No plane wreckage on Pentagon site on 9/11

[malatesta1137]

I'm sure this video has been posted here, it's very compelling. What really happened to that plane?

http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon121.swf

[JHB]

1. See previous thread (s)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x21451

for starters.

There was plenty of plane wreckage at the Pentagon.

[DulceDecorum]

14. Lime-green wreckage

pretty much PRVES that something is amiss.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=20583&mesg_id=20583

[vincent_vega_lives]

52. I can see from that discussion

that somthing is indeed amiss. A whole thread on lime-green primer. Who would have thunk it?

[tngledwebb]

68. When skeptics get busy

they get up to all kinds of trouble. OCT'ers got it easy.

[RH]

72. That's right.

At times it is embarrassingly easy to demolish a preposterous argument.

[mike_c]

2. the force of the explosion was sufficient...

...to propel the plane and all it's occupants into a parallel universe, where they replaced a cruise missile that slipped into this universe at the precise point of impact. :tinfoilhat:

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. This is tinfoil-hat stuff.

There was quite a bit of airplane wreckage. The reason there wasn't a big airplane-shaped hole in the building is that airplanes are made of very thin aluminum, which burns up at high temperatures. When it hit the building the wings would have crumpled up and then burned as the fuel in the wing tanks exploded. I understand they did find the remnants of the engines. And if that airplane didn't hit the Pentagon, what became of it, and where are all those passengers? I'm sure their families would like to know.

[MrSammo1]

75. Shows

just how little you understand the physical world you live in!

[MercutioATC]

88. Excuse me?

Please explain how your "physical world" denies the plane parts found at the Pentagon (or the scores of eyewitnesses that saw a large commercial airliner)?

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RobertSeattle]

6. Friday at DU should be called TinFoilDay

We need a conspriacies forum that is blockable!

[rman]

8. do you mean to say you think conspiracies do not exist?

-

[JHB]

9. Eleven minutes...

... Is that about par for the time it takes between the time someone suggests that not all conspiracy theories are equaly likely and the accusation that they're suggesting none exist?

[RobertSeattle]

11. I think conspiracies this monumental just don't exist

People like to blab. Conspiracies involving more than a handful of people are incredibly hard to keep quiet. This one would require 100's of people acting in consort and not one of them blabbing to their wife, girlfriend, husband or boyfriend.

[stickdog]

15. Consider the Manhattan Project for a minute.

Then go back to your comforting illogic.

[LARED]

17. Consider this

The Manhattan Project was an operation the people WILLINGLY participated in.

The so called 9/11 conspricay woud require hundreds if not thousands of people to UNWILLINGLY participate in the death of 3000 fellow citizens.

That is not going to happen

[stickdog]

22. Bullshit. You believe it was an outside job that took only 19 people.

Meanwhile, everyone knows that inside jobs are easier than outside jobs.

So who is the illogical nutcase here?

[LARED]

23. So tell me

Exactly how did the USA government manage to get hundreds if not thousands of people to join the 'official conspiracy?'

BTW only an idiot would actually believe it only took 19 people to pull off the 9/11 attacks. I know I've never stated that. So please think before posting lies.

I await your post telling how the government got hundreds, perhaps thousands of people involved in the cover up to willingly overlook the killing of 3000 fellow citizens.

Also in what way are inside jobs easier that outside jobs? I don't understand how you have come to that conclusion.


Thank you.

[stickdog]

28. Take whatever outside conspiracy you imagine. Then add 5 powerful

insiders who help them get on planes with bombs and guns and keep the DOD from responding in a timely manner.

Would this inside help have made 9/11 HARDER to pull off?

Why?

[LARED]

29. Now that you have explained it

I understand your position.

[vincent_vega_lives]

44. Took a lot more than 19 (20).

Money, recruitment, training, planning. These 20 folks had a considerable support structure.

So what did they do that required inside help?

[vincent_vega_lives]

46. That's the part CT'ers don't get.

They think they have a monopoly on moral behavior or somthing. They think that GOVERNMENT WORKER = HOMICIDAL MANIAC. That's only true for the Postal Service. ;)

[LARED]

56. It's a good point

Although I think it is more complex than GOVERNMENT WORKER = HOMICIDAL MANIAC.

It's not the people in their mind, it's the government. Somehow they can't make the connection that they are one and the same. I would guess they truly believe the government has been the target of a takeover by some evil global force. I'm guessing if you sat them down on the couch many would whisper about the Jewish conspiracy. Or the illuminati. Or some other weirdness.

They also seem to think the USA government has almost omnipotent powers to do evil. I always find it interesting that other government possess none of the evilness that the US government does.

[tngledwebb]

70. That CT you keep refering to...

you mean OBL's kids did it, ie the OCT? (All is clear, nothing to see here, whatever the BushBabyBabblers puppet masters say is jake.) Got some bad news for you vv, there WAS a conspiracy on 9/11/01, YOU just happen to go along with the one that most people accept. Still a CT though, dubbed the 'Official' CT to distinguish it from others proposed by 9/11 SKEPTICS here and elsewhere. And however you have arrived at your little monopoly on morality swipe, that kind of concept cuts both ways. (And the Postal Service has had enough of those sick jokes.)

[RH]

73. And what would that sort of rant hope to achieve ?

If in the off chance you had some kind of valid reason to believe that your opinion is to be preferred to that of the majority it would have been more pertinent to hear it.

[vincent_vega_lives]

49. Also at a remote location under military lock and key.

and wartime conditions. What you would call a controlled environment and population.

[AZCat]

19. The Manhattan Project leaked like a sieve...

It was so bad, the Russians managed to walk away with almost the complete set of plans for the atomic bomb. Richard Feynman wrote about working on the project in one of his books (I think it was "Why do you care what they think?"), and another good book that I just finished was "Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb" by Richard Rhodes. It's part of a two-book series, the first being primarily about the atomic bomb, but the second book covers all that also (plus the hydrogen stuff).

Plus, with the Manhattan Project, they weren't looking to keep it a secret forever, just long enough to prevent the Germans from getting it.

[stickdog]

21. Thousands of people worked on it, and they kept it from the general

public for years.

How did they pull it off?

For that matter, how does the mafia ever get away with murder?

[LARED]

24. Why ignore the important difference that

folks working on the Manhattan project WILLINGLY participated. While your 9/11 mumbo jumbo OCT requires all kinds of people to unwillingly keep it a secret.

[John Doe II]

25. Without implying anything

Take Operation Northwood (especially the shoot down of an US airline full with students and fake or real attacks against citys like Washington or Nw York. Obviously in 1962 Lemnitzer considered it possible to keep this secret. I'm not implying anything here. Just want to stress that the argument: too many people would have been involved isn't neccessarily a convincing one.

[LARED]

26. Operation North wood is fiction

so whether or not it would have remained a secret is impossible to know.

My main issue is not with numbers of people but rather the willingness of people to keep a secret.

You can make the argument that a limited number of people can be made to keep quiet though threats and intimidation, but to believe that the huge number of people involved in the investigation all have been forced to cover up unwillingly is ludicrous.

Take the pentagon crash as an example.

There were hundreds of first responder at the scene. There were hundreds of hospital workers, hundreds of rescuers for days, clean up crews, morticians, press, forensic investigators, civil engineers, - you get the picture.

Not one of these people have come forward to tell of the plane parts that were planted, the body parts that were never found or were planted, or on the converse side not one reported missile parts, or bomb parts, or ANYTHING that bolsters the CT'er case in a material way.

Thats my point. It is impossible to for the government to have that much control without the control itself being exposed. So if the government cannot control to that level covertly, how does it get unwilling people to keep a secret of this magnitude, of this evil to themselves?

The answer is it can't.

[stickdog]

31. Northwoods is fiction? You mean like the Final Solution was "fiction"?

Because it was never fully implemented?

Your "issue" is complete bullshit. Intelligence operatives (like mafia members and members of secret societies) are paid handsomely to keep secrets and severely punished if they don't. Under these auspices, it's easy to keep secrets and hard to tell them.

And if even if you want to tell these secrets, to what effect unless TPTB want to listen to what you have to say? Consider Agent Orange. How many people had reason to believe that Agent Orange was dangerously toxic to our own troops? So how in the world did the military keep this "secret" so long? The point is that there's little or no gain in telling a secret if TPTB don't want to hear it. Under these circumstances, 95% of people learn to keep quiet while the other 5% are branded as lunatics.

[LARED]

32. Operation Northwoods was partially implemented?

Any evidence for that?

Intelligence operatives (like mafia members and members of secret societies) are paid handsomely to keep secrets and severely punished if they don't. Under these auspices, it's easy to keep secrets and hard to tell them.

That's great except no one is talking about them.

[stickdog]

33. So there were no intelligence operatives among the Pentagon crash's

responders?

Do you have any evidence for these claims? I mean, did they just use the Yellow Pages or something?

[LARED]

34. Lets stick with Operation Northwoods for a monment

You state it was partially implemented. That's a bold statement.

Links? Proof? Anything?

Not back to your question

So there were no intelligence operatives among the Pentagon crash's responders?

Do you have any evidence for these claims? I mean, did they just use the Yellow Pages or something?

When did I make that claim?

[RH]

37. verification?

Has anybody who knew of the alleged document in the 1960s recently verified the authenticity of it?

Not that I have yet seen.

Any other document from a similar government source would instantly be dismissed by the CT crowd as per se dubious.

Why then be taken in by this?

[vincent_vega_lives]

43. I've seen it

And a lot of the assumptions espoused here and elsewhere about it derive from poor reading comprehension skills and a health "X-File" imagination.

For instance the supposed shoot down of "American Students" involves no actual passengers. Slight of hand, yes, criminal, yes, stupid, yes, but far from homicidal.

[John Doe II]

45. Operation Northwoods

So please enlighten us.
Please give me a source stating that there were no acutal passengers involved. And please explain me how did Lemnitzer wanted to do it without passengers? Just curious.

[vincent_vega_lives]

48. From the Northwoods memo itself

No passengers involved in the crashing of the aircraft. A "drone" aircraft minus crew would be "shot down" (self-destructed). The "selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases" would be diverted, never leaving Florida. The point is no actual passengers were killed or injured in the making of this plan. It would be quite a stretch to equait 9-11 to the Northwoods memo.

8. It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate
convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down
a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States to
Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would
be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba.
The passengers could be a group of college students off on a
holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to
support chartering a non-scheduled flight.

a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and
numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered
aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the
Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be
subsituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be
loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under
carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered
aircraft would be converted to a drone.

b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual
aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of
Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying
aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly
into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will
have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the
aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft
meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When
over Cuba the drone will being transmitting on the inter-
national distress frequency a "MAY DAY" message stating he
is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission
will be interrupted by the destruction of aircraft which will
be triggered by radio signal. This will allow IACO radio

Appendix to
Enclosure A
10

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 14


stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the US what
has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to
"sell" the incident.

[John Doe II]

51. Speculative question

But for this operration to work out you don't just need aliases. You need mourning parents and relatives, the biographies for the newspaper. How can you invent all that? People will want to know who died onboard. Any idea how you can cover all this up: Cover up that there was actually no passenger onboard!

[vincent_vega_lives]

54. I don't think it was given much thought.

simple as that. Wonder why the plan was rejected by the administration as wacky?

[John Doe II]

55. Wonder

Lemnitzer himself proposed it.
So there must have been some people who thought through it and considered it possible. To come all the way to desk of Lemnitzer and get signed by him I don't think it was "it was simple as that".....
But I guess you realized that using fake passengers doesn't work you need real passengers ...

[Abe Linkman]

127. Did you see what General "Chip" Diehl said he didn't see?

General Diehl said "There wasn't a piece of the jet to be seen anywhere".

No mention of MUSH.

Did YOU see any? Crashed B757 or MUSH? If not, as DD would say: "WHERDY MUSH GO?".

[stickdog]

65. Here it is in all its glory.

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/

Are y'all seriously suggesting that it was forged and then released to a FOIA request?

Do we have to prove the world is round to y'all as well?

[RH]

66. Are you kidding?

People think that an aircraft that hit the Pentagon was a faked event, like some sort of huge conjuring trick, with the very eyes of hundreds of people fooled, but they think that an archive document could not be faked?

:eyes:

I note, nevertheless, that you fail to identify any personal first hand testimony to verify the document.

The facsimile we had seen long before.

[stickdog]

77. Yes, I'm serious. Please explain why you think that the US government

would release an incriminating document in response to a FOIA request that was some sort of forgery.

What scenario can you invent to make such a claim feasible? I mean, do you think it was typed on a word processor or something? How and why would someone with the authority to release such a document mock it up? To serve what purpose?

Do you think the administrators of the National Security Archives are in on this conspiracy?

[RH]

79. scenario

OK I'll bite. Hypothesis:

9/11 was from the start an inside job not on behalf of the US Government but designed as a false flag operation to frame the US Government as the likely culprits, knowing well enough that the 19 hijacker scenario was incredible. The real culprit, who had already been blackmialing the US government on a smaller scale was thus out to gain absolute control of the US government. Elements on the inside, who knew all about Vigilant Guardian turned it into a real terrorist attack. They thus had to do nothing much more than to hack into a dress rehearsal of a 'home run' software system intended to bring hijacked aircraft back to an airport. 'Northwoods' suited that purpose, to plant the idea that the US government was capable and willing.

If Northwoods is real why was it not just shredded more than thirty years ago? Or do you seriously think that every document that ever would incriminate the US government is to be found somewhere in the archives? That's the scenario that for me is the most absurd.

[stickdog]

81. Well, they sure did a great job of framing the US government.

One fatal flaw: nobody's paying attention.

Operation Northridge is a classic limited hangout because they decided NOT to do it. That's why it was released rather than destroyed. If it was part of an effort to "frame" the US government, the effort failed miserably. Perhaps one in 50 people have even heard of it, and of those -- if this message board is any measure -- at least a voceriferous subset choose to ignore its relevance completely (or attempt to explain it away absurdly).

[RH]

83. That's right.

The "No Boeing" and "No Arab" disinformation counter attack worked wonderfully well to ridicule the conspiracy theories.

But for all that a good deal of the truth about the Vigilant Guardian thing would come out long ago.

[stickdog]

85. Don't forget "No Jews were killed in the WTC towers on 9/11."

That's the most egregious example. And note that these questionable-to-complete-bullshit "conspiracy theory" memes are the most widely disseminated critiques of the "official story."

I tend to doubt that this development is pure happenstance.

[RH]

89. That is not true.

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=83170&contrassID=3&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=0

[stickdog]

91. Of course it's not true. That was my point.

The most dubious 9/11 "conspiracy theories" are also the most widely disseminated, and I don't think this fact can be attributed to mere happenstance.

[BlueDog2u]

247. What a curious misreading..../nt

[vincent_vega_lives]

42. "Intelligence operatives"

What are you about 15? Or just a young 19 year old?

[vincent_vega_lives]

53. Sure, in the name of Naional Security

Intelligence operatives (like mafia members and members of secret societies) are paid handsomely to keep secrets and severely punished if they don't.

Intelligence operatives are not paid handsomely to keep secrets they think are immoral or corrupt and would hardly be severely punished if they testified before congress that members of the administration killed 3,000 people on September 11th and had proof.

[zaktivist]

58. keeping secrets

LARED said "My main issue is not with numbers of people but rather the willingness of people to keep a secret. "

i knew someone who worked as a courier in the NSA. he told me that the willingness didn't have to be there because of the fear instilled in every member of the NSA of what might happen if they exposed any secrets (court martial, life imprisonment in some cases). FEAR is what kept the whole organization together, they said. they told me about how it was the most stressful situation he's ever been in in his life because nobody trusted each other and everyone was constantly watching and being watched. it wasn't hard to believe since all of my friends in various branches of the U.S. military have said the same thing regarding scenarios they've been a part of or information they knew which were deemed clandestine. it's eerie how hard it is to get them to spill their guts, but it's the reality nonetheless.

i think people overlook how powerful our military is and especially how it works. ask ANY person about the ramifications of going AWOL, or even legally filing for conscientious objector status. they will ALL tell you how tough on you your superiors will get. basically, once you are in the military, until your time has been served, you are the U.S. government's b!tch.

so, when it comes to the illuminati and all of that, which i have studied for years now in search of whether or not there is any truth to the theories out there, it's very hard to just dub the whole thing nutty. sure there are nuts, and there is misinformation, but there is disinfo and very bright people at work on both sides. read about freemasonry, read about secret societies and their initiations to gain a sense of why they fear and the vows of secrecy they take. do your homework before you start doubting these things. it's really no secret that they exist. it has been said by members of these organizations that the biggest secret is that there are no secrets. it's just that nobody would possibly believe something that sounded so outrageous as there being a conspiracy in the upper echelons of power and that is why they remain there.

anyway, flame if you must. just sayin my part.

[vincent_vega_lives]

59. Exposing secrets

You stated:

i knew someone who worked as a courier in the NSA. he told me that the willingness didn't have to be there because of the fear instilled in every member of the NSA of what might happen if they exposed any secrets (court martial, life imprisonment in some cases). FEAR is what kept the whole organization together, they said.

What are the possible motives for exposing "secrets"

1. Pure Negligence. Careless handling of security secrets can get people killed, punishment would be warrented.

2. Espioniage. Either for monetary or ideological purposes. Severe Punishment would be warrented.

3. To expose corruption, or a crime. Sure the offending agency will attempt to surpress, but I have a feeling members of the media/congress would be interested to hear about it, and in the end it is highly doubtfull the wistle blower would be punnished.

[stickdog]

62. How does the mob keep secrets?

The omerta system works wonders, doesn't it?

Suddenly all these unbelievable "conspiracy theories" are easy-to-fathom true crime stories.

Funny, that.

[vincent_vega_lives]

63. Like any other organization

Only if there is a proper benifit/penalty ratio. Ever hear of the Witness protection program?

Besides, your average governemnt imployee are not degenerate criminals.

[stickdog]

64. Come now, an omerta is an oath of honor.

And the penalty for treason is the exact same in US intel as it is in the mafia.

[vincent_vega_lives]

67. Are you equating

Possible endangering of people's lives with brining down a drug ring?
Moral equivilency is an ugly thing.


And, before you pipe in with some CT, whistle blowing to expose corruption is not treason.

[stickdog]

78. What is the penalty for disseminating top secret classified US intel?

Loose lips sink ships. Keeping secrets is simply part and parcel of any criminal, police, legal, medical, defense or intelligence job.

It's just not that hard.

[RH]

80. So who was it then

who presented the Pentagon security camera images to the media?

Those were not officially released and whoever was behind the deed has not since been heard from. We do not know even know for what consideration the material was delivered.

For those whose very trade is to deal secretly with information it is not so difficult if they so wish to betray the same information. It has been happening for hundreds of years, since Tudor times. There is no serious investigator worth his salt who has not at some time received through the post an anonymous brown paper envelope.

[stickdog]

82. And then decided not to go with the story anyway.

Which "anonymous" disclosures are disinfo?

Which "anonymous" disclosures are misinfo?

Which "anonymous" disclosures are planted to encourage "limited hangout" speculation rather than full culpability?

The same questions apply to whistleblowers. Just because information is classified doesn't make it true. Just because it's in the public domain doesn't make it false. Just because somebody's a "whistleblower" doesn't mean that he or she isn't keeping an even more heinous secret. "Conventional wisdom" must be gamed from all sides, as any psyops veteran will tell you. In the United States today, the commonality and banality of corporate mass media make this gaming infinitely easier. If a meme isn't discussed seriously and continually on national television, it's (almost always) effectively rendered impotent. And if a meme is discussed seriously and continually on national television, it becomes a "national issue" regardless of its relative merit or importance.

[RH]

84. As a rule

you have to wait to see.

Sensible jourmnalists dont run to the front page as soon as the brown paper envelope comes. They keep it in the back of the filing cabinet so as better to relate to what else turns up. They do like Woodward and Bernstein.

Emails to hint about V.G. were already floating about a couple of years ago. Make no mistake; there are people who know a lot more than they've yet let on. When the time is right they will, but not before. For the time being it would achieve nothing.

[stickdog]

87. What do you think started me down this joy forsaken path?

My inbox was filled with "off-the-record" reports of Flight 93 being shot down before the news media even reported the incident on 9/11. These messages weren't from nobodies. They were from high ranking officials in the federal government and national media organizations.

Viewed from this perspective, the subsequent often contradictory but widely disseminated "heroes" meme, the world record debris field, the still highly controversial time of crash, the reports of other planes circling the vicinity around the same time, the lack of ANY timely information disclosure about anything other than the heroes' phone calls, a "crime scene" that's still off limits to the public three years later, the dozens of "no sign of a plane, just this small hole" eyewitnesses, the suppression of the flight data recorder information to this day, and all the rest of Flight 93's unexplained questions took on a certain significance for me personally -- a significance that I quite frankly could have done without.

Combine this with Bush's, Rumsfeld's and General Myers' patently ridiculous "alibis" for their complete inaction during the entire period of the attack and our 500 billion dollar a year defense system's supposed inability to intercept a single hijacked passenger plane more than 100 minutes after they were first alerted to the crisis and more than an hour after half the nation realized that we were under a probable terrorist attack, and you've got all the ingredients for completely inescapable suspicion.

[BlueDog2u]

246. Excuse me.

You write: "in the end it is highly doubtfull the wistle blower would be punnished."


What planet do you live on?

[RH]

61. So where then

did the Pentagon security camera images come from?

They were not an official release so they must have somehow been leaked by somebody who has not since seen fit to come forward.

Or do you think the shots were deliberately leaked as disinformation?

[revree]

5. KEEP IT KICKED

My friend has video footage of the twin towers from that morning live reporters stating that a smaller plane hit second tower, not a jumbo jet...this is great, get it out there...

[JHB]

7. You're joking, right?

I mean, it SOUNDS sarcastic, but...

[impe]

10. There are a lot of Truth

seekers trying to find out what happened on 9/11, our government confiscated all video's
related to the pentagon crash. Why the need to hide the pentagon's attack and not the WTC's?
Why did the FBI show up at the gas station across from the pentagon within minutes of the hit to
confiscate the video tape. Why would terrorists (who couldn't fly cessna's) fly a 757 at such an angle and hit an empty wing to
mitigate casualties. How did DNA survive for identification purposes but not the melted plane.
Eyewittnesses claim the plane hit the ground first, there's no evidence of damage on the lawn or
even burn marks. These are just a few out of many reasonable questions...that have never been answered.


All they need to do is release the videos.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[scoopmeister]

13. This item trashes both WP and F77 conspiracy

http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/extra/archives/001002.html

[stickdog]

16. Nice article, scoop.

[BlueDog2u]

248. Yes, very nice article/nt

[tngledwebb]

18. TRIPE! OCT' ers across the land just LOVE tripe!

They love to read it full time for hours on end, love to post tripe saturated responses to other people's tripe for hours on end, and they just cannot or will not leave that tripe be, despite their chronic ingestion of numerous unhealthy and content-free Official U.S. Tripe Reports. So come out of the closet, OCT'ers, admit your addiction to tripe, your own or others, Government approved or organic. Think how meaningless your lives would be without your daily dose of tripe!

[MercutioATC]

20. I've noticed that.

Thanks for confirming...

[TrogL]

27. I hadn't taken the compulsive component of it into account

Certainly they're obsessive enough.

I know. I should talk.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[vincent_vega_lives]

35. If you look at the damage to the Pentagon...

The hole is coincidently EXACTLY the same size as a 757 fuselage. 12' in diameter...fancy that, and aprox 20' feet off the ground...huh...and the width of the wing dammage is about 100', and to a height of 10' just enough to encompass the part of the wing that contained fuel...AND the part of the Pentagon that collapsed...was 80' across, which is coincidently the distance between the two wing mounted engines...fancy that.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757family/pf/pf_200tech.html
Here's the dimentions of hte 757.
Wing span: 124'10"
Body width: 12'4"




Here's a pic showing the incredable "Pentalawn". Looks pristine dont it?





Notice this picture. The Pentagon is about 77' high. Look at the damage. Notice the wall and supports taken out at ground level. Note the part that collapsed.


Another good pic of the burn mark.




Good pic of the right wing damage done at ground level.



The pylons are not pushed in here because nothing hit them. You can see where the left wing hit at ground level, The bottom center of hte circle is where the left engine hit.

[tngledwebb]

36. Are you serious?

These photos are perfect ammo for the CT'ers. There are LITERALLY THOUSANDS of better photos to pick from. PLEASE search them out, or just google Killtown and follow the links.

[vincent_vega_lives]

41. Serious as a heartattack

Ironicly I think those pics make my point nicely, despite the source. People just don't realized what they are looking at. I have not been able to find any other pics.

[tngledwebb]

47. For more pics....

if you really care about this issue, google Killtown etc. If you've 0NLY found those pics, you need a faster computer or better ISP. The real problem is- most people DO realize what they are looking at.

[RH]

50. most people?

Do you think that maybe the poeple who were there to see it all for themselves knew what they were looking at?

:eyes:

[tngledwebb]

57. How is it, RH, that from your UK vantage point

you place such abiding trust in a corrupt and commercial US media and/or Govt to tell the public the truth? You must realize that two of our major networks are owned by GE and Westinghouse, never mind the various evil tentacles of Fox, and the corrupting corporate sponsorship of our 'public' media outlets like PBS and NPR.

Anyway, I was actually referring to people who LOOKED AT all extant PHOTOGRAPHS, not the vague and contradictory 'eyewitness reports'. But feel free to post any quote or two from those eyewitnesses that would help strengthen the OCT'ers case.

[RH]

60. I never had to trust the corrupt commercial media

There was never anything anywhere along the line to prevent me and anybody else from consulting the eye witnesses directly. Did something prevent you from doing the same, or does it rather suit your purpose to keep them out of the picture? Why do you prefer the word of people who looked at photographs to the word of those there to see first hand? Do you have an explanation for that?

You see I'd already felt free enough to post quotes when I presented the first compendium of eye witness quotes early in 2002. So right now I now have no intention at all to repeat the effort for those too ignorant or ungrateful to have noticed.

So to save the time and the trouble I would suggest instead to recognise or to refute the simple truth of one single incontrovertible non contradictory fact: There is not one person who was there to see for themselves who is known to have the slightest doubt that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

[tngledwebb]

69. Huh?

Have you consulted eyewitnesses directly, or only read it in the funny papers or on the net? And then what media do you trust? BBC?

[RH]

71. Seeing that you would appear to have never noticed,

the first edition of my eye witness compendium was hosted by an eye witness, Steve Riskus. When I sent him a preliminary courtesy copy he then asked, and without being prompted to do so, to put it up on his web site for his friends to see that he was not alone with what he saw. Use the DU archive. This was all explained in a previous thread with a verbatim copy of the email correspondence reproduced.

'anablep' who used to contribute to the DU threads discovered a lot of witnesses who had never been heard of in the public eye. All she had to do was to look around intelligently. They were all there in Arlington, not on another Planet. The Columbia Pike vicinity was busy as usual.

I tend to trust those who do the most work and those who report responsibly, with names, addresses and CVs supplied. I tend not to trust those who know next to nothing about their subject, prefering to anonymously heckle other people form a safe distance in a most unhelpful fashion.

[tngledwebb]

74. I asked a question.

You haven't answered it, no big news flash. But I have looked at your cited sources and found them wanting, to say the least. I have read the DU forums and the archives, and they present an interesting picture that favors 9/11 skeptics, not the OCT'ers. Only a few on DU meet your criteria of 'trust' that includes several OCT'ers.I trust those who make sense, whatever their credentials.And these heckling charges are getting old, to say nothing of ironic.

[RH]

76. That's a conincidence.

I have looked at your postings and found them wanting.

Did you ever post anything of any use to anybody?

If you did I must have missed it.

[BlueDog2u]

249. Just so you know

Whenever I read someone who goes out of their way, as you do, to gratuitously insult sincere people on a regular basis, I form a definite unfavorable impression. Not that I would expect you to care. You seem more interested, most of the time, in pissing matches than in civil discourse on matters of public concern.

But if there is any possibility that you really do care about what kind of impression you make on thoughtful readers who have no particular axe to grind (count me LIHOP if anything, for all the reasons anyone who has been paying attention and has an IQ of more than 100 can figure out), here's a tip for the wise: stop acting like such a jerk.

End of lecture.

[DulceDecorum]

86. RH says:

So to save the time and the trouble I would suggest instead to recognise or to refute the simple truth of one single incontrovertible non contradictory fact: There is not one person who was there to see for themselves who is known to have the slightest doubt that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

Commentary by Brig. Gen. Arthur F. "Chip" Diehl III
Secretary of the Air Force director of marketing:

We went to see firsthand the damage, the aftermath of this tragedy. No one could believe the catastrophic damage to the Pentagon - it was horrible. A whole "wedge" had collapsed; the aircraft had penetrated about three of the five "rings" of the building. There wasn't a single piece of the jet to be seen anywhere.
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123004570

RH:
There is not one person who was there to see for themselves who is known to have the slightest doubt that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

O'Reilly?
Tell that to the falafel.

[RH]

90. Gen. Arthur F. "Chip" Diehl III

refers to an "aircraft", that penetrated about three of the five "rings" of the building.

Which aircraft then do you think he thinks it was, if not Flight 77?

[DulceDecorum]

125. WHERDY GO?

after it penetrated the Mother Of All Walls?

"There wasn't a single piece of the jet to be seen anywhere."

And WHERE is the MUSH?

[RH]

134. I refer you

to answers previously supplied.

Not exactly a new question, is it, this "WHERDY GO?"?

There was an autopsy.

[Abe Linkman]

136. Strange answer to a legitimate question

"Not exactly a new question, is it, this "WHERDY GO?"?

There was an autopsy."

There was a river, too. And, Hugh Green was my valet.

OCT promoters, defenders, supporters and neutralizers just seen to have a conniption fit (same thing as the Heebie Jeebies) over that simple question from lil ol Dulce Decorum.
They all seem to get a case of the vapors whenever they're asked to explain WHERE is the MUSH. The luggage. The 757 engines. The bodies that would have been strewn on the Pentalawn if FL 77 (or any other scheduled or non-scheduled or parallel flight) had gone kaboom into the Pentagon or just stopped there at the front entrance all of a sudden.

As a loyal American, it is heart-warming to know that at least one fairly high-ranking gravel agitator (the Brigadoon General Arthur "Chip off The Old Ice Block" Diehl) was honest enough to admit that whenever he came to the Pentagon and inspected the joint, he was man enough to say, and I quote: "There wasn't a single piece of the plane to be seen anywhere". Chip is a man of few words, but if he had given a more complete account of what he didn't see but surely would have seen if FL 77 HAD crashed there...Chip would have also no doubt said that there wasn't a single piece of MUSH, luggage, 757 engine, or anything else from a great big B757 to be seen anywhere.

So, the question before the house is still awaiting an answer:
WHERDY GO? You know? Told us, if you do.

[RH]

137. Read all the previous threads.

There was hardly any shortage of them, was there?

Other people comprehended well enough. With an open mind it is not absolutley impossible to do so. The people who were there at the Pentagon seem to have understood well enough. Not a great deal of controversy there, by all accounts.

[Abe Linkman]

139. Enough to baffle the curious

There is hardly a surfeit of nebulous neurotomy from the resident nebbish of nebbernebberland. What then are we to suppose that General Diehl was talking about, if not the obvious truth whenver he said: "There wasn't a single piece of the plane to be seen anywhere". The good General obviously had been left out of the loop, but I bet today he too would like to know:
WHERDY GO?

[RH]

140. The Diehl comment

was also previously explained, recently, was it not?

The aircraft debris had been cleared up the day before.

It must be very difficult to make sense of anything with such a lamentably short memory span.

[Abe Linkman]

143. Maybe they DID have enough time to get rid of the large pieces....of

an F-16, but that still leaves the larger questions that so far, no OCT supporter has even attempted to refute. It must be very difficult to make sense of anything with such a lamentably inability to answer even the most basic of questions regarding MUSH, 757 engines, luggage, body parts on the pristine Pentalawn etc.

WHERDY GO, Rh? WHERDY GO?

[RH]

146. I refer you

to answers previously supplied.

Not exactly a new question, is it, this "WHERDY GO?"?

There was an autopsy.

[MercutioATC]

241. Abe, how did an F-16 leave 120 feet of damage to the limestone facing?

Let's forget about the light poles for the moment. The strike damage to the limestine facing of the Pentagon was approximately 120 feet wide. An F-16's wingspan is 31 feet. How did an F-16 cause this damage?

[MercutioATC]

150. But Abe, I thought eyewitnesses were notoriously unreliable...

...at least that's the rationalization that was made to discard the dozens of eyewitness reports of a large commercial plane crashing at the Pentagon.

What, exactly, are your criteria for weighing the value of eyewitness statements?

[RH]

151. I would have asked the same question

except that I felt it would be dishonest to appear to expect a reasonable answer.

:nuke:

[Abe Linkman]

152. General Diehl's statement was not ...

about an action that allegedly occurred. He wasn't giving a description of an event (action) from the past, like your fairy tale crowd was doing. The only reason his statement didn't include NOT seeing any MUSH, luggage, 757 engines etc. is because he had no reason to think any of those had ever been in the vicinity to begin with. Get it, now?

[MercutioATC]

155. General Diehl didn't show up until the day after the crash.

He saw no pieces of an aircraft? Not surprising. Over 24 hours had passed since the crash. As far as your assertion that "he had no reason to think any of those had ever been in the vicinity to begin with", it's completely unsupported. He never made any statement in reference to doubting the report that AAL77 had crashed into the Pentagon...

...what he DID say is "A whole "wedge" had collapsed; the aircraft had penetrated about three of the five "rings" of the building." He didn't say "an" aircraft. He didn't mention any explosives or drones or shaped charges. He spoke of "the" aircraft...the one that was reported to have hit the Pentagon...AAL77.

[Abe Linkman]

164. Do you have a quote where he mentioned "AAL77"? You said he said:

"the" aircraft...the one that was reported to have hit the Pentagon...AAL77.

Please supply a link to a quote in which he mentioned AA 77.
Thanks.


What he said isn't nearly as significant as what he DIDN'T say. My statement(s) on the General still stands. He didn't say anything that lends credence to the OCT, and his failure to do so is much more enlightening than his brief comment regarding not seeing "even one piece---anywhere".

He didn't say he had been briefed about ANY of the WHERDY GO. IF he had said that he was shown two B757 engines, or luggage, or MUSH, or ANY aircraft parts that could be identified as being from a B757, THAT would be significant. The fact that he failed to mention any of the above suggests that he wasn't even told about any of the above, and THAT does NOT do anything but UNDERMINE the credibility of the Official Conspiracy Theory.

General Diehl unwittingly performed a valuable service to 9/11 truthseekers. He did NO favor for hawkers and supporters of the OCT.

[RH]

169. Do you think

you're making any kind of sense with any of that sort of nonsense?

How do you know what anybody did or did not say?

Is all this because of one brief news article?

:eyes:

If he did not mean to refer to Flight 77 what do you think he meant to refer to?

:shrug:

[Abe Linkman]

173. ORDER, ORDER. RH is out of ORDER.

You have to answer MY question before you can ask yours, Romey.
Howsomeohever:
Diehl couldn't have been referring to FL 77, and his speculation is based on the same false reports that YOU base all of your hallucinations on.

[RH]

174. As it happens

I do not have a quote to show that Diehl's head had not fallen off but I'd consider it to be a reasonable assumption.

It is perfectly obvious that he mentioned AA77. Whoever edited the article failed to spell it all out simply because they'd never anticipated that such an idiot would ever care to misinterpret it in such a fashion. Nevertheless, if you care to get back to the persons concerned I dare say that they'll be perfectly able to clarify.

[Abe Linkman]

177. Your facts (such as they are) are wrong, or missing, or both.

Nothing new from the "Slide Master". You came through again...and left
without a trace of having been here. Sort of like that "plane" at the Pentagon.

[RH]

183. They're not my facts.

The experience belongs to the people who were there.

When you find one of them willing to back you up, maybe then you'll be taken seriously.

Please excuse me in the mean time if I wont be holding my breath.

[MercutioATC]

187. General Diehl reported what he saw the day AFTER the crash.

No parts of an airplane.

That's it.

He doesn't speculate. He doesn't comment on the lack of luggage or parts. He does, in fact, talk about "the airplane" that hit the Pentagon...not a missile, not explosives.

You can believe the moon is made of green cheese if you'd like, it makes do difference to me. I think it's a case of grasping at straws to spin what General Diehl said into supposed support for a conspiracy theory, though.

[Abe Linkman]

188. General Diehl's comments are revealing for what he DIDN'T include in..

them. I doubt he knew the real truth at the time he made his brief comments. Otherwise; his remarks would have been "on message". Obviously, his comment about not seeing even a single piece of a great big ol' B757, nor anything that would have been in it (organic or otherwise) if it had really been FL 77...obviously, those remarks do little to bolster the claims of the Official Conspiracy Theorists.

So, what he said adds nothing to the OCT plausibiilty, but since he didn't say one word that indicates he had been made aware that ANYTHING had been removed (or covered up, in the case of the Pentalawn)...it is a reasonable conclusion to say that either General Diehl was UNinformed or MISinformed. Either way, his direct comments are far less revealing that the context of his statement, what he did NOT say. IF a B757 HAD crashed into or in front of the Pentagon, then somebody's head should roll for allowing General Diehl to make a statement which made him look foolish.

[MercutioATC]

189. Agreed. What he DIDN'T say was key.

General Diehl showed up at the Pentagon a day after the crash. He spoke of "the" airplane crash and its severity. He said he didn't see any airplane parts.

What he DIDN'T say was that he doubted that AAL77 crashed into the Pentagon. He also didn't say that he would call for further investigation. He didn't say that he doubted the official explanation in any way.

If this meets your standard of "proof", fine. It doesn't come close to meeting mine.

[Abe Linkman]

194. General Diehl unwittingly undermined belief in the OCT

Diehl's statement doesn't help the cause of Official Conspiracy Theorists, and it's unlikely that a partisan, unquestioning supporter of the Official Conspiracy Theory would admit it. So, what you said is no surprise and isn't helpful or persuasive at all.

[MercutioATC]

195. Only for those committed to a conspiracy theory.

He simply stated what he saw. I don't think it "helps" anything, it was an observation...a brief observation. The majority of the interview had more to do with the Air Force than the Pentagon.


I don't see where it supports either argument.

[Abe Linkman]

197. Dense people & fierce Official Conspiracy Theorists wouldn't see ...

support for anything that conflicts with their belief and support for the 9/11 fairy tale.

[MercutioATC]

199. Only dense people and fierce Conspiracy Theorists would see...

General Diehl's statements as support for a "no AAL77" scenario.

[Abe Linkman]

203. You made a claim -- now, kindly provide evidence in support of it.

EVIDENCE, please. NOT more RH-like diversions or bureaucratic "it's all been dealt with before" BS.

[MercutioATC]

206. Explain the claim I made as YOU see it.

I said that while it takes a degree of skill and training to land a plane safely, crashing one isn't that difficult. You want substantiation for that statement?

[Abe Linkman]

213. Have you had another case of LIHOP/MIHOP flip-hop?

Aren't you one of those who claim that a B757 crashed at or into the Pentagon? That's the biggest claim of yours that you've never substantiated. The rules of logic require that you do so if you want to be taken seriously as an objective participant in discussions, and not as something that I can't say (and certainly don't believe is true) because you're very quick on the alert trigger. No, I know you're not.
Just kidding about that.

Now, will you kindly give us your argument for why you believe that a B757 crashed into or at the Pentagon. Thank you, I'll hold.

[Abe Linkman]

219. ATC- We're still wating for you to answer a very simple question.

"will you kindly give us your argument for why you believe that a B757 crashed into or at the Pentagon. Thank you, I'll hold."

If it's your contention that a 757 crashed into or at the Pentagon, then the rules of logic require that you prove it, or at least explain what your basis is for making that claim. Furthermore, since you have been promoting that argument for a very, very long time, it's reasonable to assume that you would like for others to agree with you. Therefore, kindly explain to us WHY we should believe your story. Feel free to use evidentiary proof as well as logic. Thank you, we're still waiting.

[MercutioATC]

222. Geez...gimme a chance. Some of us work for a living.

""will you kindly give us your argument for why you believe that a B757 crashed into or at the Pentagon. Thank you, I'll hold."

I've stated my argument pretty thoroughly in the past (numerous times) but I'll give you the highlights again:


1) Commercial planes were hijacked and flown into buildings on 9/11.

2) AAL77 was hijacked on 9/11.

3) AAL77 was last seen on radar in the immediate vicinity of, and headed towards, the Pentagon.

4) Something hit the Pentagon.

5) AAL77 was not seen anywhere else after the crash at the Pentagon.

6) Numerous eyewitnesses reported seeing a large commercial plane flying toward the Pentagon immediately before the crash...some reported seeing it hit the Pentagon...some identified it as being in American Airlines livery.

7) The damage to the Pentagon is consistent with damage that would have been caused by a 757 crash.

8) While the aircraft debris left after the crash was minimal (and in very little pieces) it was consistent with 757 parts.

9) The flight data and voice recorders from AAL77 were recovered at the Pentagon.

10) DNA from the passengers of AAL77 was recovered at the Pentagon.

Those are the top 10. It's not a comprehensive list, but it constitutes the majority of my argument.

I understand that you don't agree with some of these statements. That's your perogative. I do, however, believe them to be accurate and they don't support any alternate scenario apart from the use of remote control (on the real AAL77). I don't believe a remote control device was used, but I've seen nothing that specifically precludes it.

Again, I don't understand the reason for your question (and your impatience at having to wait until I got home from work to read it). I know you have access to the search function here at DU. We've had this discussion many times in the past.

[Abe Linkman]

225. Totally unconvincing, surprisingly weak and poorly argued...

it's almost scary to think you actually believe that's what happened and how.

[MercutioATC]

228. I'm terrible sorry it didn't convince you....

:eyes:

Abe, that's the answer you give every time we discuss this. Why would I expect anything different?

[demodewd]

38. it was a plane bomb?

http://eric-bart.net/iwpb/

How do you explain?
1. the initial bright flash of the explosion
2. the large hole penetration into the A-E drive
3. the lack of fuel damage north of the entry wound
4. eyewitness reports of a bright flash that corresponds to a missile and/or shaped charges
5 the Pentagon's refusal to expose the public to a full visual explanation of the event
6. the incredulous efficiency of the alleged hijacker's flying abilities
7. Why is there no report of human remains outside the building when plane debris reigned down onto the Pentagon yard and freeway like confetti?

[RH]

39. How do you explain....

the urge to reiterate when answers were already seen over and over again on previous occassions?

For the the persistently forgetful:

1. The starboard engine slammed into an active electricity generator. Instantly powdered aluminum is also to add to the effect. To achieve similar effects aluminum is a added to fireworks.
2. A B757 hit the building at some considerable speed.
3. The lack of "fuel damage" is your own unqualified unfounded assumption. Dmage to walls and windows was evident.
4. Ditto. Fiction. No eye witness nor any investigator, nor anybody else at the scene said that any flash was due to a missile and/or shaped charges.
5. Whikle their friends have no doubt it suits them just fine to let their enemies be foolish. Possibly they realised that the Pentagon was not an intended target and it would spoil the propaganda effect if the whole truth got out.
6. The "incredulous efficiency of the alleged hijacker's flying abilities" is another unqualified unfounded assumption. With no proof whatsoever that anybody ever intended to fly the plane into the Pentagon the notion is a fiction.
7. The confetti came from the disintegrated wings. People on airliners fly in the fuselage, which ended up mostly within the Pentagon because of the considerable kinetic energy. And strangely enough some people prefer not to talk about human mincemeat.

[demodewd]

131. rebuttal to RH

The starboard engine slammed into an active electricity generator. Instantly powdered aluminum is also to add to the effect. To achieve similar effects aluminum is a added to fireworks.

The friction from the starboard engine caused the massive bright light explosion as scene in the video clip? How do you explain the sonarwave penetration of the helicopter port wall? Aluminum powder?

A B757 hit the building at some considerable speed

The plane exploded upon impact . What would be left of it after its alleged penetration of three walls? Nothing that I can see massive enough to blow out the A-E drive. A force you say? Where is the smoke and fire damage that would accompany your "force"(fuel explosion) in the A-E drive area?

The lack of "fuel damage" is your own unqualified unfounded assumption. Damage to walls and windows was evident.

The damage to the area of North section penetration was essentially fire and smoke free suggesting something other than jet fuel was the initial cause of the expolsion.

Ditto. Fiction. No eye witness nor any investigator, nor anybody else at the scene said that any flash was due to a missile and/or shaped charges.

Numerous Pentagon personel witnessed a bright flash at the onset of the explosion. This has been documented on this forum previously.The bright flash is also present at the initiation of the explosion and its sonarwave effect discounts the notion of "aluminum powder".

While their friends have no doubt it suits them just fine to let their enemies be foolish. Possibly they realised that the Pentagon was not an intended target and it would spoil the propaganda effect if the whole truth got out.

What the..??? Come again? If Flight 77 did crash into the West Wing ,the Pentagon would have showed it as much as the media has with the Indiana Pacers fight with Detroit Piston fans.

The "incredulous efficiency of the alleged hijacker's flying abilities" is another unqualified unfounded assumption. With no proof whatsoever that anybody ever intended to fly the plane into the Pentagon the notion is a fiction.

It is not unqualified. Do a google on Hani Hanjour. He couldn't even fly a Cessna at acceptable standards.How was the plane guided in ..in your opinion?

The confetti came from the disintegrated wings. People on airliners fly in the fuselage, which ended up mostly within the Pentagon because of the considerable kinetic energy. And strangely enough some people prefer not to talk about human mincemeat.

Most of the fuselage ended up in the building? How much is most? Where's the debris from that "most" that didn't end up in the building? The passengers were allegedly herded to the BACK of the plane and yet we have no reports or photographs of human remains on the Pentalawn or Freeway.The confetti came from shaped charges located on the facade wall or on the plane or both. At the speed and force the plane alleged plane would have hit the wall the wings and vertical stabilizor would most probably have snapped off. Where are they?

[RH]

135. but

The friction from the starboard engine caused the massive bright light explosion as scene in the video clip? How do you explain the sonarwave penetration of the helicopter port wall? Aluminum powder?

I wouldn't have thought that a flash was caused by friction. Where we are here at home we see flashes from the electric railway about half a mile away. It was a large generator. Lots of power.

"sonarwave penetration" means nothing to me. Is it something from Star Wars?


The plane exploded upon impact . What would be left of it after its alleged penetration of three walls? Nothing that I can see massive enough to blow out the A-E drive. A force you say? Where is the smoke and fire damage that would accompany your "force"(fuel explosion) in the A-E drive area?

Nothing that I ever saw ever necessitated a massive object to damage a wall. Gas explosions have been known to demolish buildings.

Nor did I ever see anything to the effect that a force is impossible without smoke and fire danage. Where do you get all this claptrap from?

The damage to the area of North section penetration was essentially fire and smoke free suggesting something other than jet fuel was the initial cause of the explosion.

So what? The kentic energy alone was equivalent to the energy of a considerable quantity of ordinary explosives.


Numerous Pentagon personel witnessed a bright flash at the onset of the explosion. This has been documented on this forum previously.The bright flash is also present at the initiation of the explosion and its sonarwave effect discounts the notion of "aluminum powder".

sonarwave discounts aluminium powder?

:shrug:

According to who or what?


What the..??? Come again? If Flight 77 did crash into the West Wing ,the Pentagon would have showed it as much as the media has with the Indiana Pacers fight with Detroit Piston fans.

Dont be so silly. The Pentagon event was a huge embarassment, the metaphorical equivalent of the entire Military Military establishment shitting its own pants. They wanted nothing more than to clear it all up and forget about it as soon as possible.


It is not unqualified. Do a google on Hani Hanjour. He couldn't even fly a Cessna at acceptable standards.How was the plane guided in ..in your opinion?

Yes it was unqualified. I refered to the "incredulous efficiency of the alleged hijacker's flying abilities". You refer to a different issue. You have no proof whatsoever that anybody ever intended to fly the plane into the Pentagon, do you?


Most of the fuselage ended up in the building? How much is most? Where's the debris from that "most" that didn't end up in the building? The passengers were allegedly herded to the BACK of the plane and yet we have no reports or photographs of human remains on the Pentalawn or Freeway.The confetti came from shaped charges located on the facade wall or on the plane or both. At the speed and force the plane alleged plane would have hit the wall the wings and vertical stabilizor would most probably have snapped off. Where are they?

I'd guess that 99 percent of the fuselage ended up in the building.

As a matter of fact the remains of the people at the back of the plane ended up further into the Peatagon than the people at the front of it, which happens to make sense if you stop to think about it. While the front was decelerated by the impact the rear had a free passage because the wall was then already breached.

There were no shaped charges. If there had been nobody would ever have been more likely to know than some of the people who worked at the Pentagon, people whose own lives were endangered. Can you guess what they did for a living?

I hear that a good deal of the aircraft that did not get into the building was still up in the air as late as twenty minutes after the event. From a distance they could see the sun glistening on it as it fell like snow.

There was also a sickening stench of aviation fuel that persisted palpably for many days afterwards.

How do you explain that with your shaped charges?

[vincent_vega_lives]

40. Bomb: thing that explodes.

1. Bright flash: did you see it, or are you talking about the one on the film??? IF the film...please...give me a break.

2. Large hole penetration: Please don't say "shaped charge" I'll choke laughing. Shaped charges seldom create "penetrations" much wider than their diameter, are degraded by mediums such as 'air' (yes they actually retain their penetrating ability in solid medium), and are only efective to a distance a few times their own diameter.

3. Fuel damage: I'll only say that fuel explosions are relatively slow, and are greatly effected by momentum. Ever see a napalm strike?

4. Bright flash: Not sure what "bright flash" corresponds with missile strike or "shaped charge means. Bright when compared to what?

5. Full explanation: Which event the Pentagon attack or 9-11? What does the Pentagon have to explain about the crash?

6. He flew once, he crashed. Doubt he would have had "incredulous efficiency" if he had to land the thing safely. Seemed pretty amature to me the the way he came in. Would have been MUCH harder to come in at an steep angel and dive on to the roof, would have done much more damage.

7. Human remains: Crashes/explosions are the science of violent stresses, forces, physics. Most of the parts that littered the yard "confetti" as you call it, by defenition is very light...like the skin of the aircraft. Simple physics. Anything outside the Pentagon would have to overcome momentum, fuel explosions are relatively slow (look where the tail of the aircraft went). But if I have to explain this stuff to you then most likley you have a lot less relevent knowlege on the subject than most.

For a guy that calls himself "demodewd" you don't seem to have much experience with explosions?

[clu]

92. here is my fav. pentagon debunking site

it's important to read all of the linked pages

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ppfinal.html

[tngledwebb]

93. Photographs lie!!!

Only words on paper should be believed, especially those found in Official Reports approved by the current Admin. Meanwhile, we await the OCT approved counter videos with bated breath. They should be able to put one together without much trouble.

[RH]

94. Most of the available photographs

were official, released and approved by the current Admin.

[tngledwebb]

95. Most but certainly not all.

And what they left out is MOST interesting. Google Killtown if you dare.

[RH]

96. what they left out?

Are you kidding?

Check the provenance.

Then see if you can show us any photo on Killtown that was not filched from somewhere else. Do you have onhe? The vast majority of the photos are from official sources.

Nor is there anything to see that was not already seen or said more than two years ago, just the same old tiresome, sensationlist ignorant crap.

[tngledwebb]

97. Check your contact lenses

if you think the Govt showed all the photos on Killtown. Btw last sentence applies to OCT'ers, especially the ignorant boring part.

[RH]

98. I see no reference.

If you had something to show to prove your point you'd presumably have shown it.

Go on. Make my day. Remind us of something, anything at all that anybody has had to show in the last few months was not already seen two years ago.

Do you have anything, anything at all?

I thought not.

[seatnineb]

100. Indestructible Penta-cars..........

You see rh.........

When one of these............



......gets put behind one of these............




.......then this tends to happen.........








........meanwhile at the Pentagon..........

[RH]

101. Knowing that

the plane at the Pentagon was moving at around 500 mph while the plane in your pic was not moving at 500 mph do you think that would make a difference with regard to the jet stream effect?

:eyes:

[seatnineb]

102. Indestructible Penta-Eyewitness

Dont tell that to me rh...........

Tell that to your star eye-witness...........

In the words of Frank Probst

“Had I not hit the deck, the plane would have taken off my head,”

He recalls the engine passing on one side of him, about six feet away.




...how could Probst be immune to the thrust generated by one of these babes.......... at a distance of just 6 feet?

[RH]

103. The thrust

moves the aircraft.

[seatnineb]

104. Another Penta-witness bites dust................

Ron...............

Probst is talking asbsolute bullshit and you fucking well know it!

While taxiing into a gate, an airplane blew a nearby helicopter into a parked airplane.

And there is much more where this came from......

Read on..........

When modern jet engines are operated at rated thrust levels, the exhaust wake can exceed 375 mi/h (325 kn or 603 km/h) immediately aft of the engine exhaust nozzle. This exhaust flow field extends aft in a rapidly expanding cone, with portions of the flow field contacting and extending aft along the pavement surface (fig. 1). Exhaust velocity components are attenuated with increasing distance from the engine exhaust nozzle. However, an airflow of 300 mi/h (260 kn or 483 km/h) can still be present at the empennage, and significant people and equipment hazards will persist hundreds of feet beyond this area. At full power, the exhaust wake speed can typically be 150 mi/h (130 kn or 240 km/h) at 200 ft (61 m) beyond the airplane and 50 to 100 mi/h (43 to 88 kn or 80 to 161 km/h) well beyond this point.


http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_06/textonly/s02txt.html


........and whilst you are at it tell me how Probst never managed to succumb to this........

[RH]

105. Dont be so stupid.

That data refers to an aircraft on a pavement.

Flight 77 was not on a pavement. It was moving at around 500 mph.

[seatnineb]

108. Wrong.

Those jet wake streamlines emanating from the engine exhaust HIT the pavement........because in these examples......the plane is on the ground.

But as you so astutely noted ,Ron,Flight 77 was in the air..........
Just......

Which means that those wake streamlines directed towards the ground are going to hit...........bull-shitter extraordinaire....Frank Probst............who should have been blown to kingdom-come.




....and if the jet-wake streamlines from the engines exhaust did not get him..........then maybe the wake vortex generated by the wing-tips should have.......like these gentlemen.....

They(some men) sprinted across the taxiway,<>snip<>
to a patch of weeds and hunkered down just outside the run-
way lights to wait. The big jet(747) rolled toward them, stately and
slow at first, and then picked up speed. It began to rotate a lit-
tle distance away and was just beginning to lighten on its gear
as its wing tip passed by some 20 or 30 feet above their heads.For a moment, he(man watching) thought that was what the group had come there for . . . a thunderous close-up of that titan in mid-career.
Then something like a huge boxing glove hit them and they
went rolling head over heels in the dirt. When they picked
themselves up, gasping and laughing, he knew what the inside
of a 747’s wing-tip vortex was really like . . . and it certainly was
not a place to go flying.
http://www.uaoa.org/PDF/gan-oct03.pdf


See ya later Ron!

[RH]

110. Not wrong.

The engines move the aircraft.

[MrSammo1]

106. Don't bring reality

into this thread. The government plants, and tin-foil hat government conspiracy story believers may over heat?

[RH]

107. The reality is

that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. No matter how stubborn your denial the undisputed truth is that not one person who was there to see for themselves has yet been seen to subscribe to any other version of events.

[seatnineb]

109. Keep runnin Ron

Stubborn?

Ron............

Explain how Frank Probst saw this:
"wheels up, nose down,"

Whilst Neil Sepulveda saw this:
"It flew above a nearby hotel and drop its landing gear.The plane's right wheel struck a light pole, causing it to fly at a 45-degree angle", "

[RH]

111. Sepulveda was wrong.

:eyes:

[seatnineb]

112. Sepulveda and Probst are wrong.

Sure...........Sepulveda is wrong..........

But in two interviews over a year apart......he maintains that the landing gear was deployed........

Sepulveda circa 4/15/02:
He saw the plane fly above a nearby hotel and drop its landing gear. The plane’s right wheel struck a light pole, causing it to fly at a 45-degree angle, Sepulveda said.

You'd have thought Sepulveda's Penta-eyewitness chums would have tried to set him straight on the matter.....but over a year later ,Sepulveda was at it again.....



Sepulveda circa 9/30/03:
"It seemed like the pilot was scrambling to keep control, and I watched as he dropped lower and lower," Sepulveda said. "Then he dropped his landing gear and started coming down even faster and lower.

As it came down, the plane was hitting light poles, the sergeant said. "Then the right wheel hit a light pole and the plane popped into a 45-degree angle. The pilot tried to recover -- go back vertical - but he hit some more light poles.



It really is quite simple......

Either the wheels were down:



......or they were up:


Ron.....you think Sepulveda is wrong.......

I think Sepulveda and Probst are wrong.

[RH]

113. You will find

that the landing gear is not deployable at 500 mph.

A majority of witnesses remarked that the gear or the flaps were not down.

If you happen to find any information on the jet wake of a Boeing in Flight do let us know. It should help to explain where the lamp poles fell. The pavement data is obviously irrelevant.

[k-robjoe]

114. It´s a well known phenomen

People join in, making up stories.

"Often individuals nearby a crime scene will claim that they saw or heard things that they did not, but because they have heard others' version of said events, they readily will repeat such accounts and claim them as their own. Additionally, individuals that are proximal to such events often will gain a sense of satisfaction by claiming to have been one of the few people "lucky" enough to have been at the right place, at the right time, to witness the event, even if they were just out of view. To have been that close to something so important and to have missed it would make these people feel unlucky and unhelpful, and so many will readily fabricate information in order to feel like they are helping. "
http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=4022

Another example :

"I have spoken to dozens of other witnesses to the event, and to others who know the reports. Wayne Madsen, a respected local journalist, spoke to a camera person at WJLA-TV 7 who had been driving to the Pentagon on instructions from his office, expecting a public statement from authorities there in response to the events in New York City. Shortly after the crash he saw a woman standing by the road at the edge of the Pentagon, next to her car, and apparently in shock. He stopped to help her and found she could not speak. But she pointed him to the far side of her car. The passenger side had been sheared off in part and sections of the landing gear from the plane were on the ground nearby."
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/PAandAAF77.html

[RH]

115. This is possibly the car:

(see photo #8029)

http://hereisnewyork.org/gallery/thumb.asp?CategoryID=40&picnum=157#

[k-robjoe]

116. Wow

Good find.
Curiouser and curiouser.

So the woman and the car were for real.

( Has anyone looked into this before, and given some opinion about it? What could have caused the damage to the car...It´s all new to me. )

[k-robjoe]

117. Image

was being moved around. So I thought I´d post it here :

[k-robjoe]

129. Car

Looking at this image, this is where the car would have been hit, not(?)
This is where the first lightpole was knocked over, and hit the taxi.
The taxi is standing there, but the ladys car is not around. Maybe she drove on... But that guysaid he saw parts of landinggear lying around.

On edit : My pic wouldn´t come up.

[RH]

130. No that's not the Boulevard

The Boulevard is wider, with HOV lanes.

Not sure where it is.

The camera looks northwards, with the sun behind it.

[k-robjoe]

132. OK

So the way it seems, the guy who met this lady made up a story that it was just by the Pentagon, and that there were pieces of landing gear lying around...

[RH]

133. I dont know

if it was the same car.

Could be.

Aircraft parts were cleared up not too long after the impact. It gave a lot of eager onlookers a reason to feel they were useful. It would also prevent any pilfering of evidence (e.g. by Penny Elgas).
I dare say that a few more people have parts at home that they've been quiet about.

"at the edge of the Pentagon" could mean anything according to your perspective. 'A road not far from the Pentagon' wouldn't seem to be too much of a stretch to me.

You'd need to talk to the folk who were there. It is no good to second guess these things from a distance. You end up mad, like a few of the others around here.

[tngledwebb]

142. How can you tell who is mad?

And have you talked to any folks that were there? If you haven't or you can't such advice is useless. We have to make the best of what we have available.

[RH]

147. Here is how I tell:

If witness reports were so unreliable would you not by now have seen someone somewhere, some madman willing to stand up to say that they did see an F-16 or a missile hit the building, just for the hell of it, to make a name for themselves?

No. It is much more serious than that. The majority wins. That is what the truth is, the majority decision at any given time.

If everybody who was there says that flight 77 hit the building that then is the truth of the matter, by definition. It was their experience and their motive is going to be that much stronger because their lives were in danger.

[seatnineb]

171. Could that be reinterpreted as British conformism?

Yeah!

So not only is Frank Probst immune to the flying shards of Ron's sheared Lampoles..............

But he also has eyes which are imperviouse to the Penta-dirt being kicked up by Hani's 757!......




Probst's story is so full of shit!

[RH]

176. Well then

I guess that it takes a shit to know shit.

Probst's story is perfectly credible as far as I am concerned.

[seatnineb]

182. I'll play you at your own game.

Oh ....did you actually have doubts about Probsts' story before then?

[RH]

184. At first I thought it unlikely

that an older person could dive so fast, run so fast and think so fast, the impression being of somebody absolutley on the ball; eyes wide open. Then when I realised that running is his usual spare time activity it fell into place. That is exactly what he is like, keen and competitive, not the type to look the other way.

The witnesses corroborate each other. There were dozens of people on the Boulevard. None of them were ever going to get away with just making it all up, nor did any one of them have any sort of reason to do so.

To say that somebody lied you need to show motive, deliberation and an awareness of a better truth. You're not even close to doing that.

[seatnineb]

201. Wrong.

Ron opines......
"To say that somebody lied you need to show motive, deliberation and an awareness of a better truth. You're not even close to doing that."

Granted...... the only thing I can show is that they do lie.........

Like John O'Keef:

"There was NO HUGE explosion, no huge rumbling on ground, it just went 'piff. It wasn't what I would have expected for a plane that was not much more than a football field away from me."
John O' Keef(circa 9/11/01)
http://www.nylawyer.com/news/01/09/091201l.html

But a year later................

"There was A HUGE explosion"
John O' Keef on the T.V documentary - The Meyssan Conspiracy(circa 9/11/02)-Channel 4, U.K.

[tngledwebb]

190. Emily Dickinson wrote-

Much madness is divinest sense-
to a discerning eye-
Much sense the starkest madness-
'Tis the majority
in this, as all, prevails-
Assent and you are sane-
Demur- you're straightway dangerous-
and handled with a chain-

[MercutioATC]

191. Emily Dickinson was a pathetic shut-in.

She had no direct contact without the outside world in her adult life.

...just a little trivia.

[tngledwebb]

192. Your ignorance of literature is appalling but not surprising.

And you haven't said what you like or dislike about the poem.
(Grade: D-)
Perhaps you should consider a vocational school.

[MercutioATC]

193. So you're saying she WASN'T a shut-in?

(actually, she was)

http://www.ibiblio.org/cheryb/women/Emily-Dickinson-bio.html

Even if I WAS wrong, what would that have to do with my knowledge of literature? Perhaps my knowledge of the private lives of poets could be called into question, but my knowledge of literature?

Thanks for the suggestion, but I'm not looking for another vocation. Air traffic control seems to be working for me.

[tngledwebb]

207. The word 'pathetic' was the word that flaunted a juvenile ignorance

of Dickinson, her poetry, art and literature in general. But back to the poem itself. Discuss-

[MercutioATC]

210. ...or an intense dislike for Dickinson's poems...

...and I do consider not being able to talk with lifelong friends except through a partially-closed door to be pathetic.

pathetic
A adjective
1 hapless, miserable, misfortunate, pathetic, piteous, pitiable, pitiful, poor, wretched

deserving or inciting pity; "a hapless victim"; "miserable victims of war"; "the shabby room struck her as extraordinarily pathetic"- Galsworthy; "piteous appeals for help"; "pitiable homeless children"; "a pitiful fate"; "Oh, you poor thing"; "his poor distorted limbs"; "a wretched life"

[Abe Linkman]

198. Lots of people prefer those vocations that don't require much thinking...

after all, thinking is the hardest work most people ever do -- which is why so little of it ever gets done. People (no matter what vocation they claim to be in) who avoid having to THINK avoid having to deal with uncomfortable truth. They prefer having someone else tell them what they need to know. They leave the THINKING to their superiors.

[RH]

208. vocations that don't require much thinking

such as posting to DU message boards?

:eyes:

What sort of qualification is required for that?

[MercutioATC]

212. Yeah, like air traffic controllers...

:eyes:

[Abe Linkman]

196. That's nothing. Commander Bunnypants is an alcoholic

And, his wife killed her boyfriend. Even YOU wouldn't deny that, would you? He may well have also impregnated an underage girl (Robin Lowman) and then arranged and paid for her to have an abortion. Statutory rape + illegal abortion = the man who sat in a schoolroom while America was allegedly attacked by a pathetic caveman/CIA asset.

[MercutioATC]

200. Gee, Abe, I was agreeing until you started the "caveman" stuff...

[Abe Linkman]

204. You aren't denying he lives & operates in caves, are you?

Various people in the Administration which you seem to be so enamored with have made all kinds of snide remarks about the cave people.

You must not have been in THAT loop. If not, how did you know he's a CIA asset?

[MercutioATC]

205. We've discussed this before.

The only people I've heard mention caves are the Bush administration and you.

That aside, "caveman" has connotations beyond living in a cave...connotations that don't apply to OBL.

[Abe Linkman]

214. OBL certainly isn't ALWAYS in a cave. Like when he meets with his CIA..

contacts. Let's see, according to the conservative newspaper, "LeMonde", he met with the local station chief in (in UAE? one of 'em)
while he was having his radiators flushed at the American Hospital there, in July, 2001. HINT: Catch that date, ATC? JULY, 2001

In SEPTEMBER, 2001 (on the 1oth) OBL was not in his cave. He was in the Pakistani Military Hospital at Rawalpindi...probably having his radiators flushed. Was he still there the next morning? I don't know, but the CIA probably knows exactly when he checked out. They may have even made taxi arrangements for their good asset, Osama.

[MercutioATC]

221. The "Alien" knew that Bush was going to be elected, too.

...the Weekly World News said so...

LaMonde prints a story saying that OBL met with the CIA in 2001 and that makes it true?

I'll bet one could find a story in print that supported almost ANY position on anything, but that doesn't constitute proof. I haven't seen anything that I'd consider reliable that suggests that OBL was working with the CIA immediately prior to 9/11.

[RH]

224. What the hell is the CIA anyway?

One single entity with one mind and one policy and one method?

Only for simple minds.

Back in the real World:

Infiltration.

Factions.

Corruption.

Double dealing.

Grey areas.

Incompetence.

Confusion.

[Abe Linkman]

226. Where have you looked? I doubt you have, because the truth would hurt.

"I'll bet one could find a story in print that supported almost ANY position on anything, but that doesn't constitute proof. I haven't seen anything that I'd consider reliable that suggests that OBL was working with the CIA immediately prior to 9/11."

[MercutioATC]

227. Perhaps you could help me. Could you link to an article or two?

Just pick a couple that you feel are the most persuasive...

Thanks.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

251. This is bullshit

I was on the Interstate and got caught in this. And there was no car that was hit by anything from the plane. The plane went right down onto the Pentagon without hitting anything else.

Such bullshit.

Don't you people have lives? Or families?

[seatnineb]

118. No.

You obviously don't understand the distinction between jet wake vortexes generated by the wing tips.........



.........and the jet blasts that emanate from the exhaust of the jet's engines.....




Combine these two factors together with a plane that is barely 10,20,30 or 40 feet of the ground.........and anyone underneath will know what superman feels like when he flies!

Like Frank Probst should have done.

[RH]

119. No.

I said nothing about vortexes. I know what I'm talking about. You obviously do not.

In flight the jet blast moves the aircraft, as efficiently as possible.

As a matter of simple arithmetic with a jet blast figure of up to 375 miles per hour and the aircraft moving at 500 miles per hour you'd have a jet blast of, at the most, MINUS 125 mph. The pavement figures are NOT applicable. Ask any aeronautical engineer.

[k-robjoe]

120. What you say

seems to me to make good sense. And I was just assuming that you were right. But then today I got a tip about a new article from Jerry Russell and Richard Stanley, and they have a part about this. And they seem to have come to a different conclusion.

( I have just had a brief look at this as yet, and don´t have the time right now to try out the engine modeling tool that they link to.)

"(...)We found ourselves wondering if perhaps the forward speed of the plane might paradoxically have mitigated the effects of the engine's blast, by carrying the air mass forwards around itself (relatively speaking). We can investigate this further by using the engine modeling tool at:
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/ngnsim.html

We chose the GE CF6 engine model (which is a similar engine to the RB211 used in the 757, although with a slightly lower bypass ratio) and set the altitude to sea level, and the airspeed to zero, thus duplicating the conditions shown in the video clip. We find that the engine exhaust velocity, right at the exit nozzle, is 2281 feet/sec (that is, about 1500 mph).

What happens if the plane is moving at high speed? At sea level, and 400 mph airspeed -- the exhaust velocity declines only by the tiniest smidgen, to 2242 feet per second. That's relative to the velocity of the plane, so the ground speed of the exhaust would be reduced to about 1100 mph -- which is still plenty fast enough to send Probst spinning like a pinball. Not to mention the issue of wake turbulence and ground effect, as the weight of an 80-ton jetliner must be supported by exerting downward pressure on the air squeezed between its wings and the ground."

http://www.911-strike.com/PlaneBomb.htm

[RH]

121. What they say

is crap.

I did not even propose that the exhaust velocity dimishes. I took the Boeing pavement figures at face value.

Whatever the exhaust velocity at the nozzle of the engine, it is risibly irrerevent because Frank Probst was not at the nozzle of the engine, he was some distance away.

Even with the Boeing pavement figures at face value, the blast speed at ground level appears to be no more than about 200 mph, which is not such a big deal anyway when you realise that any effect was transitory. 500 mph equates to about five full lengths of a B757 per second. Before anybody could blink the plane, hence and whatever cause of blast or turbulence were gone.

According to people at the scene the much greater disturbance was caused by the impact with the building. The blast from that moved cars on the highway.

[k-robjoe]

122. Tricky

Do you get a ground speed of the exhaust of "about 1100 mph" ( Russell / Stanley ), or do you get one of "at the most, MINUS 125 mph " ( RH )?

I´m kind of leaning towards Russell and Stanleys number I must say. But from there to saying what effect those 1100 mph would have on Frank Probst, that is indeed more tricky.

( Would the plane be going at almost max thrust? Since it was going at almost max speed, and still it was reportedly speeding up. Would thrust from the engines be far stronger than that of the 747 blowing a car off the runway (Gif ) ?

"American Airlines flight 77 was 757-223 with Rolls-Royce RB211 535E4-B engines. They have a max thrust of 43,100 lbs (192 kN) each or a total max thrust of 86,200 lbs (384 kN). Since the "757" was flying at high speed at its approach at almost zero altitude (at the edge of its performance evelope) the engines would be at max thrust, or close to max thrust.
86,200 lbs of thrust is a phenomenal amount of energy. (...) A 747 taxiing would generate a much smaller amount of thrust. As can be seen in the video mentioned previously in this thread, a vehicle is blown off the runway by a 747's thrust."
http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=14&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=600 )

[RH]

123. Not at all tricky

unless of course you prefer to believe that shit headed CT propagandists know better than Boeing.

Here is the original source of the B757 data jet wake info, from boeing.com

http://www.boeing.com/assocproducts/aircompat/acaps/753sec6.pdf

[k-robjoe]

124. What does it say

I had a brief look at it, but it wasn´t that straight forward.
What does it say? That if the plane is moving forwards as fast as 500 mph, then the thrust will be close to nill?

[RH]

126. close to nil

would certainly be the design objective in so far as energy spent on moving the air around is energy not spent on moving the aircraft.

And the thrust needed to accelerate for take off is of course a very different matter to that neeeded to maintian a cruising speed.

[k-robjoe]

128. OK

I believe neither party is right. It will be somewhere inbetween.

I think to determine the thrust, say, four meters behind the engine, you´d have to take into consideration that four meters behind the engine is where the engine was 1/100th of a second ago.

I´ll forward the link you gave to Jerry Russell.
I´ll leave out the namecalling though, I don´t think he´s all that into the gangstarap culture.

[seatnineb]

175. Wrong!

Who said anything about Flight 77 going at 500mph...........

It was goin so slow that a 73 year old lady could.....

"Read the numbers under the wing."
Christine Peterson

Another peice of Grade-A penta-eye-witness bull shit!

[seatnineb]

160. No.

Because you are forgetting something........

The aircraft was also in front of Probst.....

[RH]

178. The absurdity

of your comprehension of that was already clear enough.

There was no need to accentuate by stealing image links.

[seatnineb]

181. Oh dear!

Yep!


Looks like Probst's story has been sucked in, chewed and spat back out!

[BlueDog2u]

250. You should do some research on eyewitnesses

They can be notoriously wrong.

[seatnineb]

252. Oh really?

Sure...I agree with that.....

Eye-witnesses can be wrong......they can also change their testimony....

Like John O' Keef:

"There was no huge explosion, no huge rumbling on ground, it just went 'piff'. "
O' Keef(Circa 9/11/01)

"There was a huge explosion"
O' Keef(circa 9/11/02)


Or Mike Walter..........

" Well, as I said, you know, there were trees obstructing my view, so I saw it as it went--and then the--then the trees, and then I saw the--the fireball and the smoke. Some people have said that the plane actually went on its side and in that way. BUT I CAN'T TELL YOU, Bryant. I just know that what I saw was this massive fireball, a huge explosion and--and a--the thick column of smoke and then an absolute bedlam"
Walter(circa 9/11/01)

"I saw the wings fold back and crumple..sorta like an accordion and pierce the wall (of the Pentagon)."
Walter(circa 9/11/02)

Sorry......but I aint buyin this shit!

[MrSammo1]

229. Well then

Where are the wing and vertical stabilizer marks on the limestone facing of the pre-collapse wall?

[MercutioATC]

230. Here:

"The width of the severe damage to the west facade of the Pentagon was approximately 120 ft (from column lines 8 to 20). The projected width, perpendicular to the path of the aircraft, was approximately 90 ft, which is substantially less than the 125 ft wingspan of the aircraft. An examination of the area encompassed by extending the line of travel of the aircraft to the face of the building shows that there are no discrete marks on the building corresponding to the positions of the outer third of the right wing. The size and position of the actual opening in the facade of the building (from column line 8 to column line 18) indicate that no portion of the outer two-thirds of the right wing and no portion of the outer one-third of the left wing actually entered the building.

It is possible that less of the right wing than the left wing entered the building because the right wing struck the facade crossing the level of the second-floor slab. The strength of the second-floor slab in its own plane would have severed the right wing approximately at the location of the right engine. The left wing did not encounter a slab, so it penetrated more easily.

In any event, the evidence suggests that the tips of both wings did not make direct contact with the facade of the building and that portions of the wings might have been separated from the fuselage before the aircraft struck the building. This is consistent with eyewitness statements that the right wing struck a large generator before the aircraft struck the building and that the left engine struck a ground-level, external vent structure. It is possible that these impacts, which occurred not more than 100 ft before the nose of the aircraft struck the building, may have damaged the wings and caused debris to strike the Pentagon facade and the heliport control building."

http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.html

[RH]

232. I disagree with that.

i.e. "tips of both wings did not make direct contact".

In the contemporaneous photos you can see exactly where the very end of the starboard wing tip hit the building, on the edge of a stone column just in front of and towards the top of a first floor window.

[MercutioATC]

239. The ASCE report explains that.

The actual wingtip was sheared off when it hit the generator. The damage to the limestone facing wasn't caused by the wingtip, but what was left of the wing after the generator was hit.

[MrSammo1]

235. That statement goes against the laws of physics

We know what a jet will do when it impacts an object. We have proof of this at the WTC impacts. Are you suggesting that limestone is stonger than steel? Where is the vertical stabilizer mark on the upper windows? It's got to be there.........if it's not......no 757 hit it!

This is simple logic.



Notice that the limestone facing is just fine.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/911/showcase/chi-sept11pentagonphotos-photogallery,0,4668432.photogallery?index=2

[RH]

237. Yes, We know

what a jet will do when it impacts an object.

The concrete block was hardly damaged.

[MrSammo1]

242. But it

is damaged. There is no sign of the vertical stabilizer mark on the Pentagon wall. Nothing! But we see clearly what happened at the WTC. Are you suggesting that limestone is stronger than steel?



http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtcfires4.html

[RH]

243. I think there is a sign

of the vertical stabilizer mark.

It is visible in the Morris agency photo, where it would be, between the windows, slightly slanted, as the aircraft was:




I dont see what strength has to do with it. The critical factor is mass. c.f. Newton's three Laws of Motion. The walls of the Pentagon were of course considerably more substantial than the skin of the WTC.

[k-robjoe]

244. That would be

not between these two windows, but between the window on the left in this pic and the window to the left of it, wouldn´t it?

[RH]

245. Yes.

Do you think the mark should be somewhere else?

Remember that the wings or engines had already hit lamp poles, a wall on the ground, a tree and an electricity generator.

Did you ever see what happens when a wing tip hits a solid object?

A plane goes into a flat spin. There was not a great deal of space and time between lamp poles and Pentagon but the collisions must have had some effect on the alignment of the fuselage.

[MercutioATC]

238. You're comparing an office building with a hardened military building??

If you're claiming to know how the "laws of physics" apply to damage to reinforced concrete structures better than engineers who specialize in these things, I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask for credentials.

You're also claiming there was no damage to the limestone facing based on a photograph (a smoke-filled photo, at that) when the engineers who VISITED the site documented damage. Seriously, which is more apt to be accurate, an impression based on a photo taken from a distance or the observations of trained professionals who saw the damage firsthand?

[RH]

231. The marks were exactly where one would expect.

How else do you account for instance for the damage to the building immediately above the entrance behind the mobile electricity generator?

[Abe Linkman]

233. The report is the proper response to all concerns about OCT BS.

No need to change the issue and raise a question about something else.
And, no need to even TRY & alter the truth. All you have to do poison girls is refer doubters to the ASCE report. It looks official, it's long, and it's written to sound like an objective, thorough piece of work by people whose reputation is highly regarded by many people. If someone says it's like the Warren Commission Report -- just ask them if they've ever actually READ the WCR. Then, give 'em an icy stare and suggest "let's move on. any other questions about 9/11?".

See? Easy.

[RH]

234. It is the same issue, Abe.

Marks on the building.

Too bad you had nothing to say about it instead of going on about the Warren Report, an totally different issue.

:boring:

[MercutioATC]

240. I've asked for your specific criticisms of the ASCE report conclusions.

I've yet to see them.

You claim it's not an accurate document. Show the specific inaccuracies.

[MrSammo1]

236. What does the generator

have to do with the vertical stabilizer? And the limestone facing that the stabilizer would of had to hit?

[impe]

138. Touche

At BWI airport, there's a park for viewing take-offs/landings,
the Department of Transportation has warning signs around the perimeter against trespassing into the restricted fields. Also, the wakes left behind by planes is a factor that has been attributed to various plane crashes. There's no way any real wittness was within 6' of those exhausts with a plane going at that speed and live to talk about it.

[RH]

141. Flight 77 was not taking off

nor was it landing when it hit the Pentagon.

It was travelling at more than 500 mph with flaps up.

Furthermore, and crucially, any effect of wake or turbulanece was transitory. Barely had anybody had time to blink when the plane hit the building and any wake or turbulence effect were thus gone with it.

[Abe Linkman]

144. Unproven and in fact, never happened.

Fairy tale story. If it weren't, the Gov't would have released video evidence by now. What then would there be to suppose that the peference is for the truth to continue to be suppressed? Else wherefore born.

[RH]

148. Abundantly proven. It happened

You do not have as much as one single witness willing to subscribe to your fiction, do you?

Just the same old pile of crap to parrot over and over again.

[Abe Linkman]

153. Not proven unless you provide proof. And that, you haven't done.

Just the same old pile of your specialty: Abundant quantities of fluffy nothing.

[RH]

157. Proof is abundant.

Read the archives.

Fact: Not one person who was there to see for themselves has since been known to subscribe to any version other than that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

You have no case, just a lot of stupid, pointless, empty abuse.

[Abe Linkman]

165. Lack of proof is evidence of no proof.

Saying it's so, doesn't make it so.

You have no proof and you are a scaredy-cat if you don't show up at the airport with SeatnineB.

[RH]

170. No it is not.

You seem to need to take a few lessons in elementary logic.

[Abe Linkman]

179. LOGIC? From the "SlideMaster"? No thanks. Too nebulous.

No answers, no evidence, no proof, no willingness to step up to the plate (or the plane), and apparently no respect for the truth. Either that, or an inability to recognize it. WHERDY GO?

"There wasn't a single piece of the plane to be seen anywhere".
General Arthur "Chip" Diehl

[RH]

186. Logic is nebulous?

That's very telling, that is.

[seatnineb]

145. Sure!

Sure Ron.........

Say....

Seeing as we are both "U.K Residents".....

Why don't me and you hook up!

We'll go to Gatwick,Heathrow or Stanstead.......

Or if that does not tickle your fancy.....

We even have a small airport here in Cambridge....if you are interested!

If those kind folks who maintenance the planes don't mind.....

We can both go and stand on the runway when a big jet comes into land!

Then at the last second we can dive "to the right" so that we are still within 6 feet of one of the engines.........

Like Frank Probst....

Come on man!

It ain't dangerouse!

And afterwards.....we can check out some of the finest pubs that heaven .........

O8)

or hell has to offer us!

:evilgrin:

[RH]

149. Read the message.

I happen to live under a flight path near to Heathrow.

No plane ever flew over low at 500 mph

Concorde was maybe 400 on occassion but nothing else comes close.

[Abe Linkman]

154. RH: Are you going to go to the airport with "Seat NineB"? C'mon RH.

Be a sport, not just "all talk, no action." Arnold would be proud of you. So would all of us here at DU. You go, RH.

[RH]

158. No.

The one thing that you have managed to repeatedly show well enough, likman, is that pointless is pointless; a false argument proves nothing.

Amen.

[seatnineb]

162. Afraid are we!

You had better say your prayers.........

Especially if the engines of a Boeing 757 passes within 6 feet of you.......

With the aircraft taking off at over 200 miles (320 kph) per hour, he might have fallen out and could have been sucked up by an engine," she said.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/041103/80/f5xd1.html

[Name removed]

166. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

167. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Abe Linkman]

168. Yes, you COULD say that, and it...

might well be true!

"Cheerios", and here's to the breeze that blows thru the trees..and you probably know the rest.

[impe]

156. Ok

that wasn't a DUer last month at LAX that stripped down naked and ran
and ran out to a wheel well and sat?

[AZCat]

159. It isn't just dependent on proximity to the engines

The amount of air disturbance caused by an airplane depends on the throttle setting of the engines (along with the speed of the plane), because that is what causes all the air to come screaming out of the back of the engine. When a plane is landing, it has a low throttle setting - just enough to keep the plane from stalling. Taking off, however, the throttles are pushed all the way forward (the maximum setting) and cause a big wake. In post #118, seatnineb posted a graphic that had takeoff engine wakes shown.

Even if whoever was piloting the plane that crashed into the Pentagon shoved the throttles all the way forward at the end, it takes a while for the rotor speed to spool up. It is possible that there was a small wake following the aircraft as it went into the Pentagon compared to the wakes developed when an aircraft takes off.

[seatnineb]

161. That is true

But there is also this to consider.......

The flow of air,even at idle power,is such that a man can be sucked into the compressor within 25 feet of the intake....
Stanley Stewart
(Boeing 747 pilot)



Wasn't Probst just 6 feet away...........

[AZCat]

163. A good question

While I can't speak to the truth of Probst's statement, I can speak for myself. I have always found that I have difficulty with a sense of scale around airplanes - partly because they are so large. Things that i think are ten feet long (or high) are actually much larger.

Could Probst be suffering from a similar problem? I don't know. Twenty-five feet is awfully close to an intake.

Would referencing flight operations on aircraft carriers help us understand proximity to turbofan engines in operation? That is a place I can think of where both takeoffs and landings are done in close proximity to people. There won't be the same aircraft (or engines) but perhaps we can start to understand things better. I will look for links.

[RH]

172. As are Newton's Laws of motion.

Calculate the acceleration, hence the force required to put Probst into an intake within the time that it took for the plane to pass by.

Then when you get back to us with that you'll be welcome to explain where that sort of energy would come from.

[seatnineb]

180. Wrong.

Newton laws of motion wont save you Ron....

Because if you are asking me to believe that Probst's duck to the ground was faster than the suction power generated by a 757 engine travelling at 500 mph then you can cram that shit straight back up your ass!

[RH]

185. ABSOLUTELY WRONG

In view of the track record I would never be so stupid as to ask you to believe anything.

Why should I?

Why the hell should your belief be worth a cent to me?

Carry on so for as long as you like for all I care.

Your loss, not mine.

[seatnineb]

202. You are contradicticting yourself.

That why you always respond to my posts,right?

Because you don't care!

I the other hand , care very much about the and 1- dimentional analysis that you propagate and put forward around these parts........

[RH]

209. This may come as a terrible shock to you

but rumor has it that other people may occassionally pass by this way.

It may then perhaps provide a degree of amusement to see you so willing to be set up to look so foolish. Who knows?

How do you see it? Was there supposed to some sort of grand strategic plan to all this? What else did you expect to come of it?

The whole thing continues to look much more like a sensationalist self indulgence to me.

[seatnineb]

211. Sensationalism?

Gee!

So other people pass this way?

You don't say!

The only sensationalism I can see is the official story bull shit that you espouse to the high hilt.........

[Abe Linkman]

215. RH got a mention in Nico Haupt's site this week

So, if he seems a little more animated than normal, it might be because of that. Did you see what Nico said? Check it out. I'd post it here, but I wouldn't want to give him a swelled head...or an excuse to get all bent out of a shaped charge.

[seatnineb]

216. No I have not seen it.

Abe.......

Do you remember the short lived Objection who was with us back in the summer........

I was wondering if Objection and RH are related......

[Abe Linkman]

217. What is there to suppose otherwise but impertinence & stupidity?

It's been gone over countless times and only an obtuse, opaque speaker of stilted English would not therefore be able to see the obvious.
Did "Objection" opine in obtuse perversions of the King's English? If so, then maybe you've right on de Monet about the "boys".

No, I don't recall "Objection", but check out what Nico has to say.

[RH]

218. You still dont get it, do you?

I dispute the official story.

I do not believe that the Pentagon was a target.

[seatnineb]

220. Believe it or not.......

I actually respected your light-pole analysis 2 years back..........

Is it because these light poles are down that you believe that the Pentagon was not a target?

[RH]

223. Not just that.

What about the U turn trajectory and the supposed choice of target?

None of it makes sense. Aiming at the Pentagon is like sniping at an ant hill with a pea shooter. Head against brick wall.

Maybe the idea was that it would make a bigger bang to hit an electricity generator, but I doubt it. The only other story to make sense would be that somebody wrongly thought that Bush would be at the Heliport but again I doubt it.

If you had to pick a target in Washington which would you hit?

The cameras were all on roofs across the river.

When I put the web pages together I was careful not to comment, no speculation, just to let the facts speak for themselves. It is then just plain ignorant for anybody to come back to accuse me of supporting any faction or theory. The people I take issue with are those who wrongly accuse me. Never pretended to hope to make any difference to anything else.

[tngledwebb]

99. Re other internet fuelled CT's about stolen elections, etc.

Here's some photos of a four year old fraud.
:kick: