That is what you may think you are doing. What I am doing is dispelling analysis and conclusions that I know are based on incomplete or inaccurate assumptions.
However, your rebuttal rests on the validity of the eyewitness reports. This would also mean that anything at the scene where the crash occured would have to be ignored, as they indicate something other than an airliner was used. You're rebuttals are equally as based on incomplete and inaccurate assumptions.
This interpretation has explicit assumptions that you are attributing that the witness did not state, namely that the airplane remained overhead for its entire flight path.
We covered why it could not fly low as a large aircraft - obstructions. You have not presented why a large airliner could fly low. I also covered why it could not have made it's decent at the pentagon from above, as it left no angled line of destruction to suggest that way. It was also high-speed, correct? The laws of accelation would not have allowed for a last-minute decent (followed by the neccessary slow-down to control the craft) and a sudden accelation into the building. Again, pilot training could be brought up here.
Obviously, I had not made the assumption it stayed overhead, as that would have rendered the ending as impossible, I was however pointing out the flaw in the witness statements. I merely pointed out it would be impossible for an overhead plane, of that size, at that speed, to be able to pull off such a stunt. See above as for why.
Your uninformed assumption is that I use uninformed assumptions.
That is an extremely uninformed assumption, and you even tell us why: You are not a pilot. In fact, it actually is quite easy to fly that low to the ground due to something called "aerodynamic ground effect". This effect actually increases the lift on the airplane due to the "cushion of air" it is riding upon between itself and the ground. In addition, this ground effect artificially enhances the pitch stability of the airplane, making it easier to maintain a constant altitude than when you are "up and away". Finally, the other thing that makes your assumption incorrect is that myself, and many other engineers and pilots, have actually flown much larger airplanes than a 757 (like an MD-11) at altitudes of 20, 10, and even 5 feet above the ground during flight tests. So to recap, this assumption you make is not based on facts and/or data about the stability and control characteristics of large transport aircraft.
It is interesting to point out that you ignored why I pointed out such a low flying craft is impossible, to the point where someone needs not be a pilot to know why it's not possible. I doubt, in your training simulations, you had to fly low inside a crowded city, but, instead on an open peice of land with very little, or no obstructions. The air cusion effect, if I am not mistaken, only applies on flat land, which would have rendered it fairly useless over buildings of varying shapes and sizes.
Do not forget, the pilot in the aircraft you speak of is unlikely to have the same level of experience as you. Whilst you may have the experience for it, you are making a flawed assumption of thinking that the pilot of the airliner has it as well.
Do not forget, this contrasts with the reports of it flying overhead.
I'd prefer it if you'd stop claiming I hold assumptions, when I am clearly showing you what I am basing it on. An assumption is a HIDDEN reason for an argument, IE it cannot be explict. A reason is any explict peice of an argument. Therefore, you cannot have explict assumptions. I also do not hold assumptions in this argument, aside from the truthfulness of the information I have received. Since it would be too costly (and time consuming) for me to personally check out every peice of evidence, which may have been forged or altered, I will have to make do on the assumptions of truth. Your assumption is that you know what an assumption is. Also, assumptions are usually part of an argument, and can also be true, as well as false. It's deemed bad to base an argument entirely, or mostly off an assumption.
Those are blatant assumptions that you have no means to backup. Moreover, if a hijacker's express mission was to maximize damage by hitting the Pentagon, don't you think he would HAVE to be trained to fly that profile? It only stands to reason if you want someone to do something, with a high degree of assurance, that you would wish to train them. So the logic in the second part of your assumption is terribly flawed.
See above about assumptions. My information is fairly easy to obtain via any internet search engine. Type in 'Pentagon Crash' and you'll see the exact same information I've been using now, rotor blade, damage to the building, damage to the lawn, wreckage left behind, New York *City*. What I don't see you doing, however, is backing up your claims - would you care to casually fly a MD-11 low to the ground past my house? It's in the UK so you might have to fly quite far. Be careful of the trees around here. I also expect you to show me a local (or internation) terrorist ring which can teach me how to fly a full-blown airliner, and the neccessary hijacking skills. They must be able to teach me how to bypass the warning systems installed for the pentagon (with a free missle-inteceptor system included) and show me how to pentrate 6 steel-concrete walls and leave no real wreckage behind, and a fake rotor blade to fool people.
I do not make the flawed assumption that a hijacker can be trained how to fly an airliner (they aren't particularly cheap to buy) as I have never come accross a terrorist ring that would teach me how to do so (nor has anyone ever spoken about one, or suggested one would exist). Anyway, if they are practicing how to fly into a building, how do you expect the hijackers to survive? How can an airliner be ignored making training runs low over a city at high-speed?
I wouldn't be so eager to try and claim the logic is flawed. If you're after a higher burden of proof in arguments (IE backing it up), you'll produce a terrorist ring who'll teach me.
You assume it lost its wings but have no evidence that this is so.
You mis-read. I was attacking your argument that suggested the wings may have come-off earlier (ironically, you're also attacking it). There is contradictory points in this regard. There are no wings at the crash, but there is an engine, but the plane can't fly minus a wing or two, and, as you say, no wings found anywhere else. This however would suggest it was not an airliner... No wings!
This is an assumption based on what you believe to be the fracture mechanics of airplanes hitting concrete buildings at high speed. The assumption is incorrect, and the F-4 video proves it is incorrect.
I find it striking you've used the word in assumption in every sentence. Is this a retalitory attack on my singular usage in the start of my earlier argument? I wouldn't be surprised, quite a number of people do it.
You dismiss it as an 'incorrect assumption' when I gave the example of 9/11 - the same planes got only half-way inside a building of *steel* and glass . So imagine what one plane does when it hits *steel* and concrete. Concrete is a sight more resistant than glass. Are we to believe an airliner went further inside a building of greater resistance than two airplanes into two buildings of less resistance?
Lets not forget the F-4 is a smaller craft than an airliner, so we're making the assumption the two different aircraft act the same, which as a pilot, you should know is not the case. In my example, of 9/11 and the Pentagon, the aircraft are the same (at least, in regards to the pentagon, it's meant to be the same).
I already did. See above.
You were only disputing fracture mechanics. Fracture Mechanics only explain how a plane is damaged (or fractured) on impact. It does not explain how the mass of the object can just disappear into thin air without a trace.
And the same assumption is made in NYC by conspiracy theorists who claim witnesses told the truth about hearing "explosions" or even worse "bombs". You can't have it both ways. Either you accept all their testimony and qualify the parts you use, or you accept none of it.
Unfortuantly for you, my basis was upon photographs, not eyewitness accounts. It is not neccessary to use eyewitnesses to form a reasoned argument, that is your misunderstanding.
That is either an incorrect assumption or based on false facts. The following page clearly shows where the identified parts came from on a 757 engine:
This site says about how there wasn't wreckage. My dispute was with how *little* there was. I find it interesting most people aren't even sure of the aircraft's number, calling it 747 or 757.
Regardless. A little bit of covering would quickly show there is an issue...
Here is the disputed part. Note it's size in comparison to the firemen's legs.
http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon_13.html
The part, as supplied by the site, in comparison to the engine.
http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/rb211a.jpg
A boeing, 757.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Aa757.jpg
Now, is it me, or does that part look a tad small for an engine on that scale? It's not helpful it doesn't refer specifically to what type of engine class, as the -535 has at least two variants, each with a different rotor size.
However, even the site you supplied reckons most of this information is actually in dispute as to what parts are what. As the debris was incredibly mangled, it's not surprising.
So you cannot deny that this evidence pretty much trashes your assumptions. Clearly that red "c" is a match. How do you explain that away?
How can you ensure it was not planted? The airliner theory rests partially on that certain misfit parts (like the engine or wheel rim) were planted there. How can we be sure it's not the same with other parts?
Although Kudos, it's a fairly good find. All you would need is an image of the craft before it colided with the Pentagon. Images, we cannot forget, are being withheld. If it was simply an aircraft crash, why the hush-hush?
One assumption of what it suggest, and not the most likely one when you understand fracture mechanics of an airplane flying into concrete at 500 mph.[
Then why not explain what, in your opinion, is the most likely scenario and why. I would like to see why there are only a few small chunks of the fuselage, and not many small chunks.
You said you were not a pilot. So for you to make this assumption is disingenuous. You cannot and do not know, and as I explained about ground effect above, this assumption is wrong.
Not an assumption. Simply because I am not a pilot, does not mean a pilot related problem (obstructions) magically disappears as an 'assumption'.
True enough, but what my profession and training does make me is more qualified than folks like yourself to arrive at conclusions about aircraft accidents. As I have shown above, your assumptions about these technical issues are often incorrect, and by thinking you know something that you are not trained in, such assumptions can (and often do) lead to incorrect conclusions.
Unfortuantly, simply because you hold the professional training does not immediately mean you will supply correct conclusions or truthful assumptions. After all, even with training, one does not guarentee any success of identifying aircraft accidents. Given this wasn't an accident either, one could technically argue that the role does not suit.
Yes, and the operative word here is "peer". You are not qualified to review the analysis I have presented to counter your assumptions, therefore any attempt by you to show my analysis is incorrect would be futile. However, another aerospace engineer trained in aircraft and aircraft accidents (i.e. my peer) could, indeed, review my analysis for accuracy.
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority as to why this is flawed. As previously explained and simplified above.
At the end of the day, this is simply a debate which will have no outstanding effect on anything except knowledge and opinions. I prefer to improve both of the latter, rather than actively trying to attack someone, or over-use the expressions of assumption.
I would suggest some understanding of Critical Thinking. This will greatly improve your arguments, and you will not need to resort to using assumption and holding the assumption that assumptions are bad or false. I hold the assumption I can learn from my mistakes. Is this bad or false?
Also, an interesting debate. Although I am still not entirely sure, as it makes no sense, the government covers up what appears to be a relatively straight forward hijacking job. Why?
