What Really Hit The Pentagon on 9/11, NOT Flight 77 757?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=r81u55jWTg8




Does this look like normal crash site investigation procedure to anybody?

http://home.att.net/~south.tower/PentagonWrongEngine1.htm

I thought you claimed there was hardly any debris there. Now, are you changing it to, "well, it turns out I was wrong and there IS substantial debris there, but it's not being investigated properly"? I think it's hysterical that you actually post evidence that undermines your earlier, central claim.

...but thanks for the kick, just the same.

I understand that perfectly well. Why don't you post another YouTube video in another pathetic attempt at "nuisance and diversion". You're just ticked that I keep puncturing your feeble attempts at debate.

Simple question: Are you now admitting your prior claim that there was sparse aircraft debris at the Pentagon was another crock? Yes or no.

After seeing your last couple of posts, it's apparent you might have grasped the last one.

Bob Pugh, a freelance video journalist, experienced with airplane crash sites, 20 years experience doing video work for the major networks. He had a close-up look of the Pentagon scene shortly after the explosion.


'the Pentagon was on fire...I'm looking for wreckage (to videotape), and I can't find anything discernable...I can't see the tail, I can't see the wheels, engines, there's no chairs, no luggage...I'd say the hole was 16 feet in diameter, 20 feet tops... it looked no larger than a garage door...there was no marks on the grass, something never hit the ground, it didn't hit the heleport, no marks on the grass...I mean it was a precision, or awfully very lucky hit...I don't know how it didn't bounce, I don't know how it hit directly in the side of the building without touching the ground going as fast as it obviously was going...I can't believe the thing was larger than a garage door...the firefighters were standing in front of it, looking up at it, wondering what's behind it, wondering where it went.' --Bob Pugh

www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYWIT9TSJPE

I actually saw this very same video this morning for the very first time! Weird.

Anyway...it is quite obvious that this man is confused, perplexed, and quite sure that something must be wrong with the information he was given.

I also agree that it's quite strange that there were personnel roaming around, collecting plane debris. I'm a paralegal for a criminal defense firm - and if there's one thing I know, it's that the scene of a crime must stay as intact as humanly possible until a proper investigation is completed. When I worked as an intern for the county prosecutor's office, we did have one case where evidence had to be moved because of inclement weather. September 11, 2001 was a clear, beautiful, sunny day, weatherwise.

thanks for sharing that. welcome to the dungeon!

:hi:

to pick up bits of wreckage. Can't have been part of the job description for these guys!

...deal to lose if somebody got a hold of a verifiable piece of the Global Hawk or whatever slammed into the Pentagon. They had to act quickly to police up the site before any real investigators got to the scene, and that's what's going on in the photo.

You know this how, exactly? Are you saying all the debris was made off with before any investigators could arrive? Who are they guys in the photo? Is there any claim so silly that even you won't embrace it?

I've got your medicine right here:

you have zero proof and you just made it up....figures.

leet Photoshop skilz!!1 That absolves him from needing actual facts to support his points, don't you see?

Little things like that don't matter to the Troofers! Its was a Global Hawk! It was a cruise missile! It was an A-3! It was a Lear jet! It was a C-130! It was explosives! It was an F-16! I wait eagerly for the *next* Troofer fact to come out!

the one that was fired from the Chesapeake Bay? (rumors are surfacing)

You've outdone yourself there.

... saw it -- or what was left of it.

Notice that the "crate" doesn't have a floor? Notice the patch of white on the top? Notice how effortlessly they're carrying it? Look right above the second guy from the left. See how you can see the white internal wall of the side opposite him? Notice what he's holding onto? Does it look suspiciously like a frame to you?

That's because they're not carrying a "crate". Duh. They're carrying a TENT, which you could have easily discerned had you bothered to LOOK at the picture closely, instead of rushing in here breathlessly with your latest find that "proves" your goofball theory. You consistently show that you form your conclusion first, then strike off in a search to only find "evidence" that supports your claim, otherwise known as "confirmation bias". Otherwise known as "you got duped again", as you do so often and what makes it so easy to shred your silly claims. Again, I find it hysterical that your so-called "proof", in fact, contradicts your goofball claim. And you wonder why you have no credibility.

I'm starting my stopwatch now to see how long it takes for you to resurrect your "you're trying to stifle meaningful debate with nuisance/distraction" meme and the even sillier "Crimestop" diversion. If I were you, I'd be too embarrassed to even respond to being so roundly and publicly debunked, but that's never stopped you before. I won't hold my breath waiting for you to retract your silly "crate" claim or for going off half-cocked.

You've been hyp-mo-tized into thinking facts matter! Bullshit will set you free. Unscrew counterclockwise to open up your mind.

Are you hard at work trying to prove it isn't a tent (good luck, it's OBVIOUS to anyone who looks at it with any degree of detail that it isn't a "crate")? Or are you frantically trying to figure out a strategy to claim you never said it was a "crate" or somehow change the subject to "would military personnel handle a tent in this manner?" admitting it's a tent in the process (and hoping no one notices your about-face), while trying to divert our attention to a new twist? Maybe you could post a new YouTube video showing that it was really "a radio-controlled airplane that hit the Pentagon and we can't tell it because the plotters cleverly miniaturized all of us the night before".

The clock is ticking, Mr. J. Are you ready to concede you really screwed this one up and that's it not a "crate"? There'd be no hard feelings and we'd be glad to welcome you into the tent (pun intended) of rational thinkers. And, just think...you'd immediately elevate the "truth movement" on the honesty meter by doing so. After all, isn't that what you want? "Meaningful and HONEST discussion"?

This is what a crate actually looks like:




This is, of course, a tent.




See the difference?

Mr. J: "I'll take "Temporary Structures" for $1000, Alex".



Trebek: "Okay. These temporary structures are often used to shield people and things from the elements."


Mr. J. : "Alex, what is a crate?"

(audience groans)

Trebek: "Oh, no! I'm sorry, Mr. J. The correct answer is, "what is a tent?". That drops you down to minus $22,100. A crate looks like this."

Are you ready to concede that your picture of a "crate" is, in fact a picture of an tent instead? Or, are you too embarrassed?

... And unlike you I'm not here for the purpose of nuisance/distraction aimed at preventing meaningful discussion.

Go ahead and hit that stopwatch now if you like.

And if you have a moment, just for kicks, tell me again why the pics in this video from 4:02 to 4:50 showing the pre-collapse damage to the Pentagon are NOT convincing evidence that a 757 commercial jetliner didn't crash there:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=bdAIbwavmDI

Oh yeah, now I remember, the foam got in your eye.

:rofl:

while it's encouraging that you'll finally concede an error, it seems you can't just do it humbly, without flailing away and creating more strawmen in an effort to save face. You can't just say, "You were right and I was wrong". No, you have to undercut it by saying silly things like, "Unlike you I will concede an error". Really? You know I will not concede an error? And you know that how? Can you give me an example of when I have made a clear factual error, then didn't concede it? The problem for you in this particular instance is that your error was so clear, there's really nowhere for you to go but to finally admit it while attempting to salvage yourself by trying to impugn my integrity.

Then of course, you resurrect your tired "unlike you I'm not here for the purpose of nuisance/distraction aimed at preventing meaningful discussion" meme, which, itself, is actually aimed, ironically, at attempting to restrain the debate rather than to catalyze it. Wouldn't the aim of meaningful discussion be to get at the truth? Isn't that what we did by just getting you to admit that you got the "nefarious crate" issue totally wrong? And, if you get such a clear and simple thing so totally wrong, what does that say about some of your even more absurd allegations? What does that say about how easily you are duped by CT websites appealing to your pre-conceived conclusions that have no basis in fact?

To make matters worse, you immediately issue a challenge that gives me the opportunity to, once again, expose your flawed perspective. I've stated my problem with the video before but, for the benefit of those readers who might not have seen it, I'll rehash it once more. The problem with the video is that the makers of it want the viewer to agree with their lie that the damage to the building is not consistent with having been hit with a 757, by only showing the reader footage that obstructs the view of the most critical area at issue. In the case of 4:02 to 4:50, the maker only shows you the scene with firemen spraying the lower part of the hole with foam so the total area of the hole is not visible. Why did they do that? There is plenty of footage where the hole is much more visible, but they won't show you that because it contradicts their lie. It's an age-old misdirection.

Here's the link to the excellent, clear and unobstructed composite photo Bolo shared with us. Look at it carefully like you finally did at the tent photo.

?click

Now, I'll provide my comment to Bolo's post. Read it carefully.


"A 'put-up-or-shut up' challenge to all you CT's regarding Bolo's picture

Ummm, guys....there most certainly is a 90 ft. hole there, it's just not the shape you expect it to be.

In the book, "Leading Strategic Change", the authors detail how people's "mind maps" can keep them from seeing certain things. If I ask you a certain question, your subconcious creates a picture of what it expects the answer to look like. For example, if I say that I am going to show you a picture of a "home run" and want you to point it out, how many of you would immediately expect me to show you a baseball picture? If I, instead, showed you a picture of an electrician establishing the power connection to a house from the electric utility's line (known as a "home run"), how many of you would immediately leap to the wrong conclusion that there is no "home run" there?

In the case of Bolo's picture, there's a 90 ft. hole there, alright, it just doesn't look like what you're expecting. That's because it's:

a) not totally symmetrical
b) contains shapes other than a circle and
c) doesn't look like the cartoon cutout of a plane crashing into the building.


Get my point? If not, let me elaborate:


When I say I am going to show you a picture of a hole, is your expectation that the hole will be shaped like a circle? Wouldn't you expect that based upon the nose of the plane? You would, right? What about the REST of the plane? Is that circular? No.


I am one of the ones saying that the hole is 90 ft. wide and I am right. Note that I am not claiming that the circular portion of the hole is 90 ft. wide, nor should we expect that because neither the nose nor the fuselage of that plane is 90 ft. wide, is it? Hint: no, that would be one humongous plane. The dimensions of the circular portion of the hole in Bolo's picture, however, would easily accomodate the nose and the fuselage (http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=101 ).

And if merely the nose or a portion of the fuselage penetrated the building partially, it would be reasonable to expect only a circular hole, but that's not what happened, is it? Given that the plane penetrated the building completely, what would we expect to see? A circle? Or a wide rectangular hole in the middle of which (and slightly above) is a circle? Do you get my point?

When you look at the picture, your brain expects to see a circular hole, right? And you do, right? When you see it, you stop looking for the rest of the hole. Now, look at the picture again. Find the part that corresponds to the nose/fuselage, then look BELOW and see the wide rectangular hole that extends on both sides. No one is claiming the hole is entirely circular. No one is claiming that the circular portion of the hole is 90 ft wide. No one is claiming that the hole is UNIFORMLY 90 ft. wide. But, when you look for the complete hole, rather than just the circular part, I challenge you to deny that the "hole" is less than 90 feet wide at its widest point. In other words, quit looking for a 90 foot wide circle.

For whatever it's worth, I expect the most intelligence-challenged "true believer" adherents of the absurd "no-plane" wing (no pun intended) of the "truth movement" to attempt some sort of bullshit refutation of this which, frankly, proves my point."

Can you see it now with a picture that is not a dishonestly obstructed view? Can you abandon your "mind map" and see not just the round portion of the hole, but also the rectangular hole nearer to ground level? If you can see it, isn't it clear it was not made by a missile, but corresponds easily to a 757?

For the record, I am open to the idea that the "OCT" could be wrong. But, in order to embrace an alternative hypothesis, honesty requires clear and convincing evidence. In the case of the "crate" and the hole in the Pentagon, the evidence is clearly not there.

In essence, that is your challenge and the reason why the "truth movement" remains on the fringes. More importantly, can you ask yourself, "If I am so wrong about these two things, what else could I be wrong about"? By the way, it would also be great if you would drop the silly "unlike you I'm not here for the purpose of nuisance/distraction aimed at preventing meaningful discussion" mantra. Start opening your mind as well as your eyes and pay attention to the message instead of attacking the messenger. Unless you're a mind reader, you have no idea of my state of mind and you should stop pretending that you do.

Continue exposing you for what you are?

For you to look at those pre-collapse pics, and then continue to claim a 90 ft wide hole means either you're engaged in deception or just completely divorced from reality.

What's "clearly not there" is any evidence of a 757 crashing into the Pentagon.

I show beyond a shadow of a doubt that your "crate" is actually a tent, yet you continue to claim that you are "exposing (me) for what (I am)"? Let me make sure I get this straight. I expose your silly claim to be a total fabrication, yet it's really you who are exposing me. Really. Well, don't let me interrupt your delusion.

As far as your next statement, "For you to look at those pre-collapse pics, and then continue to claim a 90 ft wide hole means either you're engaged in deception or just completely divorced from reality" is a classic logical fallacy called a "false dilemma". You argue that there are only two possible explanations, either that I am "engaged in deception or just completely divorced from reality". That's funny coming from a guy that confused a tent for a "crate", not to mention your ludicrous claim that it was filled with clandestine missile parts. Of course you omit a third possibility: that you are so invested in your goofy "no 757 hit the Pentagon theory" that your subconscious mind prevents you from seeing the obvious irregular hole.

Are you denying the hole is round in part and rectangular in part? Do you see the rectangular part of the hole BELOW the round portion of the hole? Let's clarify here. Are you denying the rectangular portion or are you merely denying it is 90 feet wide? Do you see where the wide portion of the ground level wall is missing? In case you can't see it, try centering the round portion of the hole on your screen. Now, look below that. Do you see the rectangular hole? Do you see how it extends to the right of the last spool on the ground? Look to the left of the round portion. Do you see how the rectangular portion extends PAST the 4th window? If you don't, you need to open your eyes. Maybe what makes it hard for you to see it that the hole is not uniformly deep and is actually shallow in parts (which is what we'd expect, given the construction of the plane).

What I knew you'd do was try to turn this back on me when it was YOU who claimed a tent is a crate. Most people would be embarrassed enough by that to tone it down a bit and consider how they could be wrong about other deeply held conclusions. But no, you accuse me of deception. Okay. How am I engaging in deception? Be specific. Wouldn't that mean YOU were engaging in deception when you claimed a tent was a crate and misrepresented it to others that way? It was funny how your fellow truthers were oohing and aahing over your great find until you were forced to admit you were dead wrong. If you want to continue this debate, it would help if you would stop the attacks on my integrity. It reveals a desperation on your part that undercuts your "argument".

This was hilarious back in 2002 when it first came out on the conspiracy-laced blogs back then:

What are they hiding! A Cruise missile! An A-3 engine! Parts from an F-16!!!!

The guy holding up his portion with one hand? He's just really strong!

This sort of reaction to that blue temporary shelter is part and parcel what the Troofer or what I'd rather call "The Deniers" are best at - taking something they have *absolutely no clue about* and weaving a rich tapestry of enigma around it, all of it negative, with no shred logic in sight.

That is all they do.

it takes a big person to publicly admit an error.

on the basis of that error, review other strongly held beliefs and examine them to see if one could be as easily mistaken about other things...such as the silly claim that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon.

can you? Can you point to any post in which I have misrepresented the facts of anything? Or, are you just launching a broadside? I mean, I know it sucks when tightly held tenets of the "truth movement" are skewered by Logic, but you don't really have an example of me fracturing the truth, do you....

If so, prove it.

but, since you apparently can't, now you're trying to change the subject by demanding I prove your take on the official story. Do you believe it is impossible for them to have carried it out? Upon what grounds?

As far as what exactly happened on 9/11, I hope you'll agree that the circumstances make it extremely difficult to know, let alone prove exactly what happened. Why do you think the JFK assassination appears to some to be such a mystery 44 years later? When Ruby killed Oswald, he thought he was sparing Jackie the ordeal of a trial but, in actuality, he eliminated the possibility of a satisfactory answer to why and how, because Oswald could not be tried, let alone confess.

The same thing applies here. The direct perpetrators of 9/11, that is the hijackers, all died in the attempt (unless you believe the goofy "remote-controlled planes" theory). Does that mean others weren't involved? No, that much is clear. But the evidence against the "19 young Muslims" is pretty compelling, however, that does not mean that new evidence cannot appear that calls some or all of it into question. And, that is precisely the "truth" movement's dilemma. It is not enough to say, "Well, it can't have happened the way the "OCT" holds, so it must have happened like this", without producing similar hard evidence. The problem is lots of "evidence" is produced but then falls apart when subjected to scrutiny.

I'm going to turn this back on you. The challenge was to find some factual misstatement I had made, not demand I prove the "official story". All the facts I have ever cited have been but pieces of the puzzle, not a unified theory. I am certain that not all parts of the "official story" are necessarily true. Note that something not being true is not the same thing as it being a lie. All lies are false statements of fact, but not all false statements of fact are lies. In the meantime, I accept the "official story" provisionally, meaning I take it at face value until something more convincing emerges, while asking questions all the while.

When the "truth" movement can produce a coherent, cohesive, consistent and compelling alternative hypothesis, then we can have a real debate. In the meantime, yes, I believe the "official story" makes more sense than "unknown shadowy elements" of our government did it and pinned it on "19 young Muslims".

that there may be holes in the OCT.

In fact, I was wondering why you suddenly began to post day and night in this forum (given that you have been a member since 2002) because I have seen only debunking, and so I thought it was safe to assume that you buy the OCT in it's entirety.

While I have not seen blatant misinformation in your posts, I have seen condescension and unflattering descriptions of CT'er's. For instance, you have said that CT'er's are "intelligence-challenged" -- I would appreciate it if you would provide some proof of this (other than pointing to posts which may or may not accurately reflect the poster's intelligence). Proof such as results of intelligence testing, etc.

Also, this statement: "But the evidence against the "19 young Muslims" is pretty compelling" has me wondering. What compelling evidence are you talking about?

I do believe that planes were involved in 9/11. I do not know whether those planes and the ensuing fires in WTC1 and WTC2 were what caused those buildings to collapse, but, I think that questioning is very appropriate. I also do not know what made WTC7 collapse, and, again, I think that it is appropriate to question.

However, given that we do not have the evidence needed to answer these questions makes me think that endlessly debating these issues in this forum is fruitless.

I also think discussing the Pentagon hole is a waste of time because whether or not a plane hit the Pentagon doesn't prove, one way or the other, who was behind 9/11.

The way I look at it is that people have a right to question, but, it is the "big picture" that should be kept in mind. Those who ask "who benefitted?", for instance, are on the right track, IMHO.

We have some excellent "CT" posters in this forum. Seemslikeadream, mrgerbik, reprehensor, Bryan Sacks, petgoat, CGowen, JerseyGirlDem, Paul Thompson, and JackRiddler come to mind -- but, IMO, there are many more. These posters can hardly be described as "intelligence-challenged", and, yet, they continually question the so-called "facts" of 9/11. I appreciate that there are courageous people out there who are unwilling to accept "facts" just because the government says they are true.

Who knows? Someday we may even know the truth. How refreshing that will be.

Do tell! What part of he Chesapeake and by what ship?

THIS oughta be good!

Forget Jefferson's previous "no plane hit the Pentagon" bullshit -- that's so yesterday! Today's new and improved bullshit is that a Global Hawk hit the Pentagon. Oh, and a SkyWarrior, too. After shooting it with a missile! No, really -- I saw it for myself on YouTube, and you can't say stuff on YouTube if it isn't true. Sure, all the evidence in those videos is bullshit, but it conclusively proves that all those eyewitnesses must to be lying! We now have photographic proof that all that plane debris that Jefferson couldn't see yesterday was being picked up by government agents so nobody could identify it as being from a Sky-Global-Warrior-Hawk-missile!

Uh... or maybe those agents are actually planting those plane parts, and Jefferson was right the first time when he ignored it?! And that would mean they must have planted Global-Sky-Hawk-Warrior-missile parts just to fuck with CTers! Wow!

Anyway, if you have better bullshit than Jefferson's, please post it! Your fellow bullshit junkies will return the favor, I'm sure. With just a little more effort, I'm sure we can make DU the foremost bullshit dump site on the net.

Just the other day he was vociferously denying the existence of any debris. His claims are so goofy, he doesn't even recognize when they contradict each other.

... that Jefferson is intentionally trying to embarrass DU. I know the site owners don't want to get into the business of banning entire topics, but I think there are some pragmatic, self-defensive reasons for drawing the line somewhere. I'd definitely draw the line at the "no planer" bullshit, at least, as many other sites have done.

posters here of being trolls instead of engaging in meaningful and honest discussion.

:rofl:

There are no words. Only ...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Oh wait, it gets better. This post suggests that these "thoughtful posters" want to engage in "meaningful and honest discussion"!

Can't you see why everyone's irony meters are blowing off the scale?

Are you saying it doesn't include people with opposing viewpoints? If the "truther" claims are valid, do you really have anything to fear from opposing viewpoints/evidence. Or, do you only want to discuss the matter with other "true believers"? I'm just asking questions here.

For most of the existence of this forum, the motley assortment of OCTers, "woo wooers," OCTabots, "untruthers," and OCTabarnacles who infested this forum have done nothing except heckle, ridicule, hijack threads, and contribute nothing meaningful to any discussion here or anywhere else on DU. The typical response to any post that questioned any aspect of the official story was simply a reference to animal feces. The idea that his cohort is "thoughtful" or interested in "discussion" is utterly laughable.

They are famous for this here in this forum and across DU.

Of course meaningful discussion with people who disagree about 9/11 is possible. It just ain't gonna happen here until the infestation is cleared up.

Have a beer:

To illustrate exactly what the links refer to. Or do you have anything substantive to say?

The irony of your post is that any and all serious discussions of any and all serious 9/11 questions have long since been buried under the mountain of idiocy thrown up by the 9/11 Bullshit Movement. I would expect that someone who posts lectures on epistemology and inductive reasoning would have a low tolerance for bullshit getting in the way, Hamden, but apparently not.

How did I predict that most of what the OCTabarnacles have to say has to do with animal feces?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Dude, do you realize how preposterous you've made yourself appear by perfectly illustrating what I was saying? Your predictability is pretty pathetic -- sad, actually.

Now as penance, go read Paul Thompson's timeline and bring back all the "bullshit" you find there.

Go now! Hurry up! Get along!

Is that so wrong?

One of the few horsestables left in NYC is on the Belt Parkway on the Brooklyn-Queens border, and I have to get some fresh horseshit for my compost bin.

So I have nothing against animal feces -- when used properly!

I'll be thinking of many posters here as I shovel the shit into my compost bin.

Interesting side note: I live very close to Belmost Racetrack. I once went there for some horseshit and the stable guy said you don't want our shit. It's so full of performance enhancing drugs, supplements and chemicals that it would kill your garden! So I have to drive all the way to Canarsie.

I live just north of the racetrack here in Tucson. I wonder what they do with their poop, especially if it is as polluted as the guy from Belmost says. I knew you had to watch out for seeds in poop, particularly that of free-range animals, but drugs and supplements were not on my watch list.

Good luck with the composting. Are you adding anything (worms, etc) or does your compost bin handle the breakdown on its own?

I went into the stable area to ask for permission to talk to the stable guys, and I was ushered into this mail room type office. That's where the guy said their horseshit was toxic, and he swept his arm behind him pointing out boxes stacked from floor to ceiling of drug packages -- a twenty foot long by 10 foot high wall, entirely covered by boxes of drugs and supplements that were, from what I understood, just that week's intake!

Generally I have lots of earthworms and other insects in my compost bin and garden soil, but last growing season was very, very strange because I barely encountered any earthworms. I'm wondering whether it was just a bad year or if I have to "reseed" the soil and compost with worms this year. I should mention I have a tiny NYC garden and because of my elderly neighbor's crashing her car into my rasberries, I had a somewhat aborted season.

Generally, the bin works very well, but it's a little small for the amount of kitchen and garden waste I could potentially recycle. I'm thinking of building an additional wooden bin.

I guess it takes a lot of "stuff" to make a horse a successful racer.

I remember when you posted that photo of your backyard and neighbor's car. When we lived in Wyoming we used to lose significant parts of our garden to skunks, deer and birds. It was depressing, as a little boy, to see all those strawberries go to someone else other than me. I can sympathize with your loss.

Do you aerate your compost? I don't know if that matters to the worms or insects.

... the animal feces variety is natural and useful stuff. It definitely gets the short end of the stick in the idiomatic association with the "truth movement."

And I could have predicted that after you asked if I had anything of substance to say, you would promptly ignore it and prefer to talk about feces.

Are you saying no-plane theories are not worthy of heckling, and ridicule?

First of all no DUer is worthy of heckling -- or at least no one was until the OCTabots established heckling, mutual insult, and distraction as the default means of interaction in this forum. If some DUer can claim to channel good vibrations in one of the religious themed forums without being heckled, I don't see why a no planer deserves heckling either.

More substantively, whether a theory deserves ridicule can only be answered with resort to epistemology -- a field of analysis that most "engineers" seem to believe doesn't exist. But that's the lens I use.

I personally don't believe WTC "no plane" theories because I have direct first hand and second hand evidence of the planes. First, I was in lower Manhattan early on the morning of 9/11, and I heard the plane fly low almost directly over my building and then heard a loud crash or explosion. I didn't see the plane, but heard the noise of its engines in a clearly directional manner, from north to south outside my window, which faced west. A hologram or whatever could not fake the directional and other qualities of the sound I heard many blocks north of the towers.

After I heard on the radio that a plane had hit the WTC, I went to the street and watched the north tower burning. My second second-hand evidence was that a guy standing next to me watching the north tower burn (he seemed to be a homeless guy in ragged clothes) said to me something like, I saw it, it was a big plane and it flew so low I thought it was going to hit YOUR building.

Third, my late uncle saw the second plane hit and told me about it when I visited him at his home in Bushwick in the summer of 2002. He was a retired carpenter who occassionally took finish carpentry jobs in the financial district. He was working one such job near South Street Seaport on the morning of 9/11. After the first plane hit, an announcement came over the intercom in the office where he was working telling people to stay inside. He told me he said to himself something like, "these white folks are crazy, I'm going home," and he immediately left the building with his tool box and walked to Brooklyn over the Brooklyn Bridge. He told me he saw the second plane hit the south tower while he was walking over the bridge.

So I have one first hand and two second hand experiences of planes hitting the towers. But if I try to put myself in the epistemological shoes of someone who wasn't there, and didn't have those first hand and second hand experiences, I might feel differently. Some time ago, I was attacked as a shill on that other site because my "no plane" criticism is always based on first hand experience -- in other words, that I could be lying. I suppose that's true from that person's perspective.

As for the Pentagon, I am inclined to believe a plane hit it. But the real issue there is why, of all the video available, the Pentagon released video that isn't consistent with a plane. Perhaps this is deliberate disinformation. Who knows what their motives are. But because they did this, they encourage "no plane at the Pentagon" theories. That's really the interesting question, not whether there was a plane there or not.

One theory that deserves ridicule (given the ground rules of this forum) is the theory that the 9/11 Commission Report is accurate and complete. If I put myself in the epistemological shoes of "no planers," given the evidence they have, I can understand why some of them might choose a "no plane" theory.

But if I try to put myself in the epistemological shoes of an OCTer who is aware that the chairmen of the Commission now no longer support their own conclusions, that the Commission staff wanted to indict Bush administration witnesses for lying, I simply cannot understand their position that the report is accurate and complete. That's illogical and cannot be deduced from the evidence they have available to them, and therefore the OCTer theory is the most deserving of ridicule of all the theories thrown around down here.

I see plenty of meaningful and honest discussion from us so-called "Octabots" and very little from the truthers, unless you want to call some YouTube video of dubious quality and even more dubious truthfulness "meaningful and honest discussion". Worse yet, we often pose intelligent logical questions about some of the more far-fetched truther claims, only to be patronized or called a "government shill". If fact, I question whether or not you are falling back on the same tactics by referring to us as a "motley assortment of OCTers, woo-wooers, OCTabots, untruthers and OCTabarnacles". Isn't it, in fact, quite possible that we can take issue with many of the truther claims (I mean, honestly, how in the world can someone confuse a tent for a "crate" and accuse government agents of swooping in to remove incriminating evidence of a Global Hawk? Here's one logical question: how in the world could they know where all the evidence was and make sure they got it all before others "not in on the plot" arrived on the scene, which was quite quickly) and not fully embrace the OCT, whatever that is?

Personally, I don't rely solely on the "government story", as their natural self-interest can be suspect, but much of the "official story" has been borne out by multiple independent sources (unless someone wants to accuse the 140,000 member strong ASCE of throwing their professional integrity out the window or suggest that Purdue is not an honest institution). I also don't believe that the truther practice of automatically discounting the eyewitness testimony of career civil servants and military personnel at the Pentagon, simply because they work for the government, is at all wise. In addition, their testimony is also corroborated by numerous passersby with no connection to the government whatsoever. I particularly find the "no 757 hit the Pentagon" to be particularly laughable in view of the multiple eyewitness accounts, the still picture and video records and the physical evidence. Does the "truth" movement really contend that the thousands of Pentagon employees collaborated with the hundreds of rescue and recovery personnel to all "get their stories together" to become as consistent as they are? Or, are you willing to concede they are consistent simply because they are telling the truth?

Most importantly, I find "truthers" come particularly unglued when challenged for evidence of their claims. Don't you find it odd that the "truth" movement is constantly clamoring for proof of the OCT (which is actually there in abundance), while at the same time bristling when challenged for proof of their own alternative hypothesis? Or better yet, isn't it convenient to claim, "well, we would have the evidence, except the government spirited it all away"? If the "government spirited it all away", that would necessarily mean the "truther" movement doesn't have it all, thus calling into to question what the basis for their claim could actually be, since it obviously is not based on evidence. It reminds me of the response I got from a RWer during the Clinton impeachment in which she claimed, "The lack of evidence against Clinton just shows how sneaky he is". I'm not making that up.

If you want "meaningful and honest discusion", I'm all for it. But, frankly, I've seen little of it from the "truthers". Tu quo.

at least prior to their recent restart, had banned the no planers.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=114063

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=113881

I always figured he was much younger -- like 12 or 14.