The ATS "9/11 Fine Focus" Initiative

The original Pentagon 911: CatHearder's analysis under critical scrutiny. thread that gave birth to this idea has devolved into a combination usage rights debate and min-version of the original 9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon thread.

As we continue to see with this highly controversial topic, discussion of the myriad of possibilities related to this subset of the 9/11 conspiracy theories quickly evolves into a wild mess of diverging ideas, comments, topics, and off-track meanderings. While much of this is well-intended, it ends up confusing the discussion and burying important ideas.

In an effort to regain some degree of productive discussion on these issues, we're beginning the "9/11/ Fine Focus" initiative in a new special-purpose "Fine Focus" forum. We're looking for at least 20 well-versed members to volunteer to dig deeply into these sub-topics form the 9/11 Pentagon debate:


Topic One: "The extent of the Pentagon damage seems less than would be expected."

Topic Two: "Could an airline have created the hole in ring C, if not, what did?"

Topic Three: "Did the flight path require extraordinary piloting skills, beyond the scope of the aleged pilots?"

Topic Four: "The perfectly clean lawn, which when combined with the altitude of approach and impact, is extremely unlikely to be untouched."

Topic Five: "Is the 757 debate deliberate in an effort to burry more important issues, and if so, by whom and what are they?"


The goal is the approach these five topics with a strong but balanced critical examination of both "sides" of the debate: 757 or no-757. We'll demand a tight control of topical discussion within each thread that represents these topics. In the end, we hope that one or two critical conclusions are achieved that end up inspiring completely new avenues of collaborative discussion of these events.

If you're interested in participating, please send a U2U to both myself and Springer (use "SkepticOverlord, Springer" in the "to:" field to send your message to both of us) with your intended angle of research/analysis, and links to related threads in which you've participated on ATS previously.



Now... let's get on with it!

Im sure the true cream of the crop will be out in full force on this one. Im excited to see what you guys come up with. Will the work be posted?

Good luck to everyone and happy hunting!!

I'm confused, what happened to topic #2: "Why haven't the other known security videos been released? What do they hide (or show)?"

It was listed in your topics discussion in the catherder rebuttal thread that went out of hand.

Other than that, I just hope none of you come to an absolute truth after debating only these five topics. But have fun doing the research, I'll try to tune into what you guys have to offer.

Originally posted by psalm_of_lydia
I'm confused, what happened to topic #2: "Why haven't the other known security videos been released? What do they hide (or show)?"

Given the general resources of our membership, this seems an impossible topic to discuss as we may never gain access to the people who may have the answers (at least in the short-term). The video topic is one where there is precious little information online to support a research effort and seemed destined to a purely philosophical exercise.

Other than that, I just hope none of you come to an absolute truth after debating only these five topics.

Why?

Skeptic overlord,
Sign me up for the 757 Did hit the pentigon team. I dont have 20 post so I could not U2U. I am fairly new and I usually dont have much to offer in the discussions but on this one I do. 1, two eyewitness accounts one from inside the pentigon and one is a medic who responded after seeing the explosion. 2, Common sense Aluminum versus concrete I know which one will win. 3, those incredible piloting manuvers, Ever seen a car chase where the bad guy gets away? He has never had traing to drive like that He is not a professional so how can they do that, Simple What does he have to lose? Also how many people have been taught what you cannot do. Example dont rev the engine above the red line it will blow up, well not really but it does dammage the engine every time you do it and the posibility of the engine blowing up is increased. Get my point? I can give other examples if need be. And another thing about flying close to the ground at high speeds, There is an air effect that creates a cushion of stable air under the plane. The Russians exploited this effect and greated a stubb wing aircraft that flew 20- 50 feet off of the surface and was the size of an air liner. You have to fight with the air craft to get it to go down threw the cushion of air and get close to the ground when you are at speed. Thankfully it never made it to production. I will Give links latter.So Can I please Please Please be part of the team OH Great and All Knowing OZ, I mean Skeptic Overlord.


[edit on 11-1-2006 by ultralo1]

I 'll toss my hat in for Topic 3.
I would love to assist on this subject

Since I already applied, I'll take either 1 or 3. I'm a little more experienced with 3, but know some about 1 too. But I'll take whatever our great and powerful leader decides.

SkepticOverlord, when would you like it to take part?

I would be interested in taking part in such a study, however I am busy this month [January] with exams and March with a live debate with Jon Snow [News reporter.]

If we put a period of it and begin it in Feb and continue until we get a deadline, I would love to take part, especailly in "Topic Five" of it.

Great idea!

If this is successful, I'd like to see a similar project go forward with World Trade Center topics.

I could try to debate against. While I may not know too much on the issue (though I have seen webpages that claim it was not a 757, and others that claim it was a 757), I believe that a mind without any goal to prove something would be valuable in arguing against the "facts" that will undoubtedly come out of this inquest.

Any topic will be just fine. Just U2U me for confirmation.

SO, are you guys planning to do something similar for the WTC Complex?

Springer, if you are reading this sign me on, only because of my talent at making the perfect cup of Joe!

I would like to volunteer my services to research topic #2. I would like to use my knowledge in physics to explore the forces a 757 would of exerted on the structure of the Pentagon and the damage it would have caused at the speed it had hit the building.

[edit on 11-1-2006 by ImplementOfWar]

This is a fantastic idea! It is quite burdensome to read through the original threads in their entirety, this should summarise the debate so far excellently.

I cant wait!

And thank you in advance to the people who will take on this enormous job. Your efforts are greatly appreciated.

I suppose if I had to pick 1 subject, I'd go with #2.

People... Please... Read the info.

To participate, send Springer and I a U2U with your intentions... And al participants will be able to contribute to all five topics.


-


Posted Via ATSmobile (BETA v0.3)


-

Whoops, well either way I would like to participate. I sent you a u2u about volutneering for topic #2, but if all participants get to argue all 5 topics then that is fine with me.

[edit on 11-1-2006 by ImplementOfWar]

Personally, I think there are deeper issues at stake with 9/11 then whether or not a plane hit the Pentagon.

All Fine And Good

Originally posted by elderban
Personally, I think there are deeper issues at stake with 9/11 then whether or not a plane hit the Pentagon.

I do as well, but the purpose of this initiative is to see if it is possible to cut through the interference surrounding 9-11, increase the signal-to-noise ratio and hopefully reveal some hard facts that would otherwise remain hidden.

The only practical way to do this (that I've seen suggested so far) is what SO is proposing: let's start by addressing specific questions surrounding specific issues.

Since it's such a popular bone of contention and the force behind the most popular thread on ATS, the most logical starting point is the question of what happened at the Pentagon on 9-11.

IF, as a result of this sort of focus, the membership of ATS succeeds in being able to systematically and methodically present all reasonable positions* on that question in such a way that other members can understand and consider them without having to wade through endless digressions and tangents, THEN it would make sense to apply the same process to other elements of 9-11.

As SO said in the original post, the ATS staff hopes that this initiative may lead to other avenues of collaborative discussion of these events.

I would like to suggest that ideally, after ATSers have had an opportunity to thoroughly explore all the questions surrounding specific events on 9-11, this “fine focus” process can be applied to 9-11 as a whole – and other “conspiracy and supernatural” issues as well.

But first, it needs to be demonstrated to work, which puts some pressure on those noble volunteers who dare rush in where angels fear to tread.

In many ways, I see nagging questions surrounding 9-11 as the elephant in the room that most people in America don't want to admit exists. But still, it's there.

How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time.

This initiative may allow us to do that.

Team Spirit

Aside from the fact that I have way too many other things to do in the coming months (I have some albums that need recording and some traveling to do), I don't consider myself qualified to participate in this event.

Though I tend to favor the “757 did it” theory, it's not because I'm in love with the theory, but because I haven't seen an alternative theory that actually makes sense to me.

In my opinion, ideal candidates for this initiative will be members who have strong opinions on what happened that are backed up by their own studies of the evidence.

What I'm hoping to see is a vigorous debate supported by well-researched and well-considered facts that will present all the competing theories in their best light, laid out in plain and simple language for anyone to read.

Then each of us can take advantage of the scholarship of our fellow members and draw our own conclusions.

And that approach, in my opinion, is what sets ATS apart.

I give my thanks in advance to those of my fellow members -- regardless of what positions they may take on the issues -- who will make this happen.






* A “reasonable position” is one that can be expressed in words. Beyond that, I would not presume to go.

All that I have seen thus far to truly back the conjecture that A boeing DID hit the pentagon is circumstantial evidence, which if this were to be a conspiracy on the scale that is implied, it would not be quite so suprising to an objective mind. If it were a conspiracy, and our government were the conspirator, I'm sure all but a small semantical detail would have been covered in terms of the basic interpretation of physical evidence.

I previously asked, on the previous thread (after receiving the U2U from a moderator/administrator asking for participation);

Does anyone have the surveillance video? I know it exists as I had a copy at one point. I said before it was not the greatest resolution but what is of great resolution in such a momentus explosion. I've since went through several overhauls of my computing system and seemed to have misplaced this media.

I stated previously the camera was south of the impact, it showed the object strike the pentagon... and it did not appear in anyway to be descending (the object or mass that struck the pentagon).

I have other concerns with other things that had been occuring prior to the attacks... but I will leave those concerns to be addressed at a later time.

I would hate to believe that our government could even think of such a thing... but the Northwoods conjecture really compelled me to wish to look deeper.

I am attempting to be quite reserved for now as I am new here. I hope to have a productive and civil dialogue with others who are concerned about the issue or can provide some insight into what actually happened to the pentagon... and to our nation on 9-11-01.

Oh and give me a week or two with the edit button.... I have a bad habit of proctastination in rough drafts (or forum posts)

[edit on 11-1-2006 by Archon]