9/11 and conspiracy theories

[Beto]

Alrighty then... as I suggested in another thread, this one will be just to chat about 9/11 and other conspiracy theories. With so many websites solely devoted to them, I don't think addressing the issue here is "dangerous" to anyone.

So, to get things started I'll mention the "peculiarities" I find in the 9/11 event that I don't feel are sufficiently addressed by the government. I'm particularly interested in some incontrovertible images and sounds, since anything else implies trusting the mainstream media and the accused party.

First off, about the WTC 7. The NIST recently released a report blaming the fires for the collapse of the building. I'm no engineer so I can't really judge. Though looking at how the building falls it seems like a bunch of bs to me. More relevant is Silverstein's statement. During an interview, Silverstein claimed to have decided, in conjunction with the Fire Commander to "pull" the building. Now, it's often claimed he meant pull the firefighters out, but his exact phrase was "pull it". The transcript goes like:

"I said 'you know we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull, and then we watched the building collapse."



People say it comes down to what we want to hear. For the life of me, and despite definitely not wanting to hear what I do, I can't see how this could relate to pull people out. Also relevant was the fact that no firefighters were in the building at this time. They were outside walking away from the building, fact caught on amateur video:

"It's blowin' boy." ... "Keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming down soon." ... "The building is about to blow up, move it back." ... "Here we are walking back. There's a building, about to blow up..."



"Blow up"? It's hard to believe the firefighters were expecting a steel framed building to collapse because of internal fires, when later it's considered a "freak accident", and totally unexpected.

OK, that's enough about WTC 7. Now something about Flight 93.



Leaving aside the "feel" of the clip, and whether or not the "scar" was there before 9/11, this is NOT a plane crash site. Scattered debris here and there don't make a plane crash site. The bulk of the fuselage should be right there, where nothing can be seen. Show me another crash site even remotely similar to that one.

That's enough for now, I guess.

[Beto]

Okay aluminum alloy burns….but what does that mean? Check out these picture of a burning passenger plane.
Burning plane
If you look closely much of the plane shows no sign of burning at all. Also it is difficult to distinguish burnt metal from metal covered in soot. But yes there is real sign of burning too. However parts of the plane were very close to fire yet are burn free. Only those parts that had direct contact with the fire for an extended period show burning. Take a special note of the hole in the top of the plane. Burn marks are limited to the edges only….and then unburnt fuselage inches away. And this is a stationary plane exposed to the fire for some period of time .

Why would we then expect a piece of 757 flung clear of an explosion to show signs of burning? An event which meant the piece was in contact with flame for fractions of a second.

Personally, this is as smoking as smoking guns get. Let us consider the following... You have an alleged 757 that hits the Pentagon, and assuming the whole plane goes through the facade, we know it doesn't collapse with the explosion, the only time a piece of fuselage could be projected that far. So you have a 757's engines exploding INSIDE the Pentagon, with a still "intact" facade, but a piece that's clearly placed in front of them (clearly because there are no letters behind, and it's allegedly from the right side, but that may be a stretch and ultimately irrelevant) manages not just to get passed the facade from the inside, it also manages to end up, unscorched, at the far left of the impact point. Talk about a magic piece of fuselage.

This is a really big issue. If it can be demonstrated that there's no reasonable way that piece of evidence is legit, it brings down the whole 757 scenario, because let's face it, the official line can't be even punctually flawed. One planted piece is all it takes, agreed? Disregarding all other considerations for now, shall we focus on this one? What do you say to my last considerations?

[Furrowed Brow]

Let us consider the following... You have an alleged 757 that hits the Pentagon, and assuming the whole plane goes through the facade, we know it doesn't collapse with the explosion, the only time a piece of fuselage could be projected that far.

The piece could have been stripped off as plane struck building.

So you have a 757's engines exploding INSIDE the Pentagon, with a still "intact" facade, but a piece that's clearly placed in front of them (clearly because there are no letters behind, and it's allegedly from the right side, but that may be a stretch and ultimately irrelevant) manages not just to get passed the facade from the inside, it also manages to end up, unscorched, at the far left of the impact point. Talk about a magic piece of fuselage.

Ok the scorched point is dealt with. If the Farram piece of wreckage was thrown clear, it is not reasonable to expect to see scorch marks given the slow way plane fuesallage burns.

You have also given a very neat scenario as to why we should expect to see very little debris out front of the Pentagon. So any argument that suggest we should be seeing more wreckage is now dead….yes?

This is a really big issue. If it can be demonstrated that there's no reasonable way that piece of evidence is legit,

Four points

• 1/ A crash of this magnitude is a chaotic event, while the gross characteristics of the event mean most of the plane will end up and stay inside the building, this does mean that individual pieces of wreckage comply with the general pattern. You can argue it is improbable but then how many pieces of debris had the plane disintegrated into? Divide that improbable number by the number of pieces of wreckage. Anomalous behavior may not seem reasonable but the only way to judge this properly is to test the presumption that anomalous debris is not reasonable with experiment i.e. start crashing test planes into buildings and check where all the debris goes. Ok we can’t run those experiments but are you confident they would not throw out their own examples of anomalous debris?
  
  2/ the event did not occur as you describe. As suggested the Faram wreckage may have been stripped off at an early point. If so its eventual location will be different to the rest of the plane debris -making it look anamolous.
  
  3/ Here’s another link to the Faram picture. Link In the background you will see a debris field of smaller unrecognizable stuff. Could be from the plane, could be from the building. This field of debris shows that stuff inside the building got out.
  
  4/ True the piece of wreckage in question is larger and further out. But it is also possible the Faram debris was positioned for a better pic. And by positioned I don’t mean planted.

Given 1 to 4 the Faram debris is not a smoking gun. It is an anomaly, and anomaly does not equal conspiracy.

One planted piece is all it takes, agreed?

Depends what you mean by planted. No if debris is moved from its original position to make for a better pic.

the official line can't be even punctually flawed.

The official line can be allowed to be flawed. Flaws do not equal conspiracy. However it can’t be allowed to have intentionally mislead or planted false evidence. Neither can the official line be allowed to have willfully misread the evidence in front of it, nor be the product of a criminal level of incompetence.

One planted piece is all it takes, agreed?

Ok but repositioned debris does not count as planted.

[Beto]

I don't see a reasonable explanation for the repositioning of a piece of those dimensions, within the 10 minutes it took Faram to get there, from very near the building, where it would have to be, to that far away. I'm definitely not seeing Faram getting that close to the building, picking it up, and moving it there, 10 minutes after the alleged crash, nor do I see anyone else with less important things to do at the time. Even assuming the piece was projected by the explosion after it was stripped upon contact, it would still have to be moved to be that far to the left. And I'm not convinced the heat at that moment is insufficient to scorch the piece, if that was the case.

You have also given a very neat scenario as to why we should expect to see very little debris out front of the Pentagon. So any argument that suggest we should be seeing more wreckage is now dead….yes?

Well, Faram allegedly saw "small pieces of aircraft skin, none bigger than a half-dollar" "all over the highway", which is something I would not expect to see if the explosion was pre-collapse. Is Faram still a credible witness?

[Furrowed Brow]

I'm definitely not seeing Faram getting that close to the building, picking it up, and moving it there, 10 minutes after the alleged crash, nor do I see anyone else with less important things to do at the time.

Why? How many police, fireman are there in the picture. We are talking about an action that could take….what 20 secs…. What would a fireman do if he saw across a guy dragging a piece of debris across the law….shout hey you!!...and what would Faram do….drop it where he was….look I don’t but in the maelstrom of events there is very little that can be reasonable said about the second by second minutia of human behavior.

The interesting point here is how you think the Faram debris is a smoking gun while it is the piece of evidence I think we can say the least about because there are just too many unknown variables - from the nature of a chaotic explosion, to human behavior. Your use of the Faram debris amounts to a question of personal incredulity….which is not an argument against a 757.

And I'm not convinced the heat at that moment is insufficient to scorch the piece, if that was the case.

You don’t have to be convinced. But attention to the pics of the burnt our plane I linked shows fuselage with burned edges around the edge hole, then pristine unburnt fuselage. This is indicative of the metal being slow burning. and where it is exposed to very high temperatures for long enough the hole proves the metal will melt. If the Faram debris was thrown clear, then it s exposure to the heat source would be a fraction of a second. To accept this is a reasonable explanation as to why the Faram debris is burn free you simply have to acknowledge 1/ slow burning properties of plane fuselage even under high temperatures, and 2/ the small time scale of exposure to heat source if the Faram debris was thrown clear.
Also consider 1 in the context of plane manufacture and the safety implication of fast burning plane fuselage.

To counter the argument lets see some evidence of quick burning (within fractions of a second) plane fuselage. If you have your doubts you need to mount a challenge….otherwise you don’t have a substantial point to make against why the Faram debris is unburnt.

Is Faram still a credible witness?

I don’t know. Any other witnesses to this? But if Faram is not reliable then what’s the betting he can’t be relied on to take a picture of debris in situ if he thought he could get a better pic by moving the debris, and lie about the details of how and when he came to take the picture. In which case there is even less we can say about it.

[Beto]

Why? How many police, fireman are there in the picture. We are talking about an action that could take….what 20 secs…. What would a fireman do if he saw across a guy dragging a piece of debris across the law….shout hey you!!...and what would Faram do….drop it where he was….look I don’t but in the maelstrom of events there is very little that can be reasonable said about the second by second minutia of human behavior.

Aren't you making assumptions to account for an unlikely position of the piece? If we agree the piece isn't likely to be there without someone dragging it there for no obvious reason, the burden is on you to demonstrate you have more than opinion, right?

The interesting point here is how you think the Faram debris is a smoking gun while it is the piece of evidence I think we can say the least about because there are just too many unknown variables - from the nature of a chaotic explosion, to human behavior.

The variables aren't as complex as you would have them be. If the chaotic explosion took place inside the Pentagon, pre-collapse, there would be only so many places the explosion could go through, which thinking about it, is NOT even what the footage shows.

Your use of the Faram debris amounts to a question of personal incredulity….which is not an argument against a 757.

But you're the one making assumptions to account for something you can't explain with objective evidence.

You don’t have to be convinced. But attention to the pics of the burnt our plane I linked shows fuselage with burned edges around the edge hole, then pristine unburnt fuselage. This is indicative of the metal being slow burning. and where it is exposed to very high temperatures for long enough the hole proves the metal will melt. If the Faram debris was thrown clear, then it s exposure to the heat source would be a fraction of a second. To accept this is a reasonable explanation as to why the Faram debris is burn free you simply have to acknowledge 1/ slow burning properties of plane fuselage even under high temperatures, and 2/ the small time scale of exposure to heat source if the Faram debris was thrown clear.
Also consider 1 in the context of plane manufacture and the safety implication of fast burning plane fuselage.

To counter the argument lets see some evidence of quick burning (within fractions of a second) plane fuselage. If you have your doubts you need to mount a challenge….otherwise you don’t have a substantial point to make against why the Faram debris is unburnt.

It's just something I found intuitive, but as such I have no evidence to support.

I don’t know. Any other witnesses to this? But if Faram is not reliable then what’s the betting he can’t be relied on to take a picture of debris in situ if he thought he could get a better pic by moving the debris, and lie about the details of how and when he came to take the picture. In which case there is even less we can say about it.

Less ways to justify a very unlikely occurrence.

[Furrowed Brow]

Aren't you making assumptions to account for an unlikely position of the piece?

Not really. The point is that there are unkown variables. I think I have been striking a consistent line here Beto. I’m not trying to prove to you a 757 hit the Pentagon, I’m trying to prove the conpspiracy interpretation of the pictures of the Pentagon have zero substance. And it is the approach to the Faram debris that is a prime example.

• Assumption: 757 flew into the Pentagon
  Fact : a plane flying into building is a chaotic event.
  Fact: while we can make some broad brush assertions as to the nature of the crash, we have no experimental data for debris field comparison to assess the anomalous nature of the Faram debris.
  Fact: the debris is pretty obviously a piece of a plane.
  Fact: other pictures do show plane debris

From these facts, the fact one piece of debris looks anomalous is pretty much meaningless until you can eradicate or at least reasonably dismiss the unknown variables….and the way you are dismissing them you are really just stating a position of incredulity. But one I suggest is not based on the facts.

If we agree the piece isn't likely to be there without someone dragging it there for no obvious reason, the burden is on you to demonstrate you have more than opinion, right?

I did not agree that. I offered up a couple of variables that can’t be easily pinned downed.

• 1/ no experimental data by which to assess anomalous debris
  2/ unkown but mundane (nothing that adds up to conspiracy) human intervention.

The variables aren't as complex as you would have them be. If the chaotic explosion took place inside the Pentagon, pre-collapse, there would be only so many places the explosion could go through,

Again I think you need to think this through. What are you imagining might have happened.. that the plane instantly exploded and all the debris hit the inside of the containing pentagon building structure all at the same moment…thus none escaped. The plane is an elongated object, one that due to the crash is pretty much contorted …given an explosion the debris will not be evenly spread. The pentagons walls depending on the shape of the building will be at slightly different distances relative to each piece of flying debris. Some debris will get to the containing pentagon wall before other debris. When they do they will be meeting a wall at different stages of collapse. Think of a field of debris travelling to make its escape from the building….most…that is nearly all will be capture by the building…..but why every single bit…. Some debris will for want of a better expression be clearing the road for any debris following it. So yes debris that hits building or falling building will remain inside....... where I am saying the vast majority of debris will be….but that does not negate some shrapnel making their exit.

which thinking about it, is NOT even what the footage shows.

The footage shows an explosion consistent with the eventual damage to the building…..with air holes.

But you're the one making assumptions to account for something you can't explain with objective evidence.

There have been several posts where I think I have made clear my purpose to this part of the argument. To be clear: I am not trying to prove the official line nor even think that this is necessary, I am trying to show that the pictures do not contradict a 757, and are consistent with a 757….given everything that we can validly say. I am trying to demonstrate the pictures give no support to and are no evidence of a conspiracy. If you hanker for a conspiracy there is none to be seen in the pictures…and I do not have to prove how the Faram debris got where it was to demonstrate that. It is reasonable to say that they are part of the plane that crashed into the pentagon…..and I think it is safe to assumed it was a plane because of the CCTV footage…as per the picture I posted highlighting the size of the object relative to the height of the building.

[Beto]

Not really. The point is that there are unkown variables. I think I have been striking a consistent line here Beto. I’m not trying to prove to you a 757 hit the Pentagon, I’m trying to prove the conpspiracy interpretation of the pictures of the Pentagon have zero substance. And it is the approach to the Faram debris that is a prime example.
Assumption: 757 flew into the Pentagon
Fact : a plane flying into building is a chaotic event.
Fact: while we can make some broad brush assertions as to the nature of the crash, we have no experimental data for debris field comparison to assess the anomalous nature of the Faram debris.
Fact: the debris is pretty obviously a piece of a plane.
Fact: other pictures do show plane debris

From these facts, the fact one piece of debris looks anomalous is pretty much meaningless until you can eradicate or at least reasonably dismiss the unknown variables….and the way you are dismissing them you are really just stating a position of incredulity. But one I suggest is not based on the facts.

Fact is, we have two theories: the official line and the conspiracy. Both are made of assumptions, that cannot be evidenced to be false (in a way we would both like), because the independent investigation that would do it, never took place.

I think the problem is that we both depart from different basic assumptions, drawn from broad views of the event. Starting from which, the pictures, without independent verification, will never leave the realm of assumptions. You may think my basic assumption should be like yours, but it isn't. My basic assumption is that no 757 ever hit the Pentagon, and just because an official line exists, I don't feel obligated to agree with its basic assumption. Notice we live in a world where the basic assumption is that a god exists, but we both know better. In this regard you're as much a conspiracist as I am, so you should relate to my position here. "God" is the biggest conspiracy of all time, don't you think?

You say you're not trying to prove a 757 hit the Pentagon, but that the conspiracy interpretation has zero substance. I can say the exact same thing, starting from the basic assumption that the conspiracy is true and no 757 ever hit the Pentagon. And this means you should be trying to argue how the conspiracy makes little sense, BUT starting from MY basic assumption, which is what I've been trying to do with the official line.

[Furrowed Brow]

I think the problem is that we both depart from different basic assumptions, drawn from broad views of the event.

Maybe….one to a greater degree than the other….though it might be helpful if you pointed out where I depart…coz I kind of lost track.

Starting from which, the pictures, without independent verification, will never leave the realm of assumptions.

To a point, but it is not an assumption given the available ctvv footage that a plane hit the Pentagon, it is not an assumption that there are witnesses that say they saw the plane, it is not an assumption that there are plane parts in the pictures, the damage to the Pentagon is consistent with a 757 and there is it at least one website that shows the wheels left in the debris are consistent with a 757. (Wheel Debris), and therefore it is not unreasonable to say a plane hit the Pentagon....and it ws a 757.It is not an assumption that other planes hit US building that day. So it is not unreasonable to place the Pentagon event as another plane hits building event…..and so on……and all these can be put together into a realistic picture of events, and this is why it is reasonable to go along with the official line and why the conspiracy theorists have to prove their case is worth something.

You may think my basic assumption should be like yours, but it isn't. My basic assumption is that no 757 ever hit the Pentagon, and just because an official line exists, I don't feel obligated to agree with its basic assumption.

My point from has been that the picture being posted here and on other sites…pictures being put forward as somewhere between incontrovertible evidence and smoking gun evidence that a 757 could not have hit the Pentagon….are woefully mistaken. I then make a judgment on the quality of the conspiracy theory based on the misdirection from what the pictures actually show.

You say you're not trying to prove a 757 hit the Pentagon, but that the conspiracy interpretation has zero substance.

Missile and demolition have zero substance….a plane hit the pentagon…and this is all the pictures show.

I can say the exact same thing, starting from the basic assumption that the conspiracy is true and no 757 ever hit the Pentagon.

The picture evidence shows a 757 hit the pentagon; we need to look at other evidence besides from the pictures to see if it was flight 77, but given the picture evidence a plane hit the pentagon....and there is no reason to think it was not a 757....and there is some evidence in the pictures that shows it was a 757.

And this means you should be trying to argue how the conspiracy makes little sense,..

I started that argument route in my first post, but came back to this thread with one clear purpose.....try to describe what is in the pictures.

BUT starting from MY basic assumption, which is what I've been trying to do with the official line.

I have my own assumptions but I’ve only been looking at what is in the pictures and describe what I see in the pictures, and check the conspiracy theory against what is there….and if a conspiracy theory says a plane did not hit the pentagon the pictures pretty firmly show there is no reason to take this view.

[Beto]

Maybe….one to a greater degree than the other….though it might be helpful if you pointed out where I depart…coz I kind of lost track.

I think you depart from the basic assumption that a 757 hit the Pentagon, but without independent verification of this, this assumption is as valid a priori as the assumption that no 757 hit the Pentagon.

To a point, but it is not an assumption given the available ctvv footage that a plane hit the Pentagon, it is not an assumption that there are witnesses that say they saw the plane, it is not an assumption that there are plane parts in the pictures, the damage to the Pentagon is consistent with a 757 and there is it at least one website that shows the wheels left in the debris are consistent with a 757. (Wheel Debris), and therefore it is not unreasonable to say a plane hit the Pentagon....and it ws a 757.It is not an assumption that other planes hit US building that day. So it is not unreasonable to place the Pentagon event as another plane hits building event…..and so on……and all these can be put together into a realistic picture of events, and this is why it is reasonable to go along with the official line and why the conspiracy theorists have to prove their case is worth something.

This is what I mean. To someone departing from the conspiracy assumption, the CCTV footage and pictures demonstrate a very poor attempt at a cover-up. The "official liner" will not argue about how they are NOT obviously planted, he will assume the pictures don't show a conspiracy and stop there, because the basic assumption supports it, but is as devoid of independent confirmation as the conspiracy. The conspiracy theorist's basic assumption emerges from all the circumstantial evidence, which to him is an overwhelming indication that the initial assumption is correct. You claim conspiracy theorists have to prove their case, and show the evidence is planted or doctored, when to me, official liners also have to demonstrate how the evidence is not obviously planted or doctored, especially since the accused party was the one that released some of it. Up until now, you have not established any certainty, and only attempted to demonstrate that the pictures and footage reveal none as well. So who's making the claims? We both are. The burden of proof rests on both of us. Without independent investigations, you're as liable to demonstrate the evidence isn't doctored, as I am to demonstrate it is. Now, I've tried to show things I perceive as either improbable or impossible, from the available pictures and footage, some of which were released by the accused party. You may think all you need to do is demonstrate reasonable doubt, but I don't think that is the case.

[Furrowed Brow]

I think you depart from the basic assumption that a 757 hit the Pentagon, but without independent verification of this,

Plane parts show a plane, it seems the wheel hubs as seen can be identified as a 757.

This assumption is as valid a priori as the assumption that no 757 hit the Pentagon.

Hmm. It is possible to identify at least one plane part as a 757. And it is possible to identify plane parts, the picture I cropped and edited shows an object that is to big to be anything else other than a plane, therefore any theory that says a plane did not hit the pentagon has to demonstrate itself first by showing there is some thing wrong with what we see in the pictures… and this is by and large the first argument of the conspiracy theory, and on this point the theory falls flat.

If the conspiracy theory says a plane hit the pentagon but not flight 77, then that is different, but that is not the thrust of the conspiracy theory.

The "official liner" will not argue about how they are NOT obviously planted,

…..because they are not…and you only need to be agnostic to argue that.

he will assume the pictures don't show a conspiracy and stop there,

I’m trying to assume nothing other than what I see in the pictures, and a rudimentary understanding of physics, and apply what I think to be a more rigorous analysis of what I see than that offered by the conspiracy theorists. For example, there are too many variables to draw the conclusion that the Faram debris was planted. You don’t need to assume official line or conspiracy to recognize that is the case. You may like to see the debris as a plant but you can’t get there from what you see in the picture or the nature of the event that lead up to the picture being taken….unless you are a priori assuming the debris is a plant. It is the kind of thinking that says the Faram debris is a smoking gun is what I’m saying is a conclusion stacked on a wobbly set of variables that do not support that conclusion. And this is why I am uber skeptical of the conspiracy theory.

I think to some degree we have been talking at cross purposes, you are keen to show a conspiracy, I am keen to show what exactly is in the pictures, what is not in the pictures, and what we can conclude safely from what we see in the pictures…..and if you check my posts that has been a conscious line of argument I have been trying to follow.

because the basic assumption supports it, but is as devoid of independent confirmation as the conspiracy. The conspiracy theorist's basic assumption emerges from all the circumstantial evidence, which to him is an overwhelming indication that the initial assumption is correct.

Well not really, that may be true for you Beto, but you started by posting pictures of the outline of a 757 superimposed over the façade of the Pentagon, and a major thrust of the internet contribution to the conspiracy theory has been the pictures as if they demonstrate a conspiracy……they don’t.

You claim conspiracy theorists have to prove their case, and show the evidence is planted or doctored, when to me,

Well I did not word things quite as strongly as that. I said they have to prove their case is worth something, and by that I really had in mind not stacking a conclusion upon a set of variables that cannot be tied down. The theory would be worth something if theorists stopped over estimating by several factors the strength of the picture evidence in their favor.

official liners also have to demonstrate how the evidence is not obviously planted or doctored,

No. We only have to say what we see in the pictures and offer a reasonable analysis of what we see to show that the official line is reasonable. We do that by looking at what we see and concluding we see plane parts, we see a crash scene consistent with a plane hitting the Pentagon, we see a wheel hub identifiably as a 757 wheel hub, and we look at the CCTV footage and see a plane size object, therefore given all this it is only reasonable to conclude that the evidence supports the point that a plane hit the pentagon, and a 757 at that. This argument is sufficient to show that the conspiracy theorists have way more work to do to make their case even look close to a reasonable analysis of the pictures.

The conspiracy theorist's basic assumption emerges from all the circumstantial evidence, which to him is an overwhelming indication that the initial assumption is correct.

If you have other consideration pressing in on how you want to see the pictures evidence that is perfectly acceptable, however, I am resisting the same point over and over, and that is there is nothing in the pictures that supports a conspiracy theory. If I were an alien that just landed on Earth and was shown the pictures I’d say one of your Earth planes just hit that building….all we see is stuff consistent with a plane strike. Maybe that is a good way of looking at the problem. If we were to present the pictures and CCTV footage, pictures of other 757s, and our separate cases to the an alien, and asked him to decide what the pictures show, and what if anything is wrong with the pcitures, from where I'm sitting he can only reach one conclusion.

Up until now, you have not established any certainty, and only attempted to demonstrate that the pictures and footage reveal none as well.

This is what I think is certain:

• CCTV footage shows object to large to be anything other than a plane.
  Pictures show plane parts including a 757 wheel hub.
  The gross features of the crash site are consistent with plane crash.
  The Faram debris is not a smoking gun for a conspiracy.

So who's making the claims? We both are. The burden of proof rests on both of us.

I can only prove what is in the pictures i.e. plane parts. I can demonstrate the gross features of the site to be consistent with plane crash and have done so. I can link you to a site that shows the wheel hub belongs to a 757. I can show the cctv object is too big etc. Conversely: in favor of the conspiracy you have demonstrated nothing.

Without independent investigations, you're as liable to demonstrate the evidence isn't doctored, as I am to demonstrate it is.

If the evidence is doctored then it is doctored, but there is nothing in the pictures that supports the doctored theory.

Now, I've tried to show things I perceive as either improbable or impossible, from the available pictures and footage, some of which were released by the accused party. You may think all you need to do is demonstrate reasonable doubt, but I don't think that is the case.

The only item I fall back to the question of reasonable doubt is the Faram debris, the rest I have put forward arguments that you have not refuted. Arguments regarding momentum, reduced volume explosion, objects traveling on mass act like a liquid, we should not expect to see impact damage to the lawn out front of the Pentagon, they are arguments that are open to be refuted if you have a better analysis of the physics; all the arguments I have given show why your original expectations of what the Pentagon crash scene should look like were unrealistic.

You may think all you need to do is demonstrate reasonable doubt, but I don't think that is the case.

Except forthe FAram Debris the argument is way stronger than reasonable doubt.