posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 05:04 PM
I always find it interesting that on a discussion forum that focuses on things that are above top secret, there are so many people willing to accept
the mainstream exlplanation for things.
The problem with proving that flight 77 hit the pentagon (and yes, they must prove it, the burden of proof is on the government) is that if everything
in the official story lines up but one thing, that one thing must be proven to be true or official line is not true (or parts of it).
So if we just take a deep breath and try to look at this objectively, and pretend we just woke up from a coma and never experienced 911, what would be
some of the revelant ponts?
1. There is no public video of anything hitting the pentagon. There are some frame grabs from a pentagon surveillance video which only shows an
explosion. In order ot use this as evidence of flight 77 hitting the pentagon, the frames should conform to the idea that is was flight 77. (Those
few frames could be a whole other thread).
2. Flight 77 disappeared on radar in Ohio, never to be tracked again by civilian or military (so they say) radar. A craft reimurged descending rapidly
from a high altitude near DC, which then was said to be flight 77, but since the transponder was turned off, it is not certain.
3. The first pictures of the damage to the pentagon (before the roof collapsed) show a point of impact that seems sconsistent with some craft hitting
it (as opposed to a detonated bomb), but small for a 757.
4. There was very little wreckage of flight 77 shown to the public. A 757 weighs several tons (40 I think) so in the cleanup there should be a lot of
debris removed sometime.
5. Eyewitness accounts generally support the idea that it was flight 77, but the descriptions vary. Also, news reports of the accounts relate the
accounts as if they were describing flight 77, not used to determine whether it was flight 77 (search for a few good articles on this). How many
people actually said they saw what looked like flight 77 hit the pentagon? Many people saw the 757, or saw it fly low, or saw
something hit the pentagon, or saw an explosion, or the newspapers said they saw flight 77? The public record is actually quite sparse on people who
actually saw what the official explanation has been. "There were witnesses" is not exact enough. We need to know exactly what they
said they saw.
That's was I see as the "hard" evidence to work with, and they could all be their own books. Other things are circumstantial, which is not to say
they aren't important. There were a lot of coincedences and strange anomolies of behavior by the government around this event, but it can't really
prove anything one way or the other.
Simulations don't really prove anything either. I can't prove in court that a man killed his wife by simulating the event. They can only describe
the event using a given hypothesis and show that the hypothesis is consistent with the evidence, but it can't prove the hypothesis. So people can
tweak the simulation until it comes out with something consistent with the hypothesis. Simulations can only show that an explanation is possible.
Every piece of evidence must corroborate with the official explanation.
It's difficult to try to just forget everything you've heard and look at the facts and hard evidence that we have. It's hard to not just listen to
the experts on TV or just listen to "your friend who was there." It's also hard to not fall into the trap of "well, if it didn't happen the way
the government said it did, then what did happen?" That should only come after deciding that the government's explanation is wrong.
So what happened? Unless each of the things I listed are investigated (and possibly others) and they each corroborate the official explanation, we
won't know. Otherwise it is just a matter of faith.
[edit on 15-7-2004 by piboy]
[edit on 15-7-2004 by piboy]