
My point is that if there is going to be a conspiracy of any sort, it shouldn’t be one designed by a follower of Rube Goldberg.
If “they” want to crash some planes to spur the American people to some line of action, there were far simpler, and less risky ways to do it.

__________________
I'm not evil.
An evil person would do the things I think up.

Reasons being?

__________________
This is no fantasy. No careless product of wild imagination. - Jor-El

Godspeed, John Glenn. - Scott Carpenter

And these atomic bombs that science burst upon the world that night were strange even to the men that used them.
- H.G Wells, The World Set Free

To the conspiracy crowd, radiation is a big Boogey Man that inspires terror and death in all who encounter it. - JayUtah

I personally fail to see any difference between this "911 thread" and the "911 thread" that was recently locked.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

I agree, but there needs to be at least one 911 thread going on in the conspiracy section, IMO. The bad science in the conspiracy rivals the moon hoax conspiracies, so even though it can get a tad political, if it is held in check by our omnipotent moderators I wouldn't mind having at least one thread like this around.

I for one welcome our moderator overlords.

No, of course you do have that right. And your speech acts etc. in doing so have to be taken into account when someone wants to establish what you intended to write.
But the meaning of what you write is not necessarily the same as what you intended to write.
And on neither are you the one and only authority.

So you mave had an intention in writing something, but the meaning doesn't match that intention. And you may think you had a particular intention when in fact you hadn't. Often, of course, you're right, but sometimes not.

This doesn't make it all subjective. It is still, at least, intersubjective.

edited to add: And then there's one more confusion, I think. Being a writer who intends certain things as he writes them does not allow you to claim expertise on whether such a thing as first-person authority exists. Just as my suffering from some illness does not allow me to claim medical expertise.

This question has indeed been puzzling me. But it is equally puzzling, for quite the same reasons, in the official conspiracy theory. Why would the Arabs have felt the need to attack the Pentagon at all? And why, then, the Pentagon rather than any of the other targets mentioned here?

Instead of realising that hitting the Pentagon with a 757 is nearly impossible (why would that be? It is one of the biggest buildings in the world, and with a height of 24 meter isn't that low either), and then replacing it by a fighter or a missile, wouldn't it be better to realise that the hit of the Pentagon, while good to emphasize how vulnerable the US is (from an outside enemy point of view), isn't necessary to give you a reason to attack a foreign country, when that foreign country has already destructed your two tallest tower buildings.
The missile or fighter plane theory makes the conspiracy unnecessary complicated, and highly increases the risk of it being uncovered (what with all the witnesses, both before the explosion and during the recovery of the remains?).

The Pentagon is indeed a large target - from above. If the goal of the terrorists was to inflict the greatest damage and largest number of casualties possible, flying the plane down into the Pentagon roof is far better than into the side wall. It's also extremely easier to accomplish than trying to skim along a few feet from the ground at top speed and hit a wall. Why would terrorists take the riskier, much more difficult option that offered less payoff, when they could take the much easier option with a greater payoff?

It's a psy-op on a grand scale. America is under attack when the towers get hit. Who ya gonna call? (no, not Ghostbusters!) The Pentagon, of course! Our military headquarters, the "brain" that controls and coordinates our unrivalled military defenses. They'll put an end to these attacks on our country in short order. Scramble the F-15's, boys! Give 'em hell! Not exactly....

Major shock - the Pentagon itself gets pulverized! Our nerve center of defense! Chaos, confusion, fear and feelings of vulnerability never seen in our history. If they can crush our military command, anything and everything else can be destroyed. Where will they hit us next?

The WTC hits put us into a state of shock. But making us feel insecure, vulnerable and totally unable to defend ourselves was the goal of the Pentagon strike. It worked.

Gibberish.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

List all of the evidence that you considered. Did you leave any evidence out?

Seperately, an interesting letter from a retired Delta Airlines pilot: A Delta pilot who dodged a bullet

Well, it seems to me that no matter whom you attribute the attacks to, that was the goal. Making us feel insecure, vulnerable, and totally unable to defend ourselves is what fanatical Islamic extremists would strive for as well.

This question has indeed been puzzling me. But it is equally puzzling, for quite the same reasons, in the official conspiracy theory. Why would the Arabs have felt the need to attack the Pentagon at all? And why, then, the Pentagon rather than any of the other targets mentioned here?

Some analysts have theorized (and there seems to be some evidence, though it's not conclusive) that American 77 was intended to attack the White House, and United 93 was intended to attack the US Capitol. However, as the White House is relatively small in comparison to the World Trade Center, the Capitol building, and the Pentagon, and rather difficult to spot from the air for someone unfamiliar with Washington, the Pentagon was selected as a secondary target (possibly ahead of time). Although other buildings might have been easier targets and caused more casualties, the Pentagon has tremendous symbolic value as the headquarters of America's military. The attackers might well have intended the implicit message to the American people "See, your armed forces can't even protect their own supreme headquarters. How can you expect them to protect you?"

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

I hope you didn't mean it this way, but the phrase "Why would the Arabs have felt the need to attack the Pentagon" is rather insulting. A group of terrorists attached the Pentagon, some of whom (all of whom?) are Arabs. This wasn't a decision of some official organization, such as the League of Arab States. If we all stopped attributing the actions of small radical groups to entire populations or ethnic groups, we'd all be better off.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

I was indeed careless in my formulation, and I apologize for it.

Brumsen has been very "particular" in his use of words, phrases, and ideas. I see no reason why we shouldn't take him at his word when he posts "Why would the arabs...".

...Or perhaps he will tell us that he was wrong...

edited to add...as he did while I was posting this...

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

I think we need a pilot to comment on this one, but I am fairly sure that a plane is MUCH easier to control on a shallow descent like a landing than a steep one like a nosedive.

The Pentagon is indeed a large target - from above. If the goal of the terrorists was to inflict the greatest damage and largest number of casualties possible flying the plane down into the Pentagon roof is far better than into the side wall. It's also extremely easier to accomplish than trying to skim along a few feet from the ground at top speed and hit a wall.

And it would also have been better (from the attackers' point of view) to have struck WTC 1 and WTC 2 simultaneously, somewhat lower down, and after 9:00 am, in order to cause additional casualties, but that didn't happen, either. No battle plan survives contact with the enemy. Also, as I mentioned, it seems likely that the Pentagon was the secondary target.

Why would terrorists take the riskier, much more difficult option that offered less payoff, when they could take the much easier option with a greater payoff?

What is your evidence that the one is easier than the other? Also, why do you assume that a highly inexperienced pilot who knew he was about to die would necessarily calmly and rationally have chosen the "best" way to crash into his target?

It's a psy-op on a grand scale. America is under attack when the towers get hit. Who ya gonna call? (no, not Ghostbusters!) The Pentagon, of course! Our military headquarters, the "brain" that controls and coordinates our unrivalled military defenses. They'll put an end to these attacks on our country in short order. Scramble the F-15's, boys! Give 'em hell! Not exactly....

Major shock - the Pentagon itself gets pulverized! Our nerve center of defense! Chaos, confusion, fear and feelings of vulnerability never seen in our history. If they can crush our military command, anything and everything else can be destroyed. Where will they hit us next?

The WTC hits put us into a state of shock. But making us feel insecure, vulnerable and totally unable to defend ourselves was the goal of the Pentagon strike. It worked.

Hogwash (with apologies to Jay). This is yet another attempt to make the data fit your theory, rather than make your theory fit the data.

From a CNN story datelined September 12, 2001:

Evidently "they" forgot to tell Rumsfeld and Shelton to act scared and confused, or at least to go hide in a bunker somewhere and keep their mouths shut.

The other problem is, while it makes perfect sense for the terrorists to launch an additional, largely symbolic attack on the Pentagon, it makes no sense for conspirators attempting to stage a "new Pearl Harbor" to do so, particularly if using a missile rather than an airliner is required. The reason for this is that the conspirators' incremental risk is far greater than the terrorists' incremental risk, for several reasons.

First, the terrorists only have to keep the plot secret up to the time of the attack. The conspirators have to keep the plot secret for (at a minimum) the rest of their lives. Additional attacks necessitate additional conspirators and additional evidence, either of which could give away the conspiracy. This risk is much worse if "they" have to use a missile or something else besides a 757 to attack the Pentagon.

Second, the consequences of discovery for the conspirators are much worse. Should the terrorists be discovered, the likely worst result would be failure of that particular operation (or at least that part of it) and the loss of several operatives who were obviously expendable anyway. Should the conspiracy be discovered, the conspirators will all face lengthy prison terms or death sentences, plus massive damage to their political agenda.

So, multiply the much worse potential consequences by the much lengthier period of secrecy required, and the conspirators' incremental risk becomes quite large, and clearly the small incremental gain is not worth it.

Finally and again, please explain how the destruction of the World Trade Center by itself is not a good enough "excuse" to attack Afghanistan and Iraq.

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor