The Instigator
Double_R
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
1stDrakePassage
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

It is beyond a reasonable doubt that flight 77 hit the Pentagon

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 3 votes the winner is...
Double_R
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/15/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 9,929 times Debate No: 30305
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (41)
Votes (3)

 

Double_R

Pro

Flight 77- American Airlines flight 77, which departed from Washington Dulles International Airport on 9/11/01 and reportedly crashed into the Pentagon at 09:37 EDT.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Standard Debate Rules to Apply:
- First round for acceptance only.
- No Semantics
- Last round for summaries and necessary rebuttals only. No new arguments.
- No arguments or sources to be placed in the comment section.
- Personal attacks should automatically result in a loss of conduct points.
- All arguments should be addressed or considered a concession, unless the voters determine that there was not enough space to address all contentions as a result of argument spamming.

I welcome my opponent to DDO and wish him the best of luck.
Debate Round No. 1
Double_R

Pro

The crash of flight 77 into the Pentagon is irrefutable as long as valid logic is a condition of a doubt being reasonable. To avoid straw manning my opponent, I will make my initial argument brief allowing Con a chance to fully present his case.

The Main Evidence

A) There are numerous eyewitnesses who saw the events of 9/11 unfold at the Pentagon. Of the 136 witnesses reported, 104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon, 26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet, 39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner, 7 said it was a Boeing 757, 16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, 42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris, 0 saw a military aircraft, missile, or anything but a commercial plane strike the Pentagon, 0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away(1)(2).

B) There are 3 video’s released showing flight 77, 2 of which directly show it impacting the Pentagon. One in particular is compared to an animation created by Mike Wilson which took photos of the pentagon and aligned those photos with the dimensions of Flight 77. Although the video is inconclusive, the visible dimensions match up exactly(3).

C) Physical evidence left by the impact includes plane debris all over the lawn of the Pentagon as well as inside the pentagon in the area of impact. This debris includes a landing gear, an intact seat from the cockpit, a plane tire and rim, and multiple pieces of identifiable aluminum exterior including some pieces which had the letters of “American Airlines” still clearly legible, among other physical evidence. No physical evidence of any other theoretical cause was ever found(4).

D) Flight 77’s data recorder was recovered in the impact zone and the data is consistent with all of the events of flight 77’s reported crash(5).

E) The Armed Forces Institute of Pathology put together a team of over 50 forensic scientists who successfully used DNA to identify the remains of 184 of the 189 people who died in the impact, including 58 of the 59 passengers on board flight 77(6)(7).


F)
Flight 77 left physical damage along the highway before it approached the Pentagon. This evidence included light poles far apart from each other knocked over as well as a power generator smashed by one of the wings(3). Many of the eyewitnesses provided in (A) also reported witnessing this specific event.



The conclusion of the evidence is indisputable.

To accept as a reasonable possibility that flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, one would have to first directly confront the evidence concluding that it did. It is inconceivable that out of the 136 reported eyewitnesses, or the other few hundred people within a clear vicinity of the Pentagon, not *one* eyewitness reported then or even to this day that they saw something other then a commercial airplane hit the Pentagon. Nor is there a reasonable hypothesis to how the pieces of flight 77 including its black box found its way to the impact zone if it did not crash there. And the DNA evidence concludes that Flight 77 was the only possible airplane which may have been responsible for the damage. The evidence tells a clear and consistent story.

If flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon then something else did. In over a decade after 9/11 no one has been able to provide evidence supporting any coherent alternative to the official story.

(1) https://sites.google.com...
(2) http://www.911myths.com...
(3) http://tinyurl.com...
(4) http://rense.com...
(5) http://www.ntsb.gov...
(6) http://web.archive.org...
(7) http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu...
1stDrakePassage

Con

That a twin-engine jetliner, likely a Boeing 757 and likely in American Airlines livery, flew in from the west at very low altitude toward the Pentagon at about 9:37 AM on the morning of September 11, 2001 is beyond rational dispute and, being a rational person, I do not dispute this. That a considerable number of people saw this plane as it approached the Pentagon is also beyond rational dispute. I base my argument that this plane did not strike the west facade of the Pentagon, but in fact flew over the building then banked sharply over the Pentagon's south parking area and flew away toward the southeast on the following evidence:

A) While there are a number of eyewitnesses confirming that a plane of various descriptions crashed into the Pentagon, there are also several who have reported that a twin-engine jetliner approached the Pentagon on a flight path well north of the one presented by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the 9/11 Commission Report, a flight path that could not have impacted the Pentagon causing the directional damage that was done to the building nor the damage done outside the building. These eyewitnesses, 13 in number, independently and unanimously reported seeing a white or silver colored twin-engine jetliner fly low over the Navy Annex building and north of the Citgo gas station on the west side of Rt.27. These witnesses included a former military pilot and two Pentagon Police officers. Most of these witnesses gave their recorded descriptions to the Center for Military History or Library of Congress within weeks of the event. One factor regarding these witnesses, none of whom claim to have seen the plane hit the Pentagon, as opposed to those who did claim to have seen it hit is that they were likely under less stress since they were seeing only a low-flying plane, not one they perceived was about to crash into a building. The eyewitness who was likely closest to the explosion and fireball was Pentagon Air Traffic Controller Sean Boger who was in the heliport tower. He describes a plane flying in over the Navy Annex and straight toward the tower located just outside the Pentagon and north of the damage zone. This flight path absolutely precludes one that would have done the directional damage to the Pentagon or the damage to structures outside the building.
http://vimeo.com...

B) The security camera video released by the Pentagon in 2006 (with an incorrect date-stamp of Sep.12, 2001) does not show anything that is clearly recognizable as a Boeing 757. The trail of white "smoke" in the 1st and 2nd frames of the video has an artificial appearance as if it had been photoshopped in. The animated simulation of the presumed last seconds of the flight and crash of AA77, "911 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77", assumes that the light fixture on lamp pole #3 broke off and was ingested into the intake of the starboard engine causing white smoke to billow from the engine exhaust. Jet fuel (kerosene) gives off thick black smoke when an engine is damaged such that the air/fuel mixture is severely altered. I personally watched more than 60 videos of aircraft disasters and saw numerous instances of damaged jet engines emit flame, black smoke, or both from the exhaust. I did not see a single damaged jet engine that emitted white smoke.
http://tinyurl.com...
http://youtube.com...

C) Photographs of the damaged area of the Pentagon taken prior to the collapse of the roof at about 10:22AM show there was a lack of substantial damage to the wall of the Pentagon beyond the opening on the first and second floors where the plane's fuselage supposedly entered. There was unbroken glass in windows immediately adjacent to and above the opening where the wings and vertical stabilizer would have hit, and just inside the opening column 14AA on the second floor was still intact. Columns on the first floor where the wings would have hit were displaced outward instead of inward as would be expected. Photographs taken of the damaged area on September 21, 2001 after rubble had been cleared away show no damage to the first floor foundation where the two massive engines would have hit. In addition there was a lack of substantial aircraft wreckage on the lawn in front of the wall. Relatively few small pieces of wreckage were photographed, but none of the pieces have been positively identified as belonging to AA Flight 77.
http://vimeo.com...

D) It would have been possible for a knowledgable technician to substitute the data spool from Flight 77's data recorder with the one from the Pentagon "fly-over" plane's flight data recorder and have the data feed appear to terminate or it could have been terminated by a signal on the plane itself. And there are several other ways the flight data could have been faked. In 1998 Air France 296 crashed on its maiden flight. Pilot error was cited, but it was discovered by IPSC Laboratories in Switzerland that the flight data recorder had been switched for a fake. Extensive analysis done by Pilots for 9/11 Truth of the data files purported to be from Flight 77's data recorder indicate a number of anomalies. Both the direction and altitude as the plane approached the Pentagon are at variance with the the official version of the plane's flight path to the extent that it could not have caused the damage to the building and outside it that was observed. If Flight 77's data recorder was recovered, this brings up the question of why the cockpit voice recorder was not recovered as well. They are similar devices within hardened protective cases mounted in the tail section to maximize the probability of survival in a crash and both should have been recovered.

E) I will address certain problems and anomalies in the procedures for the recovery and identification of the bodies of victims at the Pentagon in a later post. The time I can allocate to this will not allow me to do it at this time.

I have attempted to present here, as my time will allow, just some of the many problems and factual anomalies with the official version of events at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. In subsequent posts I will present an alternative scenario that will fit the best evidence now available.
Debate Round No. 2
Double_R

Pro

Cons case that Flight 77 may not have hit the Pentagon is so far based on four perceived anomalies with the official story. He uses these anomalies to support the theory that Flight 77 actually approached the Pentagon and flew over, apparently leaving some secondary device to cause the damage. Con however provides no direct evidence that a plane flew over the Pentagon and no evidence of what might have caused the damage. Yet remarkably he claims that it is beyond rational dispute that a plane flew in from the west at a very low altitude. How does he conclude this? The evidence supporting that a plane flew in from the west at a low altitude comes almost entirely from eyewitnesses, the same ones who said they saw the plane hit the Pentagon.


The Evidence


A)
Con responds to my 104 eyewitnesses who directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon with 13 eyewitnesses of his own. And yet his claim is not that his eyewitnesses saw the plane fly over, but rather that they saw the plane approach from a path north of the Citgo gas station near the Pentagon instead of the south side of the station where the official flight path is placed. Strangely, he uses this to conclude that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon.


The theory here is that if Flight 77 approached from the north side path then the damage to the Pentagon could not have been from the plane. In other words, north side approach = conspiracy. This is the closest thing that Con has provided as evidence of the fly over theory, yet as the makers of his cited documentary admit on their own website; many of these 13 witnesses saw Flight 77 hit the Pentagon(1). Con is literally using his witness interviews as support for a theory that his own witnesses don’t believe. Meanwhile there are plenty of witnesses who in their testimonies gave specifics which place the flight path south of the Citgo station, lining up perfectly with the official story. 10 of them are cited and sourced here(2). And of course let me reiterate that not *one* eyewitness, including Cons, has ever reported seeing a plane approach the Pentagon and fly over.


Con has also failed to address the downed light poles and damaged power generator left by Flight 77 as it approached. This path is completely inconsistent with the north side approach Cons witnesses describe. Physical evidence and strength in numbers is what we use to sort out the eyewitnesses and determine which accounts are likely accurate. Con is instead using his hand picked 13 witnesses to rule out the other 104 as well as the physical evidence. That is not how real investigation works.


B)
The most likely cause of white smoke coming from the engine is a light pole induced fuel dump, which is not only normal but would be expected. Bird strikes typically cause this phenomenon(3). Con ignores this possibility and instead asserts that black smoke is evidence of the video being faked. No, it is evidence that Con needs to consider other possibilities, even if they contradict his theory.


C)
The glass windows at the Pentagon were blast resistant and thus designed to withstand a strong impact. The windows that were still intact were not directly hit by the plane’s wings or tail so there is no reason they would be broken, that is what they were designed to do. The columns hit by the plane were not displaced outward as Con claims. They are clearly bent towards the north(left) side of the photograph, which is exactly what we would expect from a south side angled approach. And it is not strange to see no damage in the foundation of the building, the engine would have been mostly torn to pieces as soon as it hit the building facade, and the floors would have absorbed some of the impact before it got to the foundation.


Con also seems to expect to see a large tail section or a wing sitting on the lawn, which his video argues is normally seen in plane crashes. Neither Con nor the makers of the film seem to take into account the fact that none of the examples being compared to Flight 77 flew directly into a concrete wall. If they had we wouldn’t expect any large debris, that is not what this phenomenon looks like(4). The physical evidence found at the crash site is perfectly consistent with what we would find if Flight 77 crashed there as reported, and there is no reasonable alternative to explain it.


D)
If Con wishes to convince anyone that Flight 77’s data recorder was faked then he must provide evidence of his allegation, not tell us what he thinks happened to Air France 296’s data recorder. His only attempt at this was to argue that the Flight 77’s data is inconsistent with the official story. Cons theory here is that the conspirators took a flight path which contradicts their story, and yet still put this forward as evidence to support their story. This assumes that the conspirators could be so masterful while attempting the impossible, yet entirely amateur while attempting such simple tasks. Moreover, Con provides no analysis or source to support his claim. He simply states that this conclusion was reached by Pilots for 9/11 Truth, an organization which literally formed to support 9/11 conspiracy theories.


And yes, the cockpit voice recorder was found(5).


E)
No response


Summary


When confronted with evidence that does not support his theory Con simply hand waives it away by claiming that any anomaly in that evidence allows us to disregard it entirely. Strange anomalies are found even in the most controlled science experiments, it is simply not reasonable to believe that every imaginable question or minor inconsistency regarding an event as chaotic as 9/11 should have an indisputable explanation. Rather, an honest assessment of an event should be attained by looking at the main evidence and the story it tells. The official story is consistent with all of the observed facts and physical evidence, even if Con doesn’t understand every detail about every photo or video.


I commend Con for actually stating an alternative theory, something most conspiracy theorists are unwilling to do. However, for his theory to be taken seriously Con must explain how 104 people directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon while not one saw it fly over. He must explain what caused the downed light poles and damaged power generators on the south side path. He must explain where all of the pieces of an American Airlines 767 at the crash site came from. And he must give some realistic possibility for what happened to the passengers and the plane, as well as why anyone would go to such painful lengths to pull off such an unnecessarily complicated task. Note that these would presumably be the same conspirators who had no problem flying planes into the WTC yet for some reason thought it would be better to fake the impact at the Pentagon. This would involve hundreds if not thousands of people to pull off, all of them with conflicting personal interests and all of them remaining silent over the passing years knowing that they assisted in one of the greatest mass murders in US history. The theory loses all credibility on that point alone.


A reasonable conclusion requires that one take the evidence and follow it where it leads. The official story accounts for all of the evidence and tells a clear and consistent story. Not one piece of evidence supports Cons fly over theory.


(1) http://www.thepentacon.com...;(app 2/3rd of the way down)
(2) http://csarnsblog.blogspot.com...
(3) http://contrailscience.com...
(4) http://tinyurl.com...
(5) http://www.scribd.com...
1stDrakePassage

Con

A) I cited the unanimity of agreement of the 13 eyewitnesses only to establish the certitude of the north side approach of the plane. The fact that some of these eyewitnesses (Robert Turcios, Terry Morin, Bill Legasse) were certain that the plane hit the Pentagon even though they could not have seen the "area of impact" from their vantage point leads me to believe a factor I have strongly suspected influenced them as well as others, that of their expectation determining their perception. It would have been a near impossibility for anyone on the west side of the Pentagon to have actually seen the plane fly over the building since it would have been hidden by the fireball which almost instantly expanded to well above the top of the wall. The strongest evidence that the plane did fly over the building is the eyewitness account of Pentagon police officer Roosevelt Roberts,Jr. who described seeing a "large aircraft liner" with jet engines and "silver in color" fly over the Pentagon south parking area almost as low as the light poles. He describes seeing the plane only a few seconds after hearing a large explosion that shook the building. Since no witnesses report seeing a second plane approaching the Pentagon from any direction immediately prior to the explosion, the plane seen by Roberts flying away had to be the same one seen flying toward the building by numerous witnesses. Officer Roberts gave his account in a recorded interview for the Library of Congress on November 30, 2001.
http://vimeo.com...
http://csarnsblog.blogspot.com...

B) Explaining the apparent white smoke on the video released by the Pentagon as a "light pole induced fuel dump" is utterly unconvincing. An aircraft fuel dump is a deliberate precautionary action taken by the pilot to release excess fuel, usually before landing under hazardous conditions that could result in an onboard fire. It is not caused by bird strikes or other objects ingested into the engine.
http://wikipedia.org...

C) Photographs of the damage to the Pentagon prior to the collapse of the roof reveal numerous conditions inconsistent with an impact by a Boeing 757. That there would have been any columns, regardless of the direction they were leaning, still intact and standing where the right engine would have entered the building is absolutely incongruous. The photographs taken of the damaged area by FEMA a few days afterward show the concrete floor slab that extends out to and slightly in front of the outer wall virtually undamaged. This is where the engines, the lowest structures on a 757 jetliner in flight, would have hit and plowed across the surface. Claiming the engines would have been "torn to pieces" when they hit the outer wall is simply wrong. The engines are by far the strongest components of a jet airliner. Most of the major constituents are steel. If an aluminum aircraft body could have penetrated the outer wall, a steel engine could have done so while incurring less damage. The lack of evidence of damage to the floor slab from the huge steel engines is an extreme anomaly.
http://vimeo.com...

D) In 2007 Pilots for 9/11 Truth obtained the raw Flight Data Recorder file from the NTSB through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. They were later told by NTSB that the file had been provided by mistake and it should not have been sent to them. However, the raw data file was useless to them without the software to decode it. It was through a fortuitous contact within the aircraft data industry that they managed to get the file decoded. Whether it was carelessness by NTSB or someone who wanted to leak sensitive information or for whatever reason, the flight data file got out of the government's control. The data in it have been found to be at variance with the official account of AA77's flight path and neither the NTSB nor the FBI will comment on it.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org...
Debate Round No. 3
Double_R

Pro

Con continues to argue the 4 points we have been discussing while adding very little to what he presented in the previous round. Most regrettably, he fails to provide any logical support for how any of his arguments refute the resolution. Quite simply, they don’t.


A)
Con begins by defending his decision to cite the unanimity of his 13 eyewitnesses. Con doesn’t understand what unanimity is. Wikipedia defines unanimity as “agreement by all people in a given situation”(1). Cons 13 eyewitnesses account for “all people” in this situation because he disregards everyone who recall’s the flight path differently then his witnesses do. This is a blatant fallacy of logic.


Con then states that the strongest evidence of his fly over theory is the testimony of Pentagon police officer Roosevelt Roberts. Roosevelt was interviewed in the documentary Con sites, and in that interview he makes it clear that he did not see the plane approach the Pentagon or the impact. He was in the east loading dock at the time of the crash and only after hearing the impact, he ran outside where he claims to have seen “another plane” flying away. While there are so many problems with using this testimony as evidence for a fly over, it is not even worth arguing.


Even if we accept this as a “flyover witness”, this is inadequate evidence of Cons conclusion. Con accepts what his eyewitnesses claim while ignoring the fact that others saw the exact opposite. His conclusions based on these 13 testimonies are directly contradicted by 104 other reported witnesses as well as the physical evidence such as the downed light poles and damaged power generator along the opposite side path which proves Cons witnesses wrong. And even if we accept Cons absurd claim that the witnesses on the west side would not have seen the fly over, I395 is just south of the Pentagon and at the time of the impact was crowded with bumper to bumper traffic. There were hundreds of witnesses with a clear view of the event, yet not one of them reported seeing the fly over then or in the decade plus since. Con does not have eyewitness testimony on his side. He simply picks and chooses which ones he wants to believe and even then, he picks and chooses which parts of their testimony he will accept. This is the confirmation bias fallacy on steroids.


B)
Con claims my light pole induced fuel dump explanation is utterly unconvincing. Cons incredulity is not evidence that the video was faked and he has provided no factual or scientific analysis to support his claim. Meanwhile I cited a credible source which specifically cites bird strikes (exterior damage) as a cause for white smoke coming from a jet engine.

C) Con still claims that the pictures of the damage show conditions inconsistent with the crash of a 757(correction from earlier claims of a 767). Note that Con has yet again provided no scientific analysis to support his claim and his only source is a video put together by a couple of 9/11 conspiracy theorists who have no expertise in the relevant fields. Also note that Con never made any reference to the many pieces of Flight 77 found at the crash site. Con is simply looking at the photos and asking questions, although he phrases them as statements to be accepted as fact because he and his conspiracy theorist film makers say so.


In round 2 Con claimed that the columns were displaced outward according to the photographs. After correcting him, he now claims that the columns should not be standing. He gives us no physical calculations or facts of any kind to support his claim, instead he offers just another unsupported assertion of his incredulity. Con also claims that the engines should have damaged the foundation. All he gives us to support this claim is the notion that if the “aircraft body” could have penetrated the wall then so too could the engine. Apparently this is supposed to prove that there should have been damage to the foundation by the engines. However there was no damage to the foundation by the body of the aircraft either, so this argument does not even lead us to his conclusion.


While Con is fixated on the damage the “massive engines” should have caused, he ignores the fact that Flight 77’s engines weighed just over 7,000lbs each(2) in comparison to the total weight made up mostly by the aircraft body(fuselage) which exceeds 200,000 lbs(3). There is no reason to put so much emphasis on the damage the engines should have caused, it would have been relatively minimal compared to the damage caused by the rest of the plane as was observed. If Con was focused on facts and legitimate science as opposed to claims of what he wants to believe we should have seen, he would have factored this into his arguments.


D) Cons source for his black box argument is a link to a page with over 10 articles. The only one which looked like it was about Flight 77 is a video over an hour long. It is not my job to guess what Cons argument is here. All he has stated is that the data from Flight 77’s black box is “at variance” with the official story. This tells us absolutely nothing, and certainly doesn’t mean that it did not crash into the Pentagon. Con has made no argument here.


E) Again, no response to the fact that the DNA from 58 of the 59 passengers was identified at the crash site. This point alone affirms the resolution.


Recap:

A) Eyewitness testimony

Favors Flight 77 crash? YES

Favors Fly over theory? NO. Requires the overwhelming majority of eyewitnesses to be wrong or lying.


B)
Video footage evidence

Favors Flight 77 crash? YES

Favors Fly over theory? NO. Requires footage to be faked with no evidence.


C)
Physical evidence

Favors Flight 77 crash? YES

Favors Fly over theory? NO. Requires staging and alternative explosive device with no evidence.


D)
Black box data

Favors Flight 77 crash? YES

Favors Fly over theory? NO. Requires falsified data with no evidence other then possible error cited but not supported by Con.


E)
DNA

Favors Flight 77 crash? YES

Favors Fly over theory? NO. Requires staging with no evidence.


F)
Flight path damage (light poles and generator)

Favors Flight 77 crash? YES

Favors Fly over theory? NO. Requires staging with no evidence.


Conclusion

The more complex a story or event gets, the easier it is to find some kind of perceived anomaly or inconsistency within it. One indication of whether a doubt of an event is reasonable is the significance of the perceived anomalies used as justification for that doubt. Con pretty much summed up this debate by stating that the strongest evidence of his fly over theory was the eyewitness testimony of one man, who did not see the event in question and remarkably does not even believe the fly over theory.


The major fallacy in Cons logic is that he treats the official story like it is a house of cards, where knocking over any one card with some percieved anomoly automatically collapses the entire story. That is not how reality works. We can find percieved anomolies in nearly every explanation for every event in history. The more documented an event the more anomolies we will find, and 9/11 is perhaps the most documented event in history. Instead, real and honest investigation requires one to scrutinize their own theory in comparison alternative explanations. If Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon then something else did, and Flight 77 along with it's passengers ended up somewhere, and thousands of people are all in on it, and someone actually thought this plan was a good idea as opposed to a simpler one with a much higher probability of success, and no one has ever spoken about it since. Con has no logic or evidence to suggest that any of this is actually true. He instead focuses on insignificant details of the official story because he does not want to deal with this reality. Any reasonable person interested in a reasonable conclusion would.


1) http://en.wikipedia.org...

2) http://en.wikipedia.org...

3) http://en.wikipedia.org...

1stDrakePassage

Con

I will first briefly address in order the last points posted by my opponent and then present in summary an alternative scenario of Flight 77 consistent with the best evidence now available as I promised I would do.

A) My statement in Round 3 Part A is: "I cited the unanimity of agreement of the 13 eyewitnesses only to establish the certitude of the north side approach of the plane." My use of the term "unanimity" within this particular statement is not incorrect. It applies strictly to the group of 13 eyewitnesses.

What is crucial about the testimony of Pentagon police officer Roosevelt Roberts Jr. is what he said he saw and when he saw it, not what he thought he had seen. Since, according to his testimony, he believed a plane had crashed into the building causing an explosion, of course he would have thought the plane he saw just seconds later flying low over the south parking area was "another plane". Roberts stated in his recorded testimony for the Library of Congress and his recorded interview with Citizen Investigation Team that, "I was in south parking, and I was at the east loading dock when I ran outside and saw the low-flying aircraft above the parking lot. It looked like to me at that time a large aircraft-liner. (CIT: Okay. Did it have propellers, or did it have jet engines?) It looked like jet engines, at that time. (CIT: Jet engines. Okay, do you remember how many seconds it was when you heard the explosion and then saw that plane?) Maybe . . . ten seconds tops. (CIT: So you heard the explosion and ten seconds later you were outside and you were able to see that plane?) Correct. You could see that plane just as clear as day. Couldn't miss it. (CIT: What color was it; do you remember?) It was, to me at that time, it looked like it was silver in color. (CIT: Like silver in color; but you saw it over the south parking lot?) Right, around the lane one area, and it was like banking just above the light poles like. Dismissing Roberts' testimony because he thought he had seen another plane is a convenient way to avoid confronting it.
http://z3.invisionfree.com...

B) The source cited makes no mention anywhere of bird strikes or of exterior damage being a cause for white smoke coming from a jet engine.

C) I stated in Part C of Round 2 that none of the pieces of wreckage at the Pentagon have been positively identified as being part of American Airlines Flight 77. Lacking accurate measurements of the post-blast positions of the columns on the first floor, whether they were displaced outward or displaced toward the north side would seem to be a subjective judgment of sight, but the crucial point is that they were NOT DISPLACED INWARD by a 200,000 lb airliner that supposedly hit them at 530 mph. I don't need calculations to know this is an incredible anomaly as is the undamaged floor slab. It should have incurred severe visible damage from BOTH the engines and the body of the plane. I mentioned the engines only because they are constructed of harder materials than the rest of the aircraft and would have been first to strike the floor. The 7,000 lb weight of each one may seem relatively insignificant until considering that a major portion of the 200,000 lb plane would have been resting on each engine as it plowed through the building.
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu...

D) The position of the plane according to the ground-based radio beacon at Reagan National Airport, the most accurate of any method, and recorded in American Airlines 77's Flight Data Recorder has been found to be at variance with the official NTSB directional and altitude data.

E) No DNA or any other type of identification was made "at the crash site" or even a body count on site that I have been able to find. All identification of the bodies of victims was done after transporting them to the Dover Air Force Base mortuary facility with no "chain of custody" procedure followed.

I believe 9/11 was a state sponsored false-flag operation. Just who sponsored and planned it and why is too large a subject to expound on here and not essential to the points I want to make, so I will not go into that. Being a false-flag operation, it had to be planned and prepared entirely in secret in order to deceive the vast majority of the public and, judging from its results, it was a huge and masterful deception. And like any deception, in order for it to succeed, all evidence relating to it had to be controlled to the greatest extent possible and any evidence that could not be controlled had to be destroyed, preferably even before it could become evidence.

There was greater potential for things to go wrong crashing a plane into the Pentagon than at the World Trade Center. Deliberately crashing a multi-engine jetliner into the west side of the Pentagon at ground level in order to destroy the office of Resource Services and Budget, the immediate objective, would mean flying through a virtual obstacle course of buildings, light poles, overhead highway signs, and construction equipment that would demand a highly skilled pilot and, obviously, one willing to commit suicide. Hani Hanjour, the alleged hijacker pilot of Flight 77 was neither. An honest assessment would indicate his level of piloting expertise was mediocre at best and truly reckless at worst. Hanjour managed to obtain a commercial pilot"s license at the lowest level of certification in April, 1999 after 4 years of study and dropping out of 3 different flight schools.
http://wikipedia.org...

Since the 9/11 planners were not likely to find a Muslim or anyone of any belief who was an extremely skillful pilot and also fanatically religious enough to volunteer for martyrdom, they were forced for the Pentagon operation to choose between hijacking an airliner electronically with a ground-based autopilot system and flying it into the building by remote control or staging a fake crash with an explosion and fly-over. I believe what forced them to opt for the fly-over was the risk autopiloting presented of crashing outside the building and leaving the plane intact as evidence. If this occurred investigators would not find the remains of Hani Hanjour or any Saudi hijacker in the wreckage of the cockpit and their deception would be revealed. Closing off the area of the Pentagon to be destroyed to conduct major renovations prior to 9/11 would have given operatives the necessary cover to put substantial aircraft wreckage in place and carefully prepare explosive charges to simulate an airliner impact with the building. And this is exactly what occurred. The fact that directional damage to some light poles and fence posts was opposite to the flight path of the plane indicates this was done with explosive charges also.

Security video at Dulles shows that Hanjour along with 4 other Saudis boarded AA77. These 5 would have been able to overpower the captain and first officer and take over the cockpit. But who was going to fly the plane? Among the 58 passengers onboard there were 3 fully capable of flying a 757. What are the odds of that? After the fly-over the plane was likely flown to a secure military installation since landing at any civilian airport could have been observed, which would have blown the deception. Everyone onboard had to be killed. One possible way of doing it quickly would have been to have nerve gas automatically released from hidden canisters on the plane as soon as it came to a stop. Sarin-C gas paralyses in 30 seconds and is lethal in 2 minutes. No one would have gotten out of the plane alive. The bodies and all personal effects were removed, taken to a cremation facility and incineated, some completely, some partially. The remains were then transported to Dover Air Force Base mortuary for identification. The plane was dismantled, all identifying components destroyed, and the rest hauled to scrap yards.
Debate Round No. 4
41 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by New_Jeffersonian 3 years ago
New_Jeffersonian
Hi, I came back to see if any more interesting comments had been posted and to make one I think is of major consequence. Sometimes newly-discovered evidence or "old" evidence long overlooked either changes your mind or provides reinforcement for what you believed all along. I happened to have recently looked at some old evidence with fresh eyes.
Previously I stated my belief that "Doppelganger Drones" were substituted for all four "hijacked" planes and that a cylindrical object on the right side of the fuselage of the 2nd attack plane at the World Trade Center that shows up on at least six videos is proof of this. Would-be debunkers have argued long and hard that this "pod" is nothing more than an effect of light and shadow on the surfaces of the plane, an optical illusion. The clearest view of the 2nd plane crashing into the south face of WTC2 is in the original CNN live feed. https://www.youtube.com...
If you watch carefully and pause the video at 0:20 and 0:26 you will see 3 debris plumes appear just as the plane's wing penetrates the wall. The top 2 are from impact of the engines and the lower one is from impact of a solid object mounted on the lower right side of the fuselage. The only object normally protruding from the fuselage at that location are the wheel fairings, but they are small and streamlined not large and blunt like the engines and even if the fairing impact could produce a debris plume, why no plume from the left-side fairing? No, that plume was not caused by a wheel fairing or by an optical illusion.
The object causing the 3rd debris plume was the external cylindrical module of the Flight Termination System designed and built by defense contractor Systems Planning Corporation. It is used to remote-control modified aircraft or drones from ground stations. You can see a close-up view of one of these cylinders at 2:10 in this video:
http://trutube.tv...;
Posted by truther1111 3 years ago
truther1111
video of the simulator recreation by pilots
Posted by truther1111 3 years ago
truther1111
http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org...

here is a whole group roylathan
Posted by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
I'd like to see a reference to an independent professional pilot saying that the circling part of the approach would be difficult. I worked as a flight test engineer, have a pilot's license, and have flown a 747 flight simulator. It's possible that I'm overlooking something, but I want to know why the circle is difficult. Skimming the ground would be difficult were it not for ground effect. It would help a lot that the gear was not down. I've flown large planes through hangars successfully in the simulator. I'm not a great pilot, but it's really not too difficult. (They never let commercial pilots play games like that with the simulator. Never.)

In any of the scenarios theorized, there is absolutely no need for a tight circle. Just line up for an ordinary approach.

The seats and bodies of the passengers were in the Pentagon Building, and there is plenty of testimony from the first responders as well as the coroner's office verifying that fact. The engine rotor claimed to be from another aircraft was identified as one of the rear turbines in the engine of the airliner. If I recall correctly there are 13 sets of blades in a jet engine like that. the rear ones are smaller.

Keep in mind that at the time neither passengers nor crew supposed that they were in a life-or-death situation. Previous hijackings were always to get a free ride to Cuba. Now that passengers know the whole plane is at stake, anyone acting strangely is attacked en-mass immediately.
Posted by truther1111 3 years ago
truther1111
yea i agree with double r lol, the simplest answer is that they just hijacked the planes via remote control hijacking and flew them right into the pentagon .That would require only 1 or 2 conspirators
Posted by Double_R 3 years ago
Double_R
"The operators had to circle the drone because they had a pre-planned location on the west face of the building that they wanted to hit."

I don't think you understood Roy's point. If they had a pre-planned location on the west face of the building then why didn't they just position the plane to fly straight into it the same way that every plane positions itself prior to landing? The conspiracy theory rests on the assumption that the conspirators were amazingly competent to be able to pull this off, why couldn't they figure out how to fly a plane into a target?

It seems awfully contradictory to assert that someone who is incompetent could not possibly pull off a sophisticated maneuver, yet have no problem accepting that someone who is amazingly competent would make such an amateur blunder.
Posted by Double_R 3 years ago
Double_R
The number of possibilities as to what happened at the pentagon are endless, and you and I can go back and fourth making up new ones all day long. What you need before you can assert any theory you come up with as reasonable is some form of evidence. The only thing you have provided is one big argument from ignorance. Even if you succeed in proving the official story false (which you are far from doing) that does not give you justification to make up some alternative category and assert it as the explanation.

Your claim involves hundreds, if not thousands of people to be involved at the airport where flight 77 took off, receiving flight 77, complicity in the media to back off of their crash reporting, programming and sending the drone, making up fake passenger reports and death certificates (including Ted Olsen's wife who was never seen again), fake DNA reports from the coroners office, faking the black box data at the NTSB, placing corpses in the plane prior to take off (WTF? Really?), etc...

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Your claim goes far beyond extraordinary, so I look forward to being jaw-dropped by what you must have to show me in order to justify this.
Posted by New_Jeffersonian 3 years ago
New_Jeffersonian
Reply to Double_R:
Your points are well taken. What I wrote is an over-simplification. There are in fact several categories into which the 9/11 Pentagon Attack Theories can be divided.

Category I - The "Official Version". Five terrorists recruited by al-Qaeda forcibly took over the cockpit and controls of AA Flight 77 some 30-35 minutes into the flight near the West Virginia-Ohio border and Hani Hanjour flew the 757-223 jetliner some 380 miles back toward Washington, DC and deliberately crashed into the west face of the Pentagon at ground level. Problems: Don't ever try to convince an airliner pilot of this story. The maneuvers, horizontally but especially vertically, of the plane in the vicinity of the Pentagon would have been extremely difficult for even the most highly-trained and experienced pilot. But this is nothing compared to the difficulty (impossibility) of taking the plane off its pre-set flight plan in the onboard computer and flying it hundreds of miles to target with the Nav-Com ground link disabled.

Category II - Electronic Hijacking. The 5 "hijackers", 4 of which were photographed in the Dulles Airport terminal, were purely for show. Flight 77 was actually hijacked electronically by ground control and guided to target. Problems: The Boeing-Vigilant autopilot system on the 757-223 was not designed for anything like this. It was made to get the plane safely on the ground in the event of the pilot and co-pilot being disabled, not to take over the plane for a long flight although later models are designed for this. It could not have accomplished the maneuvers near the Pentagon by ground control.

Category III - Missile or Drone. It was not an airliner that struck the Pentagon, but either a cruise missile or small drone such as a Global Hawk carrying explosives (apparently a few Global Hawks cannot be accounted for). Problems: There are far too many witnesses who saw and described an American Airlines plane fly into the Pentagon. Continued . . .
Posted by New_Jeffersonian 3 years ago
New_Jeffersonian
Category IV - Fly-Over and Explosion. Flight 77 was taken over by the 5 hijackers, but was actually flown by one of the other passengers who was skilled enough to fly directly at the Pentagon, but pull up at the last second and fly over the building, then bank sharply and fly away. Pre-set explosives inside the building were triggered to simulate an explosive fuel-burst and pre-set plane parts inside simulated the wreckage. Problems: Same as for Category III. Too many witnesses saw the plane hit the building. None saw it fly over.

Category V - Substitute Plane. Flight 77 was taken over either by the 5 hijackers and one of the passengers landed it at a military installation near the West Virginia-Ohio border just as Stewart Air Base in Newburgh, NY was used for the two WTC attack planes or possibly the hijacking and landing was done electronically from a ground station. This conforms with the fact that the plane vanished from radar in this area and was reported to have crashed by several radio and TV stations. A drone airliner disguised as an American Airlines plane and probably also a 757-223, equipped with the Flight Termination System from Dov Zakheim's System Planning Corporation took off and was guided to target by ground stations, one perhaps inside the Pentagon itself. There may have been corpses buckled into some of the seats to be found and enhance the deception. I agree with 1stDrakePassage that the passengers and crew were likely nerve-gassed and incinerated and then transported to the Dover Air Base Mortuary Facility for identification.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
Double_R1stDrakePassageTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: The evidence that Pro presented is beyond a reasonable doubt. Con followed the usual pattern of conspiracy theorists that as evidence on one point is resolved against a conspiracy, they jump to a set of different points. Con raised new arguments in the final round -- those should not be considered.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
Double_R1stDrakePassageTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con established that there are inconsistencies in the official report--e.g., about 9% of witnesses saw the plane approach from a different direction, and a single witness saw another plane. While this would be enough to support asking more questions, in light of the ten years of no leads and a great deal of evidence supporting the majority opinion, the majority opinion is true beyond a reasonable doubt. It's frankly bizarre to me that anyone would seriously consider the alternative hypothesis of military using Sarin C on the passengers as more likely or even reasonably likely, given minimal evidence to substantiate that, and massive evidence to the contrary.
Vote Placed by YYW 4 years ago
YYW
Double_R1stDrakePassageTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: In a debate of fact, there were 7 relevant forms of evidence. The eye witness testimony, videos , physical evidence, black box date, DNA and flight path damage. All taken into account, while CON attempted to challenge the validity of the conclusion PRO (and the rest of the Western world) took from that evidence, his case was insufficient and PRO's BOP was more than satisfied. Interesting debate.