flip wrote:Seems if you felt this was a waste of time, well the choice to waste it by answering was all yours my friend.
I have a responsibility to this board and the people on it. Part of that responsibility is ensuring the quality of discussion doesn't drop too far. I take the time to respond to garbage, and to chastise people who post it, because I know it's effective over the long term in reducing the amount of bad arguments that get posted. Your post is a waste of my time, but letting it and other posts like it sit unchallenged will lead to a lot bigger waste of a lot more people's time. So here I am, posting a challenge to you: recognize how weak the stuff you've posted is, and come up with something better.
It's been said that a 757 cannot travel at that speed, that close to the ground in level flight. That the air is too dense and it is aerodynamically impossible. I dunno if it is or not....
You don't know, but you give the benefit of the doubt to the wacky conspiracy theory because "it's been said" by unnamed sources? Not real smart.
It's not SAFE to fly a 757 at that speed and altitude... but the hijackers weren't concerned with safety. They were doing something likely to cause a crash when they, uh, crashed.
Level flight close to the ground, in any airplane, is dangerous. Essentially what happens is the air coming off of the wings gets "backed up" as it hits the ground. After a few moments of this, there's so much air piled up behind you that you can't push enough air down to generate enough lift to keep the plane airborne. But airplanes fly close to the ground plenty, for a few seconds before landing. When landing, you don't need to generate sustained lift, you just need enough lift to keep you from hitting the ground too hard. In fact, you intentionally stall right at the end -- just at an appropriate speed and altitude to allow you to hit the ground softly. (The maneuver is called a "landing flare".)
What the hijackers did was, essentially, "landed" the plane in a very unsafe way -- not on a runway, gear up, high speed. But just like with any other landing, they put the plane exactly where they wanted it. Given the altitude of the Pentagon and some basic flight characteristics of a 757, I could do the exact same thing. It's really not that hard.
How anyone can just unilaterally claim that there is no way that's what happened is beyond me.
I can't unilaterally claim that every possible conspiracy theory is false; that's like proving that there is no God or that there are no invisible pink unicorns.
What I can claim, though, is that every conspiracy theory I've seen has failed to pass the most basic of logical, scientific, technological, or evidential rigor. Every conspiracy theory I've seen has been based upon misleadingly presented facts, improperly quoted half-sentences, downright bad science, unwarranted extrapolations, bad analysis of grainy pictures, or outright falsehoods.
And you're not even posting NEW conspiracy theories that require NEW analysis; you're posting old theories that have been debunked long ago. You claim "inconsistencies and suspicious accounts", yet seem not to have done the most basic of research into those accounts or those inconsistencies beyond listening to what the "documentary" told you. You've claimed things like "there were no engines to be found" when the first link for a google search for 9/11 pentagon engines gives a site with
pictures of engine parts. You've claimed that a 757 can't fly a certain way without even the remotest bit of knowledge about flight. And you've spent post after post complaining that people aren't taking you seriously or watching the documentary you find oh-so-compelling!
I'm not asking you to become some sort of paragon of logic and perfection. But I am challenging you to put a bit more thought and effort in, to ask questions when you don't understand instead of making assumptions, and to stop assuming we're all ignorant just because we're not willing to spend the time to watch a "documentary" that seems to be filled with the same old debunked garbage as the last 40 documentaries we've been subjected to.
