The thing is: I am not so sure of what I believe and disbelieve either.

Be that as it may, your expressions of belief, disbelief, and disavowal are ill-timed. It is not that you are indecisive. It is that you are indecisive in a pattern than first engenders and then forestalls debate. This casts doubt on your claim to be interested in constructive discussion.

Typically you advocate some idea. And you support it until some well-argued rebuttal comes along, whereupon you disavow the idea. You don't concede it. You don't defend it. All of a suddent you just say it's someone else's idea therefore you have no stake in arguing for it. But that's not how the discussion started. You simply enforce an ambiguity that never requires you to admit that your critics may be well-reasoned.

...it has already been established that I am a conspiracist, so that you have good reason to 'gang up' on me...

Rather several people have observed that you follow certain well-defined patterns of illogic favored by conspiracy theorists and reasonably characteristic of their approach. They have cited examples of that, which you never address.

If you want people to stop believing you're a conspiracist, then stop acting like one. But complaining that you've been hastily characterized and then categorically dismissed falls flat if you can't discuss the characterization.

You advocate conspiracy theories (at least until they become untenable, whereafter you try to say you never advocated them). You do so according to fallacious methods of reasoning that conspiracists typically use. You express agreement with other conspiracists and urge others to take them seriously. How does that not make you a conspiracy theorist? What critical aspect of your definition of conspiracist do you argue you don't fit?

Anyway, as far as I know, this "pernicious method" that I am perceived as employing is a philosophical approach.

When did you abandon the political approach?

If your conclusions are blatantly motivated by political belief, then it hardly matters whether you attempt to use philosophy, science, economics, or religion to try to support them. In all such cases it's a red herring. And at least one other student of philosophy has disagreed that your activities here really constitute philosophy.

To my knowledge the "philosophical approach" has not discovered a better cause in any accident or criminal investigation than one determined by the methods known to work well in each of those fields. I strongly question whether your approach -- even if you actually followed it -- is applicable to any of the questions we normally discuss.

Finally "pernicious" is your word: I would instead say "obfuscatory". I don't think you're practicing philosophy here; I think you're using terms and concepts from philosophy to muddy up and extend the debate meaninglessly.

The days when Socrates was executed for corrupting Athens' youth by not really pushing any line in particular are not so far behind us as it may sometimes seem.

When you can demonstrate the wisdom of Socrates then you can be compared to him.

The good old, "They laughed at [fill in blank] too," argument falls flat when you realize they laughed at P.T. Barnum -- rightly so.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I would not even dare to dream being compared to good old Socrates. I only meant to say that perhaps you haven't recognized the Socratic method, and that obviously some people still get very annoyed by it. Which is by no means to say that my skill in employing that method is comparable to his.

This is also what looks to me to be the queerest aspect of the Pentagon "no-plane" theory. It makes the theory look even queerer than the theory that the moon landings were faked.

It is rather like claiming that just the Apollo 16 mission was faked and involved no manned flight to the moon while granting at the same time that Appollo 11, 12, 15 and 17 were all genuine as advetized. It makes the alleged conspiracy not only queer beyond belief but also completely pointless.

I would not even dare to dream being compared to good old Socrates.

Then why do you compare our reasons for rejecting your arguments to the reasons why Socrates was rejected? You argue that Socrates was rejected because people didn't understand his method. On the contrary, we understand your method very well, having seen numerous examples of it in the past. I don't accept for a moment that anything you're doing here has anything to do with Socrates. People are giving very good reasons for rejecting what you argue, and you are simply calling sour grapes on it.

I only meant to say that perhaps you haven't recognized the Socratic method...

What you do here has nothing to do with the Socratic method. In the Socratic method the interlocutors don't abandon their positions as soon as the become untenable, pretending they never actually held them. The key principle of the method is to drill into one's claims and identify the unstated premises on which they are based, so that they can be exposed and argued as first-class ideas. Unfortunately as soon as your hidden premises are exposed (e.g., the assumption of meaning in NIST's report, the inconsistency of your claims regarding ASME's code of ethics, the absurdity of authority in attributed motives), you deny that any argument was ever made on the basis of it.

The Socratic method has about as much to do with your hit-and-run, passive-aggressive style of obfuscation as Tiger Woods does with Wernher von Braun.

Further, the Socratic method is intended to investigate questions in morality and other notions that defy concrete explanation or definition. It is utterly out of place in a criminal or accident investigation. Where questions don't have objectively right or wrong answers, the Socratic method helps shape the axioms on which they are based. This is often very helpful in understanding why certain ideas are commonly held. But when the question does have a right and wrong answer -- such as, "Did a Boeing airliner hit the Pentagon in Sept. 11, 2001?" the Socratic method is largely a waste of time.

Which is by no means to say that my skill in employing that method is comparable to his.

I don't believe your intent is the same as his.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

That's a keeper.
Though they did/do both try to put things into flight.

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

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

I think you overly restrict the scope of a philosophical approach. Many questions have been raised in this thread that are not quite as straightforward as the one you just mentioned but are still relevant to many claims made by both CTers and non-CTers on this forum. You yourself have made quite a number of philosophical points while commenting on the status and nature of such things as evidence, motive, justification or truth. These philosophical comments of yours were no more no less to the point than many equally interesting points made by Joe Durnavich, Brumsen and others.

Philosophy by its nature pervades all human thought. That does not mean that every argument than can be made from a philosophical standpoint is immediately helpful or applicable to any particular question, any more than the fact that air pervades the surface of the Earth demands that every observation we make consider the effect of air. Philosophy is universal because it defines itself to be, not because it is equally helpful in all cases.

Obviously our study, for example, of conspiracist rhetoric and reason falls more squarely into philosophy than does, say, metallurgy. But I'm not opposed to the use of philosophy where it may be justly applied; I'm opposed to the obfuscation of what are (or ought to be) straightforward questions by the unnecessary and evasive invocation of esoteric philosophical arguments. Philosophy of language, for example, has its value. But to deploy a philosophy of language argument to avoid having to answer an uncomfortable question smells of evasion. It is not the application of philosophy were it belongs that frustrates us; it is the application of it where it doesn't belong.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I agree that philosophical arguments are likely to be useless in, say, most criminal investigations or scientific probes. It's not philosophy's business to establish the truth of empirical claims. However, such a probe is not quite what is being conducted on this forum. I myself believe that the probe has already been conducted by competent people working on the field and that the "official" account of 911 has been established beyond reasonable doubt. So the probe is finished. I see no evidence of a conspiracy of any kind at any level. Here, however, is the place to talk *about* the probe and the process of empirical discovery, and thus to make claims not only about the evidence and its soundness (technical points) but also about the nature of evidence (philosophical points.)

Why do many intelligent people buy into those conspiracy theories when so much evidence appears to us to disprove their claims decisively? Appeals to philosophy can bring light to such questions. A more scientistic approach would appeal to psychological and sociological facts instead. But such approaches rely on more evidence of a different nature and do not throw so much light on the nature of truth and evidence themselves.

OK, I understand what irritates you. I tend to agree. Still, philosophy belongs here even as it risks being misapplied -- just as technical arguments are also likely to be abused of misapplied by overly confident people on any side of the fence.

Turbonium most of your points have, IMHO, been carefully disected and eliminated as rational evidence of a conspiracy by a lot of folks.

I don't agree, but let's leave it at "we'll agree to disagree."

I'm sure you've read this (anybody who thinks the official story is a hoax needs to address this, as you know). But have you read the pages of discussion that follow it? Most of your points were brought up, and there is two sides to every one of them.

*Gasp!* Twin, are you actually using a Conspiracy site to support your argument??

Yes, I am quite familiar with that article, authored by the mysterious "Catherder". There have also been several articles written that have addressed it with point-by-point rebuttals. I don't know if you have read any of them, but here is one - http://911.no-ip.org/911/pentagon-frozenfish.html

Let's put it this way: slam dunk evidence it is not.

On this I agree. For both sides of the argument.

When it comes to "No Plane" most of the "Truth" movement believe that it's a disinformation campaign by the CIA to discredit them anyways. Perhaps Turbonuim is really a paid Government debunker working to further discreadit all the CT's out there. He's here to test his skills before hitting more "true Believers."

Dang! You've unveiled my true intentions. But I categorically deny that I have ever worked for the CIA. If you are referring to that recently declassified FBI memo, the CIA operative named "Turbonium" isn't me - it must be another Turbonium.

But I am aware that the majority of the "CT" crowd is of the opinion that the "No Plane Theory" is false, and many of those believe it has been raised as a "disinformation campaign" as you describe.

I really couldn't care less if I am accused or suspected of supporting the "No Plane Theory" for some sort of hidden agenda. It's actually kind of amusing. I get really bored and tired of always being labelled a "CT" who never believes the government!

Turbonium,

Just to tie up loose ends.... you never answered my question on the "planes were built to mil-std" statement.

I realise you are busily having to defend a lot of your claims, so would you just like to admit you were wrong on that point, or would you like me to show you the proof?

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

Lonewulf

I get the distinct feeling that my points (not only mine, really) are being deliberately ignored, but for some reason... I'm not at all surprised.

Ho-hum...

Oh, wait. I forgot. People heard something that "sounded like" a bomb, which means it was a bomb, because people never use similes. And that's direct evidence that you're right.

I never said that witnesses who heard something that sounded like a bomb proves it was a bomb. You should be able to understand that from my post and not need to reply with unmerited sarcasm.

And as far as those eyewitnesses, I did rather mean the ones outside who said, "Hey, look! A big frickin' plane!" What's more, we've had, on this very board, someone who was there who said, here, "Hey! It was a big frickin' plane!"

I know which witnesses you meant. I was pointing out that other witnesses saw something(s) entirely different than "a big frickin' plane". So there are many varying witness accounts, which means that evidence is still very much in question.

As for cordite, correct me if I'm wrong, people who know more than I do, but do they even use that in most bombs?

The Wikipedia source linked earlier does say...Cordite N, a triple-base propellant is also used (see below). Cordite is classified as an explosive, but it is normally used as a propellant for guns and rockets.., which acknowledges cordite is still being used today in weaponry. But it does not provide any details of current usage in the main body of text.

That cordite is commonly used today is explained on several sites....

Cordite N is used as a propellant in aircraft gun ammunition. It actually contains three main explosive components. These components are nitroguanidine, nitrocellulose, and nitroglycerin. Cordite N is very cool burning, with little smoke and no flash, and has a higher velocity or burning rate than Ballistite.

https://wrc.navair-rdte.navy.mil/war...ance/types.htm

http://www.ordnance.org/corditen.htm

A recent article quotes a US officer, describing the unforgettable smell of cordite in the aftermath of an explosion while in Iraq....

They describe a deafening blast, a flash of light, dirt and shrapnel flying everywhere as they scramble to help wounded teammates who have blood coming out both ears, shrapnel stuck in their foreheads. Others describe the frustration of dealing with an invisible enemy, of close calls from bombs buried too deep to do serious damage.

"There's this smell of cordite. You never forget that smell," said Capt. Dave Beall, a 25-year-old intelligence officer who tracks IED trends for the 3-509.

http://www.adn.com/news/military/sto...-7664594c.html

I thought I'd post the above as it relates to the Pentagon witness who also mentioned the unmistakable smell of cordite. This is also noted by Tog...

For someone to say the blast smelled like cordite was very odd, given how little chance there was it would be used in a bomb, and the fact that they would have to have more than a passing knowledge of cordite to not confuse it with some other, more common, type of explosive.

That cordite is still used has been shown. That the smell of cordite is virtually "unmistakable" for those who first experience it has been shown. I don't say this is "proof" of explosives, based only on a few witness accounts - but it is something that is worthy of consideration in terms of what actually happened.

I've seen pictures of plane bits posted on this very board. Statements of people who helped with the recovery, also posted on this board, have stated uniequivocally that they saw plane bits. In fact, the only person I've encountered who's unaware of all those plane bits is, well, you.

. I don't rule out the possibility that more than one object may have hit the Pentagon. My point is that if those are "plane bits", that alone is not evidence of Flight 77 "plane bits".

Was that small hole you saw perhaps a big one obscured by smoke? Because the people there say they saw a big, plane-shaped hole where the wings of the plane had completely disappeared into the building.

So the claim is that the wings "disappeared into the building" as they punched holes in the wall. Like at the WTC? Where are the punched holes from the wings in any photos?

I can't believe you're unaware of the identification of people on the plane. I really can't.

I didn't say I was "unaware" of the id's. I said I am skeptical of the results.

In short, no, I'm not going to provide documentation for you, because it's already been done, over and over. I would suggest, that if you want documentation, you look for it here on this board in many, many posts that are replies to you. But I rather doubt you want documentation, because if you did, you'd already be aware of it. It's been shown to you often enough.

I mean documentation beyond what has been provided so far. That is, something that is beyond varying and opposing interpretation as evidence for Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.

But don't worry. Like I said, if there is actually any evidence for undeniable proof in existence anywhere, it is out of our sight, and in the hands and control of the FBI, etc.

Yep... Definitely being ignored.

Gee, I don't know.

Timeout!

It's painfully obvious from some of the posts here that many of you have no idea of what it's like to be in the minority opinion on a forum!

Just to fill you in - there are multiple questions being fired at you from numerous people, often within minutes of each other.

Not addressing each and every single point, or follow-up point to something I have addressed, is not only common, but next to unavoidable.

Until the day I, like the other minority voices amongst a majority fora, am able to make several clones to divvy up the workload, you'll be a lot better off if you stop thinking your posts are being deliberately ignored in whole or in part, when they have simply been overlooked or I have not been able to return to a post six pages back at the same time as another reply is being written. Or if they lack an immediate response.

Or, try it out for yourself somewhere. You'll get what I mean in no time.

And to me, that seems like a stupid mistake for the conspirators to make. If Cordite is being used for naval guns, odds would be good that the Pentagon would have people that could recognize the 'unmistakeable' smell and give away that fact that there was a cordite explosive used. At least better odds than someone on the police and fire crews would.

And that goes to the heart of why I can't understand why there any doubt that a jet liner hit the Pentagon. Even if it wasn't AA77, it surely must have been a 757 to keep te debris consistent. If they find the nose gear of an F-15, there will be uncomfortable questions. If they find some part of ANY aircraft that was NOT a 757, there will be the same questions. There would be no time to remove all traces of the other aricraft before rescue workers arrived, with news crews close behind.

Using a missile or bomb would have a radial blast pattern, I would think. But to account for shearing of the support pillars, wouldn't the charge would have had to radiate out in a cone along a rather thin plane, nearly horizontal to the ground? I wonder if there is any ordinance like that known to exist. If it is not kown, then it would have had to have been developed. Obviously, anyone that developed something like that would recognize that it was used. Since they didn't blow the whistle they must be in on it.

Or it was an ariplane.

BTW, I'm no structural engineer, I could barely spell it in fact, but If I had to guess which had stronger walls, the WTC or the Pentagon, I'd go with B. Pentagon. Final answer. Maybe even strong enough to have folded and shredded the wings into fine enough debris that heat from the burning jet fuel burned them beyond recognition. Ever throw an aluminum can in a camp fire? They can collapse under their own weight. Come to think of it, I've seen beer bottles distort in the heat of a wood fire too.

This goes back to the comment about the pools of molten glss from the melted windows. When I ask this, I'm asking because I honestly don't know: Are the windows at the pentagon, really glass, or are they some type of Bullet/fragment resistant polymer like the type used in gas station cashier cages?

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

However, the question "what amount and quality of evidence would justifiably convince us that a Boeing airliner hit the Pentagon in Sept. 11, 2001?" does fall within the scope of the Socratic method.
But you'll just say that you refuse to make it a normative discussion... fine.

edited to add: thank you, Pierre-Normand, for your sensible and soothing observations.

And is there any evidence, even the slighest indication, for this possibility?

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

Many of which had been asked multiple times over the course of a number of days, giving plenty of time to respond. Many of which were also asked before posts you've chosen to respond to...

I understand the issue, but it seems more obvious that this is a case of "completely avoid the points you can't address and respond to the ones you can handwave away."

Why do I think this? You've made statements about the damage to the Pentagon and the street lights, both well after I've posted evidence that proves those statements to be amazingly weak, and both in response to posts following mine. Meaning? You've apparently seen those points and decided to ignore them.

No, turbonium. The evidence that you deliberately ignored a large number of highly problematic questions in the JFK thread after your "case" for a conspiracy had been totally demolished is incontrovertible. After I repeatedly requested that you refrain from arguing about peripheral issues and address the many direct questions that had been posed to you, you simply stopped posting in the thread. Your last post there was two weeks ago. So it is quite frankly extremely disingenuous of you to imply that your failure to answer questions in this thread is merely due to your being overworked.

__________________
--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

BTW, I'm no structural engineer, I could barely spell it in fact, but If I had to guess which had stronger walls, the WTC or the Pentagon, I'd go with B. Pentagon.

Actually you would have guessed wrong lol. The WTC was built like a tube with all the structural bracing on the outside. The facade that gave the buildings their distinctive look were actually practical rather then decorative.

With the Pentagon, the strength was created with internal columns. The outer facade, while having some bracing ability, was not intergral in holding the structure up

The columns within the Pentagon were built well beyond any code existing at the time, or even now. The best way to describe them is super dooper double re-inforced.

This was done for the assumed load bearing they would need to carry. As it turned out the builidng continuing the be used by the Forces mean't structurally the building is being under utilised

Actually you would have guessed wrong lol.

I think he was meaning more in line with a side impact rather then their ability to hold things up.

__________________
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

I did mean from a side impact. Like when you stand on a soda can and tap the sides. If you arnet fast, you get your fingers caught in the collapsing can. (WTC) With he pentagon, it looks more like a big block made out of layered dominoes. You could knock away huge chunks of the side and still support a lot of weight. At least that's my impression from looking at them.

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

The Pentagon was make from mulitlayer of impact resistance materials, marble, reinforced concrete, sand. All designed to resist the impact of a bomb or a missile. The WTC wasn't designed for that at all. It was designed to handle a hit, but not to resist one, the Pentagon is.

__________________
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

The Pentagon was make from mulitlayer of impact resistance materials, marble, reinforced concrete, sand. All designed to resist the impact of a bomb or a missile. The WTC wasn't designed for that at all. It was designed to handle a hit, but not to resist one, the Pentagon is.


No its not - it was designed to hold filing cabinets. The Pentagon was slated to be the national records centre after the war. But it was decided to keep the Services there in a central location - they got the advantage of the extra re-inforcement

Oooops - here is the reference for the above statement

http://www.architectureweek.com/2003/0212/news_1-1.html

They went into great detail about this in the program "Seconds from disaster"

Why don't you explain to us how virtually all of your JFK conspiracy claims were not "carefully dissected and eliminated as rational evidence?" If you can do that, then maybe some here will be willing to "agree to disagree" with you.

This is not a "point-by-point rebuttal"; it is simply an attempt to handwave away the evidence combined with the usual claims that the evidence does not meet the conspiracist's ignorant expectations. A few examples should suffice.

Quote:

Joe Quinn While we agree that the wheel rim from the Pentagon appears to be the same as that of a Boeing 757, does this mean that it comes from a 757? Do other types of aircraft use double rims such as those pictured above? We need to look at the "wheel rim" evidence firstly in the context of there being a massive government conspiracy on 9/11 and secondly in context of the other massive evidence that points to something else having hit the Pentagon. Taking these facts into consideration and the evidence for a general 9/11 government conspiracy, is it not plausible that the conspirators would have taken the precaution to plant evidence at the scene to cover up the truth of their activities? Could this planting of evidence not include a "damaged" wheel rim from a 757 landing gear? [emphasis added] [emphasis original]

Here, Quinn is assuming what he should be attempting to prove; a standard conspiracist tactic for attempting to explain away inconvenient evidence.

Further, he's doing exactly what Jay described a couple of pages back:

Quote:

Joe Quinn In the immediate aftermath of the Pentagon attack, the Associated Press reported that a truck bomb had exploded at the Pentagon. There were other reports that a helicopter had exploded. It certainly seems likely then that something exploded in the vicinity of the Pentagon before the main impact. [emphasis original]

Another typical conspiracist tactic--seizing on mistaken initial reports in an attempt to cast doubt on the "official story."

Quote:

Joe Quinn If Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon, we would expect there to be a major and prolonged fire from the thousands of gallons of aircraft fuel that Flight 77 was carrying. But in the case that another smaller aircraft was used, the lack of burning aircraft fuel would be evident. It is our contention therefore that the conspirators detonated a bomb near the generator just before or at the moment of impact in order to augment the aircraft explosion claim (complete with thousands of gallons of fuel) and also to provide a literal smoke screen in an attempt to hide the fact that Flight 77 was not involved in the attack.

No evidence provided--merely an unsupported claim that because a jet-fuel bomb would have been necessary for the "no plane" theory, one must necessarily have existed. As I've pointed out previously, this would have required a container the size of an 18-wheeler tanker trailer, which would have been clearly visible to the entire heliport staff (including three firefighters), the construction workers, people stuck in traffic on the highway, and any number of other witnesses.

Finally we have the following incisive analysis:

Quote:

Joe Quinn If we think back to the images and video footage of Flight 11 and Flight 175 hitting the WTC towers, we remember that we all saw both large Boeing airplanes, as clear as day, even though they were flying at over 500 mph and were over 1,000 feet up in the air when they struck the WTC Towers. This provides us with an excellent guide on how such commercial aircraft appear at that distance.... Remember the indelible images of those huge planes flying into the World Trade Center towers? Even at that distance, even with the size of the WTC towers, the image and size of the aircraft that was burned into our minds from having seen the tapes replayed endlessly, is awe-inspiring. Now look again at the above image from the Pentagon Security camera of the plane approaching the building. Ask yourself the question: where is the Boeing 757-200 in this image? Next time you are at an airport, take five minutes and go and look at some planes on the runway. Pick out a large passenger jet that is approximately 750 feet away, preferably one in the process of taking off or landing. Take a picture of it. Then look again at this image from the Pentagon Security camera and ask yourself, where is that Boeing 757!? [emphasis added] [emphasis original]

turbonium, please explain how one-frame-per-second video from a fixed security camera with a wide-angle lens photographing an object much farther away and moving much faster than those the camera was intended to record is in any way comparable to normal video shot by professional photojournalists using professional news cameras. Even you should have to admit that Quinn's comparision is laughably absurd. Please explain also, in view of this and the previous points, why Quinn's analysis is worthy of any serious consideration.

[edit: one other point I'd like to make--Quinn not only accuses catherder of being a paid disinformation agent; he also accuses Popular Mechanics and the Washington Post of publishing government disinformation.]

Yet again, you are attempting to create a burden-of-proof confusion and keep the argument going by equating doubts about the "official story" to doubts about the non-existence of a massive government conspiracy.

[edit: typo]

__________________
--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

Turbonium I must agree that Quinn's so-called rebuttal to catherder's points is laughable.

He is a walking, talking stereotype for an irrational conspiracy theorist that really does use very common and well-worn techniques to create FUD.

IMHO, of course

However, the question "what amount and quality of evidence would justifiably convince us that a Boeing airliner hit the Pentagon in Sept. 11, 2001?" does fall within the scope of the Socratic method.

I agree it does. I'm not opposed to discussing Socratically where applicable. You'll find that our exploration of the conspiracy theories is relentlessly Socratic.

The problem, as always, is that you and Turbonium refuse to play by even the Socratic rules. You take up a position, yes, and submit to questions. But as soon as the dialogue begins to go badly for you, you withdraw from it in one clever way or another. The Socratic method is meant to test the underpinnings of an argument; there is no presumption the argument will stand or fall. This distinction is where you and Socrates part ways.

If we take up a position that the official story on, say, WTC collapse is sustainable according to the evidence, and you Socratically question the basis of that position, you very quickly run up against things you don't know. And when the root basis of some belief turns out to be, "This is something we as experts know from our study and practice, whereas you in your ignorance do not," you offer the irrational assertion that such expertise is irrelevant!

Similarly if you take up a position that a certain tenet of the conspiracy theory is credible, and we Socratically reveal that it is based on an untenable presumption (e.g., "Ascribing a motive to someone is equivalent to that person actually having such a motive," or "All eyewitness testimony to a true event must be entirely consistent") or selective consideration, or is contradicted by evidence, you simply abdicate your advocate's position as if this satisfies Socrates.

This would not be so egregious if you didn't argue that our position is irrational and untenable. When you argue that, then wander away from a failed Socratic dialogue upon it, then assert that what you want is "constructive" discussion, all we can do is laugh. Your actions here are incredibly transparent. Earlier you invoked science and ethics to attempt to shore up your emotional, political belief. Now you're trying to invoke Socrates, but it's still the same emotional, political belief. Not everything you presume to call Socratic really is.

But you'll just say that you refuse to make it a normative discussion...

Not necessarily. In your question
please define "us" and "justifiably".

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

The Pentagon was make from mulitlayer of impact resistance materials, marble, reinforced concrete, sand.

The construction methods used in the modern renovations of the Pentagon are indeed intended to harden it. However even the original structure, from a method devised in the mid-1930s, is also considered enormously strong. It is a particular variant on post-and-beam construction using prestressed and normally-reinforced concrete that incorporates naturally a great degree of structural redundancy. It was meant to be cheap, but it is also strong.

For that reason the Pentagon is naturally an enormously strong building by today's standards, but so is any building built by the same method. And for that reason the Pentagon is only a few stories tall. The price you pay for such structural redundancy is limited height.

Amost any structure is more vulnerable to lateral loads than to downward loads. This is why we generally slam wrecking balls into the sides of buildings to knock them down. I have no way of knowing whether the pilot of the airplane followed that line of reasoning while aiming his airplane, but I find the notion that a more vertical approach "must" have been considered more potentially damaging fairly absurd from a structural engineering point of view.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base