Talk:American Airlines Flight 77

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster Management.

1 Flag disputed?
2 Metal detector
3 Flight name
4 Pentagon doubts
5 In-flight calls
6 Extremely POV?
7 Totally Disputed
- 7.1 Page history
8 Solving a dispute
9 Basis for accuracy dispute tags
10 map
11 Timeline
12 Edited Out Conspiracy Theories
13 Veritas (that's latin for truth boys and girls)
14 witness statements
15 pointless nitpicking
16 Physics conspires against the land of the free
17 SF Gate Retraction and Judicial Watch Lawsuit
18 Here we go again
19 the truth
20 Last Revision
21 Removed the Measurements
22 video
23 Reality Check
24 last revision
25 Misleading
26 Response to JCaesar's points
27 Flight77.info
28 evidence of hole size
29 protecting article
30 Conspiracy theories
31 Black Box
32 So...
33 64 or 65 passengers?
34 A security cam note added
35 Taxi cab picture
36 Image overlap in Firefox
37 Biased article
38 There is no plane
39 Addition of banner
40 Witness statements
41 Doubletree video release

[edit] Flag disputed?

I am also going to dispute the factual accuracy of this article, along with all the others who have suggested this. There is too little evidence proving that a BOEING 757 hit the pentagon. I'm in agreement that SOMETHING hit the Pentagon, however, the lack of evidence would leave me to remove the word "factual" from anywhere in this article. ((Anonymous))

I just read the part about Dulles Air Traffic Controllers tracking the plane. It would be nice to either listen or see a transcript. Recordings from Cleveland's Air Traffic Control tracking United 93 is available online for listening. 75.34.33.118 15:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Metal detector

It was recently confirmed that three of the hijackers had been stopped before boarding the flight because they failed the metal detector test

How long does something remain as recently confirmed? As this entry is not flagged as a current event, surely recent confirmation is redundant...

[edit] Flight name

Although this is the most infamous American Airlines Fight 77 there have certainly been other flights so designated. Perhaps a minor edit would be in order for the sake of precision. --Daniel C. Boyer

Can I say, "hijacked by Islamic terrorists"? Or would that be a POV?

Perhaps Al-Quaeda Islamic terrorists? It wouldn't be POV either way, IMO. -- GayCom

to clear up any confusion why does the government provide evidence regarding the plane wreckage nd flight recorder, are they hiding anything, Russell

[edit] Pentagon doubts

Does anyone have a source for this claim?

Some people have voiced doubts about whether a plane really crashed into the Pentagon. Video footage from a nearby Sheraton hotel was confiscated by the FBI. An amateur recording taken just after the impact does not give the impression that a plane had just hit the building.

If not, it should probably be taken out. --GD 23:05, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree, this comes out. This whole Flight-77-did-not-crash-into-the-Pentagon business does not belong here at all. It is discussed under the misinformation and rumour page. Arno 04:48, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

The fact that it is discussed there does not mean it's irrelevant on this page. In any case, at least a link to that page is in order. There are several sources for the claims (see the misinformation page, which I now linked), if necessary the sources can be copied. Even though it's a conspiracy theory, it has enough merit, compared with the official version (which has no direct evidence at all) to be included. Paranoid 13:49, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I must say i strongly disagree with this. And there is real proof. I believe there are even slideshows free to download on this subject on the web. One very good example would be a "movie" called Painful Deceptions - An analysis of the 9/11 Attacks, which can be downloaded via the ed2k network: ed2k://|file|Painful_Deceptions_-_An_Analysis_of_the_911_Attacks.avi|405514240|84FDF929F34A6CD69A814FE891C0A216|/ NoSuchUser

The fact that there is a "doubt" to the accuracy of the facts by paranoid and factually uneducated individuals - whether or not they are Wikipedia users - is irrelevant. The article on the Moon landing does not use words such as "allegedly" and "most believe," and with good reasons: Because consipiracy theories regarding the Moon landing are hogwash, plain and simple. The same holds true for the "no-757" conspiracy theories. There is a page on the conspiracy theories. That page should exist, provided it presents the facts. A link to that article is sufficient. These conspiracy theories have no business on this page, which is intended to present the facts, not what some people wish were the facts./JCaesar.

The theory that the pentagon was not hit by a plane is excellently debunked by snopes.com , and the link which is under that catagorey apparently contains a number of half-truths, total lies and have even modified quotes etc. I don't think a site like that that clearly contains delebriatley incorrect infomation indented to trick people into beliving lies should be linked to without a disclaimer

Nitpicking time :D "Some people have voiced doubts about claims that the Pentagon was not hit ..." I'd put it "Some people have voiced doubts about claims that the Pentagon was hit ..." -andy 80.129.100.99 00:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC) The "not" is illogical. People claimed that the Pentagon *WAS* hit, and those other people DOUBTED it. ;)

[edit] In-flight calls

Changed "These theories do not account for the above mentioned in-flight calls made by the passangers to their loved ones describing the hijacking." to "These theories do not account for the above mentioned in-flight calls made by the passanger to her loved husband describing the hijacking.". It is important to make it clear that there was ONLY ONE such phone call and it was made by ONE US GOVERMENT PERSON to ANOTHER US GOVERMENT PERSON - and that's it.

[edit] Extremely POV?

The sentence in the article "These theories do not account for the above mentioned in-flight call made by the passanger Barbara K. Olson to their loved one describing the hijacking, which is the only evidence what so ever that this event happened the way described on this page." seems to be too point-of-view for the article, I'll change it if nobody minds. Modular. (Talk.) 12:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The reference to "this page" is also inappropriate. Snip snip. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 12:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Totally Disputed

This article SHOULD have the {{totallydisputed}} tag. 63% of all the people in Canada agree this is disputed. Look at the History and you will find that a lot of Wikipedia-users agree and share this view.

[edit] Page history

If you disagree with this article being {{totallydisputed}} then look at the history of changes where you will find:

"There is evidence for conspiracy theories and there is no evidence for the official version. Even though they may be wrong, these claims deserve to be in the article as of now."
14 edits by people who totally dispute the contents of this article.
Look at the edits done by the people who dispute this article throughout it's history page. To me, it is plain obvious alot of people do dispute it.

The tag says that the factual accuracy is disputed. What statements in the article are disputed? – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 17:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I dispute the "fact" that a Boeng 757 hit anywhere near the pentagon. http://www.terrorize.dk/911/pentagon1/
I also dispute the "fact" that the impact from what ever it was that hit the pentagon started the fires when video footable clearly show that they were started at completely different locations in the building long after "impact" http://www.terrorize.dk/911/pentagon4/
I do not dispute that this picture: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001/200109114a_hr.jpg is real, I only dispute that there is a Boeng somewhere in it.

So if the text were changed from saying "The plane crashed. . ." to saying "According to the FBI and the 9/11 Commission Report, the plane crashed. . ." that you would no longer object? – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 23:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Solving a dispute

Could anybody properly clear up whether Barbara K. Olson really was the only person on board the flight who made a phone call about it being hijacked, as 80.203.228.236 says? Thanks Modular. (Talk.) 15:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I view the following as just stupid for this reason: "The fact that the commission is lying is obvious", claims David Ray Griffin, and I totally agree. View his speach if you want a source and in-depth reasoning: http://thepiratebay.org/details.php?id=3396565
I therefore find it ridiculous to use a document that itself is widely disputed and viewed as simple propaganda by myself as a source to solve a dispute.

The anonymous contributer is incorrect. Page 9 of the 9-11 commission reports says of the flight:

At 9:12, Renee May called her mother, Nancy May, in Las Vegas. She said her flight was being hijacked by six individuals who had moved them to the rear of the plane.

On the same page, it states:

At some point between 9:16 and 9:26, Barbara Olson called her husband, Ted Olson, the solicitor general of the United States.

So that's two persons, not one. The report also mentions:

At 8:51, American 77 transmitted its last routine radio communication. At 8:54, the aircraft deviated from its assigned course, turning south. Two minutes later the transponder was turned off and even primary radar contact with the aircraft was lost. The Indianapolis Air Traffic Control Center repeatedly tried and failed to contact the aircraft."

So something clearly happened to the plane and the passengers between 8:51 and 8:54. Two passengers reported that it had been hijacked. So it's hard to believe the plane wasn't hijacked. In addition, there is no doubt that the other three planes crashed, as the official report concludes. So why would this one plane not have crashed? What might have happened to it?

I think the article should mention the theory that Flight 77 did not crash into the plane, but that the theory does not account for the calls, and it does not specify what might have happened to the plane. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 17:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks so much. It all seemed a little far-fetched to me, to be honest.Modular. (Talk.) 18:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Are there transcripts from Indianapolis ATC? KyuuA4 15:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Basis for accuracy dispute tags

It seems as if we agree that Flight 77 was hijacked by terrorists and flown off course. What is disputed, in my view, is what happened after the hijacking. Now, according to Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute, an article should have a disputed tag if

The accuracy of an article may be a cause for concern if:

it contains a lot of unlikely information, without providing references.
it contains information which is particularly difficult to verify.
in, for example, a long list, some errors have been found, suggesting that the list as a whole may need further checking.
it has been written (or edited) by a user who is known to write inaccurately on the topic.

In this case, the conspiracy theories, for lack of a better word, contain a lot of unlikely information and information which is particularly difficult to verify. In contrast, while there is no visual evidence of the aircraft actually in the building, the official theory is much more likely than a government theory to destroy the pentagon coincidentally happening on the same day of a massive terrorist attack involving three other aircraft. I don't see what is wrong with the current page: the more plausible theory gets better placement in the article, while the opposing view is discussed as well. Airline 00:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

In addition, this picture clearly shows what appears to be part of an American Airlines aircraft on the lawn of the pentagon. Specifically, the red and white would be part of the "American" titling on the front of the aircraft, clearly seen in this picture. Airline 00:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia has to be neutral on whether Flight 77 really hit the Pentagon or not. On the other hand, we should take into consideration that every major news source, every major commentator, and every report on the incident claim that the plane did hit the Pentagon. I don't think the tag's warranted. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 02:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I pretty much agree, this page has been atracting the attention of conspiracy theorists in the past; regrettably their ...ideas... have now taken root here with 'weasel wording'. Arno 06:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

"On the other hand, we should take into consideration that every major news source, every major commentator, and every report on the incident claim that the plane did hit the Pentagon. I don't think the tag's warranted" - This statement has two sides, as there are many witness and reported accounts of people seeing and hearing missiles, smelling gunpowder and sighting a small 18 - 20 man plane not a 747.

A theory is just an idea until evidance is collected that makes that theory a possibility. With the amount of evidence suggesting the plane did not crash into the Pentagon, this is no longer a conspiracy theory it is a possible and plausable conspiracy. One key factor in all of this is the disapearance of recognizeable 747 plane parts, and all parts that where found seem un tarred by the intense heat that should have been caused by the fireball upon impact. Also given the melting point of titanium, way above the hottest burning temeratures of cerosine, one would expect to see two engines and a tail section. Given the lack of fire damage to the interior of the pentagon (you can still see books, computers, windows, wooden desks all intact and un burned after the impact) and the lack of exterior damage done to the building at the points of impact of the tail and wing/engine sections of the plane. This is not speculation, there is more evidance that the 747 did not strike the Pentagon. As for the location of the hijacked plane if it didnt hit the Pentagon... it's at the bottom of the atlantic, but thats just a theory I have no evidance for.

Tis is an example of such weasel wording.

The homeless guy at the Starbucks up the street from me claims that he has evidence of a cure for cancer, that he has the scar in his head where the government implanted a chip to prevent him from revealing his location, and that only the rich and powerful have been granted access to it. There is evidence to support his claim: He has a scar on his head; the rich and powerful have access to methods beyond yours and my reach; no rich and powerful people have died of cancer recently (meaning either within the last few days or last few years, depending on how that term is accurate). Does this mean we should change the text of the cancer page? Of course not. If a verifiable, reputable news or investigation source says that Flight 77 did not or may not have hit the Pentagon, change whatever is necessary to fit the facts. Until then, conspiracy theory speculations and questions belong on their own page, not on the page which presents the facts as they are known. JCaesar ^talk 11:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, really? Don't you just feel CLEVER. Now, we are discussing CANCER, a desease that has been DOCUMENTED in literature, in medical tests, in scientific journals, by DECADES of research, and then you present a homeless guy as the countervailing "theory". Such dishonest "examples" is on par with the HUNDREDS of weasel government shills who fester every country. Now, you are dismissing the work of Doctors of Physics (Professor Jones), serious scientists (AK Dewdney who proved USING THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, a test that can be repeated) that cell phone calls are impossible after 8,000 feet. You dismiss the OVERWHELMING physical evidence of the pristine Pentagon lawn, the untouched spools in front of the Pentagon, the unbroken windows, the missing tapes. Your "facts" for dismissing this is that SAME "evidence", the phone calls that has already been proven scientifically impossible. Wow.

[edit] map

It would be great if we had a PD map of the flightpath.

Done. (SEWilco 04:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Timeline

The times in the article do not match the timeline on page 33 of the 9/11 Commission report. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec1.pdf (SEWilco 07:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Edited Out Conspiracy Theories

Using verifiable sources - primarily the Snopes page, but also the 9/11 Commission Report - I edited out all qualifiers and claims that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, because they do not belong in the main article. Corrected the paragraph with inaccurate or misleading information to be more accurate. (I also fixed a lot of spelling and punctuation errors in that paragraph.) I left in the "Disputes" section (against my better judgement), because at least it is clearly identified as such, and a reasonable reader may discern for him or herself the veracity of its facts. Added the Snopes link. (JCaesar 07:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC))

JCaesar, just so you know, not everyone who has questions about the official version of events on 9/11 thinks that Flight 77 didn't hit at the Pentagon. Many of us do believe it hit, and we have to suffer the unscientific loony stuff from the people who think a commercial jet didn't hit there also. The main promoters of this stuff are the slick disinformation films, In Plane Site and Loose Change. The goal is to make people who have real questions, i.e., the victim's family members, look loony. But those who promote this idea generally just haven't taken the time to read the witness statements, or have been talked out of believing them by the disinfo crowd (UFOs, Chemtrails, etc.) who say that none of the witnesses at the scene could be trusted to know what hit the building. It's hard for everyone to deal with.

Questions about the official version are one thing. Commissions - as thorough as they intend to be - are still human, and therefore prone to both accident and political bias. Even when scandals and tragedies are thoroughly documented, information comes out years to decades later - either information not available to the committees, or not available to the public - which refute certain points of the official version. The revelation of the Howard Hughes diaries after the Watergate investigation, say, or the declassification of Naval documents after Capt. Timothy McVeigh's court-martial for the sinking of the USS Indianapolis come to mind. However, it's important to note: Hughes' diaries shed light on motives behind actions, not the facts listed by the investigation committee; and the Naval documents revealed that the court-martial unfair, not that the primary narrative of a Japanese sub sinking the Indianapolis was a fabrication. The section on problems with the "official version" looked fine to me, and I didn't touch it. However, I edited out of the main section all phrases such as "the object which hit the Pentagon," "Flight 77 allegedly crashed," etc. I see you went even further than I was willing to (again, against my better judgement) in my editing, and I agree with your correction. If you don't trust the government, that's fair, and you may even be right. But people who pretend their conjectures are more valid than government and independent commissions simply because they can connect random and incomplete facts into a new narrative are disingenuous at best and raving paranoid lunatics at worst. (JCaesar 08:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Veritas (that's latin for truth boys and girls)

Before the next one of you redneck fuckwits 'corrects' my inclusion of fair and informative photographs (most of which were taken by members of the US Military, all of which have endlessly appeared in international news media, and none of which anyone is claiming to be fake - correct me if i'm wrong on this-), answer me the following:

If the wings sheared off on impact, where are they in the photographs? (and if anybody starts talking about airliner 'vaporisation' on here, then wikipedia is already worthless and I am wasting my time. its like a film trailer: "From the people who brought you the magic bullet and WMDs, comes a story beyond all rationality.")

If the plane hit the ground before impact, why is the lawn unmarked?

A 757 impact is either: (a) strong enough to bring down a steel reinforced world trade centre or: (b) not even strong enough to create more than a 9 metre hole in three concrete sections of the pentagon.

(i'll give you a clue, both these things cannot be true)

But go on, dismiss me as a nutcase, censor me in the name of free speech, live in your safe little world, and bomb iran for more oil. the first thing hitler did when he gained power was firebomb the riechstag and blame it on the jews. you fucking morons.

1.) The impact of the 757 is not what brought down the World Trade Center.

2.) Actually, they can both be true. Vertical integrity /= horizontal integrity.
3.) Insults are not factual evidence.
4.) Nobody has bombed Iran in the last few years.
5.) You're absolutely right on at least one point. "Veritas" is Latin for truth. The Romans said it was often "in vino." So are you drunk?
6.) The fact that you have access to a Latin-English dictionary also is not factual evidence, fyi. Although you clearly don't have a German-English dictionary, because there is not, nor has there ever been, a building in Germany called the Riechstag. Which is pretty understandable, as it would make no sense to call a building the "Smell Day." However, when the Nazis came to power in Germany, they apparently committed arson - not a firebombing - on the Reichstag building, and blamed it on the Communists, not the Jews. You have a real problem discerning between facts and faulty memories of something you heard on the History Channel or an Internet documentary once, don't you?
7.) The fact that someone else did something else in a different set of circumstances 60 years of ago is not factual evidence. In a court of law, it wouldn't even qualify as "circumstantial" evidence. It would just be talking out of your crack.

When you have factual evidence that can be supported, when you have links to back your statements up, when credible sources can be traced from those links, you have facts. Until then, you have conjecture, and conjecture is not veritas, nor is it shinsou, alitheia or Wahrheit. You don't seem to be clear on your facts on anything, and das riecht wie Wahrheit, oder? -- (JCaesar 11:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC))

[edit] witness statements

if there is no other evidence, witness statements are an important way of getting at the truth. but if I claimed that I had 'witnessed' bigfoot, you would expect me to produce some evidence to support this assertion. the idea that a 38 metre wide plane hit the pentagon is physically impossible. the existence of bigfoot is false, but in theory not necessarily physically impossible. Also, if something flew past me at 500 miles per hour, i do not think i would be able to identify it very accurately.

I keep trying to add evidence to falsify the (absurd, confused, wildly contradictory) witness statements (which I have read by the way). This evidence is in the form of factual measurements, and undoctored photographs. Because this evidence proves the witness statements are misguided, and you are all uncomfortable with that, you label me a 'conspiracy theorist' and censor me. Wikipedia has to decide whether it is about objectivity or conformity.

"if there is no other evidence, witness statements are an important way of getting at the truth."

"Also, if something flew past me at 500 miles per hour, i do not think i would be able to identify it very accurately."

I'm going to sit back and let you meditate on these two statements for a little while. When you find the logical fallacy, gimme a call. (JCaesar 11:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC))

This comment is not fair. For someone who seems to give much importance to details, you have forgotten that 3-letter word coming after the first sentence: *but*. This is all the point. The author says that witness statements are important *but* they can be biased (eg. because "object flying too fast"...). The author also says that when there are other contradictory evidences (like factual measurement), these statements should be supported by further evidences or explanations. (NoSuchUser 09:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC))

[edit] pointless nitpicking

(b) The fact that you are able to correct my spelling doesn't mean you have any intelligence. 4) The fact that facts are only facts when they contain links to fox news does not really make them facts, factually speaking. (xvii) You know more german than me - congratulations, but you haven't got the point have you?

If we could stop trading insults for a second, if i am mistaken, please educate me. how does a 38 metre wide plane cause a 19(ish) metre wide impact zone and a 9 metre exist hole? please answer the question explicitly and with a physical explanation.

The education systems aren't up to scratch outside the land of the free. We still have this backward notion called 'thought'. As a result of 'thought' I was rather under the impression that plane crashes create wreckage, and sort of mess up the ground. PLease explain to me why this wasn't the case for flight 77.

(b) No, you're right. But the fact that you're unable to get your facts right on a Website where you could've looked them up in two seconds doesn't say much towards your interest in factual accuracy, now does it?

4) I didn't say FOX News. I said a credible news source. The two are mutually exclusive. (Although, at this point, if you could back up one of your claims with something even as dubious in reliability as FOX, I'd consider it a miracle worthy of its own chapter of the Gospels.)

xvii) No, I'm pretty sure I got your point. You heard something once, and it confirms your theory that 9/11, the JFK assassination and your aunt's gout are all a government conspiracy by a government that can somehow cleverly cover up a decades-long conspiracy to shoot a missile into the Pentagon but can't hide a Presidential blow job for more than two years. You didn't get the point, which is the difference between facts and conjecture.

No matter how many times you wonder why you haven't seen damage to the lawn, or how come your math doesn't work on the wingspan, that isn't a fact. It's a conjecture. If I say, "Gee. It doesn't make sense to me that a shot fired from up and behind would cause the President's head to move back and to the left," that is a perfectly fair concern on my part, but I do not have a fact to support it. I have a conjecture. And that conjecture could lead me to a million conclusions - from the possibility that Kennedy was shot by a man on the grassy knoll to the possibility that the Zapruder film is reversed, and Kennedy's motorcade was actually driving in reverse down the street, but they are not facts until I have evidence to support them.

And conjecture can be (and often is) wrong. For instance, your conjecture is that I am a redneck who believes FOX News, supports the inexistent bombing of Iran and doesn't have intelligence, based on the fact that I disagree with your whack-job conspiracy rantings. The reality is that I am a West Coast, Big Ten-educated, granola-eating liberal. I have something you do not - factual evidence. Specifically, I have my mailing address in a very urban ZIP code in Los Angeles County, California, my subscription copies of Mother Jones complete with mailing labels, my diploma for my BA from a liberal arts college, my voter registration with a big "D" on it (a few years after it had a "G" for "Green"), empty 100%-recycled paper bags from an organic foods market and my most recent pay stub for my canvassing job with a filthy hippie environmentalist PAC. See how factual evidence often conflicts with conjecture? It's not a hard concept, really.

Your conjecture is that the wings caused no damage, and that there was no damage on the lawn. This photograph: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/images/pent2.jpg shows blackened sections from the wings and damage to the lawn. My current conjecture is that you will dismiss that and say, "Nuh-uh, does not either," at which point I will sigh and accept that you are a special child of God. In the meanwhile, the fact is that your assertions are wrong.(JCaesar 13:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC))

Nuh-uh, does not either. I am a special child of god. Please, what wings? where are these wings of which you speak? And by the way, big fuel filled wings have, like high inertia (stop me if I'm getting too technical), so would cause a lot more damage than 'blackened sections'.

Congratulations on your academic credentials. I'm now going to start bragging in the hope that you will take me seriously. I am not a conspiracy theorist. I do not think the moon landings were a fraud. I do not have any particular knowledge or opinion of the JFK assasination. I have a science degree from Oxford University, and and MSc from London University. I am currently a phd student. woo-hoo.

Please look at the history of the page, and the photographs on my 'whack job conspiracy' edit. Ignore my rantings. Ignore all words. look at the photographs. Either these photographs are fraudulent, or it wasn't a plane. Surely?

Any 'debunking' by the Dick Cheney journal for physics subject to oil, er, freedom, is dealt with quite well here: http://www.st911.org (click 'resources', scroll down, click 'what hit the pentagon: an analysis').

Would you bet your wife/girlfriend/significant other's life on the 'fact' that it was a plane? I would bet my mother's life on it being something significantly smaller.

The images are all copyviolations. None of your work is referenced. All you have to add is speculation. See WP:V--MONGO 14:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Fine, fair enough, ignore me. I have nothing to add that hasn't already been said by the dude on "http://www.st911.org - resources - what hit the pentagon?" Do not ignore him. You will find all 'my' photographs referenced fully within his sources. So ner. And by the way, the security camera image you guys seem so fond of is, I understand, criticised as dodgy and asserted to be 'conspiratorial' by the neocon arseholes. I will not touch the site again. but undisputed photographs and measurements of the crash site are vital to allow people to make up their own minds, and 'factual' measurements do not deserve to be tarnished with the label 'conspiracy theory', particularly in a supposedly objective site where you permit references to physically impossible processes. Airliner vaporisation? For fuck sake.

That security camera image is actually decent as far as security cameras go. That website you are trying to use as supporting evidence is nothing but junk science. There were many aircraft parts found at the Pentagon. The fireball is actually huge...have you ever seen the pentagon up close...it is a massive building. You need to understand that Wikipedia has certain standards for references, and do a read through of WP:V.--MONGO 02:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

What MONGO says is true. Also important to note is how often the conspiracy theorists who keep pasting the same misguided info to this page harp on the "vaporization" part (which accounts for PART of the so-called missing airliner) and ignore both the explosion, which by definition disperses matter across a wide radius - including on the lawn, where even the most crackpot of theorists confess it was found - the crushing under the collapsed floors, which breaks up and buries even large pieces of metal under tons of concrete, glass, metal and limestone - and the fact that parts of the airliner WERE found under the wreckage once excavation became possible, AFTER the intense heat of the fire had been stopped. ALL of which is in the current article, ALL of which is confirmed by the links from the current article. The fact that those who maintain this conspiracy theory continue to assert that "vaporization of an entire airliner is impossible" (which isn't even strictly true in and of itself, although it wasn't - and nobody arguing the facts maintains it was - the case in this circumstance) and continue to ignore the explosion, collapse, fire and finding of pieces of airliner, again, merely underscores their lack of interest in factual evidence. (JCaesar 05:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC))

Right, now I'm totally lost. I am apparently disinterested in factual evidence, so please correct me:

Impact zone 18-20 metres wide. correct? collapsed wall within front impact zone, approximately 9-12 metres. correct? punch out hole, fairly clean circle, 9 metre radius. correct? wingspan of 757, 38 metres. correct? only outer three rings penetrated. correct? Upper floors of 2nd and 3rd rings fully intact. structural integrity of all 3 outer rings persistant. correct? I have come across no evidence for 757 wreckage within the building. please direct me to some. I am only interested in photographs. If the wings broke off on impact (as they must have done given that they could not fit into the impact zone), what is the most realistic explanation for what happened to them? Under the atmospheric conditions on earth, the 'vaporisation' (sublimation), in whole or in part, of large structures like airliners is not possible. Correct?

Richb111.

The dimensions that you mention above, at the Pentagon, are very consistent with those at the WTC [1] - caused by 757's. Also, the Pentagon is surrounded by an interstate highway and other major roads with good view of the Pentagon (and numerous witnesses who saw the impact, all tell a consistent story, and have no reason to lie). I've yet to see anything verifiable and from reliable sources that give any credibility to the 9/11 conspiracy theories. This article isn't the place for such speculation. -Aude (talk | contribs) 15:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Christ on a crutch. The burning wings DID cause damage - that broad swath of black visible in the photograph I earlier linked across the ENTIRE FRONT of the Pentagon, which is an ENORMOUS BUILDING - is, from what information we have, largely due to the burning wings. In addition to the fire, there was an explosion. That explosion ripped apart the entire plane - INCLUDING THE WINGS - and sent chunks of it all over Hell and back. Some of the larger chunks went inside the building. Subsequent to the impact and the explosion, the chunks - of the wings and other parts of the plane - were BURIED under several stories of concrete, when the upper stories collapsed, JUST as they did at the WTC, the only difference being that it was only three or four stories and not many dozens of stories. Jet wreckage is not visible inside the building in the photographs because it IS BURIED UNDER A LOT OF CONCRETE. But IT IS THERE. It was found. It went into evidence in the hearings and is referred to SEVERAL TIMES in the links from the article. For the last time, NOBODY IS CLAIMING THE ENTIRE PLANE WAS VAPORIZED. They are claiming the foam, rubber and other burnable material was largely vaporized, while the large metal chunks were ripped apart in an explosion, buried under concrete AND burned up in an intense, long-burning fire, AND YET PARTS OF IT WERE STILL FOUND. (Although I love how you switched from "Vaporizing a plane? Pfft. Impossible, could never happen," to your current dismissal, "could never happen under the atmospheric conditions on Earth." Although you're still wrong, as the correct qualification to your earlier remarks would be, "could never happen under the atmospheric conditions of Earth through most any agent short of an atomic bomb.")

You're the one claiming green pixies, you're the one claiming speculation with nothing to back you up, you're the one who's ignoring reason and all the well-reasoned arguments, with support, which refute your fallacious claims. Period. -- (JCaesar 05:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC))

NO, THEY'RE NOT.

I witnessed a big green pixie the other day, it said to me 'Dick Cheney wears women's underwear'. What's that? The existence of pixies is physically ridiculous? No, sorry, you can't argue with me, I witnessed it.

answer the questions.

[edit] Physics conspires against the land of the free

Right, now I'm totally lost. I am apparently disinterested in factual evidence, so please correct me: Impact zone 18-20 metres wide. correct? collapsed wall within front impact zone, approximately 9-12 metres. correct? punch out hole, fairly clean circle, 9 metre radius. correct? wingspan of 757, 38 metres. correct? only outer three rings penetrated. correct? Upper floors of 2nd and 3rd rings fully intact. structural integrity of all 3 outer rings persistant. correct? I have come across no evidence for 757 wreckage within the building. please direct me to some. I am only interested in photographs. If the wings broke off on impact (as they must have done given that they could not fit into the impact zone), what is the most realistic explanation for what happened to them? Under the atmospheric conditions on earth, the 'vaporisation' (sublimation), in whole or in part, of large structures like airliners is not possible. Correct? Richb111.

The dimensions that you mention above, at the Pentagon, are very consistent with those at the WTC [2] - caused by 757's. Also, the Pentagon is surrounded by an interstate highway and other major roads with good view of the Pentagon (and numerous witnesses who saw the impact, all tell a consistent story, and have no reason to lie). I've yet to see anything verifiable and from reliable sources that give any credibility to the 9/11 conspiracy theories. This article isn't the place for such speculation. -Aude (talk | contribs) 15:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

NO, THEY'RE NOT.

answer the questions.

I suppose answering my questions is too much to ask. So I'm going to through your points one by one. (I'm glad you're getting exasperated by the way, now you know how those of us in the world of 'thought' feel):

"Also, the Pentagon is surrounded by an interstate highway and other major roads with good view of the Pentagon (and numerous witnesses who saw the impact, all tell a consistent story, and have no reason to lie)."

An interstate highway that didn't experience any jetwash from the big-arse airliner flying ten feet above it. Are you comfortable with this concept? I am not.

"The burning wings DID cause damage - that broad swath of black visible in the photograph I earlier linked across the ENTIRE FRONT of the Pentagon, which is an ENORMOUS BUILDING - is, from what information we have, largely due to the burning wings."

They blackened the building, a little bit, and broke a few windows, though only on the ground floor. The problem here is one of scale. When I say 'i would have expected the massive, fuel-filled wings to DAMAGE the building', I mean I would have expected it to plough through the entire building, bringing down all the floors, and wasting not only all of wedge one, but probably most of the whole building, based on the evidence that the impact of a 757, weighing many tons and flying and 500(ish) miles per hour, would apply far more force than the stress-bearing capacity of concrete walls. (as it apparently did at the WTC, where the walls were steel-reinforced and thus stronger) In the context of powerful aircraft impacts, a 'broad swath of black' is not damage. It is messed up paintwork.

"That explosion ripped apart the entire plane - INCLUDING THE WINGS - and sent chunks of it all over Hell and back. Some of the larger chunks went inside the building."

Please explain to me how this works, physically. Bits of wing get smashed off when they hit a wall (impossible in itself, but setting this aside), and then they do a 180 degree turn and end up inside the building. Is this what you are saying?

"Subsequent to the impact and the explosion, the chunks - of the wings and other parts of the plane - were BURIED under several stories of concrete, when the upper stories collapsed, JUST as they did at the WTC, the only difference being that it was only three or four stories and not many dozens of stories."

My understanding is that a 757 weighs 30ish tonnes (correct me if i'm wrong), and carries several tonnes of petroleum. Do you think there was enough concrete within the building to bury the plane?

"Jet wreckage is not visible inside the building in the photographs because it IS BURIED UNDER A LOT OF CONCRETE. But IT IS THERE. It was found. It went into evidence in the hearings and is referred to SEVERAL TIMES in the links from the article."

Please direct me to photographic evidence of any plane wreckage whatsoever inside the building.

"For the last time, NOBODY IS CLAIMING THE ENTIRE PLANE WAS VAPORIZED. They are claiming the foam, rubber and other burnable material was largely vaporized, while the large metal chunks were ripped apart in an explosion, buried under concrete AND burned up in an intense, long-burning fire, AND YET PARTS OF IT WERE STILL FOUND."

So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that the flamable stuff burnt (as opposed to instantaneously sublimating), and that the massive, fuel-filled wings broke into a million tiny pieces because, even though they were travelling at 500 miles per hour, they could not withstand the stress-bearing capacity of a concrete wall. All these tiny pieces of wings and fueselage, and gallons of burning fuel (from the parts of the aircraft that could not fit into the hole), would be visible in the photographs, but after bouncing off the wall, they did a 180 degree turn and went inside the building where they were buried under the rubble. Is this what you are saying? Sounds familiar doesn't it? Can you say 'magic bullet'?

"You're the one claiming green pixies"

Its called irony. Its an invention from the land of 'thought'. Look it up.

Look. It's really obvious to me at this point that no matter what I say, you're going to twist it, ignore it or deny it. No matter how many links I show you, no matter how many pictures I link to, no matter what official testimony I highlight and return, you're going to put words in my mouth about some implosion or 180-degree turn I said NOTHING about. Like a Creationist, you ask questions but refuse to accept the answers unless they conform to your previously determined presumptions. You're right. I'm getting exasperated, but then, that tends to happen when you argue with a brick wall. So fine. I don't give a damn what you believe. You want to think the Pentagon was hit by a missile Cheney fired from his secret compound where he's hiding JFK, Elvis and Hitler's brain, and where they've got the set on which the Moon landing was faked, the cure for cancer and the UFO from Roswell? Go ahead and believe it. You want to believe I'm a redneck oil executive being paid by Donald Rumsfeld as part of a vast right wing conspiracy to hide the truth from conspiracy theory whack-jobs on the Internet who are posting "the truth" from their mom's basement and therefore pave the way for next year's invasion of Canada, France and Uruguay? Your belief has zero impact on my life, so knock yourself out with it.

This page is for the discussion of the article, and that's all I will discuss from here on out. If you post conjecture, if you post assertions without links to verify them, if your only source is of questionable veracity, if you violate Wikipedia's clearly posted policy regarding copyright, neutrality or verifiability, either I or someone else will edit it out. Call it censorship and accuse us all of working for the Illuminati, but them's the breaks, Sparky. (Although I love how all the people who bitch so loudly about their freedom of speech being violated are always a bit hazy on the freedom of the press. Here's the Cliffs Notes version: You say what you want. You have freedom of speech. Wikipedia is under no obligation to put your rantings up on their bandwidth dime. They have freedom of the press. Get that?) You're willing to bet your mother's life that you're right? Great. Start cheaper than Mom. Crack open your own wallet, pay your own hosting bill, and get your own Website, and then you can prove Cheney and Bush are aliens sent to pacify the world so their extraterrestrial overlords can eventually enslave us and put us to work in the salt mines of Zodon-7B. It doesn't belong here. Period. Capice? -- (JCaesar 23:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC))

The newest edit is bogus. Changing the wording from "Discrepancies in" to "Arguments against" actually works against the conspiracy theorists, insofar as an "argument" does not imply a factual basis, whereas a "discrepancy" does. I have an argument against my eating liver and onions. It's not factual. I just don't like liver and onions. A "discrepancy" is an issue where facts don't add up to reports. Then this sentence: "Some who doubt the 'accepted' version of events leading to the ultimate fate of Flight 77 often make the following arguments," is absolute horseshit. I've yet to see any of the conspiracy theorists on this page argue that Salem al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar are alive - they're too busy arguing over the wingspans of jetliners. There has also been very little discussion of in-flight phone calls. And if anyone can make for me a reasonable justification for putting "accepted" in quotes, I'd love to hear it. The sentence is at best redundant and at worst more weasel wording. Edited out. -- (JCaesar 11:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC))

Italic text Right, first of all I didn't make the modification you were just talking about. And, (whilst I'm sure it is impossible for you to believe) I do have better things to do than bitch like a schoolgirl at you all day. The reason I am pursuing this is precisely because I don't want to set up my own 'conspiracy' website. But this is an important issue, because it is provable that the official line is false, and it is imperative that that proof ends up in the public eye. You say I twist arguments like a creationist, but I notice you have just done nothing but ridicule 'conspiracy theories' in a vague general way, without answering any of the simple, physical questions I put to you. All I added to the site were photographs (the copyright details of which I am trying to get hold of) and measurements. Were the measurements wrong? Were the photographs fraudulent? If not, why do they deserve to be tainted by the label 'conspiracy theory'? Because anyone can edit it, wikipedia has the potential to be special. But it will become worthless if you brush issues under the carpet because they are uncomfortable to deal with. So please answer the questions I just asked you.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.222.100.226 (talk • contribs).

First off, could you create a username and always log in with that? Seconded can you timestamp your comments with four tildes?....like this ~~~~ Thanks!--MONGO 13:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me on two different issues, which I tried to make very clear. 1.) I did not accuse you of making the edit which I reverted. I merely posted, on the discussion page, my reason for reverting it. 2.) I believe I made it very clear, I have no intention of discussing anything on this page other than the page itself, and edits which are necessary or have been made. Thank you. -- (JCaesar 7:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC))

Strange that. It seemed like you were perfectly willing to engage in debate about what the evidence showed about the crash site until I started asking you simple physical questions like 'if the wings sheared off, how did they get in the building?','why would the wings shear off when they would have applied far more force than the stress bearing capacity of a concrete wall?', 'why weren't there any burn marks on the lawn?', and (for fuck sake) 'small hole, big plane, how does that work in a physical sense ?(with more sophisticated details than 'they were blown to hell and back')'. I asked these questions because the answers to them are vital for impartial users of the site to make an informed decision. I added photographs and measurements (and only these things, without conspiracy fairy stories) to help people do this. Instead of constructively discussing what aspects of the measurements were right and wrong and why, or helping me find the copyright details of the photographs (which I believe editors of wikipedia are supposed to do), you just delete my edit without any justification other than 'its conspiratorial, therefore false'.

I know you're not 'agents of the US government' or some crap. You're just ignornant of physics, or deliberately being narrow-minded because the (fucking obvious) truth makes you uncomfortable. A lie told a thousand times becomes the truth. So congratulations. Thanks to your efforts, the lie that a 757 hit the pentagon on 11/09/01 is well on the way to becoming true. You stupid, stupid bastards.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richb1111 (talk • contribs).

Based on this edit, this editor has been blocked for 24 hours. Editor needs to read all about it at WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL--MONGO 13:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

When you get back, I want you to know: I am not ending any discussion of non-page-related questions because I am being "intentionally narrow-minded," I am ending them because your very questions above invent things I did not say and nobody said to find logical fallacies that do not exist. As I see no ending to that situation, I have no intention of encouraging it.--JCaesar 00:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I have just uploaded files 'pentagon1'-'pentagon4'. I think I have successfully found out the author of the photographs, though I don't know the licensing details. Please tell me whether any of these images are suitable for uploading on to the site. I emphasise I only want to add photographs and measurements of the crash site, therefore do not understand why this material should be labelled 'conspiracy theory'. Thank you. And don't get me started on 'logical fallacies'. RichB111.

[edit] SF Gate Retraction and Judicial Watch Lawsuit

As people are apparently editing this page to include misinformation on those two topics, I'm editing the page with the correct information - namely, that the lawsuit and correction only apply to very specific pieces of evidence, and neither Judicial Watch nor the Gate have ever stated that they believe anything other than Flight 77 struck the Pentagon. If any admins have any problem with these edits, don't worry about editing them. Just contact me, and I'll happily do it myself.JCaesar 01:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine to me.--MONGO 13:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I take it from the fact that almost all references to conspiracy theories have been removed that this page is barely acknowledging them to avoid further vandalism? If so, I wholeheartedly support that policy. I tried to insert facts into the theories, but since they seem to have been ignored and rewritten multiple times yesterday, I'm happy to just ignore the whole issue and not feed the trolls.JCaesar 00:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You did a good job summarizing the Sfgate and Judicial Watch points more accurately. We kept reverting back to your version. But, with much of the conspiracy theories cut entirely by MONGO, I think the article looks better. Before the cuts, it seemed that nearly half the article was about conspiracy theories; it's more balanced now, between fact and conspiracy theory. -Aude (talk | contribs) 00:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Here we go again

Go on then, revert everything. What's wrong this time? I have added photographs and measurements of the crash site. If some of the licensing details etc are innappropriate, please tell me what I need to do/find out in order to correct this, instead of simply deleting them because they are 'conspiratorial'. I have removed the sentences making the claim that the aircraft's wings were forced into the building, because: 1)This is conjecture without evidence to support it, and should not be presented as fact. 2)It is physically impossible that the wings could have been broken off by an impact with a concrete wall, because (being fuel-filled and travelling at 250-300 miles per hour, their inertia would have been far greater than the wall's strength 3)Even if the wings had broken off (which is impossible) and been forced into the fueselage (which is also impossible as they are larger), the mass of the aircraft would still have been conserved, and absolutely could not have fitted into the dimensions of the crash site. RichB111.

Is there a reason why you keep rebutting the misinterpreted use of the word "vaporization" from the article, when that word has been removed from the article for some time? I already clarified the full narrative based on supported links and removed that word altogether. Is there anything more I can do in the article to stop you from beating that horse that is not only dead, but has been, well, vaporized? (Short of re-editing the whole story to an unsupported and POV narrative because, well, that's not going to happen. Sorry.)JCaesar 19:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I'm actually a researcher in equine sublimation, little known physical process. Ok: The crash and subsequent fire penetrated three outer ring sections of the western side. The outermost ring section was largely destroyed, and a large section collapsed.

False. A 10 metre section of wall fell inwards. "Largely destroyed" is wrong, qualitative, and misleading.

Little wreckage was found from the airliner within this impact zone or inside the building.

No wreckage was found in the impact zone. Dodgy-looking pieces of fueselage were found 30 metres behind the crash site, intact engine air intakes and landing gear that survived a 300 miles per hour impact because they were made of special "freedom metal" were planted, sorry I mean found, 1-2 days later.

Most of the plane was destroyed in the massive explosion and subsequent fire. (A similar intense heat caused the collapse of both towers of the World Trade Center.)

This sentence is complete speculation. The only "evidence" to support it is "Erm, well, it just must have.." which is not evidence at all.

The upper floors of the damaged area of the Pentagon also collapsed, causing the burial of those smaller pieces still inside the Pentagon, some until days later.

Only the upper floor of the first ring collapsed, this should be made clear.

As opposed to the extremely tall World Trade Center, the Pentagon is a much smaller building, and thus the flight was forced to dive low enough, according to multiple eyewitness accounts, to glance off the ground before hitting the Pentagon, which absorbed much of the impact of the crash.

This sentence is comical. The image you have on there now (not to mention the bucket loads of others) clearly show a totally unmarked lawn. It is thus impossible that the plane hit the ground first (Unless it did so without marking the lawn or leaving any wreckage).

The Pentagon is composed of five concentric rings. Thanks to the thick limestone walls and the sturdiness of building materials being used in the renovations at the time, Flight 77 fully penetrated only the outer three rings, although it caused damage to all five rings.

Do you honestly think limestone can withstand the impact of 100 tonnes of fuel-filled metal travelling at 200-300 miles per hour? The "thanks to .." bit should be removed all together. It should be emphasised that the damage to the remaining rings was from the fire, not the impact.

These wings were broken off and pushed into the fuselage, where they were destroyed in the explosion, fire and collapse, although blackened sections of the building, visible in photographs, seem to have been caused by the burning wings

At best this is speculation without evidence to support it. Its also physically impossible as I have discussed above, but you blokes don't seem to concerned with the wacky realms of physical possibility. The "seem to" final bit is complete garbage. The parts of the building that are blackened have intact windows. Do you think this is likely after a 300 ish miles per hour airliner impact?

This really is very important. Thank you for your time. RichB111

- So the answer to my question is, "There is nothing you can do to edit the page that will make me give up trying to rebut the use of the word 'vaporization.'" Thanks for answering my question.JCaesar 20:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

- I don't understand. I didn't use the word 'vaporization', this has nothing to do with that. This has to do with the complete crap on the page now, independent of vaporization bollocks. Richb111.
  - I know you didn't use the word "vaporization" in your answer to my question, which is funny, because your constant rebuttals of the use of that word were all I asked about in the first place. I admire your enthusiasm and respect your desire to have a conversation which I have said multiple times you will not get from me, but in the future, I would greatly appreciate you answering the questions I ask and not some other questions I didn't ask. Thank you. Also, to sign your comments, use four tildes. A tilde looks like this: ~ . It is found in the upper left-hand corner of your keyboard. It saves you some typing, and makes fuller, more accurate time/namestamps, like this: JCaesar 06:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

- Look, in life, some things are subject to individivual opinion. Political persepctives for example - we can't predict how human beings will behave, so nobody really knows whether left wing or right wing approaches are the best way to run societies. But we can predict how brick walls behave when they are hit by things. So this issue is not one of the things that is a matter of individual opinion. Its not about whether you feel like engaging me in a subjective debate. The description of events on the page at the moment is physically impossible and refuted by all available evidence. 114 foot Airliners can't fit in 27 foot holes! This is not "my opinion", this is a fact. Its also pretty comical that the current description is refuted even by the (shamefully inadequate) collection of images on the CNN link. Because this site relates to such an important event, the fact that your account is so physically indefencible is a disgrace. It is your job as an editor to sort this out. rich 13:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the truth

PLease explain to me, sentence by sentence, why you have edited out the following addition:

The main impact zone of the crash was approximately 19 metres (57 feet) in width. No wreckage was found from the airliner within this impact zone or inside the building. The lawn immediately in front of the crash site was unmarked. Within the main impact zone was a hole that the object punched in the building, approximately 9 metres (27 feet) in width. The Pentagon is composed of five concentric rings. Only the outer three rings were penetrated. The upper floors of the first ring collapsed, but the structural integrity of the second and third rings remained. At the end of the third ring was a circular 'punch out' hole, again 9 metres (27 feet) in diameter. The wingspan of a Boeing 757 is 38 metres (114 feet). The vast majority of the mass of the aircraft remains unnaccounted for. For flight 77 to have caused the damage observed at the Pentagon, the wings would have had to have been broken off, pushed into the fuselage, after which the fueselage and wings would have had to have been compressed sufficiently to fit through the 9 metre hole. No physical mechanism by which this process could have occurred is known.

Flight 77 did not hit the pentagon. Its so obvious as to be comical. The capacity of human beings to believe what is demonstrably complete bullshit because they are afraid of going against the group consensus never ceases to amaze me. You are being lied to, day in, day out, by your media. Stop. Think. Please.

In America everybody is of the opinion that he has no social superiors, since all men are equal, but he does not admit that he has no social inferiors, for, from the time of Jefferson onward, the doctrine that all men are equal applies only upwards, not downwards. Bertrand Russell rich 12:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

See: WP:NOR--MONGO 12:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey conspiracy theorists, why eyewitnesses almost uniformly agree it was an airliner?

Witnesses also report that the plane hit the ground before impact. This is disproved by the unmarked lawn. There are "witness accounts" of alien abductions and bigfoot sightings. Witness accounts of ridiculous events require evidence to substantiate them. There is no such evidence.

How are the intact windows supposed to prove it was a missile or truck bomb? How nobody reports seeing a missile?

Because a boeing 757's wings hitting a window would, like, break them. Stop me if I'm getting too technical. We are talking about a chaotic situation. People's accounts are thus much less reliable than physical evidence. The physical evidence utterly disproves the idea

Have you ever actually seen what's left from an aicraft after a high-speed collision? They are fragile things and tend to literally shredded in such events. Your claim that no wreckage was found inside the building is demonstrably false. Do not wonder why your paranoid crap was edited out. --

What happened to the wings of the plane? A boeing 757 weighs nearly 100 tonnes. 100 tonnes of metal does not simply disappear into a 10 metre hole. "Vaporisation" is bullshit as we know. Metal does not burn into nothing, it may not even have melted in the temperatures of a petroleum fire. Tiny pieces of wreckage were planted, I mean found, a day or so after the event. What happened to the majority of the mass of the plane? Mikoyan21 23:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

look at http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm

Forget bitching at me. These are all genuine pictures. Can you answer the questions on this site? Please let me know if you can, because I can't and I've never met anybody who can beyond "well, uh, we like trust our government, so it just must have been a plane. Freedom. Lets bomb Iran!"

Stop making vague conspiracy jibes, and either find one factual error in the following paragraph, or leave it in:

The main impact zone of the crash was approximately 19 metres (57 feet) in width. No wreckage was found in the immediate impact zone at the front of the pentagon. The lawn in front of the building was unmarked. Within the main impact zone was a hole that the object punched in the building, approximately 9 metres (27 feet) in width. The Pentagon is composed of five concentric rings. Only the outer three rings were penetrated during the impact. The upper floors of the first ring collapsed, but those of the second and third remained intact. At the end of the third ring was a circular 'punch out' hole, again 9 metres (27 feet) in diameter. The wingspan of a Boeing 757 is 38 metres (114 feet).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richb1111 (talk • contribs).

Please timestamp your postings. You should do some more research here: [3]--MONGO 16:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

A tiny quantity of ambiguous pieces of twisted metal and a wheel do not account for 100 tonnes of missing aircraft. It is disgraceful that you are unwilling to even include references to photographs of the crash site because they are "conspiratorial, therefore automatically false".rich 19:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory debunking

Pay especially attention to eyewitness account of the blast expert. By the way, your claim that "metal does not burn" is false. Aluminum and magnesium do burn. Guess which from the aircraft was made of? I've seen video and photos of high-speed crashes of military jets, which are much tougher than a 757. What does remain on the ground after such impact? NOTHING. The aircraft were shredded & burned & buried. Oh and take a look at Snopes pic which should clear any misinterpretations about "no damage from wings" and "intact lawn". And of course, lets hear again why NOBODY of over 100 eyewitnesses reported a missile, and why the Flight 77 was tracked on radar, and why the event was caught on security camera tape. And what about dozens of rescue workers and firemen who recovered aircraft pieces and crew/passenger remains from the inside? They lying too? --Mikoyan21 22:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I said "metal does not burn into nothing". By this I meant that if metal is heated above its melting point, the same mass of molten metal remains, as opposed to it just turning into a gas. So 100 tonnes of metal doesn't just dissappear into a building, regardless of whether it is solid or molten. Ok? The snopes page I have seen before. It shows ambiguous twisted metal which could be anything, says "this is wreckage", and gullable people accept it. And the "debunking" by that bastion of objectivity "popular mechanics"? Popular mechanics is not an academic journal. Its editor is cousins with your new head of homeland security: http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=66176 I do not therefore think I am being unreasonable if I doubt its impartiality.

You don't understand; he's not talking about melting metal. He's talking about burning metal. Aluminum + atmospheric oxygen, under sufficient heat, will combine to form aluminum oxide, which is not a metal, and I suspect under these conditions would just be another pile of ashes. I'm not getting involved in the whole argument, but widespread conspiracy theories claiming physics as an ally should make sure they get it right.--Prosfilaes 20:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the point I'm making is that there would still be a lot of alumnium oxide (or just molten aluminium, given that it might not have even got hot enough to get past the activation energy, or whatever other compound might have formed) in the building, and the amount of metal found is insufficient to account for the mass of the plane. While we're at it, if you think the fueselage melted/vaporised (or otherwise disappeared), why didn't this happen to the metal you keep pointing to 30 metres behind the crash site?

This is the whole point. This is why I persist with arguing with you. Because people, like you, just accept what they are told without questioning it. Do not accept what anybody, including me, tells you. Look at the photographs, and only the photographs: http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk http://www.st911.org (click resources, scroll down, click "what hit the pentagon: an analysis"). And tell me, sentence by sentence, which parts of the following paragraph are wrong and why you have removed them from the site:

rich, I got your email restating your position. I don't think the changes you are trying to make are supported by consensus. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I know they're not. The consensus, in this case, is wrong, provably wrong. It is unfair to edit something out without factual, evidential or physical justification simply because it disagrees with the consensus. That is what I meant when I said that the capacity of human beings to believe what is deomstrably bullshit because they are afraid of going against the group "consensus". If you want to get rid of me just block me.

OK, done William M. Connolley 21:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

But wars are being justified based on these lies. And it is a physically provable fact that, in this case, I am right and the consensus is wrong.rich

The claim that no wreckage was found is wrong.

I said "no wreckage was found in the immediate impact zone at the front of the pentagon." This is correct, as proved by the bucket loads of photographs. Right?

Lawn was not unmarked.

The lawn was unmarked. Plane crashes kind of mess up the ground. Right?

Hence, your edits were wrong & removed. You can claim about conspiracy and planting evidence, but until you have proof that such thing happened, it won't get to any encyclopedia.

I did not try to get any such claims into the encyclopedia. I tried to get the claim that the damage is physically inconsistent with a 38 metre airliner. I did not make any comment on the political implications of this, becuase these are speculative, unlike the physcial dimesions of the crash site. Ok?

Your claim that metal does not burn is wrong. It can burn. In fact, aluminum is even used to boost some types of napalm to burn hotter. You have demonstrated that you don't know what happens to aircraft in ground impacts.

Once again, I did not say "metal does not burn", I said it does not burn into nothing, it does not vaporise. If I do not know what happens in aircraft impacts then please educate me. Walk me through it, step by step. A 100 tonne 38 metre plane with fuel filled wings travels at 250 miles per hour about 5-10 feet off the ground (+- hitting the lawn and not marking it, depending which witness statement you read) and hits the pentagon, without the (heavier) wings breaking the wall. Then, physically, exactly, what happens? This is all I am interested in, not the poltical implications, not people's opinions. The physically provable facts.

Lets talk about conspiracies. It seems there are two competing conspiracy theories:

On the one hand, there is a conspiracy theory involving the terrorists and their support people.

On the other hand, there is a conspiracy theory involving

-entire US government

-FBI leadership and dozens or hundreds of FBI personnel

-the NTSB

-American Airlines

-crew and passengers of the Flight 77 and their relatives

-around 100 eyewitnesses

-dozens or hundreds of firemen and emergency workers

-regional Air Traffic Controllers

-etc. You may want to apply Occam's razor--Mikoyan21 20:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You are arguing that a 757 airliner can fit in a 9 metre hole and turn somersaults without marking the lawn. You are arguing that the wings of a plane can fold into the fueselage, then the hole thing can compress itself and disappear into a 10 metre hole without leaving any wreckage outside the building. DO NOT LECTURE ME ABOUT OCCAM'S FUCKING RAZOR. Actually only a small rogue elements of the CIA and the miliatary need be involved, virtually none of the mainstream Bush administration and certainly none of this list. But I don't know, and am not claiming to know or add such claims to the site. I am only discussing the physical inconsistencies, which are simply beyond the realm of reasonable doubt.

Regardless of who is 'involved', all of the above listed would certainly notice if there's such a conspiracy going on. --Mikoyan21 19:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I've never met anybody who can beyond "well, uh, we like trust our government, so it just must have been a plane. Freedom. Lets bomb Iran!"

Wow. I've not seen this nor anything remotely like this said anywhere on this discussion page or on the main article. So now you're not just making up facts, data and research, you're making up quotes from other users on the Wikipedia? Stellar. JCaesar 23:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not even from US. Besides I was against Iraq war. I think governments are capable of dastardly things, but one needs to temper accusations with common sense. Which does not seem to apply on 9/11 conspiracy theorists.--Mikoyan21 14:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Its called sarcasm. Its an English characteristic, often employed in order to use humour to deal with exasperation. Exasperation, in turn, often arises when arguing with truly stupid people who display a total pig-headed unwillingness to look physical facts in the face. RichB111

I'm familiar with sarcasm. I'm also familiar with people who claim they were being sarcastic when someone calls them on a bald-faced lie. And I'm really familiar with people who claim the "misunderstanding" (which is actually a perfect understanding that the person in question is lying) is the result of a national or ethnic characteristic being misinterpreted by those of another culture - particularly another culture which the liar considers to be stupid or uneducated. But here's the fact, man: You weren't being sarcastic. You were lying. You claimed the explanation people had given you for why they didn't believe your junk science was that they trust their government. The oh-so-cute and absolutely knee-slappingly hilarious* "Freedom. Let's bomb Iran" part was sarcasm, sure. But the claim that people who disagree with you must, therefore, implicitly trust the United States government and had said so was not sarcasm. Nobody has made that claim nor even implied it on Wikipedia, and I don't for one second believe even as a joke that anyone has said it to you in person. Before, when you made the claim, I was willing to be polite and call that "disingenuous." But now that you're trying to excuse it as sarcasm, and belittling others for being too stupid to understand your cultured English ways, I see no need to mince words. It was more than disingenuous. It was a lie. It was a lie, you lied, and that makes you a liar.

*See? I understand sarcasm.

Exasperation, in turn, often arises when arguing with truly stupid people who display a total pig-headed unwillingness to look physical facts in the face.

Really? You don't say. Incidentally, it also arises when arguing with people who are not only "pig-headed," but are also liars. JCaesar 23:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, if I'm a liar, which bit was I lying about? Was Wreckage in fact found in the immediate impact zone at the front of the pentagon? Was the hole in fact larger than the 9-10 metre claims in my "junk science" measurements? Was the lawn in fact burned to crap and covered with charred metal and burning petroleum? Show me photographs of this and I will happily submit and say "Yes, I am a self-righteous snobby English Liar". In fact, even better, the "junk science" link that I, as a conspiracy theorist, so stupidly add to the site, contains a "junk science" analysis of the physical dimensions of the crash site. go to http://www.st911.org. click resources. scroll down, click "what hit the pentagon: an analysis". Find me one factual error or unscientific claim regarding the physical dimensions and physical make-up of the crash site, (as opposed to the tyrades of ambiguous bullshit witness statements that are all contradictory anyway). If you can do this I will happily apologise to you. I am not asking anybody to believe any elaborate political "conspiracy theory" whereby the world is run by the mafia in league with Father Christmas. I am asking you to put forward a detailed, specific, physical mechanism by which a 757 could have caused the damage observed.rich 10:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I've never met anybody who can beyond "well, uh, we like trust our government, so it just must have been a plane. Freedom. Lets bomb Iran!"

You claimed someone has disagreed with you solely on the basis that he or she trusts the U.S. government. This has never happened. Not on Wikipedia. Not anywhere. It didn't happen. You lied. You are a liar. Now you're also intentionally being dense about what you lied about. You know what you lied about. You lied, and now you're trying to cover your lie with further lies, which makes you a lying liar who lies. I'm not getting into a further discussion of any kind with such a blatant liar. JCaesar 20:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey Rich, why don't you watch the news video taken immediately after the plane's impact on Pentagon - it can be seen for example at CNN's page. The grass is covered with small debris from the plane, quite far from "one ambiguous piece".--Mikoyan21 19:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last Revision

Sorry. Typo made me hit "(, Enter" rather than what I intended to type in the explanation, and before I checked the "Minor edit" box. As you might expect, the "Reason for edit" should read: "Reverted edits by Richb1111 talk to last version by Tom harrison." Also, I see William M. Connolley took care of my polite request to Richb1111 before I wrote it. Never mind. Thanks. JCaesar 23:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed the Measurements

As the person who initially wrote the paragraph which is repeatedly edited by conspiracy theorists to include incorrect data about a lack of debris (the paragraph which currently, as of the timestamp on this comment, begins, "Wreckage was found from the airliner..." etc.), I've at last removed all the measurements and qualifiers ("little wreckage," etc.). The reason being, when I first wrote the paragraph, those measurements were already there on the page, and I was rebutting them with facts taken from the linked sources on the page. However, I cannot in good conscience say the measurements themselves are based on research found in other verifiable sources, as I frankly don't know where the author of those original measurements got his or her data, and I certainly can no longer be sure the source of those measurements was a reputable, verifiable source, so the measurements have no place in the paragraph. I'm also keeping with the decision to avoid having this page be a rebuttal of junk science, which is why the measurements were on the page in the first place. Until or unless the measurements of a 757 airliner are A.) verified by independent, reputable sources, and B.) prurient to factual description of the crash of American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon independent of conspiracy theories and conjecture, I see no need to have them remain on the page. And, so I changed my mind on the paragraph I had written in the first place and edited them out. JCaesar 23:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

They are verified with a detailed further description by Colonel Pierre-Henry Bunel, a former artillery officer in the French Army, in the book "Pentagate" by Theirry Meysann. rich 11:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Stop deleting the information in this article, Rich...everyone knows that IP 139.222.100.226 is you...[4]...which means that, once again, you are at WP:3RR.--MONGO 16:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] video

The video: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4987716.stm Apparently it is a "debunking" of the "wacky conspiracy theories". I find this absolutely fascinating, and demonstrative of how human beings are capable of accepting utter nonsense if they are afraid of going against the group mentality. In the first few frames, just as the object approaches the building, it is almost impossible to ascertain what the it is, because it is obscured by a plume of smoke. However, it is possible to ascertain that the object in the video is significantly smaller than a 100 ton Boeing 757. The top of the object is below the concrete block in the foreground. Judging by the traffic cone next to it, this block is 3-4 feet tall. Let's be generous, and say its 10 feet tall. A Boeing 757 is 44 feet in height. Even assuming (the utter impossibility) that it flew in on a horizontal trajectory less than 5 feet above the ground, presumably hitting the telegraph poles/trees in the foreground without deviating from this straight horizontal trajectory, the tail of the aircraft, and pretty much the top of the fueselage, would still be level with the top of the building, not to mention above the concrete block! The idea that this is a video of a kamikazee 757 airliner is physically absolutely absurd.

I am making no comment on the validity or otherwise of the number of witness statements that corroborate the "official story", which seems to get multiplied by the day. Witness statements are subjective. Do you think that if something flew past you at 300 miles per hour, you would be able to clearly identify markings and read words written on that object? I am sure none of the witnesses are "agents of the US government" or some such nonsense. But, again, if I claimed that I had just "witnessed" the appearance of the Loch Ness monster, you would ask me to produce evidence, because this claim is contradictory to human understanding of nature. The claim that a 38 metre wide airliner can fit in a 9-10 metre hole, that its wings can sublimate or be folded into the fueselage, that it can crash without marking the lawn (and this is true; show me photographs of the lawn covered with burning wreckage and petrol!), that it can be invisible when recorded on video, is far more contradictory to human understanding of nature than the existence of the Loch Ness monster. (And no I don't believe the loch monster exists, for goodness sake). If we found "nessy" tomorrow, it would not require a complete revision of human understanding of evolutionary biology, it would just mean there was a species we had not discovered yet. If flight 77 hit the pentagon on 11/09/01, a complete revision of human understanding of physics is required. The reason that conspiracy theories are almost always wrong is because they need to be elaborate, many individuals must be involved. Which is the more elaborate suggestion, that witness statements are incorrect and confused (not to mention self-contradictory), or that mass can simply disappear and become invisible, energy is not in fact conserved, and all human understanding of physics is wrong?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.222.100.226 (talk • contribs) .

Are you suggesting some change be made to the page? Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reality Check

It's a challenge to remain balanced and good natured, when differing views of what happened on 9/11 lead to such dramatically different world views - I mean if it was the neocons that pulled off a huge conjuring trick fooling the majority about what happened on 9/11 (demonstrating such a high level of skill) how do I reconcile this with their utter incompetence in winning the peace in Iraq (see book 'Assassins Gate')? What a great thing it is that there are guys out there (yes you) taking the trouble to come up with a verifiable account of what happened. We must take great trouble to consider what information can be corroborated and yet, the higher the standards we set in this area, perhaps the less sense we can make of the events and their implications.

Consider the following: The Pentagon witheld the security videos for 4 years to assure a fair trial for Z. Moussaoui, but what relevance can these blurry pictures have to that trial (remembering that Moussaoui was in jail that day)? Why would these videos be released (closely resembling a video already released)and not others that have been subject to the same Judicial Watch process? One hypothesis says the Pentagon must be hiding something, another is that they are setting up a straw man to be discredited later (when crystal clear images of flight 77 are released). Either of these theories have implications for us, that are of the utmost significance. Unravelling the reality here will not be done purely by nitpicking the details. Step back a bit and reconsider your position? Who had motive, means and opportunity? What details in promoted narratives (official or heterodox) contradict the narratives they set out to promote (as these are the openings that provide insight rather than a dumbing down)? You are probably wrong about some of the stuff you are sure you are right about. If you can see that, it will melt some ice and then the other guy might just open her mind too and we could possibly get somewhere with this stuff.

One other thing. Can we cut down on the overuse of the cliche 'conspiracy theory'? It suggests that the theory is of a suspect nature without the issues being considered. After all thinking '19 hijackers' secretly coordinated the deadly deeds of 9/11 is surely a 'conspiracy theory'. Truth will out.

John Grist

See Conspiracy theory. It's not just a theory involving a conspiracy. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Accepting that we might be wrong on or not have all the facts on some issues is not a justifiable reason to edit the page. We edit pages because we have verifiable, reputable sources from which to draw. That is the concept behind "no original research."

In addition, one person's inability to understand the concept of "perspective" is not a justifiable reason to edit a page. By that person's reasoning, the buildings seen off in the distance in the security camera footage are apparently two inches tall. His inability to grasp that objects further in the distance (and the length of the Pentagon is huge) appear smaller in two-dimensional photos does not mean we would have to rewrite our knowledge of physics. It means he needs to take a look at articles like perspective (visual) and depth perception.

The article should be edited when verifiable, reputable, linkable sources provide evidence contrary to what is currently on the page. Until then, speculation and sources from two teenagers making movies for release on the Internet from their parents' basements do not qualify as "verifiable, reputable sources." JCaesar 01:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

JCeasar- So the bbc have been taken in by a fake video? Is that what you're saying? Its just that the bush administration says its real, and they appear to be a reputable source for you. Also, are you saying that the idea that the tailplane of the aircraft should be level with the top of the building is incorrect? Are you saying that there actually is a 44 foot high, 114 foot wide, 100 ton aircraft in that plume of smoke that is level only with the bottom floor of the building (which is also subject to changed perspective with distance, being, like, in the same place as the object flying into it)? Tom Harrison - Yes I am suggesting changes be made to the page, but every time I make them myself some flag-waving idiot "corrects" it. Put the video on the page. Less words, less speculation. pictures, lots and lots of pictures, let people make their own minds up. If I'm just a nutty conspiracy theorist who is wrong, then nobody will be made to feel uncomfortable by these pictures and we can all sing "star-spangled banner" and bomb Iran.Richb111—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.222.100.226 (talk • contribs) .

Tom, I follow your link to Conspiracy theory and find 'A conspiracy theory attempts to explain the ultimate cause of an event (usually a political, social, or historical event) as a secret, and often deceptive, plot by a covert alliance of powerful persons..' Surely the hypothesis that Al-Qaeda acted deceptively in a covert alliance fits this definition perfectly. Conspiracy theory is a term '...used pejoratively to dismiss allegedly misconceived, paranoid or outlandish rumors.' By attaching the term to one theory and not to another, you show a bias - unless you have exhaustively analysed the evidence. Furthermore I would refer to you to Cliche, particularly 'a phrase, expression, or idea that has been overused to the point of losing its intended force.' Admit it, when you put 'conspiracy' and 'theory' next to each other, it is cliche, not optimum language.

JCeasar, Loose Change is not a perfect film (but hardly jusrifies your rude and patronsing tone, about the authors, who incidentally are not teenagers, and who profoundly impress me, whatever the shortcomings of the film are). My problem with the film is that it is more propaganda than enquiry, and this (the lack of intelligent coverage) is why I am right now searching Wikipedia, looking for open-minded and insightful coverage. Instead I find individuals who are dogmatic and rude. Too bad that Wikipedia cannot be as successful with the big issues that will shape the future for our children as it is with trivial and peripheral information. John Grist

The term is sometimes used pejoratively, but not all use is pejorative. A part you chose not to quote says, "...the term "conspiracy theory" is usually used by scholars and in popular culture to identify a type of folklore similar to an urban legend, having certain regular features, especially an explanatory narrative which is constructed with certain naive methodological flaws." There is also a list of features and several references. Michael Barkun's A Culture of Conspiracy is good, and recent.

Conspiracy theory accurately describes the speculation that Karl Rove knew it was going to happen and turned it to his advantage; that Bush and his cronies blew it up on purpose for oil and then framed the Arabs for it; that 4,000 Jews called in sick that day; that a cruise missile rather than flight 77 hit the Pentagon. It does not accurately describe the conclusions reached after careful study by engineers, government investigators, and hundreds of reporters hoping to be the next Woodward. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

If the makers of either the scientifically inaccurate, factually distorted, Internet-released, negligible production value, inconsistent, incoherent and inconclusive film Loose Change, or the equally shoddy In Plane Site - none of whom are professional engineers, historians, journalists or criminal investigators - are reading this page and take issue with my characterization of them as teenagers, I sincerely apologize. JCaesar 01:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Tom thanks for your reply. The feature list for conspiracy theories that you refer to, could be applied to the official story for 9/11:

1. Initiated on the basis of limited, partial or circumstantial evidence; Where's the evidence that plane crashes brought down wtc7 on 9/ll? What's the evidence that the 19 'hijackers' are guilty?

2. Addresses an event or process that has broad historical or emotional impact; 9/ll has beeen the justification for nearly all significant legislation of the current administration.b'War on terror' [5]

3. Reduces morally complex social phenomena to simple, immoral actions; Injustice and competing interests in the middle east boiled down to 'terrorists who hate our freedoms'

4. Personifies complex social phenomena as powerful individual conspirators; Is Al Quaida a powerful conspirator (if so where's head office? where does one join up?) or is it a broad term to reflect disaffected muslims who, since 9/11, have found inspiration in the Osama Bin Laden myth-or is it a mix of the two.

5.... I could go on all the way down the list but... ...Just look at list of features and play devil's advocate for a moment. I hope you agree that it is good to be open minded and question your own assumptions.

By the way have you seen this new story: Zogby Poll: Over 70 Million American Adults Support New 9/11 Investigation [6]. Perhaps 95% of these people are fools - that leaves three and half million who think something is wrong here.

John Grist

I'll think about what you've said, and go through the list of features with a critical eye. Meanwhile, the link you provided begins,

(PRWEB) - Utica, NY (PRWEB) May 22, 2006 -- Although the Bush administration continues to exploit September 11 to justify domestic spying, unprecedented spending and a permanent state of war, a new Zogby poll reveals that less than half of the American public trusts the official 9/11 story or believes the attacks were adequately investigated.

That doesn't sound like reporting. What is PRWEB exactly? Who commissioned the poll and who wrote the questions? Anyway, I encourage everyone who edits here to follow that link and draw his own conclusions. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

John: I don't intend to be patronizing or insulting towards you, because you have not been patronizing or insulting to anyone as of yet. (The makers of patronizing and insulting documentary films and other patronizing and insulting contributors to this page are another story.) However, this statement of yours demonstrates some faulty logic:

Perhaps 95% of these people are fools - that leaves three and half million who think something is wrong here.

Nearly three times that number of people believed Iraq and Saddam Hussein were directly involved in 9/11. ([7].) These people were clearly and demonstrably incorrect - even the 8.6 million of them who, by your math, would not be fools. As are the 2.5 million non-fools whom FOX claims believe the Moon landing was faked ([8]), and the 10.5 million who believe in miracles ([9] - and I do sincerely apologize for using FOX News numbers on those last two figures. Maybe the 5% of non-fools who believe FOX News numbers should be included in this fallacy.) Regardless of how many millions qualify as 5% of any inaccurate assumption, the title of the greatest hits album was entirely incorrect: Theoretically speaking, 50 million Elvis fans absolutely could be wrong. (Not that they are in this case, but they could be.) JCaesar 07:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

JCaesar, you are right. The strength of 9/11 scepticism is a dramatic and significant phenonema, but my link/comments were a hasty attempt at propaganda rather than insightful (see also my comments below, this section). JG.

Ok, firstly, JCaesar, if I have behaved in a patronising or insulting way towards you, I sincerely apologise. (Contrary to what my remarks might suggest, I don't think I am of above average intelligence, I think the innate, genetic component of intelligence is trivial in terms of its impact on human behaviour, and I certainly don't think intelligence systematically correlates with any "ethnic group". It would, come to think of it, be pretty difficult for americans to be "genetically stupider" than British people, given that the two populations will still be pretty much genetically indistinguishable). It is precisely because you are obviously not an idiot that I make the jibes I do, to express the extreme frustration that I feel when rational people allow themselves to be deceived so blatantly. Surely, looking at the link below, you must be able to empathise with my anger at the American public's lack of independent thought? http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/pentalawn.html

But you are absolutely right, the majority of people could easily be wrong, because people, in general, believe what they are told to believe (Religion being a good example). I deliberately wind americans up in order to make them question their beliefs, because these beliefs are a systematic set of lies designed to provide a pretext for promoting american values abroad: http://www.newamericancentury.org/ Promoting american values abroad wouldn't be that bad (Freedom is a good thing, equality is a good thing, but "every man for himself" is not a good thing). But that's not what's going to happen. Whats going to happen is they'll stay in Iraq long enough to secure all Enron's contracts, and sort out private security firms to protect the oil plants, then when the american public can't stand any more body bags, they'll fuck off to Iran, and Iraq will descend into civil war.

How is all this relevant to the page? Your point that "the majority can be wrong" illustrates why I keep trying to nitpick about the physical details. We can never know whether dick cheney secretly met with Osama Bin Asset in a Cave in Texas on some unknown date. But we can know whether or not it is physically possible that flight 77 hit the pentagon. Our generation is in a unique position, in that technology allows us to transfer so much information around that we, you and me, here and now, can test whether or not the official version is true.

In the NIST report they acknowledge that (paraphrasing, correct me if I'm wrong),(page 24) the outer third of the left wing and the outer two thirds of the right wing could not have entered the building. They do not say where it went, other than that the fuel in the wings could have "contributed to the fireball". Well thanks very much. They are trying to imply the vaporisation crap again, but without saying it because they know it is indefencible. They say the airliner "may have resembled and avalanche flowing through the hole in the building". This is a blatant attempt to confuse people with the pseudoreasoning "avalanches, like flow like fluids, so maybe the plane could have aswell". Avalanches and rock slides do show similarities to fluid flows. but only at a coarse spatial scale. if you modeled the behaviour of an individual rock or block of ice at a higher resolution, it would still behave as a solid when it hit things. it would still break things. These higher resolution photographs that are supposed to show wreckage. Bullshit. They show shattered metal, 30 metres behind the crash site. This could not have got there from the impact. The only rational conclusion is that it was added. Stop believing what people tell you to believe, or what it is most comfortable for you to believe.

If I add it it will be deleted. But will somebody (Mongo? Tom Harrison?), please add the sentence "the vast majority of the mass of the aircraft remains unnaccounted for." Because this sentence is important, and it is true. Also will somebody please add the physical analysis from the "scholars for 9/11 truth" website: http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr68.html You think its conspiratorial, its junk science, its incorrect? I think it highlights how blatant the situtation is and acknowledges what can and can't be known. If the NIST report, a piece of blatant pseudoscientific propaganda bullshit gets a link, why can't an impartial, and entirely physical, relatively non-political, analysis? Show me this junk science. Whats wrong with letting people make up their own minds?rich 16:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

First, I would need a citation to a reliable source who says "the vast majority of the mass of the aircraft remains unnaccounted for." Next, it would have to not be a component in an original-research synthesis. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Rich, I originally wrote a response to this, but accidentally hit "ESC" before I'd saved it and lost the whole thing. I'm still not entirely sure talking with you will do much good - although you manage to avoid being patronizing and insulting in this comment (well, mostly avoid it, "Stop believing what people tell you to believe, or what it is most comfortable for you to believe," aside), you have reverted to your patronizing, insulting and openly defiant of Wikipedia rules ways in more recent comments and edits. So I don't know what good this will do, but here goes.

I made most of the points from my response - only better - in my response to "JG" below. The only one I'll respond to:

people, in general, believe what they are told to believe (Religion being a good example).

No. They do not. People, in general, believe what they want to believe, what it is most comforting to them to believe. People believe in organized religion because it is comforting to them to have an organized, hierarchical structure in place to guide them in their own spiritual awakenings. Millions of people throughout history, however, have been raised in one organized religion or another and have grown to reject it - not because they were "told to," but because the alternate beliefs (atheism, alternate religions, nonspecific rejection of the organized religion) were more comforting to them. People believe in an anthropomorphized God who is active in daily life and who has sets of rules to obey, not because they are "told to" believe that, but because it is comforting to them to believe they are not alone in the Universe, that events are not random, that good deeds do not go unrewarded and that bad deeds do not go unpunished, that, in fact, morality is fixed and can be measured against an absolute standard.

For some people, belief in authority is most comforting. But for some, the opposite is true. Some people prefer to believe in no authority at all, or at least believe in the unwavering evil and deceit of one or more specific authorities.

It makes sense that conspiracy theories are comforting beliefs to some people, particularly in this case. This is a corrupt, incompetent, self-serving administration, after all. But the Devil you know is still better than the Devil you don't. It would, on some level, be great if all the evils of the world would be the result of a group of men who can be voted or impeached out of office, or at least whose term in office can be sat out and allowed to expire. Better a handful of evil men in one city whose home address can be found on Google than a vast, faceless, nomadic enemy who could be anywhere in the world at any time, plotting anything. It's not fair that the psychopaths who would attack all Westerners would attack at a time when it might be most advantageous to the very people who represent precisely what they hate most about America and the West. It's not fair, but then again, the facts aren't always fair.

Some of us, however, find it most comforting to believe in empirical data, scientific reasoning, avoiding negative hypotheses, Occam's razor, provable inquiries with verifiable results. It's true, empiricism and rationalism are not the only schools of thought under which humans have defined their world. Unfortunately for you, they are the schools of thought to which Wikipedia adheres. Wikipedia can't censor you; it can only regulate your use of its Website and bandwidth, as you agreed to when you registered as a user. So if you don't like Wikipedia's terms, fine. Again, buy your own Website, or get a free one through whichever source you choose, and Wikipedia and I will never again be able to revert your edits. But while you're in Wikipedia's empiricist, rationalist turf, your only choice is to be empirical and rational, or else waste a lot of your time on a quixotic quest.

I'm almost 100% positive you're not going to recognize the facts of what I just said. There is nothing to suggest to me you will ever recognize you are being neither empirical nor rational, nothing to suggest you will recognize your hypothesis is a negative one, nothing to suggest you will ever recognize the flaws in your core assumptions. But, hey, I tried this last ditch, insult-free attempt at reasoning with you. So please never again try to claim I didn't. JCaesar 10:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

What about this: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001/200109114a_hr.jpg You will see from the URL that it is from the American department of defence website. Why can't this photograph be on prominent display on the site. The defence department aren't exactly going to sue you for publicising how justified they are in defending the freedom of the western world now are they?rich 14:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Still under the heading Reality Check

The recently published 'videos' clearly are inconclusive... they show a white streak, which may or not be AA77. In much of the media this was fanfared as 'pictures of AA77 were released'. Why such poor images? Why withheld for so long? Why has the media failed to analyze or criticise? Why is no other footage released?

Given this ambiguous situation, it is disappointing that we, in my opinion, have only come up with a bland account that slavishly renders a orthodoxy that is surely crumbling. I'm tempted to have a go and write something, but fear antagonistic edit wars. Could we evolve this with teamwork, relying on each other to complement our various weaknesses and strengths rather than slagging each other off? Someone give me some encouragement here, and I might just give it ago. JG

The problem is, it's not an "ambiguous situation." Governments frequently classify materials, even those which support their publicized findings. Security cameras are frequently not high-speed, cutting-edge digital technology - particularly security cameras from hundreds of yards away.

The reason the conspiracy theories are, in fact, conspiracy theories is because they do not and have not presented any evidence to prove alternate theories. Richb1111 and others claim to have evidence that a Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon, but he has yet to present a single piece of evidence proving that a missile, a military aircraft, a foreign aircraft or a UFO formerly stored at Roswell did. Neither In Plane Sight nor Loose Change present a single piece of verifiable evidence inexplicable by simpler means to any of these conclusions, either.

In science, this is called a "negative hypothesis." Negative hypotheses are discouraged in scientific inquiry, not because they are impossible to prove, but because they are overly easy to prove - all the negative hypothesizer has to do is say, "Nuh-uh," to any evidence.

This is why I compare arguing with conspiracy theorists to arguing with Creationists. There is not a Creationist (or "intelligent design proponent," I suppose is the phrase now) who can support with anything remotely approaching scientifically verifiable data that the Earth is 6000 years old (as they claim), that dinosaurs coexisted with humans (as they further claim), nor that the evening skies above us are a vast canvas with small holes poked in it to allow the light of Heaven through (as the Book of Genesis claims - look up the word "firmament" if you aren't already familiar with its definition). But they don't need to, because Creationists don't set out to prove the Biblical story of Creation - as far as most of them are concerned, it doesn't need to be scientifically proven, because it's written in the unerring word of God, which is correct beyond human verification. Creationists, therefore, set out to disprove the scientific explanation of evolution, which is easy for them, because all they have to do is deny and refute every piece of scientific evidence presented.

That is how the conspiracy theorists work, and that is why their junk science has no place on this page. So you can deny that it doesn't make sense to you that wings could crumple, break apart, be pushed into the fuselage, etc. If that doesn't make sense to you, I can't argue with that. I could tell you, "Listen, airplane wings aren't as structurally rigid as you seem to believe," but all you would have to say is, "They are, too," and how can I rebut that? Further up on this page, Richb1111 argues metal doesn't burn. Someone with scientific data has responded, "The metals used in aircraft construction do burn," and he responds, essentially, with, "No, they don't." Again, how to respond to that? "Do, too"? Have you ever heard children have that conversation? It's an infinite loop.

If you can find verifiable, reputable sources proving an alternate narrative to the story of Flight 77, that would have a place on this page. But you won't find such proof in any government study, nor in any independent academic studies. You'll also turn up empty in every reputable media outlet in the world - not just the "mainstream" media outlets of CNN, FOX News, ABC, CBS, NBC, the BBC, the CBC, Australian Broadcasting, the major newspapers, etc., but also the "alternative media" of the SF Gate, the Guardian in the UK and Al-Jazeera, none of which are known for their tendency to "slavishly [render an] orthodoxy that is surely crumbling," all of which have reported, time and again, on the events of September 11, including the crash of Flight 77 into the Pentagon. The former two have even gone so far as to report on the conspiracy theories themselves and describe how wrong-headed and ill-researched they are.

Incidentally, where did you get the idea that nobody questioned the account of the events of September 11 or presented alternate theories. I remember that day well enough to remember lots of alternate theories bandied about by media and government sources before the facts came in. In fact, last I heard, some major media figures still contend homosexuals and feminists were involved - or, at least, have yet to retract their assertions that they are. (For the record, the nutjobs in question can no more prove that hypothesis than conspiracy theorists can prove theirs. I'm not about to start letting the "gays and feminists" theory be posted on the Flight 77 page without reverting it out, either.)

Finally, did you really call the factual account of these events "bland"? Seriously? On September 11, 2001, Islamic terrorists under the orders of a feared and successful guerilla warrior hijacked four passenger planes and flew them into two targets - one civilian, one military, both among the most recognizable landmarks in the United States - destroying the civilian target, causing the deaths of approximately 3000 people and setting off an international war against a faceless, borderless enemy. That's "bland"? What the hell do you want, musical numbers? A sex scene? Jerry Bruckheimer couldn't've come up with more action than that, for crying out loud.

And if those facts aren't sexy enough for you, then the bad news is simply: The facts aren't always exciting. That's why filmmakers, playwrights and novelists take artistic license. But the blandness of the facts does not mean they are incorrect. The fact that evidence has been concealed or classified does not mean they are incorrect. The fact that they are misused by a corrupt administration to justify an otherwise unjustifiable war does not mean they are incorrect.

They can only justifiably be said to be incorrect if an alternate explanation can be proven.

If you can find and verify such an alternate explanation, go for it. At the risk of stating my own negative hypothesis, however: You can't. Nobody can, because it doesn't exist, which is why the only people in the media (and the Internet and local radio stations are the media) who have produced claims otherwise have been opportunists who failed to prove their assertions and felt merely implying them would be excuse enough to get a DVD release, or those mistrustful of the current administration (with good reason, no question) who therefore make the mistake of believing anything which counters anything the Administration says, no matter how implausible or illogical that counter-claim may be. JCaesar 09:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

JCaesar, thanks for your reply. I appreciate your serious approach. I dont really get this thing about 'negative hypotheses'. I see a continuum: at one end we have the things that just about all sane people agree on,e.g. 'the world is not flat', at the other end is pure speculation or fiction. Most things (documented on this page) sit somewhere between the extremes, and are intepretations based on certainties rather than certainties themselves. Where you place something in this spectrum of interpretation, fact vs. fiction, is ultimately subjective. Now I support your attempts to keep things strictly rational here, but I think that the 'facts' here are rather sparse and it's a mistake to pretend otherwise. How for example do we know for a fact it was Hani Hanjour at the controls? Where's the evidence? Is a man still innocent until proven guilty? Where is the proof that it was AA77 that crashed and it was not a cargo plane or drone? So, the US media has accepted unquestioningly a certain interpretation of the known facts i.e. the pentagon was damaged and AA77 is missing, and the rest of main stream media in the west has followed suit, but at wikipedia I would hope for a bigger space for the possibility that the emperor has no clothes i.e. just because more and more people repeat conjecture (the orthodox story re AA77) doesnt make it true. Brand names such as the Guardian and SF Gate, should count for little when compared to evidence and reasonable interpretation of evidence. The silliness of some conspiracy theories does not equal proof of the prevailing orthodoxy.

When I said bland, I mean that we the article here is simplistic, it accepts an orthodoxy, an account promoted by people (bush et al) who have an agenda to pursue and disregards apparent contradictions, 'surprising coincidences' and improbablilities (e.g. Hani Hanjou, incompetent pilot pulling of incredible flying stunts) in the story. In summary,I can accept that the orthodox account has a greater probablity of truth than the conspiracy theories, but there's a lot of uncertainty here, and I think we should try to distinguish, and document, the hard facts, the most likely interpretations without giving them more certainty than they deserve, as well as some more outlandish speculation, rather than simply repeat the orthodoxy and downplay or ignore inconvenient details (e.g. eye witness who saw something other than AA77, small quantity of wreckage quickly removed from crime scene by unspecified men in suits, Hani Hanjour not having a ticket for the flight etc). JG

JCeasar- I take your point about belief being decided by what is comfortable rather than what people are told. However, surely the majority of people are most comforted by the idea "Our Government is in control", rather than the believe that problems can be blamed on a small number of powerful people (though i acknowledge some people subsrcibe to the latter, i don't)? If you want to adopt a positivist approach, great. Step by step - the wings of flight 77 contact the buildings walls, then what happens to them? We know they didn't vaporise, I find it difficult to think of a physically realistic model whereby they folded into the fueselage. Please point out the flaws in my thinking. Please remember I only want to talk about the physical dynamics, not the political implications. In turn, here is a case for the object being some form of missile: 1)A 757 would have been unlikely to have shown the manouverability air traffic controllers observed, a military plane or guided missile would have done. 2)The Nose cone of a 757 will not perform well as an concrete - piercing warhead. A missile warhead would have done. 3)A missile is consistent with the lack of wreckage and burning petroleum on the lawn that we observe. 4)The dimensions of the punch out hole are consistent with a missile, not a 757.

This could all be wrong. But if this is the case, please show me the logical fallacies in my arguments. The reason I have concentrated on "proving" that it was not a plane, as opposed to it was a missile, is that I am not confident that the evidence demonstrates the latter, whereas I am as certain the evidence does demonstrate the former. RichB1111.

I see a continuum: at one end we have the things that just about all sane people agree on,e.g. 'the world is not flat', at the other end is pure speculation or fiction.

A continuum or relativistic approach is absolutely a perfectly acceptable way to approach data. But Wikipedia does not take a relativistic approach, it takes an empirical approach, which is why it spells out so precisely and clearly its rules on verifiability. Verifiability is not a continuum, it's a dichotomy: Something is either verifiable, or it is not. It is either the result of original research, or it is not, plain and simple.

The Internet is full of places where you can relativisticize your little heart out. In fact, the Internet may very well be the most relativistic communications medium in the history of the world. But Wikipedia is not relativistic. If you want to argue from a position of relativism, God love ya, go for it! But, please to Christ, leave one of the few islands of empiricism in this relativism ocean be. It's not like Wikipedia's rules on this are unclear or vague. They are very clear and very explicit and very easy to find.

Facts published in the mainstream (and "name brand independent") media are significant here because they fit the verifiability rules. And, Rich, I know you're not "confident that the evidence demonstrates" that it was a missile, because there is no such evidence. I know you have no proof for a positive hypothesis, which is the logical fallacy you've asked me to point out. You can't prove the existence of a firmament, and I know that's why you don't bother to try. You just keep saying, "The fossil record does not demonstrate evolution of species," and nobody can tell you otherwise. Any discrepancy - real or imagined - therefore becomes "proof" of your negative hypothesis, and that's why this continued argument is unwinnable for both sides.

The other reason arguing with conspiracy theorists is like arguing with Creationists is because, ultimately, there is a central belief which the "alternative theorists" hold crucial, and in which they will not be deterred no matter how many factual arguments are presented to the contrary. For Creationists, that belief is that there is an omnipotent, omniscient God who could and would create the Universe in seven days. When I was in college studying biology, I read several pseudo-scientific works by Creationist proponents, and no matter how much "scientific" evidence they were able to present to support their claim, ultimately, they could not prove their claim without making the utterly unscientific asserton that God created the Universe in seven days. Period.

For 9-11 conspiracy theorists, the analogous assumption is that the Bush Administration lied about the events of that day. Rich, you claim you're not arguing from that standpoint, but you are. You have multiple times in this discussion, and you do even as you claim out of one corner of your mouth that such an assertion is not central to your argument:

However, surely the majority of people are most comforted by the idea "Our Government is in control", rather than the believe that problems can be blamed on a small number of powerful people

JG is certainly relying upon this core assumption:

it accepts an orthodoxy, an account promoted by people (bush et al) who have an agenda to pursue and disregards apparent contradictions, 'surprising coincidences' and improbablilities (e.g. Hani Hanjou, incompetent pilot pulling of incredible flying stunts) in the story.

Just as a Creationist will never concede that there might not be an omnipotent, omniscient God, and if there were, He, She or It would have better ways of creating the Universe than by waving Its hands and saying "voila" and having it appear out of thin air, I strongly fear you two and others who agree with you will never accept that, just because the Bush administration has lied about any number of issues—weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; its commitment to Hurricane Katrina relief; its involvement in the Valerie Plame affair; the voting irregularities in Florida; etc.—that does not mean it is lying about this one.

In point of fact, you have both made the inaccurate and unsupportable assertion that the Bush Administration is the primary source for accounts of the attacks of September 11 in the first place. It's not. It never has been. The account of the attack on the Pentagon, as it appears on the main page, does not draw on a single source drawn directly from President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld or former White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove, or White House Press Secretaries Scott McClellan, Ari Fleischer and Tony Snow - not one. And very few of the sources in the article draw on sources directly answerable to those people. In fact, our primary sources are mostly independent and/or Congressional investigations; independent organizations such as Judicial Watch; state, local and district agencies; and members of the media, both mainstream and "name brand alternative." Further, of all the many former staffers answerable to those figures (including but not limited to Richard Clarke, Colin Powell, the Pentagon generals, etc.), who were in the administration on September 11, and who have since left and been highly critical of and inflammatory against the Bush Administration, not one of them has even suggested that the Bush Administration fabricated the events of 9-11, because there's absolutely no evidence to suggest that.

But I don't see how I can shake that assumption out of you guys. It's an assertion too ingrained emotionally in you, and again, I totally sympathize. These guys are liars. But they aren't lying about this, because they're not talking about this. They're misusing the facts presented by others - just as they did with WMD's - but they were no more the source of those facts than they are these facts. But, again, I don't know how to get you to accept that fact, which is why I feel we've reached an impossible impasse. JCaesar 06:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

JCeasar

1. Thanks your patience and reasoning.

2. In essence I don't think we are so far apart, Wikipedia demands 'verifiability' and this, you imply, is black and white. but surely you would agree, in practice some sources are better than others, some are not reliable, some are and some are borderline. I perhaps have relatively less faith in 'reliable' sources such as SF Gate, and perhaps, compared to some, more faith in e.g. http://team8plus.org - humans will inevitably differ on these things. Above all my point is about balance - the standards you use to eliminate certain interpretations should be applied to the narrative you present as authoritative.

So, for example, how is the articles assertion that Hanii Hanjour was at the controls verified - I don't see a source cited?

3. I agree with you that because a party (e.g. the pres) lies in one area, it should not be assumed that they lie somewhere else. That's obvious.

4 I feel we've reached an impossible impasse - jeez, I hate that feeling - arguing with stubborn people! I agree with your general approach, and the title of this thread is Reality Check. I'm bothering with this, because I wonder if in this case, the right principles have managed to loose touch with reality, as can happen sometimes. Tell me does your gut feeling about this play a part in this - or are you a 100% verifiable reason machine (asked in a spirit of enquiry, not rudeness)?

Cheers, JG.

but surely you would agree, in practice some sources are better than others, some are not reliable, some are and some are borderline. Yes and no. The reason I insist on certain sources is because I've worked in journalism, I know the lengths certain newspapers (such as the SF Gate, the Guardian, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc.) must go to in order to verify their facts and the checks and balances they have upon themselves, both legally and self-imposed, and I know that talk radio, Internet documentaries, blogs and certain organizations do not have those same limits. The choice of what is a "reputable" source is not arbitrary.

jeez, I hate that feeling - arguing with stubborn people! I did not mean to imply that you were stubborn, and I apologize if my comments conveyed that attitude. Rather, I think there is a core assumption you're making which may be inaccurate, and core assumptions are far harder to shake than others.

Tell me does your gut feeling about this play a part in this - or are you a 100% verifiable reason machine (asked in a spirit of enquiry, not rudeness)? Not so much "gut feeling" as the experiences of the past, yes. The burden of proof on conspiracy theories is a bit higher, in my mind, than that of some other accounts, because conspiracy theories rely on cover-ups and complex chains of events it is very difficult to maintain, particularly in the Information Age. Difficult, but not impossible. Clearly, Watergate is a classic example of a very real conspiracy involving the highest levels of government, but the truth came out there, so that almost reinforces my assertion that these cover-ups are almost impossible to maintain. On the other hand, the full story has yet to come out regarding Malcolm X's assassins (of which there were several), and there has been no prosecution of the person responsible for giving the order. Thus, the answer behind Malcolm X's murder is, obviously, a conspiracy.

But I've seen nothing verifiable to make me conclude the truth of 9-11 lies closer to the Malcolm X assassination or Watergate than to the account portrayed in the media. Not one of the "alternate theories" regarding Flight 77 provides anything but the flimsiest of evidence or denial of other facts to support what they claim did happen. Rich is a proponent of the missile theory, but he himself admits he is not sure the evidence supports such a theory. The fighter plane proponents are in a similar boat, and nobody has provided a shred of credible evidence regarding what did happen to the passengers on Flight 77 and backed it up with evidence, which is a major hole in all their theories. In the absence of other, testable, verifiable theories, the one which has been tested and has been verified is, by any definition of Occam's Razor, the best one in any empiric system. JCaesar 00:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] last revision

You can't have it both ways gentlemen, if the snopes "debunking" sites get a link, so should the conspiracy theories they claim to debunk. This is called giving both sides of the story. Also please stop saying that the conspiracy theories are based on images taken from hundreds of feet away. They're simply not. Finally, I make no apologies for the "allegedly"'s I've added. These issues are not certain. They are under dispute, and a matter of debate. PLease stop trying to present the situation as being all resolved. It isn't.rich 22:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Tom Harrison, I see you removed the Snopes link. The only problem here is that some of the facts in the article were taken from the Snopes link, and from the sources it quotes (60 Minutes II, a US Army press release, The New York Times, Reuters and The Guardian), not all of which are available and linkable from online. Is there some way we can confirm that all the facts in the article are now available in linkable sources online for the purposes of Wikipedia's verifiable rule? Or do we need to remove all facts obtained from those sources unless we can verify them somewhere else? Please let me know, and I'll make the necessary changes. Thanks. JCaesar 06:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to including the Snopes link if you think it's useful or necessary, but I would rather use the Times as a reference if there's a choice. It doesn't need to be online, as long as it's verifiable. Of course online refs are a nice convenience. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay. When I get a chance (not right this second), I'll cite Snopes' primary sources and provide links where possible. Personally, I'd prefer to use primary sources, anyway. JCaesar 00:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misleading

Richb1111 wishes to present only one side of the story by using one image to document that there was no airplane debris anywhere outside the pentagon. There are many images that show clipped light poles, damage to a generator/small structure by the right engine, parts of airplane debris scattered about, mostly small pieces and over 100 eyewitness accounts that they saw an airplane. There is zero evidence of a missle, and this is not a conspiracy theory website, so I removed the misleading image he put here since he is using it in the wrong manner.--MONGO 20:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

- I have added the words "some 9/11 researchers claim", before my statement about what the photograph does or does not show. Please, back up a second, let me get this straight. You accept this is a genuine undoctored photograph? You accept that it shows (or at least appears to show) "no airplane debris anywhere outside the pentagon"? You are happy for images from the video camera to be on the site, and for the map of the flight path to appear, (ignoring the fact that the former image supports my case, not yours) because you think they are consistent with the official version of events. But the image that I put on, the genuine status of which you are not disputing, you are unhappy with, because (I presume, correct me if i'm wrong) it implies the projectile wasn't a plane?

And you are accusing me of being one-sided? You already have the comments you just made about the witness statements on the site (by the way, I bet you can't find me ten full witness statements that don't present at least one contradiction with each other, but thats another story). If you want to present both sides of the story, you must also present the evidence (and there's really quite a lot of it) that suggests these statements are confused and/or wrong.

I know this is not a conspiracy theory website. I am not trying to turn this in to a conspiracy theory website. I am just trying to present a comprehensive summary of the evidence for public scrutiny. If there are other photographs that refute my wacky conspiracy claims by showing a lawn covered in plane wreckage and burning petroleum, put them on the site. A site full of photographs is far more informative about this event than a site full of opinion. If you think I have made unfair claims, please delete them. But please, please do not delete the photograph, because it is the only objective piece of evidence we have.rich 11:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to JCaesar's points

Right, for a start, your creationism metaphor is starting to irritate me (I'm sure this breaks your heart). Ironically, my "profession" is as a phd student in theoretical evolutionary biology, so I may be many things, but a creationist is not one of them. Furthermore, I know you don't believe me, but I do not have an unshakable belief (I try not to have an unshakable belief in anything) that 9/11 was orchestrated by the Bush Administration - this is just the subjective opinion that I form when assessing all the evidence. But the key part of this sentence is "when assessing all the evidence". The argument that flight 77 hit the Pentagon on September 11th is not based on evidence. It is based on the implausible political implications of a conspiracy (ie a pre-conceived viewpoint, like the one I apparently have). You talk about "proof" and empiricism. Are the arguments

"a 38 metre object can't fit in a 9 metre hole", or the argument

"an airliner can't crash without leaving large swathes of wreckage and burn marks on the surface it crashes onto",

"the wings of an airliner cannot be folded into the fueselage by impacting upon a concrete wall",

"it is not physically possible that impact with a concrete wall could have instantaneously heated a projectile to 2467 degrees celsius (Boiling point of Aluminium, or read 660 celsius melting point if thats this week's official story), and still left human body parts and an unmarked lawn behind",

not empirically verified by every other recorded airliner crash in history? If the official version were true, would this not violate well-tested physical laws? As you know, there is no "truth", and no "proof", there is just consistency between a hypothesis and an observation, in any context. The hypothesis that flight 77 hit the pentagon is inconsistent with all physical observations of the crash site. The hypothesis that a (for example) Tomohawk missile hit the building is consistent with all the observed physical properties of the crash site. Please note that I am talking only about physical evidence, ie undoctored photographs and photographically verified measurements - There is so much misinformation relating to 9/11, and the Bush administration (like the Blair administration), are, as you say, proven liars. For this reason (not to mention the fact that they contradict each other, and occasionally themselves) I do not trust witness statements relating to this event. You think I'm selectively disregarding evidence to support my case? The show me how I am doing this by providing a physical mechanism by which the official story could be true. The missile hypothesis is consistent with the data, the plane hypothesis is not. Yes or no? Please note that if (when?) you answer no, you are required by Wikipedia's empirical "proof" rules to provide an explicit physical mechanism by which flight 77 could have caused the data we see. rich 18:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I never called you a Creationist. I said arguing with you is analogous to arguing with a Creationist for the reasons I asserted.

I'm not going over the "damage to the lawn" claim again, because you've been shown aerial photographs more than once, and you denied them. And I don't see any way to convince you that the damage to the lawn visible is enough damage to the lawn, because that's going off what you think is common sense, and as a scientist, you should well know that "common sense" is very often neither.

As for the size of the hole and where the wings went, no sir, I'm not falling into your negative hypothesis trap. I don't need to. You made a positive assertion:

Are the arguments... not empirically verified by every other recorded airliner crash in history?

So clearly, you must be able to positively prove that, in other airliner crashes, the wings punched out a wing-shaped hole in solid concrete, preferably limestone? Cool. Find me that data, and you'll be supporting your argument. JCaesar 23:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I know you didn't call me a creationist, I get the point you were trying to make, I just don't accept it. These aerial photographs I've denied, please show me a link to them. I'm not trying to be flippant or drag the argument round in circles, I genuinely can't remember what you're talking about. Thank you. Er, right, I don't have measurements, but do you accept that the hole in the WTC was the same size as the airliners? That's a test of my hypothesis isn't it? Failing that off the wall assertion ("holes are the same size as the objects that make them", my god - what wacky conspiracy nonsense is this?), let's go with a less controversial hypothesis: "Plane crashes cannot occur without significantly messing up the ground.": http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/pentalawn.html Ok? No, I know, you're going to tell me the ground is messed up at the pentagon aren't you? I'm just denying evidence. "There's a massive pile of molten metal and burning fuel, right there, next to the hobbit riding on the back of a giant dolphin, can't you see it?" This is the reason we're still debating, people just accept things when they're told them in a group environment. like star wars. "These aren't the droids you're looking for.." I notice you're still criticising me and my debating technique/scientific rigour, as opposed to presenting a positivist physical model of a process that could explain how this: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001/200109114a_hr.jpg Is a photograph of a building that has just been hit by a 100 tonne, 38 metre wide airliner. And you accuse me of having unshakeable beliefs in unprovable things.rich 15:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, we'll get back to the lawn, the size of the airliner, etc. We'll take your points one by one. If you can prove that there has been a situation in which an airliner has left a wingspan-sized hole in a large concrete or limestone structure, we'll move on to the next point from there, absolutely. I notice you have yet to support that statement.

If you're a bit confused as to why I might be reluctant to continue this discussion on your terms, Rich, I suggest you take a look at the rest of this page and every other comment you have ever made. Try to count the number of insults, lies and intentional disregard of others' arguments which characterize your entire submission history. (In fact, here's a game you can play: For each one you find, throw five cents into a hat. By the time you get back to this point, you should have enough to start your own Website, where you can force everybody to argue with you on your terms.) JCaesar 19:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I prostrate myself at the feet of the world's greatest living comedian. I haven't dealt with the wingspan thing? Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I just thought it was so obvious as to be comical. The hole in the WTC was the same size as the plane that made it, yes? Oh, hang on, you're going to tell me that because the WTC was steel reinforced concrete, not limestone (even though the former is stronger than the latter), we can't extrapolate the results? This is not just about me irritating you with my self-righteous, unjustifiably arrogant attitude, because this is not about you and me. we are sitting on our fat arses behind our comfortable keyboards. we are lucky. there are american and british soldiers, who are good men, but are too afraid, too stupid or too narrow minded to question the values of their leaders. exactly the same thing goes for the men our age being recruited into guerilla warfare across the islamic world. the point of this debate is to take the opportunity we have, to help to start to show both sides that the values of their leaders and the things they are arguing about are bullshit, based on nothing but deception and greed. people are dying. this is not me being melodramatic, this is the truth. So for the final fucking time, I will ask you a simple question and you will give me a simple answer. What happened to the wings of the plane?rich 13:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The plane was moving at somewhere between 500 and 600 feet per second...the wings were forced back into the fuselage and exploded. Did you expect some cartoon cutout of the airplane to be on the building? You have been linked previously to images of aircraft parts on the pentagon lawn and in the building, but rejected that. You have been shown the hundred plus witness reports that they saw an airplane immediately within the proximinity of the pentagon or actually hitting it. Lightpoles and other objects were clipped and damaged by the wings of this aircraft. The aircraft doesn't exist anymore and all the persons that were on that aircraft are DEAD....if you don't chill out, I am going to block your trolling nonsense right out of wikipedia.--MONGO 13:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

No, Rich, you must be right. The wings absolutely must form a wing-shaped hole in the building. I mean, c'mon, we all know for a fact wings are that structurally solid, right? So much so that you can say, "The hole in the WTC was the same size as the plane that made it, yes?" and not even need to back that statement up with any facts or figures, because, c'mon, it's so damned obvious. We're not basing that knowledge on our best guesses or what we want to be right because of our visceral reactions to corrupt leadership, oh, heavens, no! We know it because we have evidence, because it is "empirically verified by every other recorded airliner crash in history." So if "every other recorded airliner crash"—of which there are, what, hundreds? Thousands?—has resulted in wing-sized holes in concrete, limestone, what have you, then clearly you should be able to find one to support your hypothesis. Not fifty, not a million, not all of them. Just one. It's a big Internet, and it has, after all, been "empirically verified by every other recorded airliner crash in history." Finding even one of those recorded airliner crashes in history as a for instance shouldn't take you much more than, what, five, ten minutes max? On dial-up? There are, after all, so damned many that surely it would take you less time to pick one out of a hat—say, the first one that comes up on Google or a Wikipedia search—to empirically verify your hypothesis than it would to come up with more clever insults and retorts and reiterations of your (thus far unsupported) claims as to what has happened in "ever other recorded airliner crash in history." So take those ten minutes to find one, please, and prove a positive hypothesis for a change. JCaesar 07:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The idea that massive fuel-filled wings could be forced into the plane's fueselage then compacted into a 9 metre diameter hole after impact with a limestone wall is not physically possible. The light pole clipping stories are bullshit that did not emerge until a minimum of 6 months after the attack (had the wings clipped anything it would have crashed into the ground. we know it didnt because the pentalawn 2000 was unmarked). the witness statements contradict themselves and each other and are refuted by the unmarked lawn and lack of debris. lies lies lies. You can all see it, but you're too afraid to think about it properly. Block me then, I couldn't give a fuck anymore. Tom Harrison, please, whatever happens, make sure the photograph stays on the page. please.rich 16:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Light poles would make the airplane crash? How interesting. Where is the plane? What happened to all the passengers? Answer that.--MONGO 00:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't know. Am not claiming, and have never claimed, to know. All I have ever said objectively about the whereabouts of the plane is "not at the pentagon", because that's all that the evidence allows. My guess is that it was shot down somewhere, that the passengers are all dead, that a military plane fired a missile on the pentagon. The very first story that was released pertaining to the attack was by those crusaders for truth Fox News, which said a USAF jet had fired a missile on the pentagon. But this could be wrong and is unprovable. that does not go for the more general statement "it wasn't a plane", which is absolutely provable. rich 11:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

No, the evidence that a plane hit the pentagon has been shown to you...you just simply don't want to believe it because you want to believe the unproven. You have provided zero proof of a missle...why hasn't a single reputable news organization looked into this? The evidence fully supports a plane at the pentagon and there is zero proof that a missle hit it.--MONGO 11:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Then why have you deleted the page pertaining to the event (The actual page, as opposed the the chicken-shit piece of conformist propaganda you've got here)? The page where there's a link to a physical analysis by a scientist who isn't in the pay of the US government: http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr68.html The page where I and others systematically destroyed your absurd, desperate pseudoscientific claims designed to make the facts fit what your government wants you to believe. Instead of debating objectively using science, you delete the page because you can't be bothered to think properly. You delete my protests about it. I have been shown the "evidence", and every aspect of the physical make-up of the crash site and manoueverability of the plane points to an air to ground missile. No physical model can explain how a 100 tonne airliner could be compacted to 10 metres in width upon impact with a concrete wall. The media are cowards. rich 15:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh, okay. Your right and almost everyone else is wrong. Sell crazy somewhere else, we're all filled up here.--MONGO 19:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Everyone else is wrong, and me and an international group of academics, including physicists, mathematicians and engineers, are right. http://www.st911.org. rich 20:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah..hahahaha...oh, that group of crazy nutjobs there...okay...sure...least we know where you're coming from now! I thought you had been simply listening to some voices in your own head...but no, you're just misguided by a bunch of loons.--MONGO 20:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

A "Bunch of loons" who actually understand a little bit about how things behave in what us wack-job conspiracists refer to as "the physical world". rich 11:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flight77.info

Copied from [10]

Tom, I wasn't promoting Flight77.info or the webmaster's thoughts with my edits. I was referencing the documentation from the Department of Justice that explains why the videos were being released and also the court order that promted the DOJ to act. Judicial Watch simply had a piggyback lawsuit on Flight77.info's case. The DOJ would have released the videos to anyone with a lawsuit - but it was Flight77.info's lawsuit that was senior and had been active for over a year before Judicial Watch even filed theirs. Judicial Watch was hand delivered the videos and thus could release them sooner. So they took all the credit, however couldn't explain why they were getting only the video of the impact. It has been this inaccuracy of reporting that has fueld more conspiracy theories about why the videos were released and when. My edit is just trying to clear up the record and I had to link to Flight77.info to support the statements. Jim Wilson

Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want to present that as anything other than the opinion of the web-site operators (which may not be notable), you need to cite a reliable source. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page:

Tom, regarding my edit concerning the accuracy of what lead to the release of the recent Flight 77 videos, you wrote: >>rv- flight77.info is not a reliable source for anything but what its operator thinks In response, the edit was concerning the legal documentation in the case. The edit was made to correct the inaccuracy written that the Department of Defense released the videos to Judicial Watch in response to their lawsuit. This is not accurate. I don't know how to correct the inaccuracy without linking to the related documentation that is on the site, flight77.info. Perhaps the documentation files could be moved to a different source. I've worked for this site and its efforts, but I sincerely don't wish to promote it in correcting the inaccuracy on Wikipedia. It was the Department of Justice, not the Department of Defense that released the videos. Here is the letter from the Department of Justice concerning the release. As stated in the letter, the release was a CD ROM which represented "...the responsive record described in the Declaration of David Hardy dated August 1, 2005 in the above-captioned case." The case mentioned was the case filed by the webmaster of flight77.info, Scott Bingham. I don't know how to avoid referencing Scott Bingham and his site in describing why the videos were released. It was simply through his lawsuit that they were released. That lawsuit had been active for over a year when Judicial Watch filed their lawsuit. Their lawsuit was a junior lawsuit. All junior lawsuits were issued the same release as the senior lawsuit. The release was forced by the senior lawsuit. You can refer to the final court order in the case. It is this information that explains why these particular videos were released and about the timing, and why the other videos referenced in the documentation have not been released. If you can suggest a way and a reason to omit Scott Bingham's effort in the release of the videos, it can be arranged. The supporting documentation can either be moved to a different server and/or Scott Bingham's name can be removed from the documentation. The important thing is to convey accuracy in why the videos were released and when. The inaccuracy that Judicial Watch forced this release has fueled conspiracy theories due to speculation. You may or may not agree with the views or integrity of Scott Bingham, but that shouldn't stand in the way of providing an accurate article. Your comments are appreciated. Cordially, Jim Wilson

Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I would say the place to make your case is in an op ed to the Times, or to a reporter for some mainstream media outlet. It's really not our place to evaluate primary source documents. "The edit was made to correct the inaccuracy written that the Department of Defense released the videos to Judicial Watch in response to their lawsuit. This is not accurate." If what we say now is not appropriately sourced, we need to cite a source or remove the statement. Anyone else have thoughts? Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

For example, the Chicago Sun Times on May 17 wrote, "The Defense Department released the video to the public today in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by Judicial Watch, a Washington, D.C.-based public interest group." Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

In that example, the Chicago Sun Times was referring to the press release that Judicial Watch sent out, which was only the opinion of Judicial Watch. Jimwilson

Essentially the same text is on bloomberg.com. It is clearly and unequivocally reported as fact in at least two mainstream press accounts. Do you have a countervailing report from another reliable source? Maybe it is sloppy reporting, but you'll have to take it up with the Sun Times and Bloomberg. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact the Bloomberg story lists an email address for the reporter. Maybe you could get in touch with him directly. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The same thing was written in all the mainstream media reports. They all picked up Judicial Watch's press release and ran the story. No one really questioned the accuracy of what Judicial Watch was saying because it was incidental to the main story: the crash. As a result, conspiracy theories have spread and are spreading because not even Judicial Watch can explain why they got the video *when* they got it, and *why* they didn't they get the Citgo and Sheraton tapes that they asked for in their lawsuit.

Correct me if I'm wrong, I think an encyclopedia has more of an interest and responsibility in providing accurate history of an event than the mainstream media. If the mainstream media understandably gets a story wrong from time-to-time, that doesn't mean that story can't be corrected here, where it matters; where researchers and the curious come to get the real story.

To leave the article as-is, is to ignore what actually happened as supported by the actual documentation from government sources. People who come to Wikipedia for the story will continue to wonder the why & when about these videos. Many will assume the government is playing games with the people by releasing only these videos, and this is not the case.

I'm not taking this up with the mainstream media, because I'm trying to set the history straight in a place where people come to get history. I don't think the mainstream media is a reliable source for that these days.

Jimwilson

Yes, I see...I have no problem with the information, but wikipedia is not a producer of new knowledge...we merely recite what we can reference. See WP:NOR, WP:EL to start and locate published links that we can use to cite this information from.--MONGO 10:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I had linked to the documents previously. They are:

DOJ Release Document - Stating exactly what was released and why.

Final Court Order - Ordering the DOJ to act on or before May 26. They acted on May 16.

Original FOIA - Filed 10/4 - 2 months before Judicial Watch's FOIA.

Original Lawsuit Filed over *1 year* before Judicial Watch's lawsuit.

All the appeals, responses, and court orders are posted on flight77.info.

These are recorded legal documents from government sources. Can they not be cited? If there's a problem linking to these documents because of the website's commentary, the documents can be moved to a different server. This is not new knowledge. This is information that has been available online since the documents were delivered to the plaintiff, dating back to March 2005. Jimwilson

"If the mainstream media understandably gets a story wrong from time-to-time, that doesn't mean that story can't be corrected here..."

Well yes, I think it does mean that. Wkipedia is not in the business of evaluating original source documents, verifying their provenance, correcting the historical record, or adjudicating a dispute between you and Judicial Watch. We report what reliable sources say. The Sun Times and Bloomberg are reliable sources. Flight77.info is not. It's the business of journalists and historians to evaluate primary sources. If you want to correct the record, you should take it up with them. If you don't trust the media, go to someone in the academic community. After they examine the evidence and publish their conclusions, we can include them here. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose the lesson here is hire a good PR firm if you're at all concerned with the accurate recording of history. Without the mainstream media to report our reality, or without academia's seal of approval, society would just be left with buidlings full of source documents and no way to record history. The inflexibilty to cite source documents in articles is precarious and should be reviewed.

This article by 911Truth.org from Aug/05 |(for what it's worth)

Jimwilson

There are some websites out there that appear more reliable than others as far as the evidence...but since websites are controlled by one or a select few webmasters and are not published sources for use to reference from, we disallow all of them for reliability purposes. Seriously, I would take the paperwork you have(?) and go to the media. You'll probably get ignored solely because they are tired of claims from lots of people that they have evidence...many of whom simply have some zany story to try and push. We follow policies as much as possible...see WP:RS and WP:V--MONGO 19:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not a newsworthy story. It's a minor case of bad reporting. The ramifications are, however, that this inaccuracy creates speculation and fuels conspiracy theories - which is something we have strived to avoid in presenting the straight documentation. I wouldn't be here making this case if someone at Wikipedia didn't decide to cite a weak story, and thus add to the problem.

I understand that there are policies and that you follow guidlines. That you present those policies and guidelines in such an inflexible way on such a relatively minor issue of obvious error is a statement in itself. I don't mean that to be insulting. It just illustrates a culture that places policy over principle. Jimwilson

I am with you as far as the conspiracy stuff goes...I am simply explaining that we can't ask them to follow policies and then turn around and ignore those same policies for our own benefit. To me, your links indicate that you do have a story to tell and there is likely someone out there who would be willing to tell it in printed form such as a journal or newspiece. Let me get this straight...Judicial Watch had nothing to do with the release of the video from the security camera?...fill me in once more on the full details and we'll see what can be done.--MONGO 00:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Judicial Watch was hand-delivered the videos on a CD ROM. Our attorney wasn't allowed to pick up the CD and we had to wait to get it in the mail. By that time, Judicial Watch had announced the story to the press and from there it was the biggest story of the day.

The video that was released was released because it was video of the *impact*. In our original (first-in-line) FOIA request we mistakenly asked for footage of the *impact* of Flight 77. The DOJ came back to say they found 85 video tapes but only one record (the CD ROM) contained footage of the *impact*. This is exactly why they didn't release the Citgo video or the hotel video, among others - because those tapes didn't show the impact.

Judicial Watch, to their credit, didn't have that phrasing problem in their FOIA request - so why, if their lawsuit was successful, didn't they get the Cigo and other tapes they were asking for? They should still be yelling to their judge about the other tapes because essentially, their lawsuit still isn't satisfied by what the government released. They're still due the Citgo and other tapes.

The answer is that they just strolled-in a full year behind our lawsuit after it was first revealed in our case that the footage would likely be released after the Moussaoui trial. This was to be the biggest story in their history, and they had a sense of it.

So the DOD did hand the CD ROM to Judicial Watch with a letter saying it was in response to their FOIA and complaint, but it didn't make any sense as to *why* without the what document. In interviews, the head of Judicial Watch couldn't answer the question about why they only got the footage they got. This is where all the conspiracy theories on this subject stem from.

I don't want to say bad things about Judicial Watch. They're in the business of doing business and this is the kind of trumping that goes on in business. It's nothing to cry to the press about. But the actual story deserves to be highlighted in sources like Wikipedia where people come for accurate information when they're sincerely interested in a topic. To give them Judicial Watch's slick and incomplete version invites conspiracy theories that the government is playing games with what it chooses to release and when.

So to answer your question, MONGO... yes, Judicial Watch had nothing to do with the release of the video from the security cameras. They did, however, write a press release and copied the videos to the web first.

Jimwilson

Okay, I am going to consult a few others on this matter. Be patient.--MONGO 14:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been told that you should continue to seek out a media outlet that will help you set the story straight...or you can go to Wikinews and even request to speak to a "reporter" there.--MONGO 19:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] evidence of hole size

Jcaesar, obviously this is just my viceral gut reaction to corrupt goverment, and is in no way evidence, because, er, well, it just can't be. When a projectile punches a hole in a surface, either the projectile must be destroyed or broken into pieces (and we can see the lack of wreckage, and have agreed vaporisation is a load of bollocks), or the hole must be at least as large as the projectile. WTC tower 1: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v476/Valhall/wtc1.jpg http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr68f.html Is this an adequate example of the evidence you wanted above? Can we add the sentence "No physical mechanism is known by which a 757 could have caused the observed damage" yet? No, wait, don't tell me, light poles... http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr68c.html http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr68D.html rich 12:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, look at you! You just proved a positive hypothesis: A plane crashing into a building may in fact leave a large, roughly wing-shaped hole in the building. Congratulations. Every day in every way, you are getting better.

OK, now as a doctoral student in physics, and therefore a scientist, you surely must know the next step. The next step is to immediately assume that, because there is no wing-sized cut out in the Pentagon as there is in the WTC, jump to an alternate, implausible conclusion. Haha! Just kidding. (But, as a scientist, I'm sure you already knew that, right?) The next step, of course, is to positively prove similar results in conditions similar to those of the Pentagon crash—building materials, distance off ground, etc. So... the claim of those of us who are operating off media reports and published findings is that the plane skimmed off the ground, which absorbed much of the force of the crash. Further, there is the claim that the Pentagon was under construction, and the limestone was reinforced with a web of steel beams and columns.

So it seems there are three ways to prove this:

Find a similar crash with a low-entry and/or the described steel web that also has a plane-sized cut-out. (Shouldn't be too hard. Again, every other airliner crash in recorded history proves that would be the case, so surely one or more of them must have had conditions more similar to the Pentagon than to the WTC, right?)
Prove positively that the WTC and the Pentagon were more similar in circumstance.
Prove positively that a different set of circumstances than the ones listed above were present for the Pentagon crash, and then prove that those circumstances are consistent with a wing-sized hole.

Proving any one of those scenarios shouldn't be so difficult. Again, you have every airliner crash in existence on your side, right? So prove those facts, and we'll move on to the next phase. (Which I shouldn't have to tell you what it is, because you already know, but for those playing the home game, I'll leave it a surprise for now.) JCaesar 05:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, how are you proposing that the low entry angle would have affected the pentagon crash and distinguished it from the WTC? The pentagon was made of steel reinforced masonry. so was the wtc. planes do not bounce off the ground. had the aircraft contacted the ground at 300 miles per hour, it would have remained in contact with the ground for several metres minimum. this is called velocity, i suppose i have to prove this aswell? http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/pentalawn.html The condition of the lawn in front of and leading up to the impact zone negates the possibility that the "plane" impacted the ground prior to impact.rich 11:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] protecting article

Isn't it about time someone ask an administrator to protect this article? I'm not involved with any of the discussions or anything. I do happen to believe the airplane hit the building. I'm just perplexed at the number of people, who insist it didn't and try to influence the article. I think the article needs protection fast. People are making changes and reverting every single day. JMHO TripleH1976 Sat 8:06p.m., 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Strange that, isn't it? Such a shame that the site is being defaced by those weird conspiracists, reassuring themselves inside their own crazy comfort zones with their wacky ideas like "conservation of energy", "inertia", "heat" and "mass", and jumping to all these silly elaborate conclusions, based on insane pretexts like "the realm of physical plausibility". Damn right, protect the site fast. We don't want the robust scientifically consistent truths that the wings of the airliner were "pushed into the fueselage and compressed to fit the hole, thanks to the sturdiness of the thick limestone walls and the building materials", or that "the pentalawn 2000 absorbed much of the impact of the crash, whilst remaining in pristine condition and lacking any wreckage", or that "the phantom plane/metal avalanche flow/vaporised freedom jet punched a 9 metre diameter hole in the the third ring then disappeared". Protect these important truths from the evil conspiracists now. They're probably in league with the mean nasty arab terrorists who hate our freedoms. Block physical evidence from public scrutiny, nice idea, very consistent with the idea of wikipedia, and the ideal of freedom. Can you spell c-e-n-s-o-r-s-h-i-p? Maybe you should appoint Bush to be the adminstrator, its not like he does anything except not alienate stupid voters. You might need to train him how to use a keyboard for a while though. You certainly got to delete this reply for a start, because an insane conspiracist like me couldn't possibly have a valid point. In the interim just put star spangled banner on infinite loop as a media player download. "Oh say can you see..."

Course, its impossible that the internet could have started some sort of truth inertia...rich 16:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

All right Rich offer me an explanation on why the government would lie, or do a cover-up? If the plane didn't hit the Pentagon then what did happen to American Airlines Flight 77? Did the American military hit the plane with a missile as well? All right where did the wreckage of the plane land? A plane doesn't just go poof into the air. Was the call passenger, Barbara Olsen, made to her husband to report her plane was hijacked a fabrication? I bet you also believe a missile hit TWA Flight 800. TripleH1976 Sun 08:35 p.m., 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The government would lie to provide a pretext to fulfill their foreign policy aims. They are not evil, just arrogant. they believe firing a missile into the pentagon is justified if it brings capitalism and democracy to the world. I don't know what happened to Babara Olson (there are a million possibilities), I just deal with physical evidence. You are right, planes do not just go poof into the air. they do go poof into the pentalawn 200 though: http://www.vialls.com/lies911/lies.htm http://www.geocities.com/pentalawn2000/ rich 16:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, Rich, I've come to the conclusion you have zero useful information to add to any conversation, which is why you make up what other people say to make your arguments more plausible. Once more, you are back to lying. I've given you multiple chances to make your case like a grown-up, and described exactly what you need to do, but instead, you'd rather act like an obnoxious asshole and lie about what other people said.

TripleH1976 made no reference to the Bush administration. None. Yet you put a whole helluva lot of words in his mouth and belittled him just because he didn't agree with the conclusion you yourself cannot support.

You're a liar, Rich, and a horrible asshole. I'm done talking with you forever.

One final note: Wikipedia does not have the power to censor you. When are you going to get off that insanely retarded bullshit? It can only edit what you say and do while you're at Wikipedia. That's not the same thing as censoring you. "Censoring" you would be shutting down your Website, putting you in jail, whatever.

If you legitimately think you're right, put your money where your mouth is. Start your own Website, and do whatever you want. As long as you're on Wikipedia's turf, you will abide by their user agreement, or you will be booted. That is their freedom of the press in action.

Otherwise, I've got nothing to say to you, you lying asshole. JCaesar 09:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I kinda lost my cool a little bit there. JCaesar 00:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Guess a card at christmas would be too much to ask then? JCeasar, haven't you learned anything? It's not about my opinion, its about a universally accepted truth. If a 900 degree fire occurred instaneously to boil away the wings, the lawn would be in a different condition to that which we observe. And you know very well that the "wing-folding-10-metre-compression" idea is idiotic. the sentence, "no physical mechanism is known by which a 757 could have caused the damage observed" is not my opinion, it is physically provable truth. i haven't created my own website because i don't want to convert you all to my opinion, i want you to form your own, but do so within the realms of what is known to be, and to not be, physically possible. Hate me if you want, but don't hate conspiracy theorists. not with this. But i know you don't want to listen, so i'll make it easy for you. ready. (dedicated to the memory of bill hicks..) "You are all a bunch of moronic redneck fuckwits who either lack the intelligence to look physical facts in the face, or lack the courage to open your minds to the frightening reality. Fuck you all with bells on."

You're a good bloke JCeasar, please keep thinking. cheers, Richard. rich 15:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry buddy, but none of these are "universally accepted truths". You and maybe a couple other people that you listen to basically just decided that the huge amount of evidence cannot be true, because if it was it would mean that all of conspiracy theories would be wrong. Even though in reality you have zero understanding of physics, you stil decided to look over some of the evidence of 9/11 and found some things that sounded strange to you, you then basically grandiously announce that it was physically impossible. At least in the time of Copernicus and Galileo the people that rejected their theories had contempory social norms on their side. What your doing is akin to a elementary schooler going into a physics conference and letting Albert Einstein know that the theory of relativity is physically impossible because the kid does not understand it. I am sure that none of this is going to immediatly change your mind, but hopefully it will slowly contribute to the realization of the irrationality of your "hypotheses".- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 13:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I do apologise. See, because I have zero understanding of physics, I thought that the idea that wings could neatly fold into the fueselage of a plane was comically idiotic. I thought that big fuel filled wings travelling at 300 miles per hour would plough through concrete walls, as happened here: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v476/Valhall/wtc1.jpg. In my ignorance I thought plane crashes messed up the ground, as happened here: http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/pentalawn.html. Obviusly not, please educate me. See you must understand what happened, because you know I'm wrong. So, once again, please explain to me what happened to the wings of the plane.

[edit] Conspiracy theories

If we were going to mention any conspiracist claims, it should be those of Thierry Meyssan. His was one of the first big conspiracy theories, and is much better known than Scholars for 9/11 truth. I'm not even sure the blurb accurately characterised their claims. I thought they were the wtc7-controlled-demolition people. Also, I would take issue with, "This and other physical and political evidence has given rise to hypotheses of United States government involvement..." It's pretty clear from the literature about conspiracy theory that it works the other way: theory first, evidence later. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Open minded viewpoint you've got there Tom. Maybe actually reading some of the scholars for truth material might help: http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr68.html

This is all just a conspiracy to weigh the article down with cruft. Just zis Guy you know? 12:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Find me one factual innaccuracy in this "cruft":

http://thewebfairy.com/911/holmgren/intro.html

[edit] Black Box

Why is there no mention about the black box? Lapinmies 23:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Quite possibly, it did not survive the impact -- OR -- it was not released. Then again, the NTSB would have requested for it if it were ever to be found. KyuuA4 16:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] So...

why have the article about the plane crashing and not any of the conspiracy theories?? all of you who said "i happen to believe the plane did hit it" and that's your reason for it to being there then what about me saying "i happen to believe the plane did not hit it" and that a missile did, so, why is not that in there?? i watched a video in yourtube.com i think and it says that there's a report of flight 77 landing somewhere in another state, i don't know if it's true or not but i think that theories regarding flight 77 should be here because NO ONE knows for sure what happened yet so why only talk about the plane crashing if in fact maybe it didn't happen?? --CesarCossio 01:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Your own thoughts are original research and as such have no place in wikipedia articles. Giving too much emphasis on fringe views is a clear violation of the neutrality of wikipedia. "No one knows for sure what happened" ??? the leaders of Al-Kaida, witnesses and the United States Goverment knows. Case closed. Mieciu K 07:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If the plane landed in another state, why haven't any of the passengers and crew gone to their families??? TripleH1976 20:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

My god, are you really talking about neutrality here? Someone edited out a whole paragraph describing (quite objectivelly) the results of the impact, but as it was a description a "conspiracy teorist" would support, it was taken out. Come on! I think both sides of the story should be reflected in teh article, and not just something that is biased by the "official" side of the story. Do you want neutrality? Be neutral. Wikipedia is full of shit, sometimes. --Yago Stecher 02:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

What paragraph was edited out? – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 14:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The video shows the edge of the plane and palne's wing which moves at an angle which can also be interpreted as a (much closer, since it's smaller) missile moving to the left; let's call it "the object". The next frame in the 2nd video shows something big, gray, very close to the ground (or on the ground), further away and to the left, adjacent to an explosion in the building. Both videos show the explosion much further away (and to the left) than the proposed missile should be (since if "the object" is a missile, it is much smaller and must be much closer). The plane theory explains what we see, the missile theory doesn't (what is that huge grey thing? why does the missile moves to the left but hits the building in a different point, much further away?) So to conclude, I don't just "happen to believe the plane did hit it", I saw it on the video.Dan Gluck 08:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 64 or 65 passengers?

The article says 64 passengers, the infobox says 65 (59 + 6 crew). Which is correct? 23skidoo 15:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

This one's tricky. Apparently, the flight manifest showed 58 passengers, and there were definitely 6 crew, making 64. But the released list of victims (which does not show hijackers) showed 60, including the 6 crew. If there were five hijackers, then that makes 65 casualties.

I believe that one of the hijackers was already in the cockpit upon takeoff, having passed himself off as a pilot wanting a free ride. It is a lesser-known fact that most pilots would allow other pilots -- even those they didn't know -- to fly in the "jump seat" in the cockpit. This was technically not allowed, but was very common before 9/11. This would explain the missing person on the manifest. Note also that all the callers of Flight 93 reported 3 hijackers, not 4, when there were clearly four. If one (probably Jarrah) was already in the cockpit of that flight as well, it would explain that discrepancy. And it would explain how the hijackers got into the locked cockpit.

The official report is that all the hijackers were in seats, and none were in the cockpit beforehand. So we can't just say my theory is correct, obviously. But I personally believe that the fact that a hijacker was already in the cockpit has been supressed, to protect American Airlines and United Airlines from lawsuits. (I'm not a conspiracy theorist -- I don't believe the U.S. government knew about the attacks beforehand -- but I do believe that higher-ups were willing to lie and omit details after the fact in order to protect corporate friends and donors.)

Anyway, if anyone has an alternate theory that would explain the discrepancy, I'd love to hear it. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A security cam note added

I added an explanation of what is actually seen in the security camera, since it is unclear at first sight (took myself a lot of time to understand what is actually seen there) and should be explained. It seems to me that many of the CT believers just don't understand what they're seing there. For some reason frames from the second video, in which the plane can be seen more clearly (24-26 seconds from its beginning) than in the first video, were not added to this article. If someone can add it it'll be good (I don't have the appropriate editting tool to take it from the .wmv file). Dan Gluck 08:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll work on uploading these frames from the second video. It's just a matter of playing the video and taking screenshots. This animation is also helpful. --Aude (talk) 04:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. Frames from the second security video are here, and frames from the first are here. These are taken from the videos available on the DOD FOIA office website. --Aude (talk) 14:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taxi cab picture

The link for that picture doesn't work anymore. Fighting for Justice 21:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The taxi cab picture was taken by a DOD employee, thus is in the public domain, and can directly be put into this article. (rather than an external link). I had to swap out this other picture, because I'm having problems with the way the images are lining up (overlapping, ...). For the same reason, I took out the Hani Hanjour picture.

Pentagon is shown here after the collapse of the upper floors.

Will try to fix this problem, but not sure a fix is possible without doing something different with the {{sep11}} template. --Aude (talk) 22:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image overlap in Firefox

In the Hijacking section the image showing the flight path overlaps the text of that section under FC5 Firefox -- Witchinghour 02:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This has also happened to me. It's not the only problem with images here - see above section. I'm not sure what's causing the problems, but have done more rearranging of the images. The Barbara Olson image is now gone (it was fair use anyway, don't think its use here qualifies). --Aude (talk) 02:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biased article

No mention of alternative accounts other than a link to the 9/11 "conspiracy theories" page. My attempt to neutralize the article was swiftly reverted by Tommy harrison. 62.218.238.2 19:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] There is no plane

I hate to say it, but unless i'm crazy or completely blind I simply CANNOT see the plane in either of those pictures. Can someone point it out to me? (i'm referring to the security camera pictures)

[edit] Addition of banner

Hi, I added the neutrality dispute banner because it's pretty blatantly clear after reading this discussion board that the neutrality is most definitely disputed. Unless someone has the article locked in order to stop unregistered edits either way or the dispute is resolved i'm going to keep adding the banner if it gets taken away. --Aliwalla 09:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

What about the article do you think needs to change in order for it to follow our WP:NPOV policy? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

probably a more in depth look at the criticisms of the pentagon over the incident and the issues surrounding the CCTV footage --Aliwalla 22:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

that discussion is here, with a link to that article provided on this article. --Aude (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The conspiracy articles and the other articles on 9/11 seem to be inextricably intertwined that it seems foolish not to discuss either on the respective opposite pacakge. So, let me rephrase that: an acknowledgment that there many people believe that the CCTV footage clearly shows Flight 77 crashing into the building, perhaps a single section at the end saying what peoples concerns are with the footage released from the pentagon while leaving the rest of the article unaltered.

I would also mention that the pentagon has not released the footage from the other CCTV camera's that filmed the event but in the near future plans to (as i have heard). I know this is a delicate issue for many people owing to the fact that the attacks occured very recently (on the one hand) and over the criticisms of the Bush administration and neo-conservation/neo-liberal actions (on the other hand)But I hope we can get past this to create a neutral article that doesn't promote either view. --Aliwalla 22:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

What other footage are you referring to? The gas station video? The video from "the hotel"? or what? --Aude (talk) 22:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

i'm not sure which footage, probably those two. But i'm not really arguing which side is right or wrong. My concern is that much like a synposis of Economy of Malaysia is found on the main Malaysia page, a synposis of the criticisms of the footage and the pentagon's story should also be found at the end of this article. Otherwise readers of this page will not be getting the full details of the event. --Aliwalla 08:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I have updated the security video section, to reflect that the Citgo gas station footage has been released, and the hotel video is forthcoming. I have also added something on the conspiracy theories, with a link to the appropriate article that discusses them in length. Even among the 9/11 truth movement, people have concluded that a plane did crash into the Pentagon.[11] So, per WP:NPOV#Undue weight, we really don't need anything more here than a brief mention of these theories. --Aude (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really talking about theories nor the other two CCTV footage sources, i'm talking about the specific concern over whether or not an American Airlines 757 Jumbo Jet can clearly be seen in the CCTV footage that generated the still images displayed on the article. In all fairness this needs to be addressed within the article in the way I discussed above. --Aliwalla 23:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I have made further edits, providing additional sources. Further discussion of the videos belong in the linked article. --Aude (talk) 00:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Witness statements

1)(from http://www.st911.org) The viewpoint of this man and other scientifically competent people should be aired in order to balance the disgraceful level of bias shown in the present article. I have tried on numerous occassions to edit out the fairy stories on the page, but they are labelled "conspiracy theory" and ignored, as are the efforts of all other people who don't just believe everything they're told.)

A Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon by Michael Meyer, Mechanical Engineer To the members of the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven: I would like to give you my input as to the events on September 11, and why it is a physically provable fact that some of the damage done to the Pentagon could not have occurred from a Boeing 757 impact, and therefore the 9/11 Commission report is not complete and arguably a cover-up. I will not speculate about what may have been covered up, I will only speak from my professional opinion. But I will explain why I do not believe the Pentagon was hit by a Boeing 757. I am a Mechanical Engineer who spent many years in Aerospace, including structural design, and in the design, and use of shaped charge explosives (like those that would be used in missile warheads). The structural design of a large aircraft like a 757 is based around managing the structural loads of a pressurized vessel, the cabin, to near-atmospheric conditions while at the lower pressure region of cruising altitudes, and to handle the structural and aerodynamic loads of the wings, control surfaces, and the fuel load. It is made as light as possible, and is certainly not made to handle impact loads of any kind. If a 757 were to strike a reinforced concrete wall, the energy from the speed and weight of the aircraft will be transferred, in part into the wall, and to the structural failure of the aircraft. It is not too far of an analogy as if you had an empty aluminum can, traveling at high speed hitting a reinforced concrete wall. The aluminum can would crumple (the proper engineering term is buckle) and, depending on the structural integrity of the wall, crack, crumble or fail completely. The wall failure would not be a neat little hole, as the energy of the impact would be spread throughout the wall by the reinforcing steel. This is difficult to model accurately, as any high speed, high energy, impact of a complex structure like an aircraft, into a discontinuous wall with windows etc. is difficult. What is known is that nearly all of the energy from this event would be dissipated in the initial impact, and subsequent buckling of the aircraft. We are lead to believe that not only did the 757 penetrate the outer wall, but continued on to penetrate separate internal walls totaling 9 feet of reinforced concrete. The final breach of concrete was a nearly perfectly cut circular hole (see below) in a reinforced concrete wall, with no subsequent damage to the rest of the wall. (If we are to believe that somehow this aluminum aircraft did in fact reach this sixth final wall.) EXIT HOLE IN PENTAGON RING-C American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757, is alleged to have punched through 6 blast-resistant concrete walls‹a total of nine feet of reinforced concrete‹before exiting through this hole. It is physically impossible for the wall to have failed in a neat clean cut circle, period. When I first saw this hole, a chill went down my spine because I knew it was not possible to have a reinforced concrete wall fail in this manner, it should have caved in, in some fashion. How do you create a nice clean hole in a reinforced concrete wall? with an explosive shaped charge. An explosive shaped charge, or cutting charge is used in various military warhead devices. You design the geometry of the explosive charge so that you create a focused line of energy. You essentially focus nearly all of the explosive energy in what is referred to as a jet. You use this jet to cut and penetrate armor on a tank, or the walls of a bunker. The signature is clear and unmistakable. In a missile, the explosive charge is circular to allow the payload behind the initial shaped charge to enter whatever has been penetrated. I do not know what happened on 9/11, I do not know how politics works in this country, I can not explain why the mainstream media does not report on the problems with the 9/11 Commission. But I am an engineer, and I know what happens in high speed impacts, and how shaped charges are used to "cut" through materials. I have not addressed several other major gaps in the Pentagon/757 incident. The fact that this aircraft somehow ripped several light towers clean out of the ground without any damage to the aircraft (which I also feel is impossible), the fact that the two main engines were never recovered from the wreckage, and the fact that our government has direct video coverage of the flight path, and impact, from at least a gas station and hotel, which they have refused to release. You can call me a "tin hat", crazy, conspiracy theory, etc, but I can say from my expertise that the damage at the Pentagon was not caused by a Boeing 757. Sincerely, Michael Meyer

2) Witness statement contradictions How can you sit there and say this article is not biased after you repeatedly remove my additions of the following witness statements: "We didn’t know what kind of plane had hit the Pentagon, or where it had hit. Later, we were told that it was a 757 out of Dulles, which had come up the river in back of our building, turned sharply over the Capitol, ran past the White House and the Washington Monument, up the river to Rosslyn, then dropped to treetop level and ran down Washington Boulevard to the Pentagon. I cannot fathom why neither myself nor Ray, a former Air Force officer, missed a big 757, going 400 miles an hour, as it crossed in front of our window in its last 10 seconds of flight. ..." Scott P. Cook "It sounded like a missile," DiPaula recalls. "There were three loud thump, thump, thumps. You could hear the metal cracking and crinkling, and the explosion." Michael DiPaula There was no huge explosion, no huge rumbling on ground, it just went ‘pfff.’ John O’keefe

Yet the ones you just happen to leave in are the one's that conform to the comfortable, ludicrous official version?

[edit] Doubletree video release

The release of this video was forced by FOIA lawsuit plantiff, Scott Bingham who owns the site, www.flight77.info . CNN was given a copy of the video and they played it stating that the release was the result of "...a lawsuit" ( http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=1507751455 ). This lawsuit was not Judicial Watch's lawsuit, as they were not given a copy of the video, and have not made any public comment on the origins of the video. It is through Flight77.info's Youtube URL that we've see the only clean copy of the release of the Doubletree Hotel video. The full size mpeg version that was given to Mr. Bingham by the FBI can be downloaded here: www.flight77.info/double.html

Further, the Associated Press has reported ( http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/4821121.html ) that the release was in response to Mr. Bingham's lawsuit. Also, the AP is running raw video of the Doubletree video giving Flight77.info credit as the source: http://video.ap.org/v/en-ap/v.htm?g=7A85930A-62FE-4C26-AAFE-5045AA18FD43&f=ap&fg=copy

Also, Scott Bingham cited as source for the video in the Huffinton Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/12/04/fbi-releases-neverbefore_n_35528.html

Given the above citations, can we have the information about the release of the Doubletree Hotel video updated in the article?

--Jimwilson

Done, aded and rephrased the section, and added a link to the youtube video. Thanks.--MONGO 20:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

hey guys, there is a new video showing Flight 77 or something hitting the pentagon, it's here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CEcKQxiWwo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrZGQlFpM64 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.236.196.38 (talk • contribs).

It's already linked (in the references section), with this version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H285_DWX_bQ --Aude (talk) 01:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/m/e/Talk%7EAmerican_Airlines_Flight_77_07d7.html"

Category: Wikipedia controversial topics

Talk:American Airlines Flight 77

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Flag disputed?

[edit] Metal detector

[edit] Flight name

[edit] Pentagon doubts

[edit] In-flight calls

[edit] Extremely POV?

[edit] Totally Disputed

[edit] Page history

[edit] Solving a dispute

[edit] Basis for accuracy dispute tags

[edit] map

[edit] Timeline

[edit] Edited Out Conspiracy Theories

[edit] Veritas (that's latin for truth boys and girls)

[edit] witness statements

[edit] pointless nitpicking

[edit] Physics conspires against the land of the free

[edit] SF Gate Retraction and Judicial Watch Lawsuit

[edit] Here we go again

[edit] the truth

[edit] Last Revision

[edit] Removed the Measurements

[edit] video

[edit] Reality Check

[edit] last revision

[edit] Misleading

[edit] Response to JCaesar's points

[edit] Flight77.info

[edit] evidence of hole size

[edit] protecting article

[edit] Conspiracy theories

[edit] Black Box

[edit] So...

[edit] 64 or 65 passengers?

[edit] A security cam note added

[edit] Taxi cab picture

[edit] Image overlap in Firefox

[edit] Biased article

[edit] There is no plane

[edit] Addition of banner

[edit] Witness statements

[edit] Doubletree video release

Views

Navigation

Search