9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

i think of it this way, lyte. 'an enemy which is not sufficiently strenghtened cannot be defeated' or something like that. it's from the tao by sun tzu. if catherder's analysis is the best example of 'pro-official story' analysis of the available piecemeal evidence on the web(which is a pretty impressive feat, and my hats off to catherder for that, even though i completely disagree with the conclusions and analysis as 'proving' anything, lol), then if it is 'debunked'(which as far as i'm concerned, happened a long time ago), the official story will lose some of it's stronger legs, and that will be good. why doesn't joe quinn just sign up and start a thread, or why don't you start a thread using joe quinn's proof/argument in your own words? you're allowed to link to articles and take snippets. i think there is such s thing as learning from a negative example, and i have faith that many people think about what they read, and don't just 'believe' it because it 'sounds smart'.

that is what i was requesting but was afraid it would break the rules. sure enough i was told by the mod that you can't make a thread about another thread. skepticoverlord and i will attempt to contact joe quinn or SOTT to get permission to post the whole thing. if we can't reach them perhaps we'll be allowed to bend the rules in this case in order to use snippets and links to it.

I've seen wholes in BOTH articles, but more of them in the Quinn article. He's just as guilty as the "selective quoting" he claims Catherder did.

quinn utterly ripped the meat and potatos out of catherders post. period. anything else is just arguing semantics.

oohhhh. so it's just the URL that is the issue! cool. then i can link it wiht tinyURL right? [edit on 24-1-2006 by Lyte Trizzle]

Whatever. I found problems with several of the things he used to "rip the meat and potatoes out of catherders post." I love how it's ok for HIM to do the same things he accuses catherder of doing, because you agree with him.

first off unless you cite an example...... you've got bupkis. 2nd off.......his article is a specific DEBUNK of catherders assertions and he goes through each and every paragraph bit by bit. it is not meant to be a comprehensive article on the pentagon in general. he fully exposed catherder as a deceptive fraud that shamelessly laps up/ defends the official story with every trick in the book.

I'm well aware of what it is. I just read it. I'm not going to quote it, until the question about linking to it is resolved, but I saw several times he misquoted, or didn't put entire quotes, or chose to ignore other information about something he brought up. He used the exact same tricks you accuse Catherder of using to debunk the article and bring his point across.

quoting it is not linking to it.

You are required to provide the link you took your quote from. Until SO or one of the higher ups says it's ok to provide links to the page it's on, I WILL NOT provide quotes, or links to it.

frankly i think it's a non-issue about whether or not joe quinn contributes or agrees. we can discuss it all we want since that obviously falls under "fair use". as far as i can tell....the only issue you have is the URL. so that means we are golden if we link to it with tinyURL right?

no. i can't imagine that this would ever be done before posting a thread about any other article. actually since this is about a direct debunk to this thread i would say it is EXTREMELY germane to the topic at hand. all i am trying to do is figure out a way i can post a thread about it without getting banned or having it deleted and so far the answer is "there is no way". how about if i host the article myself? that should make it perfectly fine right? Mod Edit: Fixed Quote tag. [edit on 25/1/2006 by Mirthful Me]

An idea that I've seen gaining some popularity regarding ATS is that you guys (At least you and Simon, anyway) are mainly focusing around search engine returns with issues like these. By your own admission, you've taken steps to give ATS advantages in this regard. Tagging threads has also greatly increased Google returns, as would the recommendations for citing ATS posts on other websites (which, of course, include not only thread names, but the URLs, usernames, "Above Top Secret," etc.). Bringing posters here, to bring major discussions here, would also put ATS that much higher on search engine returns. One could point out that an obvious benefit of this would be more site hits, and thereby more revenue from advertisements, or direct influence over much of this sort of information that is available online. What might you say to reassure someone suspecting motivations as described above? Btw, I find relevance in that this would be a good example of the above; I could understand this post being moved. [edit on 24-1-2006 by bsbray11]

how about if i host the article myself? that should make it perfectly fine right?

Even if you host it it's still not ok. The point is that it's not your article, and they want to give the author the chance to comment on it, and respond to our comments on it.

are you a moderator? where in the rules does it say that if you didn't author the article that you must give the author of the article a "chance to comment" before you make a thread about it? are you joking?

That's only what they've been saying all along. [edit on 1/25/2006 by Zaphod58]

ok so no you are not a mod and nowhere in the rules does it say that i must contact an author before creating a thread about their article. the issue is with the site that is hosting the article. so if i host it myself it should be perfectly fine. right SO?

1. How would a Boeing 747 leave a hole, but the tail did not break the windows above the hole?
2. The engine of a 747 is almost 6 tons. How would that not break through a concrete wall?
3. How do you respond to (possible) reports of fligh 77 landing in Cincinatti, Ohio?
4. how were "eye witnesses" not blown off the road from a commercial air liner flying 30 ft over head?
5. Why were the windows next to the hole not broken? (seen to the left of hole)
6. How was a pilot who had trouble controling a small single engine airplane able to execute a precise 310 degree turn, and fly a plane into an area less than twice the height?
7. If the plane bounced off the lawn, why wasn't there a large crater outside?
8. Why did the hole look identical to those created by cruise missles?
9. there are reports from the engine manufacturers that the engine parts were too small to be consistant with engines put in commercial airliners. You use the same picture used to "prove" this concept on your site. What do you think of this?

I'm not positive that all of these questions are completely valid. However, I have been watching many videos that suggest the collision was not consistant with a Boeing plane. If you have time, I'd like to hear your input.

It wasn't a 747, it was a 757. Quite a difference there. The windows are a blast resistant design that can withstand a truck bomb. The tail of a plane is relatively weak and tends to break apart in a crash of this type. The engines are high bypass turbofan. Most of the engine is actually quite tiny, what you see is all fan section. The fans are very fragile, and break off when a bird goes through. They tend to break apart in crashes as well. If you look at most crashes, you won't see the engines intact. The same reason they thought the Delta flight in Cinicnati was hijacked. Confusion, and wrong information being given out to the people that talked before confirming anything. Most of the eyewitnesses were in their cars at the time. Unless the air magically pulled them out the window, they weren't going to be blown around. I've been in a car, and a pickup right behind four engines, on two wings, running at full power, and was never even close to being blown around, or having the car flipped. I was a LOT closer than they were too. Again, they were designed to withstand a massive truck bomb going off. I've also seen normal windows near a plane crash that weren't broken. El Al had a 747 crash into a neighborhood in Amsterdam, and some of the windows in the building it impacted didn't break. Hamjour WAS a licensed commercial pilot. He had his license revoked by the FAA for failing to have a physical performed after 6 months, but that doesn't mean he lost his training. He failed his first attempt, and passed his second. There wouldn't be a crater, unless it impacted and exploded. You might see damage to the lawn, but there's no way to identify it after all the fire trucks, and other vehicles driving all over the lawn. Because the shape of a cruise missle and the shape of a plane are similar. A cruise missile is simply a scaled down plane after all. heh However if it was a cruise missile, it would have been a smaller hole, and a different blast pattern. There was also a report that the "engine" found was a JT8D, with pictures showing an engine bigger than an SUV. The JT8D is a tiny little engine. Until more pictures are released showing the debris, there's no way to tell for sure.