Reply to Sciam's attempted debunking of 9/11 skeptics

[Dancing_Dave]

Once again, Peter Meyer has proven himself one of the best authors and debators among Truthseekers world-wide:
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/sciam_reply.htm

Some of my favorite bits:

Meyer:"Although the author (Michael Shermer) writes under the heading of "Skeptic" he is not all all disposed to question the official story of 9/11. A skeptic is one who is disinclined to believe when there is not good supporting evidence. Since there is no good evidence supporting the official story of 9/11 it behooves any skeptic to question it. The author of this article in Scientific American, who writes under the heading of "Skeptic", thus shows that he is not at all a skeptic, but rather just another mouthpiece for the official story of 9/11."

Shirmer:"The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (as well as creationism, Holocaust denial and the various crank theories of physics). All the "evidence" for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy. Such notions are easily refuted by noting that scientific theories are not built on single facts alone but on a convergence of evidence assembled from multiple lines of inquiry."

Meyer:"Whether or not "a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory" is quite irrelevant, since the official story of 9/11 is not "a well-established theory". And the "unexplained anomalies", such as the collapse of WTC 7 late in the afternoon of 9/11, are more accurately described as things which the official story cannot explain. Why not? Perhaps because it is "conspiratorial codswallop". If the official story cannot explain the "anomalies" then we had better look elsewhere for an explanation, especially since what we seek is an explanation for the deaths of about 3000 people.

Shermer would like us to believe that the official story is as well-established as a scientific theory which has been built "on a convergence of evidence assembled from multiple lines of inquiry." But an examination of the claim that the official story is of this nature clearly shows that it is false: the official story of 9/11 has nothing to support it except the claims of certain US government employees (many of whom are known liars) and a couple of people claiming engineering expertise but whose reports don't stand up to criticism."

Well, there are a lot more details in this debate, just follow the link to get them all:
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/sciam_reply.htm




:think:

[Bolo Boffin]

1. Michael Shermer's skeptical credentials

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Shermer

Michael Shermer is a science writer, founder of The Skeptics Society, and editor of its magazine Skeptic, which is largely devoted to investigating supernatural or pseudoscientific claims. Shermer is also the producer and co-host of the 13-hour Fox Family television series, "Exploring the Unknown" and a monthly columnist for Scientific American magazine.

Shermer is the author of several books that attempt to explain the ubiquity of irrational or unsubstantiated beliefs. Why People Believe Weird Things, treats a variey of "weird" ideas and cults, in the tradition of the skeptical writings of Martin Gardner. He has devoted entire books to Holocaust deniers (Denying History), and to belief in God (How We Believe). Shermer, once a fundamentalist Christian, is now, according to his book The Science of Good and Evil, a nontheist and an advocate for a materialist philosophy.

Shermer received his bachelor's degree from Pepperdine University in 1976 in Psychology/Biology, his master's degree from California State University, Fullerton in Experimental Psychology two years later, and his Ph.D. from Claremont Graduate University in History of Science in 1991.

So I'm inclined to trust his skeptical powers a little more than somebody who's defending Flight 77 denial.

[Dancing_Dave]

3. So Shermer is a Materialist....

And evidently one inclined to believe whatever stupid sh*t the corporate media propaganda machine churns out!

Reminds me of the old saying "If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything."

[LARED]

2. So if I understand this

Meyer:"Although the author (Michael Shermer) writes under the heading of "Skeptic" he is not all all disposed to question the official story of 9/11. A skeptic is one who is disinclined to believe when there is not good supporting evidence. Since there is no good evidence supporting the official story of 9/11 it behooves any skeptic to question it. The author of this article in Scientific American, who writes under the heading of "Skeptic", thus shows that he is not at all a skeptic, but rather just another mouthpiece for the official story of 9/11."

In order to even qualify as a skeptic one MUST believe in the 9/11 conspiracy fairy tales, or you are just a month piece for the Bush administration. An all or nothing choice.

Logic is not Meyers' strong suit.

[AZCat]

6. It reads the same to me.

All shades of grey seem missing from Meyer's spectrum. It is unfortunate - discussion suffers when one has such a perspective.

[spooked911]

7. One can question 9/11 without believing 9/11 conspiracy fairy tales

Do you not see the difference between being skeptical about the official 9/11 story and believing in "9/11 conspiracy fairy tales"?

One can question a theory without creating a new theory.

And "fairy tales" is a pejorative that is unlikely to convince anyone here of your point of view. Why are you so angry about this anyway?

Do you have a problem with people questioning the government?

[spooked911]

4. It's a pretty good piece. And I have to say that people who don't see

anything wrong with the official 9/11 story simply DON'T WANT TO SEE ANYTHING WRONG. Their minds are made up and nothing will convince them. The official 9/11 has taken on a sacred mythological status and nothing will convince them that it is wrong. This is much like trying to convince an Evangelical Christian that there is no god.

[Bolo Boffin]

5. Glass houses, my friend. n/t

[spooked911]

8. My mind is open. I would like some answers to some strange things.

Is that a problem?

[Bolo Boffin]

9. My mind is made up about a few things.

Like gravity. Or evolution. Or Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. Why? Because of the preponderance of the evidence in all three cases.

Is that a problem?

[Dancing_Dave]

10. Those three are very different.

Gravity and Evolution exist. "Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon" does not, never has, and never will. Quite a significant difference! :think:

[Bolo Boffin]

18. No, they're not. n/t

[Dancing_Dave]

11. Those three are very different.

Gravity and Evolution exist. "Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon" does not, never has, and never will. Quite a significant difference! :think:

[philb]

12. Would you agree its clear there was official complicity and 9/11 Comm. Rep

Report was a cover-up that was totally inaccurate and did not represent even Commission testimony on any of the flights.


I think the evidence and testimony to 9/11 Comm. made that clear.
Would you agree?
http://www.flcv.com/offcompl.html

If not, explain some of the obvious contradictions in the case above.

or below
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x41194

[Bolo Boffin]

19. I agree that there was a coverup from the Bush Administration

as to what they knew and when they knew.

I don't think the 9/11 Commission report is an overt lie.

[spooked911]

29. So what did they know then?

Are you saying they "let it happen on purpose"?

[ROH]

38. So what is it?

You wrote:
--------------------
I don't think the 9/11 Commission report is an overt lie.
--------------------

Do you think it is a covert lie?

[Bolo Boffin]

39. No. I think it is a covert truth.

No. I think it's the best they could do within the parameters they were given. I don't think it's the end all statement of the implications and leadup to that day, but for what it does say, it's as much on the money as possible.

And I think it can be used in an untruthful way. One of these ways is to say it's a lie, through and through, and simply dismiss it because it's a product of the "government". That's a level of paranoia that should keep itself to the kind of far right wing sites that promote the John Birch Society....

...well, what do you know. Even those kind of sites think this 9/11 conspiracy nuttery is a slur on their own conspiracy theories about Oklahoma City!

http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_1253.shtml

So you're here promoting a theory that even John Birchers think is a bowl of Fruit Loops. That's okay - just think of it as suffering for your faith.

[ROH]

43. Then arrogantly off the point yet again, aren't you?

You wrote:
--------------------
So you're here promoting a theory ...
--------------------

What theory do you believe I was promoting in my message? In actual fact I asked you a question for clarification. Maybe you can appreciate the difference?

You have already stated that you think "there was a coverup from the Bush Administration as to what they knew and when they knew". And then you added this unusual wording: "I don't think the 9/11 Commission report is an overt lie."

Your statement is interesting, and it tells us what you don't think the CR is, so my question gave you an invitation to clarify what you do think the CR is. Did you mean another form of lie (e.g. a covert lie), or what exactly did you mean by your odd phrasing?

You answer, and then stray off the point. One difficulty seems to be your ability to keep on point; either it appears that you drift off, or you simply abandon a point after it becomes difficult for you to say any more.

For example, in this thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=41887&mesg_id=41887 you mentioned that in your opinion Griffin was wrong in "more like 879 out of 1000" cases, so for fairness I asked you if you would write more about the points (estimated by you at 121 instances out of 1000) upon which he is correct. You make no response - you abandon the issue; so doesn't it suit your agenda to answer this request honestly and fairly?

Now the fact that you feel that Griffin is right in some respects does not mean that you are necessarily promoting a theory extolling Griffin. Maybe you can understand and appreciate that?

[Bolo Boffin]

61. Is there a question in all of that?

I mean, that isn't rhetorical or anything?

[ROH]

64. In future

please try to keep to the point and the facts. Don't you think that would actually help your argument rather than hinder it?

There are several questions posed, but I appreciate that there are points that you may not want to answer for various reasons, and that is your right. However, in that case wouldn't it at least be better to step back rather than becoming deviatory in your ramblings?

[Bolo Boffin]

65. I find it quite remarkable

that you can look at the scattershot way that I am confronted on this forum and then suggest that I need to keep to the point and the facts. I wish we could. I'd love to discuss one issue at a time all the way down to the end.

I tell you what - why don't you start a thread? And start a single topic that you wish me to answer. And I'll answer that single issue, and try my damnedest to keep that issue the only issue discussed. I think you find really quickly where the deviations in this forum come from. It's an artform here...

[ROH]

67. But you don't have to follow suit

You wrote:
--------------------
I find it quite remarkable that you can look at the scattershot way that I am confronted on this forum and then suggest that I need to keep to the point and the facts. I wish we could. I'd love to discuss one issue at a time all the way down to the end.
--------------------

However provoked or confronted (in a scattershot way) you may feel, you don't have to follow suit by responding likewise. It really doesn't help.

If you feel your argument is strong, why not stand above that kind of thing and keep to the relevant facts and evidence, avoiding ad hominem thrusts that are frankly very unlikely to sway anyone to your opinion?

You wrote:
--------------------
I tell you what - why don't you start a thread? And start a single topic that you wish me to answer. And I'll answer that single issue, and try my damnedest to keep that issue the only issue discussed.
--------------------

Thank you - I appreciate that. I have started threads previously, and I may start a new thread soon: there are certainly some issues that I would like to be discussed, and I'm interested in both sides of the issues. Ultimately I am interested in the truth of this, whatever the truth is.

Even you have commented that you think "there was a coverup from the Bush Administration as to what they knew and when they knew." Now some people would vehemently argue that there has been no coverup and would view your remark as screwball -- some people might even say to you: "Enjoy the color of the sky in your world." However, if you are correct that there has been a coverup by the Bush Administration, I would like to know what they knew and when they knew it.

[spooked911]

14. The ONLY evidence that flight 77 definitely hit the Pentagon is from the

US government-- from the same people who told us there were WMD in Iraq, the same people whose cheif executive doesn't believe in evolution or global warming. The same people who lied about the air quality in lower Manhattan after 9/11. Et cetera.

There is hardly a preponderance of evidence for flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.

The evidence for a Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon is much better than the evidence that flight 77 hit the Pentagon, but even that is far from conclusive.

Bottom line is that there is NO HARD EVIDENCE showing that flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

On the other hand, there are scores of science textbooks that deal with gravity and evolution.

I really don't see how you can compare these things.

Would you care to explain your logic more?

[Bolo Boffin]

17. You're entitled to your own opinion, but NOT YOUR OWN FACTS.

Hundreds of eyewitnesses saw this event happen.

Hundreds picked up the pieces.

The most intensive forensic investigation in history identified the passengers.

Two different studies showed how Flight 77 caused the damage to the Pentagon.

No hard evidence that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon? 58 families who buried their loved ones would beg to differ with you.

Willful ignorance is a sin.

[spooked911]

20. Wait a second, I never said a plane didn't hit the Pentagon and obviously

the eye-witnesses all saw a plane.

Did they see "flight 77"?

No.

Yes, the passengers on that flight 77 disappeared, but where is the proof that they died at the Pentagon?

The ONLY hard evidence that FLIGHT 77 hit the Pentagon is the government's claim. PERIOD.

The government lied about WMD, right?

Who is being willfully ignorant-- me, when I say the only proof for flight 77 hitting the Pentagon is from a government known to lie, or you, who compares what the government says about a with a scientific fact like gravity?

[Bolo Boffin]

24. What do you call DNA evidence? Dental evidence?

http://w4.pica.army.mil/voice2001/011207/Forensicid.htm

AFDIL scientists ensured that data systems and records were available to make DNA identifications, while the oral pathology group created a triage area to conduct positive dental identifications. Contacts were also made with family services personnel in each branch of the military to obtain ante-mortem information and reference material. Mortuary operations were fully underway by the evening of Sept. 13.

AFIP used a well-defined and tested system for conducting the identifications of the Pentagon victims. When remains arrived at the morgue, a scanning device searched for the presence of unexploded ordnance or metallic foreign bodies. A computerized tracking system then assigned numbers to each victim for efficient tracking.

FBI experts collected trace evidence to search for chemicals from explosive devices and conducted fingerprint identifications. Forensic dentistry experts from the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology then performed dental charting and comparison with ante-mortem dental records. Full-body radiographs followed to document skeletal fractures and assist in the identification process, followed by autopsy inspection.

At autopsy, forensic pathologists determined the cause and manner of death, aided by forensic anthropologist Dr. William C. Rodriguez in determining the race, sex, and stature of victims when necessary. A board-certified epidemiologist managed the tracking system for data collected during the autopsy process, and tissue samples were collected for DNA identification and further toxicology studies. Forensic photographers, essential to any forensic investigation, documented injuries and personal effects. Finally, mortuary specialists then embalmed, dressed, and casketed remains prior to release to next-of-kin.

Sometimes I simply can't fathom how anyone could ignore evidence like this, or summarize such an exhaustive cross-departmental project involving over a hundred people as "the government's claim." It's a faith past understanding.

[spooked911]

27. Look, all this would take is one person seeding in tissue fragments

into their bank of tissue specimens OR one key person in charge of analyzing the data from the DNA tests who is corrupted. I am not claiming all these people doing the DNA tests were in on a lie, nor did they have to be. The key is that almost two-thirds of the specimens were from people who were working in the Pentagon, not plane crash victims. Thus, all they had to do was seed in samples from flight 77 victims that crashed somewhere else or have someone manipulate the final DNA typing analysis.

Falsifying crime scene records is heardly unheard of.

Here is my challenge-- if you find just one source where they clearly say they found seats from the plane and human remains next to the seats at the Pentagon, then I will believe flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

Honestly.

[Bolo Boffin]

32. You don't ask for much, do you?

Perfectly reasonable.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/f77FoF.html

4. I thought that day when Flight 77 and its Dulles/LAX route were announced that a fellow researcher and dear friend had died because she rides that flight all the time as an airline attendant for American. As fate would have it she was home caring for her dying father that day and survived. But her friends did not. She was taken, with other attendants and ground crews who had worked that route into the crash site to view the wreckage. She clearly recognized parts of the plane she had ridden in hundreds of times and identified items. She was also shown autopsy photos and forensic evidence photos which included a severed arm. From the bracelet on the arm she knew it was the remains of her best friend at work.

There ya go. A regular stewardess on Flight 77 assisted in the cleanup at the Pentagon and recognized both parts from her plane and parts from her former collegue.

But she's lying, right? She didn't see parts next to seats - she just saw a picture, so you can feel quite secure in dismissing more evidence than they had on OJ.

Faith is such a comforting thing, isn't it?

[spooked911]

36. I've seen that story before.

Actually, John Judge writes more about his friend's account here:
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/PAandAAF77.html

It is all second-hand info and there are parts of her story that are hard to believe, for instance human bones still in the Pentagon crash area 11 days after 9/11, and that the carpeting and upholstery from the plane weren't incinerated in the fire.

And this is very hard to believe:
"shortly after the crash he saw a woman standing by the road at the edge of the Pentagon, next to her car, and apparently in shock. He stopped to help her and found she could not speak. But she pointed him to the far side of her car. The passenger side had been sheared off in part and sections of the landing gear from the plane were on the ground nearby. "

I'm sorry, but I don't accept this story as concrete evidence and it doesn't satisfy what I asked for.

If this is the best you can do, then I will have to remain skeptical that flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

And ironically, Judge is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist! So you shouldn't trust him, should you?

However, Judge thinks that the Pentagon story is a weak link for the 9/11 truth movement and thus should not be questioned.

[Bolo Boffin]

37. Enjoy the color of the sky in your world. n/t

[spooked911]

42. Which color is that?

Honestly, I had seen that article before and I had already entered that into my calculations of what happened.

As I said, I am not totally averse to the idea that flight 77 hit the pentagon, BUT I would like some proof along the lines of what I said two posts back.

That article is not the kind of proof for what you ask for all the time here.

Let me ask you this-- if John Judge had written an article where he said he had a friend who saw a cruise missile hit the pentagon, would you believe it?

[Bolo Boffin]

54. Only you have that information. n/t

[seatnineb]

44. Seeing as you have such a penchant for 2nd hand info....

Eat this.......

I pulled off the road and found a viewing point high up
in a hotel parking lot. From this angle i could
clearly see the damage to the Pentagon. BUT why were
the light poles from the nearby roadway not leveled
before the plane hit the building? Despite the fact
that they were RIGHT IN THE FLIGHT PATH they were
still intact. I saw this with no occular support
(binos etc). A friend came up to visit and I took him
to my spot so he could view and take pictures. In his
photos the light poles are still there. Not razed!
Just simple physics folks.

e-mail to [e-mail] onward.
http://www.unansweredquestions.org/topic.php?tid=59&printable=yes.

Go on Bolo.....I triple double dare you to say this eye witness is talking bull.......

[spooked911]

52. Seatnineb, you are awesome!

You find the best stuff!

What a bizarre story.

[Bolo Boffin]

59. What a deceptive little cut there, Seat9b

First off, Potkettle isn't an eyewitness. Nice try, 9B, but he's quoting someone who didn't see the actual impact either, but did see the plane swoop down behind the Pentagon (raising the amazing possibility that the plane might have landed on the helipad and internal explosives went off!!!! Where did that plane go after that? Cuz Rickus' pictures don't have any plane on the helipad!)

So since Potkettle isn't an eyewitness, but drove out to the Pentagon later, it's quite possible that he didn't know the correct flight path. A lot of people thought that the plane hit the Pentagon at a perpendicular angle, and if Potkettle thought that, then, yes, the light poles were still up in that direction.

But we all know that the light poles in the actual flight path were knocked down, don't we? Do we have to produce that link here?

So if the triple double dare is for me to say that this eyewitness (who isn't an eyewitness) is talking bull, then quite possibly, the man speaks of what he does not know. He is quite fervent in his belief, isn't he?

[seatnineb]

74. I was so deceptive that I provided a link to the entire article!

It is not for nothing that I said: "second hand info"

Try some first hand info instead......

I heard a helicopter landing right outside our window and turned to watch it touchdown ...the helo pad is there and I wondered as I watched him land if this arrival had anything to do with the New York attack realizing it probably did not. I turned back to the computer and began reading the only breaking news report I had found about the attack. I was shocked in realizing what sort of hell must be taking place inside those towers.... Two hits and thousands of lives snuffed out in seconds....

In that moment, I heard the most sensational noise.... a split second of high pitched whine followed by a booming echoing crash like nothing I have ever witnessed. The next few seconds seemed so much longer and are constantly replayed in my mind... I remember yelling out as I found myself on the floor and somehow being pushed against the wall....

http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/PentagonPersonalStory.html

This is corroborated by the trusty CNN......

"I was told by one witness, an Air Force enlisted - senior enlisted man, that he was outside when it occurred. He said that he saw a helicopter circle the building. He said it appeared to be a U.S. military helicopter, and that it disappeared behind the building where the helicopter landing zone is - excuse me - and he then saw fireball go into the sky."
http://www-cgi.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.03.html

Strange....seeing as traffic was at a standstill in front of the Pentagon that morning.......yet not one eye-witness in front of the building mentions this helicopter.

[Bolo Boffin]

75. Calling someone an eyewitness who wasn't one isn't deceptive?

O-kay...

And so there was a helicopter. Helicopters landing at the Pentagon aren't noteworthy. Planes crashing into the Pentagon are. Please file that away for future reference.

Of course, the CNN report says that there was a fire at the Mall when there wasn't. So could it be the report of the helicopter was more confusion? (Yes, that would make your first link no more valid than any other collection of words on the Internet.) However, I don't have a problem with there being a helicopter there right before the crash.

[seatnineb]

76. I meant an eye witness to the still standing lampoles.......

...which Porklet claims to have been.

As for the Mall....like all official conspiracy theorists....

You forgot to mention something:

Date Posted: 9/11/01 8:07am Subject: RE: Plane Crashes into World Trade Center
apparently there was NO car bomb at the state department.
Although there was the sound of an explosion, there was no car bomb.
And still 1 plane unaccounted for.
http://boards.theforce.net/Your_Jedi_Council_Community /...

As for the helicopter......

Sorry Bolo ....but you are going to have to convince me more that this is not one in the same helicopter...

a U.S. military helicopter, and that it disappeared behind the building where the helicopter landing zone is - excuse me - and he then saw fireball go into the sky
http://www-cgi.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.03.html

I heard a helicopter landing right outside our window and turned to watch it touchdown ...the helo pad is there and I wondered as I watched him land if this arrival had anything to do with the New York attack realizing it probably did not.
http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/PentagonPersonalStory.ht...

[Bolo Boffin]

34. And no, it wouldn't!

For God's sake, go watch a episode of CSI sometime.

They had teams working overtime, checking each other's work. The type of total control you imagine this operation had didn't exist and doesn't exist for that precise reason.

Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. Honestly.

[seatnineb]

40. Forget CSI........I wanna see the gas station footage........

So that we can see William Lagasse look up as flight 77 passes overhead.....a shadow wouldn't go amiss either whilst we are at it...


Sgt. William Lagasse, a pentagon police dog handler, the son of an aviation instructor, was filling up his patrol car at a gas station near the Pentagon when he noticed a jet fly in low. He watched as the plane plowed into the Pentagon. Initially, he thought the plane was about to drop on top of him -- it was that close. Lagasse knew something was wrong. The 757's flaps were not deployed and the landing gear was retracted


"I saw the aircraft above my head about 80 feet above the ground, 400 miles an hour. The reason, I have some experience as a pilot and I looked at the plane. Didn't see any landing gear. Didn't see any flaps down. I realized it wasn't going to land. . . . It was close enough that I could see the windows and the blinds had been pulled down. I read American Airlines on it. . . .I got on the radio and broadcast. I said a plane is, is heading toward the heliport side of the building."

[Bolo Boffin]

41. You and me both, good buddy.

You and me both.

But while we will both be horrified and humbled by what we see on that tape, I predict that only you will be embarassed that day.

And be on these boards talking about digital trickery and fake footage the next.

[spooked911]

45. There would be no need to even think of such trickery if they had simply

released the footage to the media early on.

There is no need for them to hide it if it merely shows an American Airlines 757.

[seatnineb]

50. It was the FBI who was so embarassed by this footage..........

....that only contained a pentagon dog handler looking up at a jet passing overhead whilst he was fillin' up his car........that they confiscated it!

[Bolo Boffin]

60. Embarassed? Or gathering direct evidence to a crime?

You do know the difference, don't you?

[seatnineb]

62. It's evidence alright........

And if it is ever released to the public.......I expect to see Lagasse in it.

[spooked911]

48. I wonder if he suffered hearing damage?

Seeing a 757 going 400 mph that close would normally cuase severe hearing loss.

But what a ridiculous story-- he has time to get on the radio and transmit a message that the plane is going to hit the Pentagon before the plane hits? That is absurd.

If the plane is going 400 mph, and the gas station is one mile or less from the pentagon, than it would hit in less than ten seconds. He must have looked at it for a few seconds, then it must have taken a few seconds to start the radio. I find it hard to believe he would broadcast to someone that a plane was "heading toward" the building.

[seatnineb]

53. Excellent point Spooked.........

:toast:

[spooked911]

56. Thanks! But it never ceases to amaze me how strange the Pentagon witness

accounts are.

[hack89]

57. No it wouldn't

It was in a shallow dive - a lot of that speed was due to gravity and it didn't need max power like it would on take off. Similar in concept to a car - it takes a lot of power to get to 55 but very little to maintain it.

[Old and In the Way]

51. 400 MPH is 600 ft/sec

He'd have to have been quite a keen observer to see the state of the window blinds on the aircraft.

I doubt any eyewitness, all of whom were not scanning the skies awaiting the aircraft's arrival at the Pentagon, could possibly know exactly what it is they actually saw. Perhaps they saw the familar AA on the tail, but that hardly qualifies as proof it was 77.

[seatnineb]

55. And that is the reason why the footage that should have shown.......

......William Lagasse at the gas station looking up at fl77 has been conviniently confiscated!

:toast:

[hack89]

58. Why the added complexity..

If they wanted to crash an American Airlines jet into the Pentagon why wouldn't the government simply use flight 77? What does the added complexity gain the conspirators?

[Old and In the Way]

66. I have no idea what hit the Pentagon.

Maybe 77, maybe not. I'd agree that it would make no sense for it not to be. Except I have not seen any conclusive evidence to state it with no doubt.

I'll bet the tapes would prove or disprove this point conclusively....so why not release it and end this speculation? Why didn't the Whitewash Commission demand to make those tapes part of the record?

[spooked911]

68. The Pentagon hit may have been intended to send a message to

Bush/Cheney-- that it was a military coup of sorts. So they showed their hand, so to speak, by hitting the Pentagon with something that clearly was not a hijacked plane.

Alternatively, the perpetrators wanted to take out a specific part of the Pentagon, some group of people, that is why they targeted that spot of the building. They may have needed some special missile to make sure they penetrated the right spot.

Another possibility is that the hijacking of flight 77 was a hoax to begin with, part of the live-fly hijacking exercise run that day, and the whole 9/11 plan involved plane-swapping with special planes designed to hit targets such as the WTC and pentagon.

[Bolo Boffin]

69. But why did they have to take out the National Geographic field trip?

Couldn't they have arranged not to kill all those kids?

[Old and In the Way]

70. Why take that chance?

Missles, swapped planes, etc....seems like they'd be taking a mighty big risk. As much as the circumstantial evidence suggests something other than 77 and a remarkably lack of direct evidence to confirm 77, I would think that such an alternate scenario would increase operational risk. Not that they wouldn't have good reason to string out the various theories....let the theories reach a critical mass, then, release the tapes of 77 going into the Pentagon. Game Over.

It would be easier to retro the 4 planes over the summer of 2001 with RC capabilities; on 9/11 during that massive live-fly, gas the passengers and activate the RC. Those in the civilian sector who know (the Raytheon employees) - gone. Only a few well placed RW military/CIA/FBI/FAA people to manage the operation and viola! mission accomplished. We have our New Pearl Harbor, Patriot Act, and Bush gets his war in Iraq.

[hack89]

25. Who is the "government"?

Many civil servants were hired during the Clinton years and many are democrats. Why can't they be trusted? Why can't they be trusted to leak information of any conspiracy - lord know Bush has been embarrassed enough times by CIA and other government leaks.

The "government" you refer to is not a simplistic, monolithic entity - it is made up of people that reflect every group and belief in this country. Your apparent belief that none of them have the intelligence or moral courage to detect and report a conspiracy as heinous and vast as you say 9/11 is, is simply unbelievable.

[spooked911]

28. Government is short-hand-- a government cover-up would only

take a few well-placed "moles". Come on, let's not get tangled in semantics.

In fact, there are 9/11 whistle-blowers-- who you seem to not want to believe exist.

Robert Wright
Sibel Edmonds
Colleen Rowley
David Schippers

[hack89]

30. pretty bold statement..

considering you are unable (or unwilling) to advance a detailed and compressive account on how the government pulled it off. Wait! I'm sorry - I forgot it is only your job to ask questions for someone else to answer.

As for the whistle blowers - show me where one of them has presented evidence of any of the more esoteric 9/11 CT theories like controlled demo and missiles into the Pentagon. I believe absolutely that they have revealed government incompetence and corruption and I admire their courage. But government corruption and incompetence does not automatically mean a government 9/11 conspiracy of the likes you believe in. Bush is capable of many bad things - it doesn't automatically follow that he acted on all of them.

[spooked911]

31. When you say government corruption, what exactly are you referring to?

Are you saying people in the government knew about 9/11 and failed to act because of corruption?

If so, how come they haven't been prosecuted?

If not, what corruption are you referring to?

[hack89]

33. No..

I was generally referring to corrupt political appointees and high level career bureaucrats willing to lie to cover up their mistakes.

Have you come up with whistle blower examples yet or do you need more time?

[spooked911]

35. Most people lie to cover up their mistakes. That hardly makes one corrupt.

But there are honest mistakes and "sort-of-on-purpose-mistakes".

The "sort-of-on-purpose-mistakes" are usually what people lie about.

If you make a real mistake, usually you feel very bad about it and apologize for it.

By the way, do you have any specific mistakes in mind that government officials lied about?



No, I don't know of whistle-blowers for those things you mentioned. But that hardly rules out anything.

[MrSammo1]

73. The physical evidence

Doesn't bare out the witnesses that said a 757 hit the pentagon.

It's that simple. You can't change the laws of physics. If you believe a jet's vertical stabilizer can fold instead of marking the limestone facing (a very soft stone)........it falls on your shoulders to prove this scientifically.

Hinge Effect (myth believers)........prove your theory!

[Kevin Fenton]

23. It was probably Flight 77

All the evidence is from the US government - who else would you expect to produce evidence? If you compare the official account of the Pentagon strike to any of the numerous theories advanced by the sceptics (swapped for missile, remote control, exploded before impact, etc.) then the official account is better, or even far better. The only real hole in it is is the man they claim was the pilot. This is in stark contrast to what happened at the WTC, where there is a considerable amount of evidence against the official theory, or United 93, where there is no evidence to support the official explanation at all (guess they just slipped that one by us).

[spooked911]

49. Welcome to DU!!!!!

What is wrong with the remote control theory since the hijacker pilot was clearly not capable of flying a 757?

But another clear problem with the Pentagon story is WHERE the plane hit.

Also, the fact that flight 77 completely disappeared from radar. Unlike the other planes, which were (supposedly) tracked the whole way.

A major problem with the Pentagon story is that the physical evidence is strange.

Overall, if you think the Pentagon story is strong, I suggest you check this site out:

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/

It goes over the evidence in a fairly balanced manner.

[Kevin Fenton]

71. Fake identity

"What is wrong with the remote control theory since the hijacker pilot was clearly not capable of flying a 757?"
Remote control is possible, but, in my view highly unlikely for various reasons, for example:
One of the American 77 hijackers, Salem Al-Hazmi, is one of those who later showed up alive (his passport was stolen while he was studying in Denver some years previously). Why would some of the hijackers use their real identities and some not? What was special about the 4/6/whatever hijackers who used false identities? Did they have some sort of special skills, like being able to fly a plane? Hanjour clearly couldn't fly very well, but it seems one of the others must have been able to (otherwise Al-Qaeda would never have launched the attack). Also, why do you say "hijacker pilot"? - it seems there were always 2 hijackers in the cockpit (even United 93!), not just one.

"But another clear problem with the Pentagon story is WHERE the plane hit."
I don't think so. After reading all this stuff I went to the Pentagon to have a look at it and I asked myself what was the best way to attack it with an aeroplane. It would be best to copy the usual flight plan in the area, approaching from the NW along the river and then turning right, as if to land at Reagan National, but breaking off at the last minute and hitting the west side of the Pentagon.
Also, the bit (Wedge 1) that had just been reconstructed was the most expensive part of the Pentagon, the rest of it was scheduled to be rebuilt anyway. Further, what are you actually claiming, that the strike was designed to minimise casaulties and that no impact at the Pentagon could have produced less fatalities?

"A major problem with the Pentagon story is that the physical evidence is strange."
I don't agree at all. The vast majority of the physical evidence clearly supports the idea a 757 hit the Pentagon. It is the alternative - that the plane was switched for something else, but the people who did the switching were too dumb to get another 757 (it's one of the most popular aircraft in the world, there are over a 1,000 of them) - that is strange.

[Old and In the Way]

47. If they had nothing to hide-

(1) Why didn't Commander Bunnypants demand a full and immediate investigation into why 3000 Americans died?
(2) Why did he think it was "one terrible pilot" when only 6 weeks earlier the CIA was telling him that OBL was planning a terrorist attack using planes. (And we now know that he had 52 warnings prior to 9/11.)
(3) Why didn't he convene an INDEPENDENT commission instead of stacking the deck with proven Bush apologists like Lee Hamilton, Whitewasher extrodinaire?
(4) Why did they stonewall/obstruct, for 18 months, efforts to have the Commission get started, then fund it with a crummy $3MM?
(5) Why did Bush refuse to testify in public and without Cheney?


Only a President and government that wanted a "New Pearl Harbor" to get their Pax Americanna underway would have reacted the way they did.

They were the prime suspects who got to control the "who, what, where, and why" of the investigation. The truth was not served and the 3000 people who died on 9/11 did not get their justice.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spooked911]

15. Would you care to offer some proof for that rather extreme slur?

[geek tragedy]

16. His site defends people like Joe Vialls, David Irving and Ernst Zundel

and publishes viciously anti-Jewish and Holocaust denying filth.

He promotes the work of John "Holohoax" Kaminski.

I could come up with

[spooked911]

21. could you provide a link to this?

I am not denying this guy may have bad views, I would just like some evidence.

[geek tragedy]

22. Read these for a starter:

http://www.serendipity.li/ziolynx.htm

Check out the quote at the top.

Articles he publishes on his website include:

"That's Mr. Anti-semite To You."

"In Defense of Anti-Semitism"

"Who is Ernst Zundel, and Why is He in Jail?"

"The Role of Jewish Finance in 19th Century America"

Meyer has also stated that Judaism is his "least favorite" religion.

[spooked911]

26. I see. Thanks. I didn't know that Meyer ran Serendipity before.

[geek tragedy]

46. No problem.

:toast:

[Dancing_Dave]

72. The battles between Christian, Jewish and Muslim factions of Mono-theism

Are a sad old story, and I'm not happy about the way Peter Meyer became involved in it. Obviously, David Griffin is more enlightened on this point.

In all fairness, it should be emphasized that there are NUMEROUS JEWISH AUTHORS at the Serendipity site. There's a quite a wide range of opinion and analysis on Zionism issues, and recent policies of the state of Israel motivate much of it. Edgar J. Steeles articles are really offensive to me though, and yeah I have lots of Jewish friends...who have reservations about current Israeli policies and don't fit Steele's stereotype at all.

I don't know why 9/11 issues always get dragged into conflicts between various sects of Mono-theism. But Peter Meyer is certainly an important pioneer in criticising the official story of what happened to the WTC on 9/11/2001...and he had scientifically informed suspicions going right back to the very day of the event. That surely shows some insight.

It is definately an invalid ad hominem arguement to use Meyer's connection to Zionism issues to discredit his arguments about the WTC.

[Bolo Boffin]

63. Another of Meyer's fascinations

http://www.serendipity.li/trypt.html

Ah, psychedelic mushrooms! Perhaps that's what hit the Pentagon and imploded Building 7.

[Lithos]

77. Locking

Serendipity.li is a vanity website which includes and rebrands material from sites which are either not acceptable or credible for use on DU.