Ban me, I've had enough.

Take it easy, jt--he'd likely consider that a major victory. Also, he could then claim you are an example of how unreasonable non-conspiracists are.

__________________
--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

So, all you guys out there... have you paid attention to Gillianren? This is how to respond when I've proven you wrong!

You ask us to remember something for single use a few decades from now ???

__________________
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.

Other than a few typos, you haven't proven anyone wrong.

How about some evidence that a missile hit the Pentagon or that someone saw MIBs planting tons of explosives in the WTC buildings.

I kinda hate to get involved in this again, but the point raised above is literally within my area of expeience.

In project engineering, we use a Capital Deployment Process that carries projects from inception through completion in a staged manner.

Stage 1 is to recognize some sort of need and set a goal which meets that need.

Stage 2 is to Generate Options to achieve that goal. This is the brainstroming part, where all sorts of screwball ideas are generated - with no critical comments allowed - and listed. After that, you narrow the options by discarding those that don't meet the goal or are just too screwball.

The Northwoods memo reads exactly like a Stage 2 memo. There would be very few details at Stage 2; those would come later after selecting the options to pursue and "flesh out" (Stage 3, Detail the Option). Any details mentioned at Stage 2 are, of course, subject to change.

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

Precisely the point, Turbonium. You haven't bothered to contact them to find out. You've relied only on what you can find on the Internet - incomplete information - and you can't find any statements from them. Yet they were there - hundreds of people from many different organizations. They know what they saw, walked through, picked up, recovered. Yet it is irrelevant to you.

Shall I repeat the contact information so you can interview those people?

And you, Sky King... have you bothered to interview all those people?

Or are you just assuming that the testimonies of these hundreds of people would all be consistent with the crash of the AA77? And referring to those testimonies as if you actually possessed them?

And you, Sky King... have you bothered to interview all those people?

Irrelevant. If Turbonium purports to represent the nature of the eyewitness testimony then he has the burden of proof to show how he discovered that nature. Someone questioning whether he has borne that burden of proof does not have to bear it himself. You're simply trying to shift the burden of proof away from the claimant onto someone appropriately questioning the basis of the claim.

Or are you just assuming that the testimonies of these hundreds of people would all be consistent...

Irrelevant. The question is not the nature of the testimony, but what someone has done to verify the nature of that testimony prior to summarizing it for others.

And referring to those testimonies as if you actually possessed them?

And what original research have you done? You seem yourself capable of little more than silly high school debate tricks.

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

As for the ones I have seen? No, they are not at all consistent with the crash of AA77.

You claim to have read CatHerder's analysis, which contains several eyewitness accounts that are completely consistent with an American Airlines 757. You are simply ignoring them for some reason.

Further, you have previously posted the following:

You clearly cherry-picked these few eyewitness reports from among many others that are consistent with a 757. So please explain again how the only reports you've seen "are not at all consistent with the crash of AA77." Willful blindness on your part?

As a side note, "sounded like...a fighter jet" proves nothing, as the aircraft was flying far in excess of the FAA's low-altitude speed limit, which would undoubtedly have caused it to sound different from an ordinary low-flying airliner. Also, a 757 could certainly be considered "mid-size" in comparison to a Cessna 172 (or even a small commuter plane) and a 747 or C-5, so how is this even remotely suspicious?

Nothing I've seen indicates accounts consistent with a 757, let alone specifically AA Flt.77. The reports are inconsistent and even contradictory at times.

Why do you continue to assume that some contradictions in eyewitness testimony are not to be expected? As has been pointed out to you many times, if there are enough eyewitnesses to a given event, some contradictory testimony is inevitable. Also, why do you find it suspicious that a few witnesses might mistake the size of the aircraft, but not its general shape?

Even the black boxes, which were said to have been recovered, have either not had the information released (FDR), or were said to be damaged, with the salvaged contents being "nothing useful" (CVR), so again were not released.

What is your point? Merely spreading more FUD?

__________________
--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

The Northwoods memo reads exactly like a Stage 2 memo. There would be very few details at Stage 2; those would come later after selecting the options to pursue and "flesh out" (Stage 3, Detail the Option). Any details mentioned at Stage 2 are, of course, subject to change.

And the introduction specifically states that it is "preliminary" and "for planning purposes," both points that seem to be lost on conspiracists.

__________________
--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

Jay responded quite nicely, but I will answer your questions directly:

No. If I had such testimony I would present it.

I have been given no logical reason or evidence to doubt that AA77 hit the Pentagon. If such testimony exists from those hundreds of rescue and recovery personnel - testimony that overwhelmingly refutes all of the other evidence that AA 77 hit the Pentagon - present it.

No, I've never stated that nor implied it. See my response to you in March here:

I've also gave the contact info for those who recovered the wreakage of AA77. And here.

Given that these hundreds of people exist, don't you think it would be wise to contact them if you have any doubts about AA77 hitting the Pentagon?

Even the black boxes, which were said to have been recovered, have either not had the information released (FDR), or were said to be damaged, with the salvaged contents being "nothing useful" (CVR), so again were not released.

Previously you were saying that the parts weren't identified. Now you are admitting that they claim to have found the Black (really Orange) Boxes from AA-77. How do you explain this away? Where they planted? Manufactured? Or is the FAA lying about their discovery? If so, why did they then claim that the data is unreadable? Surely for a conspiracy which could plant explosives all over an office building without being noticed, and can fly a missile that looks like a plane into a building, it's not that hard to fake a pair of Black Box recordings? If you are going to claim that they couldn't do it, will you then accept the flight recorder from UA-93 as genuine? If not, why? Why would a conspiracy manufacture a fake Black Box in one situation and not the other? In fact, why fake the cockpit voice recorder for UA-93 and not the Flight Data Recorder (which was unreadable) Of the two the flight Data is surely the easier to fake as all you need to do is send it fake inputs via a computer, the voice recorder needs actors and a script.

You know what doesn't make sense? Your claims.

I will note here that the Black Boxes and the recordings are in fact the Airline's property and therefore the FAA, FBI or any other organisation are not allowed to just release the data on them any more than they can Footage from private security cameras. In fact until recently over here, even the Police weren't allow access to them unless the Airline gave permission, and they were inadmissible in court as evidence against a pilot charged with relation to a crash.

__________________
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

So it all comes down to pictures of dead bodies? You are sick. You think they would put that on the internet for you to ogle? Maybe in USAToday? It's nooz, right? Here's a clue, there are no posted photos of dead people because it's not news because most people believe that an airplane crashed into the pentagon and it doesn't need to be shown. It's also sick to even want to see it. Most people don't need to have it proven that fire is hot. You are are in the minority. Mouthy but minority nevertheless. You are a nut.

Of course, you completely miss the point. I was citing examples of inconsistent reports, including the fuselage, passengers, and rows of seats. You pick passengers out of it all to start a misguided tirade, complete with forum-disallowed ad hominems.

Also what is this then???????

Good question - what is it?

Inconsistancies mean nothing without an alternative solution. Your sick ravings also mean nothing.

More nonsense. I was asked to show inconsistencies in the reports, which I did.

I read a book once. It had pictures of dead passengers. One even still in his seat, if I recall. One was dead laying on somebody's porch. Does that give you a warm tingly? Hit your local library, maybe you can find it.

Ban me, I've had enough. What an idiot.

That just about sums it up perfectly.

And...? Is this a new concept to you? What strange, little world do you live in where there are no mistakes or he-said-she-said situations, only deliberate misinformation?

Previously you were saying that the parts weren't identified. Now you are admitting that they claim to have found the Black (really Orange) Boxes from AA-77.

There is no contradiction - they claim to be from Flt. 77. They haven't been identified as such, we just have their claim that they are. That's not valid evidence.

How do you explain this away? Where they planted? Manufactured? Or is the FAA lying about their discovery? If so, why did they then claim that the data is unreadable?

How are we expected to know where the black boxes are really from? Or anything else about them? They won't release the contents to us. You accept their word as the truth, I don't.

Surely for a conspiracy which could plant explosives all over an office building without being noticed, and can fly a missile that looks like a plane into a building, it's not that hard to fake a pair of Black Box recordings? If you are going to claim that they couldn't do it, will you then accept the flight recorder from UA-93 as genuine? If not, why? Why would a conspiracy manufacture a fake Black Box in one situation and not the other? In fact, why fake the cockpit voice recorder for UA-93 and not the Flight Data Recorder (which was unreadable) Of the two the flight Data is surely the easier to fake as all you need to do is send it fake inputs via a computer, the voice recorder needs actors and a script.

So because they could create fake black boxes for Flt.77, they must therefore be absolutely genuine? Or if the Flt. 93 black boxes were faked, they would have therefore created fake black boxes for Flt. 77? Or any other number of alternate scenarios? The point is that the claimed Flt. 77 black boxes have not been proven as genuine. Everything else is pure speculation.

You know what doesn't make sense? Your claims.

It doesn't make sense to only accept genuine evidence? The original claims don't make sense. They require genuine evidence to support them, and so far they are completely unfounded.

I will note here that the Black Boxes and the recordings are in fact the Airline's property and therefore the FAA, FBI or any other organisation are not allowed to just release the data on them any more than they can Footage from private security cameras. In fact until recently over here, even the Police weren't allow access to them unless the Airline gave permission, and they were inadmissible in court as evidence against a pilot charged with relation to a crash.

There have been numerous black box recordings released to the public in the past. Here's one site with some examples...

http://www.planecrashinfo.com/lastwords.htm

Of course, you completely miss the point. I was citing examples of inconsistent reports, including the fuselage, passengers, and rows of seats.

And...? Is this a new concept to you? What strange, little world do you live in where there are no mistakes or he-said-she-said situations, only deliberate misinformation?

Since you too have entirely missed the point (albeit in a completely different way), I guess I'll have to once again include the post I was replying to...

Also, present the testimony from the hundreds of rescue and recovery personnel who were at the Pentagon in the minutes, hours, and days after the disaster and who were responsible for recovering the remains of human beings and the wreakage. Is their testimony consistent with the crash of AA77 or not? Why?

Get it? The post specifically asked "Is their testimony consistent with the crash of AA77 or not?" As I said, I was citing examples of inconsistent reports.

Let me see if I have this correct. For the official story we have,

A bunch of people saying a plane hit the Pentagon.

Most of which did not say they actually saw a plane hit the Pentagon. If you look at the accounts, the vast majority saw a plane nearby, but did not see an actual impact.

There's a hole in the Pentagon the size of a plane.

The holes in the towers were each the size of a plane, specifically conforming to the size and shape of a 756 or 767. The Pentagon had one round hole, which could be caused by any number of objects.

There are plane parts all over the crash area.

"All over"? Some first hand witnesses saw absolutely no aircraft debris at the site. And none of the debris has been conclusively shown to have come from a 757, nor specifically Flt. 77.

AA77 is missing.

I agree with this point. It still hasn't been found. But of course, the only place they looked for it was at the Pentagon!

But taking it as you actually meant it - the absence of the aircraft cannot be taken as valid evidence it therefore must have hit the Pentagon.

There is a plane load of missing passengers.

Same as the previous.

Poor quality videos shows an object traveling at airplane speeds.

Which is also not valid evidence on which to base the claim of Flt. 77 hitting the Pentagon.

Cars in Pentagon parking lot damaged by something flying over head.

Again, a point which does not provide evidence for Flt. 77.

WTC attacked with planes.

Completely irrelevant. Two planes hitting other buildings in a different city does not prove another plane therefore must have hit another building.

Low flying plane reported over DC

Which again is not evidence for the claim that Flt. 77 hit the Pentagon.

For the CTs we have,

Conflicting eyewitness statements, but not about the plane, just the fine details.

No, the conflicting statements include the plane (or lack thereof).

Poor quality videos shows an object traveling at airplane speeds, but object can't clearly be IDed as a plane.

The object can't be ID'ed as a plane, period.

Government not releasing all the evidence when the CTs want it.

No. Government not releasing any concrete evidence. When everybody should require it.

No pictures available of dead bodies or body parts

Or pictures of the plane hitting the building. Or pictures of clearly identifiable 757 parts. Or pictures of anything that proves the Gov't claim.

By a preponderance of the evidence, it was a plane. No evidence for anything else.

What preponderance of evidence? There is clearly a burden of proof for the Government claim that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. They have absolutely failed to prove that claim.

But even if that were true (and you would need to get all the reports and tally them to confirm 'a vast majority', if say 200 people see an airplane then 10 seconds later there is an explosion and the airplane is not seen again, it's probalby enough to infer the plane crashed. WHere did this vast majority that saw the plane in the air, but not the impact say the plane went?
Why would you expect them to be the same? The WTC was a tall building with steel support columns (basically) that separated the windows. Similar in some ways to a chain link fence. The Pentagon is large stone building with small windows. Sort of like the holes in a brick. Third pic down on the right side shows the marks of the wings on the side of the wtc. Notice the steel is bent and the windows ar broken. Some of the steel is broken but it's not a plane shaped hole in the building, just the glass. If you throw a snowball at a chainlink fence, it breaks apart and continues on, in chunks, through the openings in the metal. When you throw one at a brick, the snow breaks up and only passes through the openings. The wigs of flight 77 did just that against the Pentagon. They were shredded as they hit the stone building. The fuel and fuselage gave the center of the plane a high sectional density, to use ballistics term, which puched through the stone, creating a round hole.
And some did see plane debris. The most recent thing you linked to was part of a quote that let off the part that made it second hand information. There is debris in the pictures of the site. Surely that wasn't brought in after the crash when the place was swarming with live news feeds to cover the event. If it was placed before, where was it hidden and how did it get there?
And where else was a reasonable place to look?
Not that it must have, no. The only thing that must be true it that the plane had to go somewhere. The evidence released to date says that that it is far more likely that it hit the Pentagon than anything else.
Ditto
But it supports it. As has been poited out, the Pentagon tapes are the only ones that the government can legally release. If any other privately owned tapes exist, and the owners choose not to release them, then they are not available to the public. THe one video that we have is poor yes. It was shot from a good distance away with a camera designed to capture the car and driver of a person stopped in front of it. Why is the quality a surprise?
Again, it supports it. Whatever hit the Pentagon was a ceratin minimum size, which can be seen from the light poles. A bomb would have been too small. As would a missile. Even a light plane/ turpo-prop/ or Leer jet sized would have been too small. Only something about the size of a 757 would have been large enough to it the light poles that were affected. Does this confirm it was flight 77? No. Does it eliminate the used of a bomb or missile? Yeah, pretty much.
The WTC and Pentagon aren't linked because they happened in different cities???? Does that mean there is doubt on th US involvement in WW II. I mean the US was supposedly in Europe and the Pacific. That's half a world away!!! There is no way we could have carried on operations in two places at once. Right?

Or is it your contention that the WTC was hit by a terrorist attack, and by sheer coincidence, the Pentagon was scheduled to be hit by Conspiriacy Inc. the same way, just hours later.

But it supports the Plane hitting the Pentagon story.
If there was no plane, explain the damage leading up to the Pentagon.
Poor quality videos shows an object traveling at airplane speeds, but object can't clearly be IDed as a plane.

The object can't be ID'ed as a plane, period.[/quote]
Agreed. It can't be Identified as anything really, except that something very fast moved in the direction that the plane must have moved in order to hit the Pentagon where it did.
So, rather than a summary report, even one in great detail written by those who are qualified to interpret the evidence found, you would like to allow all the evidence in the case to be presented for hands on inspection by the general public?

When has this been done in a major case?

How could the debris prove or disprove the existence of a 757 if the only think you actually saw was a report with the findings of the FAA and American?

Where is the support for the claim you made that every part of a 757 is numbered?

Why is the compressor fan from an engine of the same type used on a 757 present if there was no 757? Do you claim it was brought in after the fact, or was it planted before the explosion. If either... How? It's not like it would fit in a lunchbox?
Maybe there ARE no pictures of the plane hitting the building. Maybe the pictures of bodies or body parts are being withheld so they don't end up on a poster on the wall of a bunker in some desert somewhere with "He Shoots, He Scores!!!" written on the front in the appropriate language. Maybe, given the global insensitivity shown by the press these days, the people that have control over the release of the picturs don't want them splashed across the front of all the news magazines. After all blood sells.

There are pictures of the bodies of the people from the WTC, because there were outside, on display where the news crews could get their own shots. Between the smoke and secure nature of the Pentagon, do you really think news crews could have gotten inside wher the fuselage ended up?
The report of the official findings in not good enough? Okay. It's still the official. It's not the job of the people who do the official reports to come back, avery so often and say, "no we really mean it". If there is a disagreement with the official report then it is up to those who disagree to find evidence. Just because the evidence you want hasn't been released does not mean that must exist and is being supressed. It may have not survived.

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

That is wrong - the images of bodies found in the Pentagon are available.

WARNING!!!! GRAPHIC IMAGES!!!!!
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/size600/P200042-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/th/P200045-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/size600/P200047-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/size600/P200048-1.jpg

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

Lonewulf

Wow. Those really are horrific.

__________________
"4th Law of Modern Thermodynamics: Where Mihoshi is, Chaos Reigns." ~W. Hakubi
"Gun control is hitting your target; Recycling is reloading your brass." ~ Lex of Dirty Work.

I generally stay out of 9/11 threads, because I have a hard time keeping my temper with 9/11 CTs - not to mention I don't have enough time to dissect the endless stream of FUD they pump out.

But I find the "no plane hit the Pentagon" ones especially repellent. Maybe it's because I live near D.C. and work with firefighters who were there that day, pulling pieces of bodies and 757 out. Maybe it's just because they're so willing to endlessly ignore reality and build cloud-castles of paranoia and denial for their vicious fantasies.

Most of which did not say they actually saw a plane hit the Pentagon. If you look at the accounts, the vast majority saw a plane nearby, but did not see an actual impact.

Steve Anderson: "I witnessed the jet hit the Pentagon on September 11.
...I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball...."

"Suddenly I saw this plane right outside my window," Anlauf said during a telephone interview from her hotel room this morning. "You felt like you could touch it; it was that close. It was just incredible. "Then it shot straight across from where we are and flew right into the Pentagon. It was just this huge fireball that crashed into the wall (of the Pentagon)."

Gary Bauer: "We looked out the front of our windows to try to see the plane, and it wasn’t until a few seconds later that we realized the jet was coming up behind us on that major highway. And it veered to the right into the Pentagon."

Sean Boger: "I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building..."

Donald R. Bouchoux: ""At 9:40 a.m. I was driving down Washington Boulevard (Route 27) along the side of the Pentagon when the aircraft crossed about 200 yards in front of me and impacted the side of the building. There was an enormous fireball."

Pam Bradley: "I work in Washington DC area, and was on my way to work, in my car, sitting on a bridge, and saw the plane hit the Pentagon."

Susan Carroll: "...I saw the plane hit and the fireball and explosion at the Pentagon."

James R. Cissell: "I thought, 'This isn't really happening. That is a big plane.' ... While he remembers seeing the crash, Cissell remembers none of the sounds..."

Mike Dobbs: "It was an American airlines airliner. I was looking out the window and saw it come right over the Navy annex at a slow angle. It looked to me to be on a zero-to-zero course. It seemed to be almost coming in in slow motion. I didn't actually feel it hit, but I saw it and then we all started running."

Daryl Donley: "I could see the windows. I saw the entire plane and then saw it fly right into the Pentagon."

Terrance Kean: "I saw this very, very large passenger jet," said the architect, who had been packing for a move. "It just plowed right into the side of the Pentagon."

Mitch Mitchell: "I looked out to the front and saw, coming straight down the road at us, a huge jet plane clearly with American Airlines written on it, and it looked like it was coming in to hit us. I told my wife, 'It's going to hit the Pentagon.' It crossed about 100 feet in front of us and at about 20 feet altitude and we watched it go in."

Just a sample. Of course, if someone saw a jetliner fly low overhead, right at the Pentagon, and a few seconds later saw a fireball, but didn't see the actual impact because of some visual obstruction, then of course it's just as likely the aircraft pulled up, flew undetected to an airfield in West Virginia or somewhere - it's not like there's many people in the D.C. suburbs and exurbs to notice such a thing - where the passengers were silently exterminated. Of course.

Disgusting. Absolutely disgusting.

No amount of eye-witness testimony is going to make the CTs change their minds. The response that I'm expecting (please prove me wrong) is along the lines of "Clearly they were mistaken" and "Well those people who claim to have seen an aircraft hit the Pentagon are part of the conspiracy."

This statement sounds like you would expect it to be otherwise. You would have hundreds of people that could see the airplane, but only a fraction at the right place and angle to see the actual crash. Still, the accounts of those that did see the impact are consistent. I see no problem with this, do you?

__________________
Hanlon's Razor - "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
Asimov's addition - "Or ignorance."

"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
-- Charles Babbage

As I said back in May, I'm convinced that turbonium knows very well that no perpetrator (US, Arab, other) would hijack four planes, crash three of them into targets, but then divert the fourth while instead hitting its target with a missile.

I would like to ask a dumb question:

If AA77 did, in fact, pull up at the last second and fly low over the Pentagon and on to parts unknown, wouldn't you expect to have some witnesses who claim to have seen this happen? We have heard from some witnesses who saw the plane but did not see the impact and others who saw both but apparently none who saw the plane clear the roof of the Pentagon and onward. Seems a bit strange to me.

__________________
"You're not going crazy, you're going sane in a crazy world!" - The Tick

Call me an eternal optimist. I would hope that Turbonium could reason thru this and understand where he is wrong.


Edit: be to me...

__________________
Hanlon's Razor - "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
Asimov's addition - "Or ignorance."

"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
-- Charles Babbage

Those very firefighters and rescue personnel, numbering in the hundreds, are the very ones Turbonium hasn't - and apparently won't - contact. As one CTer was overheard to have said, "If it's not on the Internet, it doesn't exist."

Most of which did not say they actually saw a plane hit the Pentagon. If you look at the accounts, the vast majority saw a plane nearby, but did not see an actual impact.

This is simply another of your typical garbage claims, made in an attempt to obfuscate the issue and spread FUD. Of course some people saw the plane but didn't see the impact, because their line of sight to the Pentagon was blocked. The Pentagon is stationary and located at ground level; American 77 was moving and well above that altitude until the last several seconds of its approach. How is this even remotely suspicious?

Further, no witnesses claim to have seen an airliner miss the Pentagon, and no witnesses claim to have seen one on the other side of the Pentagon, or anywhere in the area, immediately after the explosion. So where did it go, if it didn't crash into the Pentagon? Note that a large number of witnesses on every side of the Pentagon and in nearby buildings undoubtedly ran to their windows and looked outside to see what was happening immediately after the explosion; had the plane climbed over the Pentagon at the last second, many people would have seen it.

Also, please explain the following eyewitness accounts. Please explain especially how Father McGraw and Steve Anderson are government plants, or else give some semi-reasonable explanation that could account for their testimony, other than their actually seeing an American Airlines 757 hit the Pentagon.

The following is from an article detailing the experiences of Father Stephen McGraw, a Roman Catholic priest who happened to be driving by the Pentagon, and stopped to minister to the injured.

The following is an excerpt from a transcript of a CNN broadcast a few hours after the attacks, in which CNN reporter Bob Franken interviews witness Donald "Tim" Timmerman.

Note that even if Timmerman was correct about the plane's having struck the lawn right in front of the building, the amount of kinetic energy lost would have been minimal due to the low angle of incidence.

Finally, here is an excerpt from a statement by Steve Anderson, an employee of USA Today.

The holes in the towers were each the size of a plane, specifically conforming to the size and shape of a 756 or 767. The Pentagon had one round hole, which could be caused by any number of objects. [emphasis original]

No. The hole in the outside of "E" Ring was not round at all; it is consistent with the fuselage and fuel-laden wings of an airliner having breached a heavy stone wall. See pages 16-17 of the ASCE report. Further, the September 11 attacks were not Warner Brothers cartoons in which objects create holes that perfectly match their silhouettes when passing through walls.

Some first hand witnesses saw absolutely no aircraft debris at the site.

Cherry picking. Any witnesses observing only from outside of the building (such as most journalists) would have seen little debris.

[T]he absence of the aircraft cannot be taken as valid evidence it therefore must have hit the Pentagon.

It adds to the weight of evidence against a government conspiracy--more people and more complications required to get rid of the plane means a greater chance of discovery.

[Poor quality video showing an object traveling at airplane speed] is also not valid evidence on which to base the claim of Flt. 77 hitting the Pentagon.

No, it is valid in conjunction with the eyewitness testimony. If it wasn't an airliner, then why did so many witnesses claim it was an airliner? If it was something else, such as a missile, then why did no witnesses mention something else?

Completely irrelevant. Two planes hitting other buildings in a different city does not prove another plane therefore must have hit another building.

No, but it raises the following question. If "they" could crash two planes into 1 WTC and 2 WTC, why couldn't/wouldn't "they" crash one into the Pentagon? Any [edit: no-plane] conspiracy theory must provide a satisfactory answer.

[T]he conflicting statements include the plane (or lack thereof).

Please provide specific examples of statements that indicate something other than a plane. Please also provide specific examples of statements indicating any conflict other than possibly mistaking a 757 for a commuter plane [edit: or 737].

The object can't be ID'ed as a plane, period.

It can be shown to be consistent with a 757 on the known approach path.

No. Government not releasing any concrete evidence. When everybody should require it.

Begging the question that evidence that will satisfy you exists (or even could exist).

Or pictures of the plane hitting the building.

Begging the question that such pictures exist.

Or pictures of clearly identifiable 757 parts.

No. This analysis from Aerospaceweb.org, which I've previously discussed, demonstrates that the engine parts seen in photographs are consistent with a 757, and are not consistent with a cruise missile or UAV.

Or pictures of anything that proves the Gov't claim.

Begging the question (again) that any proof that will satisify you does or even could exist.

What preponderance of evidence? There is clearly a burden of proof for the Government claim that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. They have absolutely failed to prove that claim.

Hogwash (with the usual apologies to Jay). We have a large number of witnesses who say they saw an airliner hit the Pentagon. We have video and eyewitness reports indicating a huge fireball that could only have been caused by thousands of gallons of fuel. We have damage to the building that is consistent with its having been struck by an airliner (as shown by this Purdue University computer analysis). We have four hijacked airliners, only three of which can otherwise be accounted for. We have remains of the passengers and crew (and five unidentified bodies presumed to be those of the hijackers) of American 77 recovered from the Pentagon. We have engine wreckage that is consistent with a 757. We have damage to light poles that could only have been caused by a relatively large aircraft. You cannot merely handwave away this overwhelming evidence by claiming that some of it could have been faked or leaves a shadow of a doubt; you must provide proof that evidence was faked.

As for the burden of proof, it is squarely on you for your clearly extraordinary claim of a US Government conspiracy. As Jay has pointed out, the default condition is "no government conspiracy," and claims of inconsistencies in the "official" story do not alter that fact.

[edit: grammar]

__________________
--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

You need to add, divert the fourth at the last possible moment and instead hitting its target with a precisely timed missile, and then hoping no one notices the plane leaving.

Hogwash (with the usual apologies to Jay).

You took the words right out of my mouth. As usual, the conspiracists try the argument, "There's no evidence for X," when their own statements are little more than handwaving attempts to dismiss or explain away the vast amount of evidence for X. And do we get any evidence for a competing theory Y? No! We don't even get a statement of Y. We just have demands that we acknowledge it's possible for some as-yet uncharacterized Y to exist.

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