Quote:
|
dismiss absulotely everything which is a hell of a alot of inconsistencies with the official 9/11 story if people dont understand how aircrafts are built.
|
Um. Weeing slightly into the wind here.
If someone is constructing a logical series of arguments that depend on the one before for the integrity of the whole, and I kick out one of the ones at the bottom, it does tend to damage the whole lot, quite apart from the credibility of people with blind faith in the argument I've just kicked out.
In the case of the 9/11, the (rather a priori) argument goes
1) that planes weren't hijacked and flown into the things because
2) something other than a hijacked airliner hit the Pentagon because
3) the damage to the Pentagon is inconsistent with an airliner hitting it
repeat for the other attacks.
However, since I know roughly how aircraft are built (thin tube of aluminium containing air and fuel with a couple of engines slung underneath which consist of a big old fan with a really quite narrow, dense, enormously tough gas turbine behind them), it's not hard to see why the Pentagon damage is entirely consistent with an airliner hitting it - I'd expect the thing to disintegrate completely apart from the dense engine cores which have sufficient penetrative power to go through the building. Reference to images of intact tails sticking out of other accident scenes where the plane went in at half the speed into far less solid buildings are merely desperation, unless you want to argue that driving into a bollard at 30mph results in the same damage as driving into a reinforced concrete wall at 60.
Having kicked out one plank of the argument, the others are no longer automatically true and one is obliged come up with a rational alternative explanation (say, a hijacked airliner being deliberately crashed) in order to keep the least complicated hypothesis (big up William of Ockham). Taking it further, if you have, in a short space and time, one hijacked airliner and three suspected hijacked airliners it is again thanks to Mr. Ockham that we can hypothesise that the same underlying cause is behind all four - once you accept that people planned something once, repeating it is just mass production. The alternative is that four events with identical apparent results (an airliner on an early morning east-west coast flight vanishing within minutes of each other at the same times and in the same locations as a large hole appears in something) have more than one cause, which is by definition multiplying hypotheses unnecessarily.