The Instigator
JustCallMeTarzan
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
heart_of_the_matter
Con (against)
Losing
14 Points

Conspiracy V: American Airlines Flight 77

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
JustCallMeTarzan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/15/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,891 times Debate No: 8651
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (5)

 

JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

The proposition on offer is that on 9/11/2001, AA Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon in a manner consistent with photographic and computer generated evidence.

Again - a opening volley:

1) Hani Hanjour was a poor pilot.

Here's a quote from his flight instructor that granted him a commercial pilot's license in 1999: "Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot... There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it." I'm not sure what "experts" you consulted to determine this 270 degree spiral claim. Pilots do it frequently when they need to land on a different runway that was originally intended, or are flying a flight time that forces them onto an inconvenient (geographically) runway. It would be child's play to program the autopilot on a relatively modern 757-200 to execute the maneuver and then resume control when the plane was close to its destination.

2) The plane appeared to "magically" disintegrate.

There is wreckage ALL OVER in photos that were taken before the cleanup started. If you take the time to actually look closely at the photos, you can see all sorts of debris - engine parts, wheels, aluminum pieces, burnt corpses... The pentagon is made of masonry, concrete, steel, brick, and wood. Where'd all the aluminum come from in the wreckage if not a plane? Where'd the aircraft components come from? Also, from the nature of the Pentagon's construction, much of the debris would be inside the E ring and between the D and E rings, not on the exterior of the building, where most of the pictures are taken from.

3) There is not enough debris on the lawn for it to be a 757.

As mentioned above, much of the debris would be inside the building. Furthermore, when a aluminum plane meets a concrete wall, the airframe shatters (not disintigrates...) and produces a debris field like this: http://www.911myths.com...

I await rebuttal.

AFFIRMED.
heart_of_the_matter

Con

I thank my skilled and esteemed opponent for this opportunity to further investigate and debate this particular topic. I also welcome the readers and I hope this will be an interesting debate!

PRO provides 3 main points of disagreement and then explains why he thinks those points are not valid arguments, but CON will attempt to show why those very arguments are valid arguments and also will present other problems with the official story for consideration as to why the official story doesn't make sense:

1. Hani Hanjour's skill as a pilot
A. Pilots knew the common strategy prior to 9/11 for dealing with hijack attempts: Capt. Burlingame would have taken them where they wanted to go, but only if he saw more than a "boxcutter" or knife. Why would Capt. Burlingame, a retired military officer with training in anti-terrorism, give up his airplane to 5 foot nothing Hani Hanjour holding a boxcutter? Pilots don't give up their planes that easily!
B. Autopilot was shown to be disengaged.
C. Supposedly Hani Hanjour, took a 757, did a 400 knot 330 degree spiraling dive at 2500 fpm, only gaining 30 knots, then 30 knots more descending from 2200 feet at full power, with a very steady hand as to not overshoot or hit the lawn, inside ground effect, at 460 knots impact speed, but was refused to rent a 172 because he couldn't land it at 65 knots?
A-C http://pilotsfor911truth.org...

D. Why was the hijack code not inputted into the plane? This is a very simple thing to do and which pilots are trained to do if they are hijacked. In the event of a hijacking, the crew has only to punch in a four digit hijacking code - accessible from several different places - to alert ATC to a hijacking. So if 5 men were to try to take over a plane by the crude method of threatening people with box cutters, while it might be possible for them to be able to gain control of the plane, to do so without ATC first receiving a distress code is almost impossible. http://www.911closeup.com...

2. Disintegration of the plane/ Debris: (If my opponent agrees I would like to group these together for numbering as they seem somewhat related.)
A. Only a maximum of 26 ft. high (but actually way less) on the Pentagon shows to be hit, but if it had indeed been a 757 that had hit the Pentagon the upper stories would have been damaged because a 757 is 44.7 feet high plus the height of the cockpit. The videos that were taken also show the plane coming in level and not at any angle. At that point on the building it hardly looks even dented or chipped! http://www.asile.org... (frame #2) & http://911research.wtc7.net...
B. Supposedly almost all the victims of the attack were positively identified through DNA and dental records, we are also told that there is no significant remaining plane debris within the Pentagon because the intensity of the inferno after the crash wholly incinerated the aircraft and its component parts. These are two completely different and inconsistent statements. The government claims the fire in the Pentagon was so hot that the virtually indestructible
titanium engines were melted, enormous metal wings incinerated, detachable vertical tail fins swallowed whole, seats and luggage consumed, every inch of metal framing obliterated, landing gear gone, a whole enormous Boeing 757 essentially vaporized into molten rubble and dust. And yet that same raging, all-consuming inferno spared enough body parts and DNA of 184 individual human beings made of a carbon based material significantly less rugged than titanium, called skin and bone, somehow survived said firestorm intact enough for positive identification (side note: NO Arab bodies or DNA was found). http://www.911hardfacts.com... science proves that the possible temperatures reached could not have melted or destroyed the titanium in the engines.
C. The official explanation of the exit hole is incompatible with the evidence, it is too small. Serious laws of physics directly counter the possibility of the 'official story's' explanation of the mysterious exit hole. We have been told to believe matter-of-factly that some mass from the airplane survived the initial impact and explosion, maintained its immense forward thrust, threaded its way through a 300-foot maze of stout reinforced concrete pillars, hit an exterior wall made up of 21 inch square steel reinforced concrete covered with 6 inches of limestone fa´┐Żade and 8 inches of brick backed with Kevlar mesh with such massive force that it punched a huge, neat, circular cut-out exit hole. And then, in a miracle as yet unexplained, that same mass with such potent forward thrust decelerated and disintegrated in the span of 30 feet, leaving not a mark on the next wall in its path, nor a physical trace of its existence. http://www.911hardfacts.com...

D. Where did the green paint come from that was found in the plane wreckage? Was it really Flt. 77 ? because American Airline planes have red and blue paint. Even the paint in the highly publicized picture of wreckage on the lawn (red n and lt. blue paint) doesn't match up with AA colors completely. http://www.freedomfiles.org... (about 1/2 way down page)

Other problems with the official story:

3. The Flight Path
A. All altitude data shows the aircraft at least 300 feet too high to have struck the light poles. The rate of descent data is in direct conflict with the aircraft being able to impact the light poles and be captured in the Dept of Defense "5 Frames" video of an object traveling nearly parallel with the Pentagon lawn.
B. There was a tall radio tower in the official trajectory that would have been hit, but wasn't.
C. The aerodynamics of flight would have made the official trajectory--flying more than 500 mph barely above ground level--physically impossible, because of the accumulation of a massive pocket of compressed gas (air) beneath the fuselage; and if it had come it at an angle instead, it would have created a massive crater; but there is no crater and the official trajectory is impossible. Flying low enough to impact with the ground floor would have meant that the enormous engines were plowing the ground and creating massive furrows; but there are no massive furrows. The smooth, unblemished surface of the Pentagon lawn thus stands as a "smoking gun" proving the official trajectory cannot be sustained. http://www.globalresearch.ca...

4. Coverup!
A. There was a literal coverup of the Pentagon lawn with dirt! (that should not be done at a crime scene where forensics evidence is needed)
B. Why was there recent renovation on Pentagon which only reinforced the part of the Pentagon that got hit?
C. There are 84 videotapes of the crash, the three that have been released by the Pentagon do not show a Boeing 757 hitting the building. Also why have only 3 videos be released?
D. The US air force did not scramble a single fighter jet to intercept any of the hijacked planes. A little research into aviation regulations and historical precedent demonstrates that every one of those planes should have been intercepted by jet fighters before it got anywhere near its crash destination.Two planes had already hit the WTC by 9:03 and yet this plane was allowed to fly for another 42 minutes, off course towards Washington, untroubled by the world's most powerful air force. Only 10 miles from the Pentagon is Andrews Airbase, a huge installation which is responsible for air defence around the DC area, and maintains two squadrons of fighter jets on permanent standby for this very purpose, since the security of the White House, State dept, Capitol and the City of DC are also at stake. This was not an unforeseen contingency. It was an inside job!
http://www.911closeup.com...

I thank the readers and my opponent and wish him good luck in round 2.
Debate Round No. 1
JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

1) On Hani Hanjour's skill as a pilot...

A - Cell phone calls places from Flight 77 show that the hijackers took control of both the passenger cabin and the cockpit module, and then moved everyone, including the pilots, to the back of the plane. There is some doubt as to when the pilots arrived there, but Olson's question of "What should I tell the pilot to do?" (http://govinfo.library.unt.edu...) indicates that at some point in the hijacking the pilots were removed from the cockpit.

B - The autopilot was engaged and disengaged multiple times during the flight, but was not disengaged for an extended period of time until the plane began the final maneuver. If you look on page 9 here (http://www.911myths.com...), you will see that the autopilot was disengaged mid-flight for about six minutes to make minor course corrections (compare autopilot track to compass track).

C - This animation () based on the flight recorder data from Flight 77 shows that Hanjour hardly had a "steady hand." Furthermore, landing a plane and crashing one into a building are very different things. Hanjour's instructors had more problems with his English skills than his piloting skills, and the head of one airport where he flew stated "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it." (http://911debunker.livejournal.com...).

D - At 8:56 AM, Flight 77 disappeared from Indianapolis control - the transponder had been completely turned off. Indianapolis control assumed that the flight had crashed or suffered a severe mechanical failure. The answer to why no code 7500 was ever delivered is that there was no active transponder to deliver it WITH (http://www.9-11commission.gov...). By the time what was later identified as Flight 77 appeared on radar, it was only 6 minutes from the edge of Indianapolis airspace, and nonresponsive to attempts at communication.

2) On the disintegration of the plane / debris...

A - On impact, the airframe of an aluminum plane would have shattered. The low pressure zone below the plane caused by its passage combined with the snapping action on impact would have then caused the debris to buckle down onto itself, effectively collapsing the tail section. Furthermore, the actual entrance hole in the Pentagon is very similar to what the plane would have caused. It was low enough to hit the generator on the lawn on its way in () - and the height of the plane from GEAR DOWN to the tip of the tail was 44.5 feet. The Pentagon wall is 71 feet high (http://911review.com...), meaning the damage would have only extended a little more than halfway up the building even if the airframe hadn't shattered and left the tail section unsupported.

B - In a crematorium, it takes 90 minutes at 1800 F to destroy DNA and Teeth. The fires in the Pentagon did not reach that temperature, and even if they had, they certainly did not last for 90 minutes at that temperature (http://www.911myths.com...). This image (http://www.911myths.com...) from the Moussaoui trial (http://www.911myths.com...) shows an unmelted engine component... in fact, the only people claiming the engines were melted are conspiracy theorists with no photos of these melted engines... (http://www.911myths.com...).

C - As you can see here (http://www.911myths.com...), the interior walls of the Pentagon are not reinforced. Furthermore, the debris field of the crash would have been partially contained by the building itself and channeled towards the exit hole. This report (http://fire.nist.gov...) shows interior photos from the Pentagon detailing the damage and how it moved through the building.

D - Green paint could easily have come from the interior of the plane - in fact, I'd be highly surprised if blue, and red were the only paint colors at the scene. The basis for stating that the wreckage doesn't match that of the plane is based on this photo (http://www.the7thfire.com...), which reveals the wreckage to be about half the height of a truck tire, and about twice as long. The fuselage is 13.5 feet high (http://files.abovetopsecret.com...), and the text covers only about 20% of the fuselage. So is it really surprising that the little tiny corner of the N in American is only a couple of feet high when the text itself is maybe 4 feet high at the most??

3) On the flight path...

A - The actual flight recorder shows the plane reaching a pressure altitude of 0. All charts here (http://www.911myths.com...) (starting on pg 20) which display the actual data from the flight recorder show the plane reaching pressure altitude 0.

B - Look here (http://www.oilempire.us...) - you see any tall towers? Besides the huge Sheraton Hotel?

C - What my opponent refers to here is called the "ground effect" (http://en.wikipedia.org...) which actually reduces drag and improves aircraft performance... not plow huge furrows in the ground. And if being close to the ground had any potential to cause huge craters, why is Midway airport in Chicago surrounded by houses (http://www.dbout.com...) ?? Do you see and craters in the lawn at Midway?

4) On a coverup...

A - The lawn was covered with sand and gravel to build a road to bring pristine dumpsters for the wreckage so as not to contaminate it (http://www.911myths.com...).

B - On arriving in DC, Hanjour realized he was too high to make an approach on his current side of the building... the awkwardness of his turn is further evidence of his inexperience as a pilot. The fact that the plane hit the reinforced side of the building comes down to which direction Hanjour decided to start his turn - in other words, there's a 50% chance he could have hit the other side.

C - There are actually eighty-FIVE tapes submitted to the FBI or taken in the field. Of these 85, 56 do not show the Pentagon, the crash site, or the impact, 16 do not show the site or impact, and 12 only show the site after the crash. That's 84 tapes. The 85th is the fish-eye camera we're all familiar with.

D - There was a great deal of confusion in the NORAD and FAA chains of command that morning. Unfortunately, controllers were mistaken about the identity of the flight headed towards Washington, calling it American Airlines Flight 11, even after that flight had already impacted the WTC. The FAA did not notify NORAD that Flight 77 was hijacked until 9:24. As mentioned above, in the time between the plane disappearing from Indianapolis Radar and being re-discovered in Washington, people were organizing parties to look for a crashed plane (as per the information from Indianapolis). NORAD had two F-16's in the air at 9:30 with a 12 minute flight time... unfortunately 5 minutes too late to shoot down Flight 77 (http://911debunker.livejournal.com...).

*******************************************************

Much thanks to my opponent, though I might ask him to decrease the number of issues per round, as I'm consistently running out of characters =P

AFFIRMED.
heart_of_the_matter

Con

I thank my opponent for his well researched response. My opponent wanted me to touch on fewer points per round, and my lack of time also makes this desirable, so I will focus more this round on the points in #1.

1. Flight 77
A. Hijacking - My opponent did not address the key point which I brought forth: WHY would Capt. Burlingame have given up his plane since there was not a grave enough threat to warrant that? The motivation aspect of the pilot has not been shown to be congruent with what supposedly occurred.
Also what about the ARMED air marshal? What was he doing? Surely they are trained in how to deal with these types of situations as that is their entire purpose for existing. I would think that a trained air marshal with a gun and training and the advantage of the terrorists not knowing who he was would be able to take out some terrorists armed with boxcutters or at least have taken some actions to hinder or stop the hijacking. So why did he supposedly do nothing to stop this "hijacking"?
The source my opponent used (Official 9/11 Commission Report) has members who have conflicts of interest. The 9/11 Commission has earned the designation of the "Omission Commission" due to its refusal to even consider the vast body of evidence contradicting the official narrative of the attack. An important thing to remember about the 9/11 report was that it was a "unanimous report" which means any objections to anything were not reported.
http://www.ae911truth.org...
http://911research.wtc7.net...
http://beyondcomfortablynumb.blogspot.com...
"The report deliberately ignores officials and civil servants who were, and still are, clearly negligent and/or derelict in their duties to the nation. If these individuals are protected rather than held accountable, the mindset that enabled 9/11 will persist, no matter how many layers of bureaucracy are added, and no matter how much money is poured into the agencies. Character counts.
Personal integrity, courage, and professionalism make the difference. Only a commission bent on holding no one responsible and reaching unanimity could have missed that."
http://www.scoop.co.nz...
My opponent also raises the point about cell phones being used, this is also a debatable point. In fact there is no "hard" evidence that any of the doomed passengers made any cell phone call: it's all anecdotal. There are tremendous inconsistencies in the stories surrounding this phone call. http://911review.org...
Some questions I would pose would be: Why would Olson be the only one who made a telephone call? Also how could she use the Air Phone if she didn't have her credit cards with her? (The other possibility of making a collect call on her cell phone to her husband at a government office doesn't seem possible either.) Also (See Reasons for Still Doubting the Olson Calls)
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info...
B. Autopilot - At 9:29 a.m. September 11, 2001 the Autopilot on Flight 77 was disengaged. The plane was flying at 7,000 feet and about 38 miles west of the Pentagon.
http://www.historycommons.org...
C. My opponent claims Hani had a "steady hand", but a made up cartoon animation can be made to look however it wants. "Aviation sources said the plane was flown with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm, possibly one of the hijackers." There are many other problems with the animation that was created (12 listed on this site alone) for ex: 7. Why does your animation show a flight path north of the reported flight path?
8. Why are there no system indication of any impact with any object up to and after :44?
9. Why does the csv file and animation show a right bank when the official report requires a left bank to be consistent with physical damage to the generator? Etc... http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org...
"For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible - there is not one chance in a thousand," said [ex-commercial pilot Russ] Wittenberg, recalling that when he made the jump from Boeing 727's to the highly sophisticated computerized characteristics of the 737's through 767's it took him considerable time to feel comfortable flying.
D. As to why the hijack code was not inputted my opponent replies that the transponder was turned off. The research I did on this seems to indicate that this is not an easy or obvious thing to do: "Someone even knew how to turn off the transponder, a move that is considerably less than obvious." From the looks of the cockpit in the 757 (vs. the Cessna 172) it seems highly unlikely to me that an unskilled pilot would be able to find the button that did that. (see cockpit pictures at this source to see the differences in the complexity of the cockpits)
C-D:http://whatreallyhappened.com...
But the main argument against this is that it only takes a couple seconds to do. "The action, which pilots should take the moment a hijack situation is known, only takes seconds to perform" http://www.historycommons.org...
So BEFORE the plane was taken over (supposedly) why wouldn't this code have been sent out? Sure, once the terrorists had control of the plane they possibly could have turned off the transponder (if they could figure out how to, which is also debatable), but BEFORE they had control of the plane how could they have done that? The transponder on/off switch is in the cockpit.

I thank the readers and my opponent and look forward to next round.
Debate Round No. 2
JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

To respond:

1) On Flight 77:

A - There is nothing to suggest either way that Capt. Burlingame cooperated/didn't with the hijackers. However, it seems that the hijackers physically moved the passengers to the rear of the plane. There's no reason they couldn't have simply dragged the Captain from his chair. As for the supposed Air Marshall... There were only 33 active duty Air Marshall service members on 9/11 - the expansions that increased their number did not take place until after 9/11/01 (http://en.wikipedia.org...). And as for the text about the 911 Commission... the Commission itself is usually criticized for ignoring the testimony of the FBI, NSA, and individual agents about how they had some forewarning. Even if the 911 Commission is guilty of a cover-uip, what they would be covering up would be the failures of US departments, which is NOT the same as the US being responsible for what happened OR lying to the public about the events of the day.

A2 - According to my opponent's posted source phone calls could have been made from Flight 77 via onboard phones. However, the contention remains that the calls were faked. If this is the case, my opponent should demonstrate motive for faking calls, as well as reason for why the FAA took action on Renee May's word, yet Barbara Olson's is dismissed.

B - As I explained before, the autopilot was disengaged, most likely for a minor course correction. The magnetic compass heading indicator in the tapes referenced above displays a minor course correction with only minute changes in altitude. In any event, my opponent must demonstrate the significance of this 6-minute disengagement.

C - What I actually said in Round 2 was: "This animation () based on the flight recorder data from Flight 77 shows that Hanjour hardly had a "steady hand.""

>> "Why does your animation show a flight path north of the reported flight path?"

Easy - the animation was done with Google Earth, which uses true north. The FAA plots using magnetic north.

>> "Why are there no system indication of any impact with any object up to and after :44?"

If you recall, the plane was traveling at around 500 miles per hour, which would mean that any indication on the flight recorder would require a much higher resolution than either of us have found, as the plane would have crossed the distance from the highway to the ground in literally seconds. However, the damage to the light poles in photographs is entirely consistent with the animation.

>> "Why does the csv file and animation show a right bank when the official report requires a left bank to be consistent with physical damage to the generator?"

The generator was on the right side of the plane... The official report documents damage to the right engine, which can be seen in the smoke behind the engine in the fisheye camera at the Pentagon.

>> "For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible - there is not one chance in a thousand,"

As seen above in the animation, Hanjour hardly "flew like an ace." And as his flight instructors noted, they had no doubts he could hit a building with the plane.

D - Hanjour "spent hours online at a family-owned Internet cafe. He read voraciously about piloting" (http://www.boston.com...)... so he presumably would have known that planes have transponders. In planning a hijacking operation, deactivation of the transponder would have been a high priority.

>> "BEFORE they had control of the plane how could they have done that? The transponder on/off switch is in the cockpit."

When the cockpit door is opened, a secondary transponder activates outside the cockpit. Unfortunately, there's no way to confirm this hypothesis either way, but it's possible that if the hijackers opened the cockpit door before the pilots were aware that the crew had been overpowered, the transponder would then require confirmation before broadcasting a code. Furthermore, transponders (http://www.langleyflyingschool.com...) function by turning dials, so it would have hardly required only seconds to notify the ground controllers.
heart_of_the_matter

Con

heart_of_the_matter forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

Disappointing...

Extend my arguments.

AFFIRMED.
heart_of_the_matter

Con

My apologies for forfeiting...I'm sorry I accepted this debate without considering my upcoming time restraints very well...I tried to post Rd. 2 without having much time at all and it didn't work well....I don't have time to finish the debate due to a friend visiting and I am also travelling immediately after that. Sorry for the inconvenience to you...the debate was too interesting for me to resist...I really enjoy the topic.
Debate Round No. 4
JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

I'm not sure if that counts as a concession or not, but I'll leave that up to the voters...

AFFIRMED.
heart_of_the_matter

Con

heart_of_the_matter forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Volkov 8 years ago
Volkov
B & A: CON
Conduct: PRO; due to forfeits.
S & G: Tied.
Argument: PRO; this was close, because I actually think CON made his case better than PRO, but the lack of rebuttal in the last rounds got to me.
Sources: Tied.
Posted by feverish 8 years ago
feverish
I would love to sit down and watch the whole of Zeitgeist with Tarzan and heart_of_the_matter.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
>> "In the image on the right, he shows that the piece matches the skin of an American Airlines 757-200 fuselage from the upper starboard side just aft of the front door."

The piece of debris could have come from either side of the plane, considering the word "AMERICAN" is painted on both sides (http://www.twf.org...). It matches both sides of the plane, and on the left side, it's near the MID-door... making it much more likely that the debris is from the middle of the left side of the plane, not the front right.

>> "Photographs of plane entry points on the WTC, clearly show winged out lines, now, if these wings can fly through steel, then is it not possible the can fly through bricks and mortar?"

Easy - the WTC was constructed of a metal mesh on the outside - you can see the mesh and its relative size to people here (http://www.european911citizensjury.com...). The Pentagon, on the other hand, is made of reinforced brick and concrete. So what actually happened at the WTC was akin to a pencil pushing through a mesh screen door. What happened at the Pentagon was like that same pencil running into a solid block of wood.

The WTC could be "sliced" by the plane, which then broke apart inside the building. The Pentagon wall and the plane both fragmented upon impact.

>> "Unless you can provide a flight recorder, your side of the debate is doomed to failure"

Nah - I'm showing that the notion that a plane crashed into the building is consistent with the evidence.
Posted by thisoneguy 8 years ago
thisoneguy
Photographs of plane entry points on the WTC, clearly show winged out lines, now, if these wings can fly through steel, then is it not possible the can fly through bricks and mortar,? you can't have it both ways.
As far as your picture is concerned, Dick Eastman pointed out that the scrap of debris matches an American Airlines 757, but that its condition and position were not consistent with the crash of such a plane, suggesting that the piece was planted. In the image on the right, he shows that the piece matches the skin of an American Airlines 757-200 fuselage from the upper starboard side just aft of the front door. However, its position and condition contradict the official account of the crash: it was photographed far to the left of the flightpath though it was from the right side of the aircraft, and it showed no signs of abrasion or shearing though it was from near the front of the aircraft.

Unless you can provide a flight recorder, your side of the debate is doomed to failure, and that's without going into any other points. Best of luck anyway !
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by patsox834 8 years ago
patsox834
JustCallMeTarzanheart_of_the_matterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by thisoneguy 8 years ago
thisoneguy
JustCallMeTarzanheart_of_the_matterTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Volkov 8 years ago
Volkov
JustCallMeTarzanheart_of_the_matterTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
JustCallMeTarzanheart_of_the_matterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by tribefan011 8 years ago
tribefan011
JustCallMeTarzanheart_of_the_matterTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07