I wanted to make sure this is seen....

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Dogdish

Just sayin'... Look at the video, watch how the animation doesn't match the film.

Aren't we denying ignorance, here?

Denying ignorance has nothign to do with it. It's someone with an agenda to introduce verifiably false information at the expence of research and of the facts that's the problem.

The animation specifically shows the plane flew right over a busy highway at low altitude, so it is an irrefutable fact that hordes of eyewitnesses specifically saw that it was a passenger jet that hit the Pentagon. The photos also irrefutably show that in one moment there was an empty lawn, and in the next moment, there was piles of United Airlines wreckage and debris was scattered all over the place. Whatever explanation you come up with it will necessarily need to be able to explain these facts, so if it can't then it's by definition an incorrect explanation.

((snip))

No, there are no "irrefutable facts".. at least not according to the American way.

If this was a court case all evidence submitted by the govt must be shown relevant & credible.. for example all "airplane" parts the govt alleges belong to flight 77 would be subject to inspection by defense experts who would aggressively investigate, then agree it's credible, or challenge the govt.. usually during an evidence hearing. Stick around a court long enough and you'll discover govt claims are thrown out all the time, and / or that juries reject government experts claims and side with the defense.

What you consider to be irrefutable facts, a court would consider unchallenged allegations.. this isn't Nazi Germany where the governments word is relevant & credible, because the government or media say so.

Same goes with photos, witness statements.. everything.. ever seen a witness characterized by a govt lawyer as "rock solid" reduced to mental pablum in real life?.. wouldn't it be nice to see these people qualified and cross examined?

This is why the government moved to settle 9/11 civil suits out of the sunshine of a due process court where their word would be challenged:

www.americanfreepress.net...
9-11 LAWSUITS SUPPRESSED VICTIMS� FAMILIES ANGERED OVER SILENCE FROM MEDIA
"All of the relatives� wrongful death criminal lawsuits against the airlines and their security companies have been consolidated by the presiding judge into a negligence lawsuit, which is a civil case and much less likely to be argued or investigated in an open trial with a jury."

There is no verified credible & relevant evidence yet, nothing but unchallenged government allegations left to fester on the internet by design.. they know people will form unqualified opinions, then argue the merits endlessly.. like a dog chasing it's tail in circles.

The crime of murder has no statute of limitations, all new leads should be followed up.. even if someone was found guilty.. yet the murders of 9/11 are considered "solved", new leads cast off to conspiracy land.. because a commission of amateur sleuth political insiders had meetings and wrote a book.

Everything from the official story to the investigation, or lack thereof, is a farce, a mockery of American justice and the rules of evidence that are designed to check the govts power..

How could any pilot think that a person who had never flown a plane that large before could make a perfect dive like that and not even scratch the grass before impact.

How does an inexperienced pilot fly a large airliner like a cruise missile?
This is question that needs answering.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


Read James Bamford's "BODY OF SECRETS"

Hanjour had checked out in 737 simulator in Arizonia several months before 9/11 - he passed

One of the things checked off by the instructor was "TURNS" .......

Originally posted by GovtFlu

No, there are no "irrefutable facts".. at least not according to the American way.

If this was a court case all evidence submitted by the govt must be shown relevant & credible.. for example all "airplane" parts the govt alleges belong to flight 77 would be subject to inspection by defense experts who would aggressively investigate, then agree it's credible, or challenge the govt.. usually during an evidence hearing. Stick around a court long enough and you'll discover govt claims are thrown out all the time, and / or that juries reject government experts claims and side with the defense.

I can agree with that. BUT, by the same token, the defense experts who'd be inspecting the evidence for the defense would necessarily have to be experts in the field they're testifying on. The ones who'd be doing the inspection, and the people who they'd release the evidence to, would NOT be those college kids making internet videos in their dorm room, and NOT be religious nuts pretending to be explosives evperts, and NOT French conspiracy theorists whose only claim to fame is that whey wrote a book. If they did give a chunk of twisted metal found on the lawn of the Pentagon to you, what would you do with it, exactly?

SO, the question for you is, who do you have that subscribes to these "no planes" stories who is an authority on crash site forensics and/or has expertise on aviation engineering that could do any such inspection? If the answer is "no one" then the reason why you're not getting anywhere with these conspiracy stories of yours should be self-evident- the only way anyone would give these no-planes claims any credibility is specifically becuase they don't know what they're talking about.

Originally posted by thedman
Read James Bamford's "BODY OF SECRETS"

Hanjour had checked out in 737 simulator in Arizonia several months before 9/11 - he passed

One of the things checked off by the instructor was "TURNS" .......

Exactly. The conspiracy theorists enjoy repeating this whole "Hanjour performed a complicated aereonautical movement before crashign into the Pentagon" over and over in the hopes of creating innuendo that somethign suspicious is going on, but when we actually look up what this "complicated aeronautical movement" was we find out- he flew in a circle. I'm not a pilot so I don't know, but I'd imagine "flying in a circle" would be the second thing they'd teach pilots how to do right after "flying in a straight line".

It's blatantly obvious these conspiracy people are intentionally embellishing things to make it all sound more sinister than it really is.

Sorry the book I meant to quote from is Bamford's "THE SHADOW FACTORY"

Check pages 43 and 48

Hanjour had taken instruction at JET TECH in Mesa Az in a 737-200
simulator. Is that big enough plane for you?

On Feb 21, 2001 awarded cetificate after completing 60 hours of
instruction

The instructor had checked off "STEEP TURNS", ironically the bcx for
"TAXI" is not marked.

So was practicing "STEEP TURNS", but not TAXi - a skill would need on
ground during takeoffs and landing



So much for Hanjour not being able to fly aa aircraft


Sorry for error was trying to recall from memory.....