( removed pending reorganization )

galanter wrote:Scott, if the rate of fall of the 2 towers is part of your consideration in this matter, I'd encourage you to compare the analysis made by the pro and anti comspiracy sides outlined elsewhere in this thread.

Call in any experts you know if you would like. I'm sure those who understand the science will find the anti case much more complete and compelling, and they will find the pro case inadequate and even faulty by comparison.

Hang on, i read the comparative analysis in this thread and I seem to recall the conclusion being along the lines of, it could possibly have happened how 'they' said it happened, or it could have happened how the conspiracists say it happened.
There was an unanswered question mark over the estimated time of collapse between floors if I remember correctly and neither side cleared that up (if it is possible to clear up).
I haven't been back to check mind but you imply that the 'official theory' theorists have some how disproved the conspiricists theory and they didn't - as far as I recall.

Scott,

If a plane didn't hit the pentagon, what do you think happened to American Airlines Flight 77?

( removed pending reorganization )

( removed pending reorganization )

( removed pending reorganization )

Earwicker wrote:

galanter wrote:Scott, if the rate of fall of the 2 towers is part of your consideration in this matter, I'd encourage you to compare the analysis made by the pro and anti comspiracy sides outlined elsewhere in this thread.

Call in any experts you know if you would like. I'm sure those who understand the science will find the anti case much more complete and compelling, and they will find the pro case inadequate and even faulty by comparison.

Hang on, i read the comparative analysis in this thread and I seem to recall the conclusion being along the lines of, it could possibly have happened how 'they' said it happened, or it could have happened how the conspiracists say it happened.
There was an unanswered question mark over the estimated time of collapse between floors if I remember correctly and neither side cleared that up (if it is possible to clear up).
I haven't been back to check mind but you imply that the 'official theory' theorists have some how disproved the conspiricists theory and they didn't - as far as I recall.

Details are further back in this thread but basically it works like this. As a first approximation model one can use just the conservation of momentum to calculate how quickly the floors would fall in a series of inelastic collisions. Both the anti and pro sides do this and they get approximately the same result. So the first approximation models are in agreement (and predict a nearly free-fall rate of collapse).

(Note: *Both* sides figure in the conservation of momentum, and both sides *agree* that using only the conservation of momentum leads to a prediction of near free-fall rates).

The pro (conspiracy) side then argues...purely with words and no real science...that of course each floor would resist collapse (which is true) and this would significantly slow down the collapse. They complain that the anti side hasn't figured this in.

But, in fact, the anti side *has* figured this in in a second, more exact, model. What they find is that while each floor does resist it only results in an additional delay of a second or so. (Amount from memory). So, again, the predicted rate of collapse is near free-fall time.

The anti side presents a much more complete analysis by actually doing the math and developing a second approximation model. Until the pro side can show (1) a significant problem with this model or (2) develop an alternate second approximation model that disagrees with the anti side...at the very least the pro case is under-developed, and that's being generous.

scott wrote:
If you can find me an aeronautics expert (lets say a PhD guy) that will say "it is perfectly reasonable that a large commercial airliner could crash into the pentagon, not striking the ground beforehand, and have there be no evidence of damage caused by the impact of the wings" then we should keep talking about this. Especially if it's a guy I can actually sit down with and have a conversation. Something that would make me think he knows at least as much about what he's talking about as the guys I was just talking with at this meeting.

Well, I'm not sure I can do that! But here is a start...

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science ... page=6&c=y

( removed pending reorganization )

AlBStern wrote:Scott,

If a plane didn't hit the pentagon, what do you think happened to American Airlines Flight 77?

I dunno. I could come up with a whole bunch of different possible explanations, like that the plane landed on an Airforce base somewhere, and the people on it got off and then were deployed to their next mission as undercover CIA operatives, but I bet that anything I suggested would be dismissed as "possible, but seriously implausible".

It could be that there was a 757 flying into the pentagon, which was then detonated as it was about to hit.

It could be that, like, we're all in these weird computerized prisons where our brains are manipulated by robots and stuff...

Kidding.

But yeah, there are potential explanations, ways that involve a plane flying into the building or not, the plane having people on it or not, it being the same plane that departed or a different one, the people on the plane having been innocents who were killed or intelligence agency folks who were in on some conspiracy... there's a whole ton of different ways it could have happened.

It's easier to come up with ways it could have gone down than it is to buy the idea that a 757 piloted by a supposedly terrible pilot pulled off that impact with such precision and with virtually no evidence left behind. Just doesn't add up.

I know people who have access to the radar tracking data for all US flights who could tell me exactly what the radar system says happened with all four of the Sep 11th flights. If I had this data by Sep 12th, 2001, I would put some faith into what it said. This many years down the road, it could have been made to say anything at this point.

From what I've seen of radar-derived aircraft ops data, when a plane lands in a classified destination, they take that record out of the dataset entirely. Slightly related (but not a 9/11 thing) in fact, I am told that *all* of the military ops for 2005 were "cleaned" from the dataset, which is a new thing. Normally all the mil ops are in there. Not as of last year, apparently.

Who here can tell me who made that decision, to remove all the military ops from the dataset for 2005?