I have a question about my Skeptics Stack Exchange post: Can you prove a plane hit Pentagon on September 11, 2001?

Although my question was not same, it was marked as duplicate. In my question, I asked for evidence based on videos, not pictures.

I flaged the question for fair moderation about duplicate marking. The question is marked as duplicate by 5 users which also includes a diamond moderator.

The diamond moderator's comment was:

"Note: Proof is a term from mathematics, not science. If I were to edit it out, the title would be identical to the duplicate. You don't get to arbitrarily raise the bar on the format of the evidence just because you don't like it. If I were to edit it out, the body would be the same as the duplicate too."

So he/she says proof is about mathematics, not science and the title of question would be same.

Proof "was not" in my title but prove "was" and it is a term in justice. You can ask for evidence to prove something.

This is a reference from a wikipedia article which cites the term at Baughman v The Queen [2000] UKPC 20 at para. 46 (25 May 2000)

"found as it is equally clear that the fact of death, like any other fact, can be proved by circumstantial evidence, that is to say, evidence of facts which lead to one conclusion, provided that the jury are satisfied and are warned that it must lead to one conclusion only.[9]"

at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_conviction_without_a_body .

Also, the body of the question asks for videos as evidence, not pictures.

The original post includes "I would like to have CLEAR evidences based on real videos from different angles."

Why I wrote here is I would like to have a better evaluation and removal of duplicate marking.


| |

I'll elaborate, but I don't want to waste much time on this.

Can you prove [any scientific fact]?

No, we are not mathematicians. We are not a court of law.

We would routinely edit out such language. So the better title would be:

Did a plane hit Pentagon on September 11, 2001?

My point was we already have that question on the site.

You have tried to introduce an arbitrary hoop for people to jump through, because you don't like the answer you are getting. That is not how this works. If such evidence were available, you could just raise the bar again, until you get the answer you want.

There is no justification for demanding multiple videos from multiple angles. There is plenty of evidence in the answers on the existing question to provisionally accept that a plane hit the Pentagon.

Oddly, the current answers don't include a lot of the other evidence - particularly 64 people who got on Flight 77 (including some of whom were spoken to while on the flight) were never seen again and a hijacked plane went missing from the airspace over the Pentagon.

My point being: We don't need to jump through your arbitrary hoops to have incredibly strong evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon. We already have an answer that provides plenty of evidence.

| |
  • 1
    That you have had two attempts to post answers to the original question, that were heavily downvoted and eventually deleted as non-answers should be noted as some justification for my understanding of your motivations. – Oddthinking Apr 25 at 3:58
  • 1
    I did not ask like "what is the proof of a plane hit pentagon..." and your answer contains proof not prove while marking duplicate. Now you are trying to change it from proof to prove to justify marking duplicate. – Alper Apr 25 at 5:06
  • 8
    @Alper: Please read it again, and understand I am not interested in being trolled. – Oddthinking Apr 25 at 5:22
  • 1
    Just think ones, what if someone did it as an inside job and you are defending them? Are not you then blaming good people? – Alper Jun 9 at 11:04
  • @Alper: Such idle speculations are easily countered with considering the opposite: What if it wasn't an inside job? Are you not blaming good people (and disrespecting the families of thousands of murdered people)? – Oddthinking Jun 9 at 11:37

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .