Typical CT rhetoric. Demand proof you won't accept anyway, after all what would have stopped the "conspriators" just stamping the right numbers on fake pieces? You're just moving the goal posts like every other time. You're not interested in get to the truth, you're only interesting in demanding that "one more little peice of evidence I need to have it proved" so you can carry on believing in your little CT world rather than facing up to reality.

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.

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.

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.

To steal Jay's favourite phrase, Hogwash. No one here accepts the offical story because that's what we have been told to believe and you know that. I and the others here have looked at the evidence that -IS- in the public arena and compared it to the offical story, rather then doing the standard CT trick and ignoring it or making up reasons it might have been faked. The Eyewittness reports of the crash, the wittness reports of the recovery, the wreakage recovered, the damage to the building, the radar track, the location of the recovered black boxes, the coroner reports on the DNA from the recovered body parts, the damage to objects and items on the flight path such as the lamp posts, trees, fence and generator. All of that evidence says one thing, a 757 hit the Pentagon. To claim anything else means the burden of proof is on you to show that that evidence was made up or planted, it doesn't just disappear because you want "just one more little piece."

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.

Let's hear all the black box recordings and ATC tapes (if any still exist that weren't destroyed against regulations already). 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 [i]us[/u], not the other way around.

Only if you consider the claim unproven. It absolutely boggles the mind that there are still people who do, despite the enormous amounts of evidence that, you know, a BIG FRICKIN' PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON! I mean, let's list the evidence, shall we?

Eyewitnesses. While not infallible, if you have lots and lots of them that all attest to having seen the same thing, that kind of helps indicate that they're probably right.

Plane bits.

Admittedly fuzzy video.

A big, plane-shaped hole.

Identified remains of people who were on the plane in question.

A plane that disappeared from radar into the Pentagon.

A plane that never reappeared anywhere else.

Lots of missing people who were on the plane.

Damage leading up to the Pentagon that indicates a big frickin' plane.

The conclusion of lots and lots of structural engineers that what we saw is what is likely to happen if a big frickin' plane hit the Pentagon.

I'm sure I'm missing evidence. Now, I have a direct question for you--two of 'em, in fact. Can you refute every single piece of this evidence (and if so, how), and can you provide any concrete evidence--motive is not concrete evidence--that anything happened other than a Big Frickin' Plane hitting the Pentagon? I want details and citations, please, though I don't require that the citations be from websites. Documents are also acceptable.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

And because my questions always get ignored I'd just like to add - flim flam wing wobble bluck.

__________________
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

And the thought of them taking the real AA77 out of it's secret hangar in the hollow mountain, breaking it up and displaying those bit and peices wouldn't be thought of by anyone? No one wold have to fake the plane debris since, if the plane didn't hit the Pentagon, it still exists somewhere.

Then please offer up an explanation for the items Gillianren listed a few posts back, that can explain them all, without a 757 being involved. Calling for another investigation based on "it doesn't feel right" would be a huge waste of time and money. There needs to be enough reason to start again. So far, there is not.

A lot of people think Elvis is still alive, yet his grave was never opened (that I recall). Presumably because there is no reason to do so based on even that many claims. How is this different? There is ample evidence to conclude the official story is what really happened. Without some evidence of a conspiracy, or even a reasonably complete theory, to use as a starting point, how would a new investigation differ at all from the current one?

The first bit in bold seems like you are assuming they have already destroyed it. No benefit of the doubt there eh?

"they have not released even one from that day!"
You know, except that one that was on every practically every news station in the courty a few days later of some of the men checking in in Maine. The one that was used to link the hijackers to al Queda in the media long before any trrops were sent anyplace. That one.

From here, a site that seems to be against the official story. Bolding mine

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

Already in november 2001, 184 of the 189 dead at the Pentagon were DNA identified, including 63 of the 64 people on board flight 77 . This would mean that the remains of at least 63 people had to be planted at the Pentagon site, or that a lot of the "more than 50" specialists were part of the conspiracy.
By the way, the debris of a plane (warning: large picture) has been planted very soon after the crash as well, according to this picture. Now I wonder: as soon as the crash happened, a lot of people started to arrive on the grass where this pic is taken. Were all of them in the conspiracy, or did none of them notice some Men In Black carrying this piece to this place and planting it there?
For the remains of the passengers and crew to be planted at the crash site so soon after the crash, they had to have access to the bodies. Crashing flight 77 into the ocean is thus not an option, so it has to be brought somewhere else. So a 757 lands somewhere unnoticed, the people on board are killed and maimed (burned and so on), the remains transported to the Pentagon, and planted there. Furthermore, the plane is made to disappear. All this has to be achieved with a minimum of people involved, as the larger a conspiracy, the bigger the chance that someone will blow the cover (or the whistle, if you prefer).

Is this, Turbonium, somehow what you have in mind?

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

To which I'd have to say: I'd be inclined to agree with you.

I have to say that I most strongly agree with Turbonium on this.

So on the basis of what evidence are you sure enough to be satisfied? Would you mind sharing that with us?
Oh, I know... you would, because you already know that it's not going to satisfy either Turbonium or me.
And how do you know that?

Attached to this reply is an analysis using a better lighting calibrator than the police car, a sunlit and self-shaded piece of Flight 77. It provides a clear example of the relatively bright tone of shaded Flight 77 skin, especially relative to the dark trees. It still looks like a white (or maybe light blue or gray) object. Placing a reduced piece of the piece of Flight 77 up against the trees shows that it is far more like what the ASCE report (see page 13) identified as Flight 77 than the pointed-to dark tree-line protrusion, which if it were Flight 77 we should expect to look as bright as the self-shaded debris sample.

A shortfall of the attached analysis is that since the object lacks uniform curvature, full sunlit luminosity is confined to a more narrow band than would occur over a smooth, uniformly curved surface like the fuselage of Flight 77. So if the piece of debris was smoothly curved like a pristine fuselage, it would look even more like the white object that the ASCE report identifies as Flight 77. The attached analysis clearly indicates that the dark tree-line protrusion is not what one would expect Flight 77 to look like even with self-shading, and that it is the white object that is obviously Flight 77. ~Ian

Pentagon and Flight 77: an animated size analysis

Attached Thumbnails

 

Just thought I'd refer briefly back to this, because of this newsitem.

but if you are going to accept this part:

You have to be willing to accept this part:

Of course, for OBL, the first part is pure speculation as to why Moussaoui decided to confess, the guy just could be a total loon who wants the fame, that also fits the facts. He does have first hand experience as to the second quote though.

__________________
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

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.

Brumsen, I'm now asking those direct questions of you as well. Note that "as well" means, in this instance, "I expect answers from both you and Turbonium"; if neither of you can provide said direct answers, I expect both of you to concede that you're wrong.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Attached to this reply is an analysis using a better lighting calibrator than the police car, a sunlit and self-shaded piece of Flight 77. It provides a clear example of the relatively bright tone of shaded Flight 77 skin, especially relative to the dark trees. It still looks like a white (or maybe light blue or gray) object. Placing a reduced piece of the piece of Flight 77 up against the trees shows that it is far more like what the ASCE report (see page 13) identified as Flight 77 than the pointed-to dark tree-line protrusion, which if it were Flight 77 we should expect to look as bright as the self-shaded debris sample.

Ian, although I'm no photo-analysis expert, I know you can't directly compare the apparent brightness of the debris piece with that of the objects in the security video. The security camera is primarily focused on an area of directly sunlit concrete, which will cause the camera's aperture to be smaller, and thus shadowed objects in the video to appear darker. Conversely, the photographer of the debris piece undoubtedly set the camera's aperture and shutter speed to correctly expose the piece's shadowed side. Therefore, the photographed piece is likely to appear much brighter than the aircraft's fuselage and vertical stabilizer appear in the video.

Also, you had earlier suggested that the object we take to be the tail fin might be a light pole that is in the process of being knocked down. Here is a measurement I made using Mike Wilson's SolidWorks model, and here is the view of the model from the security camera's point of view, along with the video frame for comparison. I measured from the tip of the vertical stabilizer to the last light pole that was knocked down. Note that the z-axis represents the aircraft's approximate ground track. The light pole is over 100 feet farther back along the ground track than the object in the video frame.

__________________
--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

No no, you assume I am playing your game. I'm not wasting my time on you. If I were to find some great link listing serial numbers from every rotable on the plane and a print out from American's maintenance department that this was indeed the aircraft that they have lost, you would not concede that you are wrong. Therefore I am merely going to state that you and turbonium are wrong. Prove me wrong.

__________________
You're a coward and a liar and a thOOF - Bart Sibrel

Ian, I hate to keep flogging this deceased equine but can you now see the airplane shaped object infront of what appears to be a smoke?

http://home.satx.rr.com/jt3d/757_2x3.gif For reference: http://home.satx.rr.com/jt3d/757aRev.jpg
I intended to use a 2x mag gif but it refused to work so I'm forced to use a 3x. sorry.


<Please - stop hotlinking images>

__________________
You're a coward and a liar and a thOOF - Bart Sibrel

Just thought I'd refer briefly back to this, because of this newsitem.

The tape proves nothing--even it if is from bin Laden, the denial could be deliberate disinformation intended to embarrass the United States. After all, the al-Qaeda training manuals discovered in Afghanistan direct captured members to claim they've been tortured, for propaganda purposes.

__________________
--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 knew I'd forgotten some piece of evidence--Osama bin Laden saying, in essence, "We crashed a big frickin' plane into the Pentagon." Only in Arabic, of course, which I doubt has a direct translation for "frickin'."

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

While we are compiling a list of questions, can I throw one in.

When the damage assesment was done on the Pentagon, it was found that the partial collapse of the floors above the impact site was caused by the fact that supporting columns were sheared away rather than obliterated.

This is important because the internal bracing system used on the support columns was unusual by any sense.

Now the pattern of shearing is comparable to the wing span of the aircraft claimed to have hit the building. And not a cruise missile.

No, they were not. You are wrong - wrong, wrong, wrong.

Turbonium: To what airworthiness standard did the 757 have to comply for the issuence of its Type Certificate?

I'll give you a chance to answer before I post it.

__________________
"For ignorance to reign, all it takes is for knowledgable people to say nothing"

Lonewulf

Ah well.
Note that I asked you: which is the evidence about AA77's serial numbers having been tracked that satisfied you.
I did not ask: come up with evidence that will satisfy me - as, evidently, you regard that to be mission impossible.

Again you assume I'm going to play with you.

__________________
You're a coward and a liar and a thOOF - Bart Sibrel

I gave him a very good hint to that. Not that it matters for the point on serials numbers (or batch numbers) which will be on many parts of a commercial airliner, but that claim is indeed wrong.

__________________
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.

Would "I do not put so much weight onto serial number tracking being spread to the public, as the overall evidence indicates the official theory is the most likely. I see no gap that needs to be filled by the serials, so no evidence on that subject satisfies me" be a good answer?

Tell me, exactly what gap in the official story do you identify?

__________________
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.

If I watch this image together with the white plume of smoke (or dust or both) going towards the explosion in the next image, I am inclined to believe that the white thing indeed is not the aircraft but its smoke/dust trail. Unless any alterations to the image were done locally instead of globally. It is strange though that the news stations seem to identify the white thing as the aircraft. These images seem to indicate that this is wrong.

__________________
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.

No.

I think jt-3d would be inconsistent in saying what you propose, given that he has also said
On this we can agree however I'm sure enough serial numbers have been checked to satisfy me.

I'm still trying to work out how this conspiracy is supposed to look, and I have the feeling that none of the conspiracists has done that...
Conspiracy: The US government has hijacked flight 77, taken it to an unknown place, killed the passengers and crew, taken their remains to the Pentagon, and planted some parts of a 757 there as well. In the meantime, they have launched a missile into the Pentagon.
That's the story, right?

Now, I don't suppose anyone will claim that Al Qaeda terrorists hijacked the two WTC flights, while by sheer coincidence simultaneously the government hijacked flight 77 (I'll disregard flight 93 for now, to not make it too complicated). So to have a "good" conspiracy, the government has to have hijacked the two WTC flights as well.
Now, the second flight is quite beyond doubt, and the first flight is rather certain as well. So either they were flown by government kamikazes, or they were remote controlled (other explanations are welcome). Both explanations make me wonder: why wasn't the same solution used for flight 77? Not enough kamikazes to be found?

No matter how you look at it, every conspiracy theory I have heard so far makes absolutely no sense.
So for the moment we have an official explanation that fits all the available evidence (while of course we can always ask for more, more, more!), and we have no alternative explanation that even starts to match the evidence or has some internal logic.
So why should we or anyone look for more evidence to support the official story? Give us a good reason to doubt it, or give us a fundamentally better explanation, and then something can be investigated, researched, compared. Until then, just drop it.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

Ah ok, take that answer as mine only then.

As far as I know, we have no info if and how many serials have been checked. So what jt-3d says cannot be more than an assumption. However, the other way around, you can't conclude from the fact that this info is not spread that something is suspicious there.


Regarding Fram's post and as I asked I'll repeat (both for Brumsen and Turbonium):

*what conspiracy do you propose? (especially regarding flight 77)
*what flaws do you see in the official story?

__________________
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.

Nicholas and jt-3d, help me out here a bit. I see nothing that would be consistant with smoke in the images you've so kindly reproduced here. The only thing that appears to be anything like smoke is the sun reflection on the camera lens to the left side of the image. Can you point out where the smoke that you talk about is please?

__________________
All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct.~ Carl Sagan ~

Humanity must rise above the Earth, to the top of the atmosphere and beyond, for only then will we fully understand the world in which we live.~Socrates, 500 B.C. ~

Let every man judge according to his own standards, by what he has himself read, not by what others tell him. ~Albert Einstein~

Alright, I'll clarify since you can't take a hint. I require no serial numbers to be checked because I have no reason to doubt the official explanation. There, I'm a mindless automaton and I need you and your ilk to lead me to the light.

Though I will add that I have confidence in the investigative agencies involved and am fairly sure that some serial numbers were recorded if not crossreferenced at this time. None of that will matter you your kind though because it's already too late, right?

EDIT: many edits

__________________
You're a coward and a liar and a thOOF - Bart Sibrel

Nicolas

In the interpretation (I am not 100% certain as I simply looked at a picture, nothing more):

http://upload.talk2.nl/files/40063naamloos.JPG(this is 2 times exactly the same image, being the second frame from the nice animation some posts farther up)

I outlined the aircraft, speckled the smoke and indicated the lens flare as far as I identify them.

Note that I did a quick job on it. The plane outline is very rough, especially on the trailing wing edge I departed too far back from the airframe as can be seen. So don't put too much value on that red shape .

I hope this makes the interpretation clear.

__________________
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.