How many here have seen "911:In Plane Site?"

[genius]

It mostly consists of mainstream pictures and video.

I have seen a lot of other evidence regarding the Pentagon and I cannot see how anyone looking any any of the evidence regarding the Pentagon could doubt that NO plane hit it on 9/11.

Even with the visuals, I still am not convinced about the pod/flash theory about the WTC. However, there is substantial evidence that the towers were brought down by explosives and that the crashes had nothing to do with the fall of the towers.

I always thought that Bush's nod in the classroom was an acknowledgment that things were going according to schedule.

The scarey part is that we are not just dealing with rogue leaders. They have to have a rogue military unit who knowingly helped them put this nonsense together. We have a minimum of one missing plane (possibly three) and that would have required some hands-on orchestration. Who are the people who put this together and are the people on the plane or planes still alive?

[Must_B_Free]

1. what about the engine parts inside the building?

what about the strip of plane on the lawn?

Where did the fake victims go? 129 people and their families are in on the conspiracy?

Why go through all the trouble? Why not pay people to brainwash fundies to carry it out for real?

Is this video going to draw in the main stream? Are these efforts going to help Kerry win or is it just a diversionary waste of time and energy?

After 4 years of following every conspiracy, I recognize characteristics to separate the weak from the strong. I find this evidence interesting, but not conclusive, and certainly very elaborate - far more elaborate than what would be necessary to MIHOP.

Brainwashed fundies would do it for allah - they'll blow themselves up with bombs, why not crash planes? ALl it would take is some funding and some simple deception to make them think they were really doing it for Islam, instead of for the US and the Christian Reconstructionists. Apparantly we (our CIA) started Al Qaeda - do you really think we gave it up?

[genius]

4. No plane debris. NO body parts at Pentagon. Look at the facts

Clearly you know next to nothing about the Pentagon crash or you wouldn't even suggest that there were debris or body parts.

[Laura_B_manslaughter]

30. What happened to the wings and fuselage???

Their should be pics of those. But they govt says they were vaporized! Why doesn't that happen in every plane crash?

[Must_B_Free]

40. No Plane Debris? What's this then?

http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

[Abe Linkman]

43. It's evidence -- but not from a B757.

Those photos show parts that are too small to be from a large airliner like a B757.

[Must_B_Free]

45. Elaborate on this statement

That statement requires that some other wrteckage was already planted or dragged in to the pentagon. If they went through all the trouble to stage this elaborate hoax, why do you suppose that they didn't bother to use matching wreckage for the "fake wreckage" they planted in there?

Did you measure the wreckage in the pentagon? How are you so suire the exact size of this "fake wreckage" anyway?

[Abe Linkman]

47. The piece out on the Pentalawn was planted. The other parts may be...

from a cruise missile, an F-15, F-16 or whatever did crash into the Pentagon. The one thing that IS certain is no 757 crashed there. The Gov't released a video image of the plane crashing into the building, and it is way too small to be a 757. (to say nothing of the fact that in the video it is almost certain that the visible vapor trail is from a missile fired into the Pentagon to open a hole in the building)

[Must_B_Free]

49. What was released was the security cam in the parking lot footage

There was no plane visible in it at all. It was traveling too fast for the frame rate. But so what?

My problem with this whole "Pentagon Hoax" conspiracy is from having witnessed it's birth and growth in to now a fully blown sub market of the 911 conspiracy market.

It was tenuous and required leaps of faith. In fact it seems to require greater and greater leaps of faith in terms of execution details and membership in the conspiracy.

If you're going to bother to set up something like Northwoods and have planes involved, and you're already having two crash into buildings, why have some elaborate hoax on the third?

The fact that it hit the empty wing that was "under construction" does not preclude that it wasn't simply a plane as is stated. It certainly fits into a MIHOP theory. It could still have been part of the plan to fly it in to this specified wing. But to make this leap of faith to inventing just any background part of the conspiracy that is necessary to support this film... It seems like a stretch to accomplished fans of conspiracy theories.

With so many better supported and plausible conspiracy theories, I feel like I just can't invest my lunacy in this one. I'm sorry.

This one gets a big red rubbber "REJECT" stamp and thrown in the pile with Al Martin, Alex Jones, Mike Ruppert,and Eric VanDanken.

[Abe Linkman]

52. The Gov't evidence itself disproves a 757 crashed.

The problem with people like you is that you dismiss evidence and logic, but fail to provide any of your own. You aren't the only one, though.

There's no evidence FL 77 crashed at the Pentagon, or anyhwere else. If there was, it would have been made available long ago.

What's YOUR particular conspiracy theory?

[Must_B_Free]

56. I already said my conspiracy theory

The hijackers don't realize that they are really working for the CIA or OSP or Chrsitian Reconstructionists seeking to "teach America a lession" about weakening its defenses, and use the act as a symbol to fuel their movement.

Far easier a conspiracy, and we've already seen how they capitalized on it, just as if they had planned it to benefit themselves. They have looted the treasury and placed Heritage Foundation people in all the key places. Tear down Americe, while diverting all its resources to your players, then rebuild it in your image.

No reason for this complicated plan involving switching planes, faking wreckage, making hundreds of people disappear, planting many witnesses to fake seeing the event, staging burn victims, etc. They had already created guys to hijack planes.

You can still even hold on to the remote control theory; I just fail to see why have to create an idea that no plane crashed into the pentagon, and the wreckage inside is fake, and hundreds of people are in on a conspiracy to fake this event.

Why not also suppose that no planes crashed into the WTC and that all the footage shown on TV is fake?

"The problem with people like you is that you dismiss evidence and logic, but fail to provide any of your own."

The burden is on you to prove your theory, not on me to disprove it.

You have failed to provide a reason for an elaborate detailed orchestrated hoax on the pentagon, when there were already two other planes crashing into buildings.

But I'm sure you can make up sonething, and claim that I haven't disproven it.

That's the problem with your thinking, you can always fantasize further to cover the logic holes in your scenario, getting more and more elaborate and complicated. Why should I play that game?

The bottom line is that this is a non starter that is too weak to convince anyone and it won't go anywhere, just like the other weak and wild ones that are peddled to hustle bucks for books and videos.

[Must_B_Free]

57. AND

"The Gov't evidence itself disproves a 757 crashed."

Why did they release it then, if they are orchestrating a hoax?

That doesn't make sense.

[Abe Linkman]

62. They can argue (as some here, do) that they DIDN'T release any.

You'll note that many of the bushco conspiracy theory supporters here claim that the video evidence is "too fuzzy" to say for certain what it shows.

Would you like for me to stop making sense?

[RH]

148. Would have been made available long ago?

Why?

Do you really have no idea of how much fun it can be to see so many idiots so willing to make fools of themselves on the strength of such an absurdly flimsy notion?

:eyes:

It is hardly as if you ever gave any thanks or respect to those who already provided evidence, is it?

[Bolo Boffin]

65. You have evidence that the piece was planted, Abe?

Otherwise, you should be honest and state that that's your opinion. Stating it as a fact doesn't make it true.

[Abe Linkman]

69. Since it has been proven that the piece couldn't have been from AA 77...

It's a very reasonable inference that it was planted. In fact, as you know (or would know if you have done any research), it may well have been planted by one of the white-shirted men seen in published photgraphs walking across the pristine Pentalawn.

YOU should be honest and state that you have no evidence that ANY body parts of FL 77 passengers or crew were found at the Pentagon. Indeed, you should state that the very notion is absurd since there is no proof that
a B757 crashed at the Pentagon. As much as you want us to believe otherwise, the truth is you really haven't studied very much about the facts of what happened there, have you? Isn't it true that you've been too busy on other projects and long ago realized that your plans would be best served if you, like other so-called progressive "journalists" and activists (Cockburn, "The Nation", "Amy Goodman", Chomsky) not be perceived as a "CT"? That being so, you haven't had to bother yourself with careful examinations of the evidence and logic that refute the Official Conspiracy Theory.

[MercutioATC]

71. What piece "couldn't have been from AA 77"??

I've seen pieces that couldn't have been from an F-16, but nothing that couldn't have been from a 757.

There's also evidence of body parts at the Pentagon (Rose's statement).

You may choose to believe that all of the debris was planted, but don't pretend it didn't exist.

[Abe Linkman]

75. The "piece" on the Pentalawn couldn't have been from AA FL 77

You said you've "seen pieces that couldn't have been from an F-16".

Were you THERE?


You said "there's evidence of body parts at the Pentagon". There's evidence of body parts at H.D. Oliver Funeral Home, too. So what?

You may have been influenced to believe a fairy tale, but don't pretnend it isn't one.

[MercutioATC]

77. Why couldn't it?

I've yet to see anything that says it couldn't.

No, I wasn't there, but I've seen the pictures that we've all seen. That wheel is definitely not from an F-16.

I should have been more specific about the body parts. There's an eyewitness account of a child's hand found inside the Pentagon. There's also the DNA that was gathered from all four crash sites.

[Bolo Boffin]

73. Nothing of the sort has been proven, Abe.

Anablep proved quite handily that the large piece of aluminum plane skin with red and white paint was from an American Airlines jet. It couldn't have been planted, because there were too many eyewitnesses.

It fell into its position after being ripped from Flight 77.

I have carefully examined your and other "refutations" of what happened on 9/11. They are all implausible, fantastical, and without merit. These terrible events are bad enough without having to make up pods and controlled demolitions and invisible aerial ballets.

[Abe Linkman]

76. Your facts, and "Anablop's facts" are wrong. Why continue the charade?

The "piece" may or may not have been from an AA plane, but it wasn't from the plane in question, and you know it, yet wrecklessly or intentionally continue to promote what is obviously an untruth.

I believe you've simply been too busy on other projects and haven't had time between all of your various activities to actually study the factss. Otherwise, you wouldn't still be promoting nonsense like the
long-ago disproven baloney from "Anablop" about the planted evidence on the Pentalawn.

Why do you want to do that, bolo? It doesn't make you look any more "responsible" or mainstream. bushco lies. You need to be on the side of truth, Bubba. Go get yourself some meat & three, and spend some time studying 9/11. If you're going to opine, opine from KNOWLEDGE of the subjects you opine on. All of 'em.

[Bolo Boffin]

78. Point me to the post where Anablep was proven wrong.

It's a cute new angle that you're pursuing now (I've been too busy?), but it's just more sophistry, Abe. It may also be the only nod I get from you on my (slight) work in the AWOLBush field, so I do thank you for that.

Back to the matter at hand: Point me to the post where Anablep's proof of the identity of that piece of debris is debunked. Mr. Linkman, give me the link.

[Abe Linkman]

79. She may have been sincere - but that was before many facts were out.

"Ana" may or may not be well-intentioned. I don't know her motivation, and unfortunately, here on Democratic Underground - as I understand the rules, questioning motivations of buscho fairy tale supporters is not allowed, so I'll just give her the benefit of the doubt and assume her sincerity.

Unfortunately for her, you and the entire world, the sad, scary fact is that FL 77 didn't crash at the Pentagon, and that alleged piece of airplane debris has been thoroughly analzyed for authenticity and it is now known that it couldn't possibly have come from the B757. Paint doesn't match, rivets don't match, location it was allegedly "found" at is not where logic suggests it would have been if it had actually come from the attack jet that hit the Pentagon, and I believe it was also proven that it couldn't have even been from the same side of a B757 that it was painted-up to look like it came from.

False evidence. Planted. Part of a CONSPIRACY to fool the sheeple AND to provide formal and amateur apologists for the "Cavemen Did It" theory
with something they can use to try and rationalize and justify a lie with.

FL 77: Wherdy go? That's the REAL issue we should be focusing on.
Not this fairy tale of how a bunch of cave dwellers were somehow able to pull off a sophisticated military/intelligence operation they couldn't conceivably have the resources or wherewithal to make happen.

[Bolo Boffin]

81. Wrong again, Abe.

Anablep showed that the rivets matched. It was matching up the rivets that showed exactly what letter the piece was a part of. The paint is exactly the color of the American Airlines logo. As I remember, the letter had to be the letter n because of the rivets - right next to the forward door, in other words.

As far as logic suggesting the piece would land somewhere else, I don't know where you get that from. The piece came from a place in front of the wings, on the right side of the plane. Since the explosion happened when the wings made contact, logic suggests that the forward part of the plane underwent severe structural damage. There's no telling where exactly that piece was when it was torn free, but the explosion was enough to throw it into the air and land where it did.

The piece came from Flight 77, Abe.

What resources did al-Qaeda lack, Abe? That's another interesting statement you make: you're saying that al-Qaeda couldn't have pulled off the missile pod/hologram/aerial ballet scenario. Since that's what happened, you say, then al-Qaeda couldn't have done it.

Well, that's hogwash. I'm telling you that no one could have done that convoluted mess of a conspiracy. No organization of human beings could have coordinated the hodgepodge of plane switching/hologramming/missile launching/controlled demolishing/evidence planting/aerial misdirecting/missile pod installing/remote control flying/hijacker framing that you and your fellow revisionists say happened on that day. No one could do that. It's evidence all by itself that your scenarios didn't happen.

Especially since all any conspiracy would have to do is hijack four passenger planes and crash them into the intended targets.

Al-Qaeda had the necessary resources to hijack four passenger planes and crash them into buildings. That's what happened. If BushCo is ultimately responsible for planning and carrying out the 9/11 attacks, then they did it through al-Qaeda. That's how good the evidence is that al-Qaeda carried out these attacks.

I don't think such a hypothesis is necessary; perhaps you do. That's fine. And be happy that our questioning the motives of "bushco fairy tale supporters" is against the rules, Abe, because that also keeps us from questioning the motives of revisionistic sophistry-spouting bullsh*t artists.

As far as the real issue we should be dealing with, shouldn't that be issues that get John Kerry elected in November? How do you see Flight 77 denial as helping that cause, Abe? Be sure and answer this question.

[Abe Linkman]

83. Stopped clock, OBL, CIA, ISI, and Rumsfeld (on what happened)

You're right about getting bush out of the WH. How do you see supporting his fairy tales about Osama as helping that cause, bolo?
Be sure and answer this question.

If you ever find any evidence that OBL had anything to do with 9/11, aside from being a Patsy, do let us all know. As of now, all we know is that OBL is a CIA asset who was in a military hospital getting his radiators flushed, on 9/10-9/11/2001. We also know that he was visited by the local CIA Station Chief two months prior to being in the military hospital at Rawalpundi.

The Pakistani ISI head had breakfast with Porter Goss on 9/11. Makes you more susupicious of Pakistan than Osama, doesn't it?

If FL 77 crashed at the Pentagon, there would be credible evidence of such an event, but the only credible evidence is inconsistent with that particular claim. Even Rumsfeld said a missile struck the Pentagon.
Are you telling us that the U.S. Secretary of Defense is a liar -- covering up for Osama bin Laden? Got proof.

Back to the treadmill.

[MercutioATC]

84. Why is it that you assume OBL undergoing dialysis prevented him

from organizing a plan that took months to set up? Had he been in a coma for six months, I'd probably agree with you. 9/11 took planning. Just because he was in a hospital on 9/11, how would that prevent him from organizing it? Nobody's claiming he actually had a direct hand in the hijackings.

I'm curious, do you believe OBL (and Al-Queda) have been behind ANY of the attacks against U.S. interests (U.S.S. Cole, etc) or has he been a "patsy" all along?

[Abe Linkman]

85. Osama bin Patsy

I'm curious. Do you believe OBL is a CIA asset? Do you know why the CIA would have been meeting with him? Do you think there's anything suspicious about the fact that the media never used the words "Al Queda" before 9/11?

Do you believe george bush would lie about more than just things like claiming to have played varsity Rugby at Yale (there is no varsity Rugby team at Yale)?

Do you believe that Govt's lie? Can you think of any lies that our Gov't has told us?

If 9/11 had happened in ___ (you pick the country) and their Gov't had told us the BS OUR Gov't has told you about 9/11, would you be a little skeptical, or would you swallow it hook, line and sinker? (I'm not talking about paid PR people, or even those whose jobs require that they pretend to believe the lies. I'm asking you on the assumption that you're completely free of any pressure to sell the Official Conspiracy Theory.)

[MercutioATC]

88. That wasn't what I asked. Do you believe OBL or Al-Queda have ever

engaged in terrorist acts against U.S. interests?

I will, however, answer your question.

I believe OBL (and his organizations) were funded and trained by the U.S. as a way to combat the Soviet Union in Afghanistan without taking the confrontational step of sending our own troops. Since then, no, I do not believe that the CIA and OBL have any kind of a working relationship. OBL is yet another of our "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" mistakes.

[Bolo Boffin]

90. You didn't answer the question I asked you to answer, Abe.

My disappointment is profound. How exactly do you see Flight 77 denial as helping John Kerry get elected, Abe? Answer mine, and I'll answer yours.

You don't know anything of the sort about Osama, Abe. We've been down that road before. And where does it say that Osama was in the hospital on 9/11? The Rather report only said he was there the day before. Dialysis isn't a two day procedure.

I have many suspicions about the integrity of the Pakistani ISI.

And you once again show your ability to cherrypick your evidence: taking Rumsfeld at his word when he said "missile"? Do you respect Rumfeld that much as an information source? Is it more likely that Rumsfeld called Flight 77 a "missile" because that's the way the hijackers used it, or that Rumsfeld was geniunely reporting a missile strike on the Pentagon?

"Back to the treadmill?" Hmmm, that sounds like you've been at my other blog, Abe. That means you know the following information about me:

My real name
My appearance
The city I live in
What my bedroom looks like
A few of my interests
My occupation

By Googling, you can acquire much more information:

My exact address
My phone number
An old website I did on being gay and Christian
Plays that I've been in

In other words, you're talking to a real person here. I am who I say I am, Abe. Who do you say you are? Please only share personal information to the extent you feel comfortable - my accessibility on the web is probably not such a good thing in this day and age.

But at least tell us what you majored in when you graduated from college. I have a BA in Bible, with two years of graduate work in Christian Theology. How about you? You've been a consistent personality here at DU for two years. Now that you know so much about me, it would be rude to not at least give us a basis for understanding where you're coming from...

[tngledwebb]

87. Unfortunately

Anablep arguments won't convince everybody. But supposing fuselage piece, engine, wheel and child's hand are all real, where is the PLANE? An analogy- After a fire, you enter a building to find blood, bullet holes in a wall, an empty wallet, and even a hand. You could assume something terrible happened, but can you really say who, what and how? If you trust the local police report that says this is a robbery homicide, you may choose to accept their version. But if they show a photo to a jury without a body or a gun, what would the jury say? What would Mr Holmes or Dr. Watson say? What do you think the American public will say when they finally see all the Pentagon photos?

[Bolo Boffin]

92. Well...

They found fuselage pieces, wing pieces, landing gear pieces, and passenger pieces and you still say where's the plane?

What's left to find?

[tngledwebb]

94. where's the wing pieces (plural all the sudden) then?....

And didn't answer ALL the questions. Main question, again: Where is the PLANE? Answer more than one part of the question and I will enter you into the Tin Foil Hat Prize draw. Remember there are no right or wrong answers. If you only want to say there is no plane in sight but the pieces are good enough for you that's alright, I guess.

[MercutioATC]

97. I'll take a stab at the "Where is the plane?" question...

...with another question.



That's a picture of the crash site from Payne Stewart's crash. Where's the plane? Does the lack of an identifiable whole airplane mean that there's some conspiracy afoot here?


Airplanes are made of very flimsy stuff (they tell me it has something to do with weight reduction). In a severe crash, all you'd be left with are "parts". Why would you expect the debris to resemble an airplane?

[Abe Linkman]

99. Thanks. You've just proved what we've been saying all along.

When a small jet crashes into a large building like the Pentagon, there isn't going to be much debris left.

If Payne Stewart had been flying in a 757, that would be a different story. No question about it. You'd see lots of debris -- including two engines etc.

Why anyone would believe the lies bushco has told the world, is beyond me.

[MercutioATC]

100. Actually, what I "proved" was when an aircraft moving at high speed

hits something hard (like the Pentagon or the ground) very little in the way of an "airplane" is left.

A 757 is no more "crashproof" than a Lear 35. There's no reason to expect a 757 would leave pieces that a Learjet wouldn't.

[Abe Linkman]

101. Actually, what you proved is exactly what I said.

When a small jet crashes, it doesn't leave very much debris, so as in the Payne Stewart plane crash, it isn't surprising that we don't see much debris.

On the other hand, if Payne Stewart's plane had been a large one, like a 757, you would see much more debris.

A 757 has more mass, more engines etc.

Thanks again, merc. This isn't the first time you've set out to prove something, but ended up proving the opposite.

Did you do this consciously or is it some kind of a Freudian slip-up thingy?

[MercutioATC]

102. So you'd expect a watermelon to be more intact than an orange

if both were dropped from a 20-story building? The mass of the debris would be greater, true, but the condition would be virtually the same. 757s are not any more resistant to crashes than Learjets. Neither leaves many identifiable parts in crashes like these.

The debris in both cases was in the form of very small bits. AAL77 left plenty of bits behind (on the highway and inside the Pentagon).

[Abe Linkman]

110. I'd expect a 757 to leave a WHOLE lot more debris than a small jet.

Why would you say otherwise? And, there ain't no 757 debris at the Pentagon. Using your "logic", you could say that those itty bitty pieces could also have come from a small Cessna. They COULD have come from just about anything, but if a 757 had crashed there, we'd know it.

[MercutioATC]

113. And you measured the debris, how?

It was enough to severely damage/destroy reinforced steel-wrapped concrete columns inside the Pentagon. It was enough to litter the highway. Again, you're mistaking the lack of large pieces for a lack of mass. There was plenty of mass, it was just in the form of little pieces.

[Abe Linkman]

116. small jet , small pieces of debris. BIG jet, BIG engines = BIG debris

A missile (just as Rumsfeld told the world) is what caused the initial damage at that very, very conveeenient part of the Pentagon that only a few perps knew was gonna take the hit.

[MercutioATC]

117. Flawed logic there, Abe. If construction is basically the same

(and it is) a larger plane will leave more mass, but not necessarily bigger pieces.

You say a missile? Fine. Show me a single reputable report (one written by somebody who has technical qualifications and examined the site) that agrees. Just ONE.

[Abe Linkman]

119. Large plane + large engine = large engine at crash site. Capiche?

You think the engine on a large plane is gonna shrink just because the plane crashes?

[MercutioATC]

122. It won't "shrink", but it can certainly be broken apart.

Once again, I've never claimed that the engine parts found at the Pentagon represent the entire engine, just the high-pressure stage. We've been down this road before.

[tngledwebb]

142. Logic is a tough subject.

And logic is sometimes flawed. Example: IF no plane appears in any photos of Pentagon crash, only small discrete parts of a plane, THEN there ARE plane PARTS, but there is no PLANE. And so on. You may say this is circumstantial evidence, but don't expect that to hold up in court. Another example: IF this Govt lied about WMD'S, Saddam/AQ links, taxes, Enron, etc, THEN this Govt may have lied about 9/11, and would ensure that any 'Official Reports' will support Govt story. ( IE, this conspiracy is BIG.) Thus, anyone who credits official reports is not credible to those who don't buy official story. Resolve this paradox by stating whether you agree with the 'IF' parts of the above statements.

[RH]

144. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

To hold up in court a chain of evidence has to be vouched for.

News reports are not court quality evidence.

If you want to be taken seriously use the FOIA. Grow up. Go get some serious evidence.

[MercutioATC]

147. Of course the government may be lying.

I doubt every one of the witnesses and rescue workers is too, though. People saw a large commercial plane. People saw plane debris (and took pictures). Even if the entire government story is pure fabrication, there are enough independant witnesses that I feel the physical evidence is credible.

I'm not agreeing with the official reports, I'm agreeing with the conclusion that a large commercial airliner crashed into the Pentagon based on eyewitness testimony, physical evidence and the professional opinion of the civil engineers who examined the damage.

[MrSandman]

183. Sometimes logic fails...

I think I'll go for a friendly visit in the gungeon.

:hi:

[MercutioATC]

185. Hurry back!

:evilgrin:

:hi:

[MrSandman]

186. I saw your post in the lounge a couple days ago...

I thought you were joking about being a PR shill.:D

I'll stick to the gungeon...There I know why the intractibility.

Even mine.
:evilgrin:

[MercutioATC]

187. Yeah, makes the Lounge look purty, doesn't it?

:o

[seatnineb]

107. Comparison:

To quote Mercutio.....
planes are made of very flimsy stuff (they tell me it has something to do with weight reduction). In a severe crash, all you'd be left with are "parts". Why would you expect the debris to resemble an airplane?

Well.......

This is the lockerbie crater.


But apart from a crater there was other evidence too..........

Such as the cockpit:


With parts of the engine:
Note the size.


And the unfortunate victims:


And to put it all into context........
According to the The British Geological Survey ....
A seismic measurement of 1.6 on the Richter scale was recorded.......

Many of these Pan Am 103 plane parts traveled to the ground at nearly 500mph.

Now what about flight 93?
(On -Edit)
A view from the side.


And a view from above:


And what about that engine found 6 miles away?
Are there any photos of it?
Well if there are........
I guess they belong to part of that perpetually "on-going" investigation.

[MercutioATC]

108. That's true, but you also have to consider the angle of impact.

AAL77 hit a reinforced wall at a 42-degree angle relative to the face of the building. Stewart's plane augered in (straight down). The Lockerbie crash site shows the plane came in at a shallower angle (impacting dirt, not a reinforced wall). Still, there was precious little left of the plane.

In reference to UAL93, I don't know where the engine picture is. I haven't seen it, either.

[Abe Linkman]

109. How about the day of the week? You didn't mention that.

And, what about that statement by Rumsfeld? He said a missile had struck the Pentagon. You calling him a liar?

More variables after you try and shuffle these.

Here's a quick one that you apologists for bushco have continued to ignore: why isn't ANY plane wreckage seen in the photos taken at the Pentagon less than five minutes after it was hit?

We'll get to your latest story about the angle of 42 degrees, too. Which propaganda "report" did you get that from, or did you personally make that determination?

[MercutioATC]

111. The 42-degree angle is in the ASCE report.

If there was'nt "ANY plane wreckage seen in the photos taken at the Pentagon less than five minutes after it was hit?", what's in these photos?

[seatnineb]

121. Flight United Airlines 93 Vs Pan Am Flight 103

Mercutio opines
"Still, there was precious little left of the plane(Pan Am 103)."

Well in relative terms..... yes.
There was preciouse little of Pan Am 103 left after it crashed into the ground......

But there was still enough......
To do this.........



And this:



Lets see the F.B.I or the N.T.S.B do the same with what remained of flight 93....which also hit "dirt".

[MercutioATC]

123. I haven't seen pictures of the debris of UAL93 in a warehouse, have you?

Frankly, I don't know how much is left for reconstruction purposes, but I'd love to. By the same token, all we have of ANY of the crashes are a few dozen photos. Who knows how much was actually recovered?

[demodewd]

125. comparatively speaking

I think there is a reasonable explanation for this...whatever hit the Pentagon was laden not only with lots of fuel but bombs/shaped charges that were set off and absolutely obliterated the plane upon impact. Thus the "confetti",thus the initial white flash and apparent sonic wave.The Pan Am plastic explosive destruction must have been comparatively much smaller.

[Abe Linkman]

112. Now THAT'S a big engine. No wonder mr. murky ignored it!

If a 757 had crashed at the Pentagon, there would be TWO great big 'ol
engines. (they must be too heavy for a couple of people to carry in and plant there. 9/11 perps must have had a lot of faith in bushco apologists being able to explain away why no 757 engines were found if FL 77 had crashed there.)

[MercutioATC]

115. I didn't "ignore" it. I've explained what I think happened to it.

An F-16 is not an inconsiderable chunk of metal, either. Can you show me ONE piece of F-16?

[Abe Linkman]

118. That BIG engine in the photo from Lockerbie is the 1 I'm talkin' bout.

That's the one you ignored. Why? Wouldn't be because it is obviously so much larger than the small jet engine found at the Pentagon -- that isn't why you ignored it, is it? Naw. Surely not.

[MercutioATC]

120. I'm not ignoring it. There was a big-ass engine at the crash site.

So?

If your logic is sound, Stewart's plane should have left nearly-intact little engines behind. I don't see any....

[Abe Linkman]

126. The engine at the Pentagon you keep referring to isn't very big, and ...

nowhere NEAR big enough to be from a 757.

You're a spunky promoter, though. I'll say that for you. No lack of chutzpah.

[MercutioATC]

129. Abe, now would be a good time to use that search function....

I've never referred to it as an entire 757 engine. The fact is that it IS the approximate size of the high-pressure stage of a 757 engine.

I've made that point on numerous occasions and you refuse to comment on it. Why?

[seatnineb]

124. More Pan Am 103 Engine photos.

Abe.....

Here is another look at that Pan Am 103(a 747) engine.

[Abe Linkman]

127. Thanks, seatnineb. I KNEW that had to be a minature 757 @ the Pentagon

That puppy looks to be, what, three, four times the size of the small jet engine found at the Pentagon?

Make a small prediction about how you think merc et al. will try to spin this info you provided. (but keep it to yourself until AFTER they get on their Spinning Wheels)

[MercutioATC]

128. If I was presenting the part found as the entire engine, you'd be right.

I'm not, however, and you know that.

My position on this hasn't changed. I've always said that I believed it was the high-pressure stage of a 757 engine.

I'm still waiting for you to rationalize your F-16 with the 757-sized wheels.

[Abe Linkman]

130. Merc: Please clarify your position on the issue of how FL 77 ---

A Boeing 757, with a wing span of 125ft could have done what it is claimed to have done. According to the White House, the Boeing penetrated the Pentagon with such ferocity that it went completely inside, disappearing from view before burning to almost nothing. Crucial photos taken just after the fire fighters arrived show a hole in the building’s facade of between 15ft and 18ft in diameter. It clearly reveals there was no damage above the hole or on either side of it.

So how did the giant Boeing aircraft fit into that hole? The official account claims that the wings folded back, or snapped, during the initial impact with the reinforced structure of the Pentagon. They were pushed inward towards the fuselage and then carried along with the plane into the building. But, insists Professor Griffin, this would be next to impossible. "For when the plane's forward motion was suddenly reduced as the nose hit the Pentagon, the wings could not have folded back - unless the laws of kinetic energy were momentarily suspended."

Instead the wings would have been propelled forward at great speed, damaging the building on either side of the main area of the point of contact of the plane. Even more bewildering is what happened to the Boeing's 40ft-high tail. "Did it obligingly duck before entering the building?" asks Griffin. "Whatever did hit the Pentagon it did not cause nearly enough destruction for the official story to be true. A Boeing 757, besides being so tall and having such a wide wingspan, weighs over 100 tons. Travelling at a speed of 250 to 440 miles per hour, it would have caused tremendous devastation, far more than was evident at the crash site."


Above is from September11.org

[MercutioATC]

131. Happy to, Abe:

Again:

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

Summarized, your claim that there was "no damage above the hole or on either side of it." is erroneous. Engineers who examined the structure saw this: "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...".

They concluded: "The analyses of the available data reveal that the wings severed exterior columns but were not strong enough to cut through the second-floor slab upon impact. (The right wing did not enter the building at the point where it struck the second-floor slab in its plane). The damage pattern throughout the building and the locations of fatalities and aircraft components, together with the deformation of columns, suggest that the entire aircraft disintegrated rapidly as it moved through the forest of columns on the first floor. As the moving debris from the aircraft pushed the contents and demolished exterior wall of the building forward, the debris from the aircraft and building most likely resembled a rapidly moving avalanche through the first floor of the building."

Basically, there WAS extensive damage to the facade beyond the dimensions of the entry hole.

[Abe Linkman]

133. Basically, your propaganda report did NOT rebut what photos showed.

IF your propaganda report shows photographs taken before or at about the same time as the ones in the September 11 report, they too, would show NO damage above the hole or on either side of it.

Damage caused by the building collapse doesn't count. Sorry to have to inform you. However; I know that won't discourage you from continuing to claim otherwise. Something about repeating it over and over -- not being deterred by evidence or argument. You have a story to pitch and that is what you are going to do. Note, I didn't say "story to SELL" ... because THAT would involve actually having to convince, not just repeat in hopes that over time, people will just come to accept your word.

[MercutioATC]

134. You don't think civil engineers can tell the difference between

damage from a plane crash and damage from a building collapse? If they saw damage 90 feet from the point of impact, that'd be outside the collapsed area, anyway.

What "non-propaganda" report can you produce that's written by qualified professionals that examined the site firsthand?

[Abe Linkman]

136. If you had photos, you'd post them. You don't.

The photos taken minutes after the building was hit do NOT show damage on either side or immediately above the entry hole. Furthermore, and you also conveniently ignored this one -- there was no damage done where it would be expected from a 757 tail fin.

[MercutioATC]

137. And you DO have photos that show no damage?

I'd love to see them.

As far as the tail impact:

"Additionally, there was facade damage on both sides of the impact area, including damage as high as the fourth floor."

Jesus, Abe. I've provided you with the link to this report at least a dozen times. Might it be possible for you to actually READ it and not expect me to spoon-feed it to you?

[Abe Linkman]

138. Thanks for the propaganda offer -- but I'm not interested.

Don't they teach you anything in spin school? Didn't they tell you that the best spinners know they have the burden on their shoulders whenever they make a claim? You know -- when H & K had the contract to sell the first Gulf War to naive Americans (including cats), and they came up with the tear jerk lies about the incubator babies? You remember that.
And, you'll remember that they didn't just make the claim (like you make claims), they knew the burden was THEM to substantiate their claim. That's why they had the young woman (15 y.o.) recite the lies about Iraqi soldiers unplugging the incubators. You know all about that, right?

Well, if you're gonna claim damage done, then you need to provide some reason why we should accept your claims. A propaganda report, that was written long AFTER the wall collapsed won't get it, merc.

The photos of the Pentagon taken just minutes after the building was hit, are the best evidence of damage done by whatever hit the building. And, guess what, merc? Actually, you don't have to guess, because you know damn well those photos show an entry hole way too small to have been made by a 757, AND you know damn well those photos do not show any damage on either side of the entry hole, nor above it where you'd expect damage if a 757 had struck the building.

Might it be possible that you don't realize your errors?

[MercutioATC]

139. Unless "spin school" teaches how to hold aircraft, I haven't attended...

I've provided you with a report written by trained civil engineers who observed the damage to the Pentagon firsthand. You've given me Eastman. I'd be happy to look at anything you can provide that's written by 1) somebody who knows something about engineering and crash damage and 2) examined the damage to the Pentagon. If I truly have no evidence, as you claim, why is that so difficult to provide?

I'd be happy to look at any of these photos you claim show no pre-collapse damage. Hell, maybe six trained professionals who were THERE were wrong.

[RH]

143. Photos were posted long ago.

Use the site search function, or google.com

Between June 2002 and April 2003 the whole affair was done to death on democraticunderground in nine consecutive "Post Your Pentagon Crash QUESTIONS Here" threads.

This photo from the Will Morris agency shows the port side hole in the first floor wall.

http://anderson.ath.cx:8000/911/pics/hole01.jpg

In that shot you can also see the white mark on column 13, caused by traces of aluminum left extactly where the tail fin impacted the Pentagon.

Photos by Daryl Donley also show the damage on the starboard side of the impact, all taken soon after the immediate impact of flight 77.

http://anderson.ath.cx:8000/911/pics/hole07.jpg

How at this stage of the game, 1072 days after the event, can anybody purporting to be well aquainted pretend not to be at all aware of this information?

This web page explores the issue with several crucial photos included:

http://anderson.ath.cx:8000/911/pen06.html

[tngledwebb]

156. Thanks for posting these photos.

Anyone looking at these photos for the first, second, or thousandth time will be convinced that there was a terrible fire at the Pentagon. If they see a plane, or engine pieces, or wing pieces, or a hole big enough for a Boeing, they should get help or an eye exam NOW. Funny caption: 'you can also see the white mark on column 13 caused by traces of aluminium left exactly where the tail fin impacted...etc.'

[MercutioATC]

157. You don't see plane pieces???

For an analysis of the size of the entry hole, check this:

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

It describes how a 757 could, indeed, have made that hole.

[Abe Linkman]

160. Propaganda "report" u cite says NO plane pieces visible

It also says NO visible damage more than 25 feet above entry hole. The tail on a 757 is 41 feet tall.

The propaganda piece was put together by a team headed by a U.S. military officer!

The propaganda piece says ALL plane debris had been removed by the time they conducted their "study".

The propaganda piece DOES NOT say one word about how a nine foot exit hole was made.

The propaganda piece first implies that the team arrived on the scene
fairly quickly but acknowledges they did NOT see ANY plane debris. This fact alone raises the question of how could TWO extremely heavy jet engines could have been so quickly removed and NOT ONE SINGLE PHOTO was taken of the event? Photographers were on the scene from literally minutes after the attack. SO, if two 20,000 pound jet engines had been removed, common sense suggests that photos would likely have been taken of it as it happened.

The propaganda piece says NOTHING that helps prove what actually happened at the Pentagon. It says nothing about Rumsfeld's statement that a missile struck the building.

The propaganda piece is nothing more than what lawyers do in trials where there is a lot of money at stake, and they hire firms like Fault Analysis (California) or Rymkus Consulting (Texas) or other such forensic engineering firms...who receive a pretty penny for developing a finding that purports to confirm their client's version of the story.
They nearly always have one of their highly-credential (academic-wise)
experts testify on their behalf at trial (again, for a handsome fee).

The propganda piece that merc continues to cite here is not helpful to anyone interested in the truth of what happened at the Pentagon. It's only value is to those who are here to sell the Official Conspiracy Theory. But, just how valuable it is to even that limited purpose is dubious. After all, to my knowledge, there hasn't been one single person here at DU who has said: "That report which merc cites really convinced me that the "Evildoers who hate us for our freedoms" REALLY DID fly a 757 into the Pentagon."

Hill & Knowlton put together a "report" about those evil Iraqi soldiers
in Kuwait and that "report" convinced a whole lot of people we "needed" to start a war against Saddam, but it was finally exposed as nothing more than a paid propaganda piece. Unfortunately, it was too late for all those people who lost their lives, for no good reason.

The ASCE "repoort" hasn't convinced anyone here, but it is something that can be cited by those who support the immoral invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

[MercutioATC]

161. Correct. None are visible NOW, either.

The report clearly states:

"By the time the full Pentagon BPS team visited the site, all debris from the aircraft and structural collapse had been removed and shoring was in place wherever there was severe structural damage."

It doesn't state there were never any pieces there, it states they'd been removed. We've all seen the pictures of aircraft debris that were taken before the team arrived.


Of course it doesn't explain what happened on 9/11. It was never meant to. It does, however, show the physics of how a 757 could have coused the damage to the Pentagon. That's the only context in which I've presented it.

[Abe Linkman]

162. Your "report" proves nothing, except that propaganda can be bought.,

You try to fool unsuspecting new posters into thinking that the propaganda piece actually proves that a 757 crashed.

It's dishonest to imply something by witholding a material fact. Why do
you continue to do that, merc?

You did not even attempt to rebut what I said, because what I said about your "report" is the truth, and you know, or should know it, too.

[MercutioATC]

163. Why do you disbelieve the report if it "proves nothing" anyway?

What, specifically, do you take issue with? On one hand you claim that it's propaganda that's been bought and on the other you claim that it doesn't prove anything. Is there data in the report that you feel is false? What, specifically?

Abe, all I've ever said is that the report does show how a 757 could have caused the damage to the Pentagon. I've never claimed that it's proof that a 757 crashed there. You disagree?

[Abe Linkman]

167. Why do you believe a propaganda piece that proves nothing?

What, specifically, makes your little "report" objective? It is a biased piece of propaganda that does not help anyone seeking the truth.
It's only value can be to people who have a fairy tale they're promoting, either because they really, honestly believe in it, or because they have some other agenda that causes them to not care about objectivity.

That same group could have put together a "report" that "shows how
a missile caused the damage to the Pentagon".

You are using it in a grossly dishonest manner whenever you refer people to it, because you imply that it proves a lie. A more honest reference to it would state clearly that it's a biased "report", put together by a group headed by an Army officer that ONLY purports to explain how damage at the Pentagon could have been done. The "report" is bogus because it starts with an unproven premise (namely, that a B757 crashed at the Pentagon). It starts with a premise that isn't proven and then attempts to construct a theory about how the conclusion of an unproven premise could have come about.

A sincere, objective person who isn't here to sell a lie, would never try to pass off something like that as proof of anything. Were you involved in promoting the Kuwaiti incubator stories, too?

[MercutioATC]

169. AAL77 crashing into the Pentagon hasn't been established as a "lie", Abe.

Well, not to most people...

Again, what facts included in the report do you disagree with? I have no problem realizing that all it proves is that a 757 COULD have caused the damage to the Pentagon, not that it DID. Either you believe that the data and conclusions are true, or you don't. Do you think the report does show how the damage could have been caused by a 757? If not, what SPECIFICALLY do you feel is false?

As far as it being "bogus" because it begins with the assumption that a 757 hit the Pentagon, where was it supposed to begin? AAL77 was lost in the area of the Pentagon. Dozens of witnesses saw a large commercial airliner. Pieces consistent with a 757 were found at the crash site. I wouldn't expect them to try to show how a bus crash could have caused the damage...

[Abe Linkman]

170. AA 77 didn't crash. Your report is bogus because it claims 77 DID crash

Your little report has been thoroughly deconstructed. It is the worst kind of propaganda, because it's based on a lie.

What, if anything crashed at the Pentagon is very much still in dispute, and it is very, very strange that a civilian would try and fool people into believing an obviously fatally flawed "report" which is based on unproven claim about the most important issue of 9/11 and the Pentagon.

Very curious, murky. And, considering that you aren't the least bit embarassed and make no effort to distance yourself from it, that can only raise even more questions which can't be addressed here.

[MercutioATC]

173. So show me how it's been "deconstructed"...

You keep saying that it's been "proven" to be a lie, yet I see no such proof. Just show me where the engineers screwed up their figures or fudged data. Show me where they made ANY conclusion that you can refute on a factual basis.

Who's spouting propaganda here?

[Abe Linkman]

175. Show me anything from your propaganda piece that proves its premise

You keep citing your little propaganda piece even though the only purpose of it is to give a biased opinion that the damage at the Pentagon was caused by a B757, but there's a big problem: there's no proof that a B757 crashed at the Pentagon.

Apparently, you are hoping that uninformed people will think that the report proves something that isn't true. You're hoping that people will think a propaganda piece (put together by a U.S. Army officer) that is ostensibly about damage to the Pentagon, will be misconstrued to be some kind of authoritative study that proves FL 77 crashed at the Pentagon.

That's the real purpose of your little propaganda piece, isn't it?

You didn't answer my question about whether or not you had anything to do with the preparation or dissemination of the Iraqi soldiers at the Kuwaiti hospital "report".

[MercutioATC]

178. That's not an answer, Abe. What falsehoods are in that report?

And no, as an ATC I don't get to Kuwait much. I didn't have anything to do with the incubator story.

:tinfoilhat:

[Abe Linkman]

179. The propaganda piece's BIGGEST lie is the claim that 77 crashed.

Now, you did good in responding to that real important question about Kuwait, and I'll even take your word for it. But, murky -- you didn't rebut ONE thing in my message. Nada.

Is your silence consent?

Pls. you and bolo use an old right-wing trick of picking one minor point and trying to make THAT the issue. pls. don't do that here at DU.

If you can't rebut the many points I've made in TWO posts about your vaunted propaganda piece, then readers would be on safe ground in correctly assuming that you didn't rebut the points because they are the truth. Some people prefer to not deal with the truth. You, too?

If you want bolo to help you, that's fine by me.

[MercutioATC]

180. Actually, that's not one of the report's conclusions.

That's stated as their starting premise. Wanna try again?

I don't know what you want me to rebut. You're absolutely correct, the ASCE report isn't proof that AAL77 crashed into the Pentagon. I never said it was.

[Abe Linkman]

181. Actually, that little propaganda "report" is based on the FL 77 LIE

Your little propaganda piece BEGINS with a Big Lie...and all its conclusions flow from that Big Lie.

[MercutioATC]

184. It does exactly what it says. It examines the damage to the Pentagon

and, based on that examination, concludes that a 757 could have caused the damage. It even explains, in great detail, how.

Abe, it's an ASCE report. It's not the 9/11 Commission report. It was written by civil engineers specializing in reinforced concrete structures and crashes, not Yoda.

It's not SUPPOSED to give ALL of the answers.

[Abe Linkman]

189. Dishonest attempt to sell it as proof that FL 77 crashed is wrong.

I don't care if you want to promote your little propaganda "report" as an opinion of a Gov't-sponsored group examining damage to the Pentagon.
You're entitled to do that.

If you want to be honest, you need to make it very clear that your little "report" starts with a claim that is contradicted by other Gov't evidence.

Your little "report" begins with a lie and ends with a lie.

Further, the fact that you can't rebut the many objections I've given you based on that very same report says to me that you know very well that your report is worthless for anything other than being a paid-for
sales job that is designed to fool people into accepting the lie that FL 77 crashed. You ought to be ashamed. The fact that you aren't is very telling.

Another sleazy sales pitch for Osama's alleged powers.

[MercutioATC]

190. Show me ONCE that I've cited it as proof that AAL77 hit the Pentagon.

Just once.

What haven't I rebutted? If I missed something, I'll be happy to answer it.

[RH]

227. Give it a rest.

Whenever one anonymous individual sets himself up Prosector Judge and Jury he may prove what he likes to himself. That's no great surprise.

Fortunately we have something more than that to go on.

[RH]

164. 25 feet above entry hole

would be nearly 45 feet above ground level, given that the entry hole extended two floors upwards, yes?

[RH]

158. The photos absolutely confirm

the damage pattern, hence the true width of the hole, as later exactly reported for instance by ASCE.

http://anderson.ath.cx:8000/911/pics/hole12.jpg

You should rather have a go at those who continue to perpetrate their "small hole" hole disinformation campaign when we can all see perfectly well for ourselves that it was not the case. Or else abandon any hope to be seen to be objective.

The page I linked to was last revised, February 2003. Since then those who would argue against it have had nothing new to say. Nothing at all. They've merely repeated themselves in one endless fit of desperation as if on the hope that those who know better may forget.

http://anderson.ath.cx:8000/911/pen06.html

Nevertheless the simple fact remains that many thousands of people worked at the Pentagon; hundreds of people saw the plane as it approached and hit; and hundreds were involved with the clear up afterwards. Of those then that were there to see for themselves not one is yet known to have subscribed to the fiction that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. We would otherwise of course have heard all about it. Witnesses selectively misquoted by idiots such as Ditch Eastman have continually insisted that the plane hit the building.

[demodewd]

188. first floor blowout

The blowout on the first floor that you contend was created by the wings was most probably achieved by shaped charges planted along the wall of the A-ring. The white flash at the explosion's onset is indicative of shaped charges not a kerosene initiated explosion. Probably a plane resembling #77 of the same size or near the same size was rigged with charges and perhaps a bomb to initiate the blast along with pre-set charges along the first floor A-ring wall.. Notice the sonic waves emanating from the heliport area at the blast's beginning. No kerosene fire has this coloration.


I don't much appreciate Eastman's interpretation and I doubt that most people who question the legitimacy of the official line do. I hope you are not insinuating that he has a substantial following here. He doesn't.

[RH]

192. That's just plain stupid.

Who rather than the folk who work at the Pentagon is going to be more concerned about a ballistic attack? Who apart from folk who work at the Pentagon is going to know more about shaped charges?
If you had any superior qualification in that respect you would presumably declare it.

Forensic tests were conducted. The autopsy tested body parts. No trace of explosives was found. Nor was any damage detected, consistent with an exposive charge.

Nobody claimed that any explosion was initiated by kerosense. Do you know what "initiated" means?

Obviously enough the explosion was initiated by kinetic energy as explained before:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=13902&mesg_id=16710&page=

The force of impact was equivalent to 1440 lbs of TNT.

Primary radar tapes traced Flight 77 all the way. There was no switch, no evidence of any switch. Flight 77 hit the building. The multidisciplinary autopsy identified passengers. Idiots who refuse to accept the fact have never even attempted to seriously suggest how or why the autopsy would be faked, let alone any evidence to show that it was faked.

Give it up. You're wating your time. This sort of nonsense has gone on for two whole years now, and with what to show for it? Of the thousands of people who were present at the scene, in a position to know better, not one of them has yet been known to subscribe to your nonsense. You got no case, nothing but an infantile fantasy.

[Abe Linkman]

193. Acid Indigestion, Romey?

Check your source.

"Cigarette Life, If You Don't Weaken."

[RH]

213. Check your source?

My sources are of course checked, and checkable.

Every report I rely upon has a name attached.
They are known, responsible people with verifiable names, addresses and professions.
If you doubt it try the FIOA.

And you, Mr. Linkman, .....?

[demodewd]

211. infantile government sponsored brainwash

You don't know what was found or not found. You didn't see the evidence. You were told...period.

What were the the military personel
carrying out of the Pentagon under a blue tarp?

The primary force would have carried the plane well into the building not like it was all but metamorphised into confetti and pruducing shock waves.

I'm not saying there weren't passengers. There was plenty of time for them to be transfered onto a different plane. Funny that no body parts were found outside of the Pentagon. Apparently other interior cabin parts blew out as far as the Freeway.

The coloration of that explosion was indeed quite different than what we saw at the WTC2 and that makes a whole heck of a lot of difference like night and day. There was no explosive white flash at the WTC2.

Don't be so naive as to assume that everyone at the Pentagon were all on the same side.There may have good reason why that particular section of the Pentagon was blown out.

You have no reasoned explanation of the white flash. You have no reasoned explanation of a 9 foot high hole in the A-E drive. You have no reasoned explanation of why there is little to no smoke damage on the C ring wall. You have no reasoned explanation as to how a flunky pilot as Hani Hanjour could maneuver the plane to accomplish the task. You're the one pleading the officio government case. Hey its leakin bad buddy...better get the duct tape.

[RH]

212. What were the the military personel carrying

under the blue tarp?

See for yourself. Examine the photo. In the background you can see the Navy Annex. The photo was obviously taken near to the Arlington Cemetery gate. The military gang were clearly, therefore, walking towards the Pentagon, not away from it, the fiction too often repeated by the disinformation mob.

The object was probably a lighting rig. Soon after 9/11 a great deal of equipment was moved onto the Pentagon lawn. Nothing was moved away from the incident towards the Cemetery. Plane parts and building debris were moved in the opposite direction, to the North Car Park.

The primary force did indeed carry most of the plane well into the building. The damage pattern extended nearly three hundred feet into the building. That's where the body parts and most of the aircraft material was found. I'd guess that 85 percent of the object ended up inside the edifice.

At the WC2 event no active electricity generator was involved, nor was there the same resistance from the building. Resistance to kinetic energy generates heat. Stone abrades aluminum.

I do not assume anything. I especially do not assume a reason to target any part of the Pentagon. I have no particular need to assume anything. It makes no difference to me. I do not assume that the Pentagon was a target. I would nevertheless assume that all those who work at the Pentagon have a common interest in wishing to stay alive.

The facts I have stated are all verifiable by affidavit. If you had anything substantial to refute the facts you would presumably show it. Given then that for the past two two years you have failed miserably to come up with anything so substantial to refute the facts I therefore assume that your fiction is horribly wrong.

I provided a possible explanation of the white flash. You have provided nothing to prove that anything else was the cause, nor have you shown anything to substantiate the idea that anything else would have caused a white flash.

I do have a reasoned explanation of the 9ft hole. A Boeing B757 hit the building. It caused extensive damage.

I have never assumed that Hani Hanjour intended to hit the Pentagon, nor did I ever assume that he flew the plane, nor did I ever assume that anybody else intended to hit the Pentagon.

Do you have anything to prove that anybody at all intended to hit the Pentagon? No you do not. The notion was never anything more than a facile, sensational conjecture. No trace of any plan to hit the Pentagon was ever discovered. No threat to hit the Pentagon was made.

It is you, not I, who prefers to rely upon the unproved assumption.

[demodewd]

220. most everything

Most everything you state is an assumption. You assume that the flash was caused by the abrasiveness of the limestone wall but that doesn't explain the sonicwaves observable in the heliport area. Many firefighters commented upon the utter intensity and duration of that intensity of the heat of the main fire,a characteristic of shaped charges fires not kerosene instigated ones. Why the immediate explosion upon impact? Did this happen in WTC 1&2? No. There was a second or two delay before the alleged 175 blew up as its nose and fuselage were seen exiting the adjacent wall still intact. Reports are that the nose and front end of the fuselage were disintegrated in the A-ring. What caused the 9 foot high hole in the A-E drive? The exploded debris from an already seriously structurally compromised plane? Where's all the smoke damage? You contest that there was an intact nose/fuselage intact enough to plow through the c-ring wall and yet your force didn't carry with it extensive fire and smoke? Why? Because the initial shaped charges blast created a buffer to that area,the kerosene portion of the blast was pushed south and out. Out over the roof of the building and out over the facade. Where is the central inferno? At the very fore of the A-ring section. No doubt much of the planes debris ended up in the building as you say. But the debris were exploded sections of the plane not a huge mass that forced its way into the A-E drive. And you see the pictues of the A-E drive...a reported nose landing gear and a random scattering of other parts...no large section of the fuselage/nose. Why? Because the hole was punched out by the accompanying jet stream of a shaped charge(s) explosion.And these various parts were sucked along with stream and ended up in the drive.

[RH]

222. "sonicwaves observable"??

:silly:

There were immediate explosions in New York. What's the problem?

From what I can gather (e.g. from the Penny Elgas account) there was a second or two before the fuel explosion at the Pentagon. From where do you get the idea that this was not the case?

At the Pentagon the plane hit five lamp poles. What effect then do you think that would have?

It also hit an electricity generator and a tree beside the building before the wall was hit. The building also offered more of a resistance, dispersing fuel in front of it as well as within it. There would thus be the opportunity for aviation fuel and aluminum shards to mix with air before ignition. In New York nothing of the sort took place. I don't see why the difference should be so difficult to appreciate.

Casual reports of the nose and front end of the fuselage in the A-ring came from early observers, not form any diligent investigation. It was later apparent that the opposite was more the case. Parts from the back of the aircraft had penetrated further into the building while parts at the front had been slowed down by the impact.

The 9 foot high hole in the A-E drive was possibly caused partially by rescuers removing material from around the edges of it to make it
safe while the aperture was used as an exit for injured victims. Why is everybody obsessed by that one hole while ignoring the other two?

The smoke damage was where the smoke went, mostly upwards, strangely enough. I'd expect that significant smoke within the building would follow some time after the impact.

The central inferno was in the centre of damaged area where the columns gave way.

I don't know that the nose landing gear in particular was in the A-E drive. I am satisfied that the undercarriage part photographed within the building is a strut from the main gear, from the parts that lift the gear, not from the lower parts that hold the wheels. It is recognisable as such.

Why there would be no large parts has been explained over and over again already. That's what happens at more than half the speed of sound. Kinetic energy is exponentially proportinal to the speed. Look for instance for photos of the Concorde that hit a hotel outside Paris. How many large parts of that do you see? Look at the Sandia experiment photos.

The shaped charges notion is a fiction. If you look at what really happens with shaped charges it fails even to fit the circumstantial evidence.

[seatnineb]

229. Concord Crash.

RH asks us........
Why there would be no large parts has been explained over and over again already. That's what happens at more than half the speed of sound. Kinetic energy is exponentially proportinal to the speed. Look for instance for photos of the Concorde that hit a hotel outside Paris. How many large parts of that do you see?

Great idea RH!
Lets have a look at photos from the tragic concord accident not far from Paris in July ,2000.

First from above.........


And then from below.


To give it some perspective the above parts represent the "pointed down cone" on the edge of the cockpit.......



These fragmented parts are larger than anything found from the 9/11 planes(in particular Flight 93)

Prove me wrong.

[RH]

230. in particular Flight 93?

So now now are you trying to say that Flight 93 didn't crash?

Where's the rest of Concorde?

Wings and fuselage?

Wherdy go?

Your nose cone fragment was scarecely knee high. Here is the same debris from the opposite angle:



and here for instance is a remnant at the Pentagon:

[seatnineb]

231. Concorde debris field.....

RH asks.........
Where's the rest of Concorde?

Wings and fuselage?

Wherdy go?

Right here RH........



That is one large debris field........

By the way......
Thanks for this photo.....

Big Object Here

[vincent_vega_lives]

219. For you to understand Abe

You would have to understand the difference between an Engine fan and compressor fan. But that seems to be beyond the realm of the world of "BIG engine-little engine" where only two types of turbofan engines exist.

In the cut-away figure of the Rolls Royce RB211 turbo-fan gas turbine engine, you will notice that the compressor is divided into a low pressure (LP) and high pressure (HP) regions. You will also notice that the first row of compressor blades and guide vanes, are substantially larger than the preceding sets....

[impe]

149. Pictures worth a 1000 words

I also remember pictures of bodies hanging from buildings and trees despite the plane breaking up
in mid-air and crashing to the ground.

Also, was there any seismic activity recorded in DC that day? I know that NY recorded some activity at the
time of the wtc hits.

[MercutioATC]

150. Are you talking about the Pentagon crash???

I don't recall either a suggestion that it broke up in mid-air or pictures of bodies in trees...

[impe]

151. Nope

My reply was to Seat9 regarding the Pan Am 103 bomb/crash pictures over Lockerbie.

I remember one woman in particular, shown hanging from a roof. So sad!

If people can't grasp oral arguments, these pictures are PROOF of what a REAL crash scene looks like.
perry mason has left the court room.

[MercutioATC]

152. Gotcha. It's hard to see which post people are replying to when

the board gets that full. They all kinda line up with each other.

[impe]

154. Agreed

It's hard to follow along on some of these longer threads!

[seatnineb]

155. Keepin it Real

Impe my friend....
You have a good memory........

In the words of Impe.......
I remember one woman in particular, shown hanging from a roof. So sad!



Also in the words of the good Impe....
these pictures are PROOF of what a REAL crash scene looks like.

[impe]

159. Thank You Seat9!

The Truth is out there for those who "chose" to look. You've shown in pictures why
the official story is so blantantly false.

[seatnineb]

165. Where is flight 93

Early Eye witnesses to this crash site...........


Who have been side-lined..........

Like this chap.......


Ernie Stull, mayor of the nearby village of Shanksville recalls

"Yes–my sister and a good friend of mine were the first ones here. They were standing on a street corner in Shanksville talking. Their car was nearby, so they were the first here–and the fire department came. Everyone was puzzled, because the call had been that a plane had crashed. But there was no plane…

question: They had been sent here because of a crash but there was no plane?

Ernie Stull: No. Nothing . Only this hole.



http://home.t-online.de/home/willy.brunner/911transcript.html

[Abe Linkman]

182. I'd already about decided 93 was the 1 plane that DID crash. Now...I'm

beginning to think maybe that was also a lie. Your helpful message is more evidence that is beginning to pile up in favor of NO commerical airliners crashed on 9/11. Not at the WTC and certainly not at the Pentagon.

[tngledwebb]

89. easy for them tho...

leaving out pods and plane switching for a sec- The biggest most sophisticated and expensive miltary force in the history of the world couldn't stop one single passenger plane hijacked by a handful of ME youth w/boxcutters from hitting prime targets in the 2 most important cities in the country, thus the Gov't COULDN'T have done anything more complex. I take your point. But maybe the Gov't could have trained these fellows to do it's dirty work and issued a standdown order or two. Hard to imagine this gov't doing anything that evil, though. As before, we are faced with a failure of imagination. Btw interested in opinion on F9/11?

[Bolo Boffin]

93. Exactly.

If BushCo did it, they did it through al-Qaeda. Can we say they trained them for this mission? We don't possess any evidence to support that statement. And there aren't any standdown orders in evidence; the closest anyone's gotten to that is the transfer of ordering jets in the air to Rumsfeld's office, but even that transfer allowed for instant reaction to things like 9/11.

Failure of imagination. That's where BushCo would like us to be. They don't want us to know why their imagination failed them:

Because they were too busy ramping up Star Wars to concentrate on real threats.

Because they were desperately trying to find an angle to attack Iraq, they couldn't be bothered with the asymetrical threat of al-Qaeda.

Because the Clinton administration took Osama seriously, the Bushistas couldn't bring themselves to treat terrorism seriously before 9/11.

BushCo had other priorities besides al-Qaeda before 9/11. No one could persuade them to reorder these priorities. That's why 9/11 happened on their watch.

My opinion on F9/11? It's brilliant, I loved it, I wept, I want Moore to get another Oscar...it struck exactly the right note. It said things that could be proved. The only way for the right wingers to discredit the movie is to lie about it. That's the way to win this election - force your opponents to lie about you, and expose the lies.

[Abe Linkman]

96. How did "they" --- "do it through" al-Qaeda, pray tell?

What's that all about? Is it bolo taking the first tippy-toe step towards acknowledging that the Official Conspiracy Theory is a lie?

[Bolo Boffin]

103. No, dear Abraham, simply stating a fact and logical conclusion.

Al-Qaeda planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks.

You wish to assert that Bush/Mossad/whoever actually carried out the attacks.

Therefore, if Bush is ultimately responsible for the 9/11 attacks, he carried them out through al-Qaeda.

I'm not saying Bush did so - I'm stating a hypothetical. If you want to convince people of Bush complicity in these attacks, you should start proving Bush ties to al-Qaeda leadership. Real ones, please, not mythical ones based on faulty and single testimony from shadowy figures. This will be the only way of showing Bush complicity in these attacks, because al-Qaeda carried them out. If you can prove that Bush used al-Qaeda to carry out these attacks, then ya got something.

But this continued attempt to get the real perps of 9/11 off the hook is offensive and lamentable.

Because Flight 77 denial is an implausible, illogical, darkweaving deadend. Denying facts of history shatters your credibility, Abe. Do over.

[Abe Linkman]

104. Being wrong HERE doesn't help your desire to be seen as "mainstream"

You're going all wobbly now, bolo. Make uppuhyou mind.

Rumsfeld said a missile struck the Pentagon. That's YOUR BOY, bolo. You disagree with the Pentagon boss? Take it up with him.

You fairy tale sales reps are really starting to come apart at the seams, aren't you? merc is proving OUR points, you're crawdadin' from here to Daphine Bay, VV must have been recalled to a ship somewhere, and
the others are trying to figure out what they're supposed to be sayin'.

Osama is a CIA asset and Dick Eastman has put together the most logical argument of anyone for the case that 9/11 was an inside job.

That's got to be a little heart-breaking for a guy who just wants to be taken seriously as a "responsible" member of the loyal opposition.

[MercutioATC]

105. Just to facilitate the "discussion" Abe, I bought you a star.

You seem to have difficulty recalling exactly what people like LARED, Bolo and I say. I'm attributing this to an inability to use the search function, not an intent to misrepresent our posts.

Hopefully, this will make things easier. It should be active in the next few days.

Enjoy!

:hug:

[Bolo Boffin]

106. My desire is to be seen as sane, Abe, not mainstream.

Enjoy the search function.

:grouphug:

[Abe Linkman]

114. Being sane isn't the same as being rational.

Has being seen as "sane" been a longtime problem, or has it just been since you became a sales rep for the "Cavemen Did It" Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory?

Or, is there more to the story that most of us would just as soon not know about?

[Bolo Boffin]

141. Okay...

Being sane doesn't equal being rational?

I'm just going to leave that one alone.

[demodewd]

80. re: Anablep

Anablep never explained how the initial blast could be of white/light yellow coloration with the presence of apparent shock waves


She also supported the Purdue simulation which has the wings culpable of sustaining much of the column blowouts throughout the plane's alleged course. How could this be when it is obvious that plane exploded at the very front of the building and it would immediately lose all structural integrety.

Her analysis of the light poles I support as I believe a substitute plane of near equal size wired with possibly a bomb and charges replaced #77.

[Bolo Boffin]

82. Re: Re: Anablep

First: I'm wondering if the security cam was sensitive enough to provide the exact color of the explosion. Have you compared the security cam pictures to other pictures of explosions taken with a similar camera? Can you get that level of detail with the cameras used at the Pentagon?

I'm also wondering about your assumption that the explosion would cause the plane to immediately lose all structural integrity. Have you looked at the Pentagon report that Mercution keeps pointing out to us? There's an entire chapter devoted to the impact damage of the plane, and it's pretty interesting reading.

The report doesn't seem to hold out the Perdue simulation of the wings continuing into the building. According to the actual column damage, the wings appear to have been completely severed by the time the plane got a few dozen feet into the building. The fuselage debris passed between columns 9C and 11D, a span of only 28 feet located about 65 feet along the plane's path into the building. So the wings were gone at that point. They're careful here to say the fuselage debris; though the fuselage would have lost much structural integrity, it would have lost very little of its mass. Mass in motion means momentum, structural integrity notwithstanding.

So according to the actual evidence, the wings didn't contribute a lot toward the column destruction inside the Pentagon. I'm quite willing to bet that Anablep could read this report and recognize that, in other words, say she was wrong about that...that is, if Anablep specifically avowed that portion of the Perdue simulation. Did she?

[demodewd]

86. notes

According to Merkys "impact damage report" the nose and front half of the fuselage lose all structural intrgrity at the onset of the blast which occurs at the very front of the building. And then the fuselage debris coordinates itself into some powerful concentric vortex to blow out the hole into the A-E drive? Is this charateristic of a kerosene blast? No. I would say that the concentric nature of the "hole" is characteristic of a jet stream caused by a bomb or shaped charges. And then there is no observable soot stain on the CWall in near proximity of this powerful fuselage debris vortex? I will keep an open mind here but at this juncture I'm not at all convinced.

The bright flash from the blast was not only photographed by the security cam but was observed by a number of witnesses who were in very close proximity of the blast and in the building. The initial blast shows the characteristic sonic waves. This is the tell tale sign for those who recognize it.

[RH]

146. vortex?

Who said anything about a "vortex"?

Do you know what the word means?

[MercutioATC]

195. "Vortex" was only mentioned here, by CTists. The ASCE report doesn't

say anything about a "vortex".

The descriptive word they use is "avalanche".

[Abe Linkman]

196. Define "CTists" & btw-your ASCE "report" should be BANNED from DU

Right-wingers here at DU have gotten the Moderators to ban authors and publications that you don't like. If ever there was a "report" that should be BANNED from DU, the ASCE propaganda should be long forbidden here. Why it is still allowed, is beyond me. Seems very inconsistent to allow IT, yet censor other publications from these forums.

The "ASCE" report is nothing more than propaganda. It's just like the Warren Commission Report and the 9/11 Commission Report: A coverup of
crimes & the framing of innocent people by making them Patsies.

They all start with a lie:

ASCE starts with the lie that FL 77 crashed at the Pentagon.

Warren Commission starts with the lie that LHO "did it" & acted alone.

9/11 Commission starts with the lie that "Cavemen Did It".


ANY so-called report that begins with a lie is not credible and should be banned from being cited on DU. Just like those sources that you and your fellow "Osama Did It" apologists have gotten DU Moderators to ban.

[MercutioATC]

197. "CTist" is a contraction for "Conspiracy Theorist" -

As for the ACSE report, take it up with the Admins. They make those decisions, not I.

[Abe Linkman]

198. Oh, so YOU'RE a CTist. Imagine that. I wondered what u called y.self.

Thanks. What's the procedure for requesting a Moderator to ban something from DU? Do you know? Does merely asking them to do so constitute "questioning" their authority or anything like that? Don't want to awaken a bear, you understand.

[MercutioATC]

199. You seem to have an unfounded fear of authority. E-mail Skinner.

That should get you an answer.

As far as my being at CTist, if you expand a definition wide enough, eventually you'll encompass anybody. Personally, I'd consider somebody who believes in holograms, pods, missiles, and U.S. Government complicity to be a CTist because they believe in a "conspiracy" committed by the government. Those who feel there are perfectly rational explanations without involving a government conspiracy don't qualify as CTists to me.

Since there's no official measure, it's a personal judgement.

[Bolo Boffin]

207. Rightwingers at DU, Abe?

Name a few.

Since the ASCE report doesn't indulge in rank antisemitism, it hasn't been banned, unlike your ballyhooed "banned sources". Why don't you settle down and answer some of the long list of questions you've been asked, Abe, instead of sticking up for the antisemites?

[RH]

153. You need also to consider that

1. The starboard engine hit an active electricity generator, installed to maintain the supply while the Pentagon wiring was renovated. When the engine tore through one end of the generator the lights went out.
The impact also moved the generator towards the building and one of the flap track fairings under the B757 wing scraped across the top of it, leaving a visible trace. The generator weighed about 30 tons. None of those who deny that Flight 77 hit the building has yet attempted to otherwise explain this pattern of damage.

2. If by whatever means aluminum is suddenly reduced in air to a fine powder it will conflagrate spontaneously. Powdered aluminum is extremely reactive. For this reason it is added to fireworks. It is also a prime constituent of solid rocket fuel, because when it does burn it produces extraordinary heat. They reckon that the Hindenburg airship exploded because it was covered with aluminum paint, not because it was full of hydrogen. Hydrogen only explodes if already mixed with oxygen.

[RH]

166. "near equal size"?

JP Desmoulins used to suppose that B737 hit the building. Then I pointed out the damage pattern: To the port side an engine clipped the corner of a steam vault structure where renovation work was in progress. The damage can be seen in photos of the vicinity. The engine on the other side slammed into the electricity generator, passing between fencing posts that remained aloft while a flap track fairing scraped across the roof of the object. In between the two the cable spools moved but were mostly intact.

From that pattern it is therefore possible to extract precise measurements, at least to determine the distance between the lower edges of the two engine nacelles and the clearance height for the cable spools. If then you take the trouble to examine the photos and available maps to provide precise dimensions you will find that the distance exactly matches a B757 but not a B737.

[Bolo Boffin]

64. There was both plane debris and body parts found at the Pentagon

Your ability to state otherwise shows that you are deluding yourself in this matter.

[demodewd]

66. re:body parts

Why weren't there any body parts on the Pentalawn or the highway?

[Bolo Boffin]

67. There were body parts on the lawn.

That's where the child's hand was found, as I recall.

Why does it make a difference to the original point? The poster had claimed no body parts whatsoever.

[demodewd]

68. But..

But I'm not the original poster. I'm DEMODEWD!! :P

[DulceDecorum]

140. Not according to Rose,

the man with the broken neck and back -- now healed.

[frylock]

6. 129 people and their families are in on the conspiracy

why would you assume that they would be alive, and in on the conspiracy? I'm not saying this happened, but that is the stupidest damn argument presented. Do you think for a minute that those people couldn't have been offed in some other way? Again, I'm not saying that this particular theory has any legitimacy, but c'mon.

[genius]

9. It wouldn't surprise me. However, I'm hoping our government didn't

off them. We know seven of the hijackers survived the crashes. They've gone up to reporters and said things like, "See. I'm alive. Photograph me."

[frylock]

11. nobody likes to think our gov is capable of these things..

and that is EXACTLY what they were banking on. Even on a so-called progressive forum such as this you have the usual suspects who like to participate in these 911 threads by slinging shit like a monkey at the zoo. They're quick to call people crackpots without offering any civilized discourse as to what they think could have happened. It's easier to think about what the hotties on the next installment of Survivor will look like rather than do some legitimate research.

[WyLoochka]

12. The 129 -

were on the plane, the plane took-off and failed to land, at least at any known airport. If it didn't crash into the Pentagon, just where the hell is it and where are those people?

[genius]

16. That's what a lot of us have been asking since 2001

[Laura_B_manslaughter]

31. That's what the Victims Compensation Fund was for

It was hush money to keep the families silent. We should have just let the families sue like always after a disaster but bush knew the truth would come out then.

[Abe Linkman]

39. One minor problem with your sweeping views.

The only evidence you cite has been proven to be fake. It couldn't have come from an AA B757.

The gov't has the burden to provide proof for their Official Conspiracy Theory ("Cavemen Did It"). Though bushco said they would provide proof,
they haven't. In three years, the only proof provided by the Gov't is the video taken at the Pentagon, and it shows a plane that is way too small to be a B757.

[in_cog_ni_to]

2. Did they ever find the missing "black boxes"

from the planes?

[Minstrel Boy]

22. All of the instrument recorders were said to be unrecoverable.

Funny that, eh?

A solid-state data recorder of the type used on Flight 77 had never been destroyed upon a crash.

"But surely," I hear some say, "the force of impacting the Pentagon -"

It was located in the tail section.

Here's a good Scientific American article from 2000, describing the certification tests for flight recorders, to ensure they are crashworthy: http://sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0003BC0F-DDD0-1C73-9B81809EC588EF21&pageNumber=1&catID=2

And none of the data recorders were recoverable?

[frylock]

27. and not one single skyscraper had ever collapsed due to fire..

until that day, when 3 buildings collapsed. Not only did NORAD stand down on that terrible day, it would appear that the law of physics took the day off as well. Those twin towers fell at near free-fall speed, despite the resistance from the lower floors.

[HFishbine]

37. This is a perfect example of why bogus theories do harm

If there was a nuclear bomb in the basements of the Towers, one doesn't have to examine the structural flaws of the buildings to make future buildings safer. In short, one doesn't have to answer the very question posed -- why did a modern skyscaper collapse from a fire?

http://www.skyscrapersafety.org/html/article_20040619.html

[in_cog_ni_to]

29. THAT is what makes

this whole thing a conspiracy in MY eyes. They have those black boxes and there's something on them that they don't anyone to hear. IMCPO. What are the ODDS that BOTH Black Boxes would be unrecoverable? SLIM to NONE.

[RH]

217. That is not correct.

Data recorders from flight 77 and Flight 93 were discovered.

Data was extracted from the Flight 77 box.

Voice recorder date was also recovered.

http://911review.org/Wiki/Flight77BlackBoxes.shtml

So where then does this idea of no data come from? Does somebody hope to put an end to the desire to know exactly what the data did have to tell?

[HFishbine]

3. "The scarey part is that we are not just dealing with rogue leaders."

Right. And rogue military, and rogue families of the deceased, and rogue air traffic controllers, and somehow this conspiracy involving thousands of people has not unraveled. Not a single person has spilled the beans. Yeah, scary alright.

[genius]

7. You really haven'te kept up on things. The families know the Penagon

crash was faked and that's part of the reason they pushed for an investigation.

[HFishbine]

23. Link? Source?

Any documentation of the claim you make?

[nostamj]

28. most ironic username ever? n/t

[patdem]

19. Seems the 'Stealth Bomber' was kept under wraps for 5 years and

100's of people working in it??? You think people cannot be quiet for years? I don't think it would take 100's of people, just dozens. I don't really know..but the argument that 'SOMEONE' would come forward is a straw man argument!!

[HawkerHurricane]

21. Knowledge of the 'Stealth Bomber' was in the air for years.

I heard that we were working on it repeatedly.

And someone working on the stealth program wouldn't be covering up the INTENTIONAL MURDER of 3000 Americans... he'd be trying to keep his next paycheck. A stealth worker doesn't have a guilty conscience to worry about.

[HawkerHurricane]

5. And why have none of them talked?

"Three can keep a secret if two are dead" - Ben Franklin.

Why bother with all this? The act of flying ONE plane load into a building (say, one of the WTC towers) is enough for a 'Pearl Harbor'. There is no need to do all this juggling.

Why risk that someone with a camera might catch it on film? It's like the FDR knew about Pearl Harbor... why leave the battleships there? If he had 1/2 the fleet pull out that weekend, the attack would still have occured, and he'd have his war without losing the entire battleline.

[genius]

8. A lot of people are talking. The traffic controllers have talked

YOu ought to go back to previous discussions and look at what they have said about all the weird stuff that happened.

[HawkerHurricane]

10. Air Traffic controllers are not conspirators...

Nor are they speaking very loudly. Your conspiracy requires not only Bushco but the entire Democratic Party to be in on it; because if there were the evidence you claim the Democrats would shout it to the rooftops to bring Bush down... and they aren't.

[genius]

13. No one said they were. Don't put words in people's mouths.

[HawkerHurricane]

15. Don't answer questions that weren't asked.

When I asked why no one has talked, I meant the conspirators (which is why I quoted Franklin). You came back with the ATC comment. I pointed out that wasn't what I asked.

And the question remains, why bother? If they needed a "Pearl Harbor", they had one with flying planes into buildings, why risk exposure by using a missile which might be spotted and caught on film?

[arwalden]

17. Ah... A Voice Of Thought And Reason Coming Out Of The Darkness...

... of fear, confusion, innuendo, incomplete information, incorrect information, irrational conclusions, cynicism, and paranoia.

Thanks, HH!

-- Allen

[genius]

18. It was caught on film. I saw the film of the missile on a website in 2001

As far as I can tell it was pulled down but not before a lot of Democrats saw it. All the videos of the event have been confiscated and there is no evidence of a plane. They two choices are inside explosives or a missile. Witnesses saw a missile.

[HawkerHurricane]

20. Sloppy conspiracy.

Flew two planes into the WTC towers.

Crashed/shot down one plane in Pennsylvania.

Then used a missile on the Pentagon? Why? Flying a plane into the Pentagon would have fit the 'paradigm' better. Why ruin everything by using a missile? It's an act of stupidity, and the conspiracy has shown no stupidity until that point.

Don't want to damage the Pentagon too badly? Fly the plane into the parking lot, having it 'miss'.

A conspiracy I'll buy. If you told me that it was a CIA op, that the terrorist were funded by the CIA through a front agency, and that key positions in the defense of the US were intentionally ordered to 'fiddle while Rome burned'... OK, that's doable. But to set up this grand plan and then BLOW IT on missiles/explosives without reason? Nope, I'm not buying it anymore than I'm buying the 'U.S. army used a flamethrowing tank to take down the Branch Davidians' or 'Clinton killed off 50 people in Arkansas' films.

[HFishbine]

32. "Witnesses saw a missile."

Link? Source?

[demodewd]

44. "the entire Democratic Party"

The entire democratic party doesn't have to be in on it. They just have to capitulate to the vast majority of Americans who were swept up by the day's events and led to believe the official "story".

[tngledwebb]

70. Re who knew. Plenty do....

but can't tell us, not yet, Dems, Repubs, top military and intelligence officials, many must know but cannot speak up for several good reasons. Firstly, consider impact on world economy, on global peace and stability, if it came out that US govt had been taken over by madmen who would murder their own?? If you were privy to that information... who you gonna call, who would you trust, and who would believe you? What happened to McKinney and H.Dean when they suggested possible foreknowledge? And dollars to donuts CNN, NYT, WAPO, FOX, are certainly part of this, even before 9/11. Have you seen any book reviews of Griffin's New Pearl Harbor? Seen any GOOD clear reporting on any of this Admins impeachable offenses? Count up the Gore, Dean, Kerry bashing and compare to what's been dished out to Dubya and his ilk.

[demodewd]

74. I agree

I was responding to HawkerHurricane's post #10. I agree with your assessment though. The word is "mum". As you say...too much is at stake.

[HFishbine]

26. Geez

The lack of logic is astounding. Air traffic controllers have talked, you say, to support the notion of a conspiracy. Please show me where a single air traffic controller admits to being involved in a conspiracy.

[Laura_B_manslaughter]

35. No aircraft carriers were at PH that day

Very strange that they were gone that day of all days. In effect, half the fleet WAS gone that day. If the carriers had been there and been sunk, america would have lost the pacific war. FDR knew what he was doing. He let japan destroy enough of the fleet to inflame america but not enough that we lose the war.

[HawkerHurricane]

51. 1/2 the fleet was gone?

ALL 8 OF THE BATTLESHIPS IN THE PACIFIC FLEET WERE IN PEARL HARBOR THAT DAY.

USS Enterprise missed the attack by hours. There's one carrier.

USS Saratoga was in San Diego Harbor. There's two.

USS Lexington had just delivered aircraft to Wake Island. There's three.

And that's all the carriers.

Why save the carriers when everyone KNEW that carriers were there to support the battleships?

On that date, a battleship had NEVER been sunk at sea, ready for war, by aircraft. The first battleship sunk at sea by aircraft was HMS Prince of Wales, on 10 Dec 1941, three days AFTER Pearl Harbor.

He didn't need to sacrifice the whole fleet. One ship would have done it.

'FDR Knew' is a right wing fantasy.

[genius]

14. So has anyone here besides me seen this film?

[merh]

24. I haven't seen it. Is it only being shown in theaters?

Or can I get a DVD?

I would like to watch it.

[in_cog_ni_to]

33. I just ordered it.

I want to see for myself what this is all about. :hi:

[NV Whino]

25. Haven't seen the film

but would like to. Where can one see it? DVD?

By the way, the one thing that has always puzzled me about the Pentagon: it is located in plain sight of the beltway. At that time of morning we are still talking heavy commuter traffic. No one from the freeway saw a low-flying plane swoop over the freeway and crash into the Pentagon?

[Comicstripper]

36. Yes they did

I took a tour of the Pentagon recently. When we reached the memorial site, they discussed what occured. At one point, the plane was so low, it tore a lamppost out of the cement, and it killed a man who was driving a taxi. The plane went on to "bounce" off an area outside the Pentagon (which could explain something, probably) and crash into it. It was not a direct hit, like with the WTC, and the fatalities would have been much higher if it weren't for the fact that that particular section of the building was undergoing construction at the time.

[chuck555]

34. Oh please!

People died! That anyone would profit from this is so disgusting. I so despise INTERNET asshats and the fools that are suckered in.

[truth2power]

38. Can someone answer a question for me?

This has been nagging at me for a long time. I remember the pictures of the plane that went down over Lockerbie. In the most often seen picture, a large chunk of the front section (the pilot cabin) is lying on the ground, mostly intact.

Here's my question: The Lockerbie craft was blown apart in mid-air, fell thousands of feet and yet was pretty much identifiable after the crash.

I have never seen ANY pictures of the plane or parts thereof, that crashed into the Pentagon. I'm not saying I don't believe it was a passenger jet that impacted the building. But why wouldn't the aircraft be nearly intact, given that it was nearly at ground level when it hit? And how could an impact with a building that is -- how many? six? -- stories high cause a plane to virtually disintegrate?

I'd appreciate any comments on the comparison. Thanks.

NOTE:

I tried to paste a picture here of the Lockerbie crash site, but I couldn't get it to work. Here's the google site:

http://images.google.com/images?q=lockerbie+plane+crash+&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search

The picture I'm referring to is the third pic in the second row. Sorry, I tried to copy and paste the properties, but no luck. How do you do that?

[HFishbine]

41. Answers

1) The section of plane in your photo had obviously been seperated from the plane's fuel source (presumably by the in-air explosion) so was not subjected to fire.

2) The section of plane that fell on Lockerbie, because of its shape, would have had a high drag coefficent. Someone with a physics degree and the mass and dimensions of the Lockerbie debris could calculate it's velocity at impact for you, but...

The evidence is before you. The fact that the Lockerbie debris survived the fall from the sky is evidence that it did not meet with the same explosive force or impact velocity as the plan that hit the Pentagon.

[Must_B_Free]

42. are you suggesting that blowing apart in mid air

and crashing into a building are the same thing?

Why is noone asking where is the debris from the plane that flew into the WTC?

[Minstrel Boy]

46. "Why is no one asking..."

"Why is no one asking where is the debris from the plane that flew into the WTC?"

Maybe because, for instance, at least one engine passed through the structure and landed on a street corner several blocks away. That's pretty hard evidence.

Again, for the record, I'll say I believe it was Flight 77 which impacted the Pentagon. But I can understand the doubts, given such things as the lack of hard evidence (the engines, for instance: where did they go? why did they not penetrate the building, particularly when travelling at excessive speed?); the small, original hole; the improbable skill of Hani Hanjour; the 70 degree turn to a high-speed, level impact with the first floor of the only side under construction, and virtually empty; the testimony of air traffic controllers who said the plane's speed and maneuvers made them think they were tracking a fighter jet; and the lack of photographic record (a nearby surveillance camera was conviscated and the video not returned; only four frames of the impact from a Pentagon security camera were released).

[Abe Linkman]

48. You realize you made the case for why FL 77 DIDN'T crash there?

You made a pretty good argument against the very idea you said you support. Is that because you're a little "jumpy" about openly saying you know that the "Cavemen Did It" Conspiracy Theory makes no sense?

[Minstrel Boy]

50. Maybe so, but it's really not my case.

I'm not "jumpy" about saying it wasn't Flight 77. If I was persuaded it was a drone, I'd say it. I'm MIHOP, after all, and because the evidence made me so. Regarding the Pentagon, while I understand the appeal of the missile argument, I remain unconvinced that it's the best and only answer to the genuine questions regarding Flight 77.

John Judge is a Washington-based conspiracy researcher I respect, and I think he makes a good case for why it was Flight 77 in "Not all conspiracies are created equal" (http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/notAllCequal.html).

I like his words here:

"Until we know, we cannot act. And if we act on rumor and impulse then we are no less a slave than those who live in the denial that the propaganda machines promote. So, be cynical and question things, but be analytical and scientific so you can approach the truth when you speak. Three truths don't make a fourth just by mentioning them. All lies, in fact, depend on having elements of the truth in them for verismilitude as its called. Read, don't repeat what you last heard. And if you are going to be more than a theorist, then give conspiracy the respect it deserves, and prove it. Good hunting, and always come clean."

[Abe Linkman]

53. You failed to say what YOUR "case" is & you didn't rebut the evidence...

that a missile WAS fired into the Pentagon.

But, that's okay. Let's move along to YOUR special interest. Tell us: What exactly is YOUR "case"?

[Minstrel Boy]

54. My special interest

is in keeping attention on the big picture of 9/11, in threads like this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1836172#

I don't care so much how they did it; I know enough to know they did it. What I'm interested in is furthering awareness, and what I hope to see is succesful prosecution.

My suspicion about the flights is that control was taken from the hijackers in flight to ensure that desired targets were struck, and I also suspect explosive charges were used so America would be shocked and awed into submission. But note, these are suspicions only. I have arguments for them, but I don't argue them, and I don't know if there's much value in their speculation. I'd rather focus on that which is more available for verification.

[Abe Linkman]

55. Speaking of "that which is more available for verification"....

Who is the "they" that you are referring to? Details not only add credibility, they also help to move the discussion along so it doesn't get bogged down by having to ask for a clarification that may be obvious to some, but not to all.

[Must_B_Free]

59. Please

you are wasting everyone's time and enegry on Bullshit instead of working to defeat Bush. You are effectively acting as part of Team Bush to divert attention into fruitless areas and try to hawk a few bucks off your video.

I know Bullshit when I smell it and trying to pretend that two panes were flown into the towers, but the Pentagon was an elaborate hoax is just plain stupid.

[Abe Linkman]

63. I didn't know Hani Hanjour, but I don't think he was a flying ace. U do?

You really believe Hani Hanjour had the flying skills of a Top Gun pilot? If so, why is there no credible evidence that a B757 crashed at the Pentagon. Those who DO claim that Hani flew FL 77 into the Pentagon are in denial about the evidence which DISproves their theory. Is that what you mean by Bullshift?

[Must_B_Free]

58. Hard evidence

"Maybe because, for instance, at least one engine passed through the structure and landed on a street corner several blocks away. That's pretty hard evidence."

Notr really - we can pretentd that it was planted as fake edivence and that the footage shown on TV was all faked and that all the witnesses in NYC were all party to the conspiracy.

Why not? We can pretend anything and engineer our way around any logic that anyone presents - just buy our video and we'll show you the way...

[truth2power]

60. To try to answer your question..

"are you suggesting that blowing apart in mid air" and crashing into a building are the same thing?"

Well...that's what I was trying to figure out. I am neither a physicist nor an engineer so I am working from ignorance here. Please take that into account.

What I understand Fishbine to have said is that (paraphrasing here) the forward cabin portion of the Lockerbie plane, not having been blown to smithereens by the initial explosion, impacted the ground at a lower velocity because of its drag ratio (because of it's shape). OK, I understand.


So that means that the Pentagon impact was violent enough to cause the plane to simply vanish? Was it vaporized? Because I googled images of the Pentagon burning and all I want to know is, where is the plane? I see no plane or parts thereof in any of those pictures.

Why?

[Abe Linkman]

61. A missile opened a hole in the Pentagon for the attack jet to enter.

AA FL 77 did not crash. What DID was probably an F-16. It fired a missile into the building and followed it in.

[tngledwebb]

72. Enough damage for an F16?

A missile launched at ground level seems more likely considering damage, size of exit hole, invisible entry hole, lack of other debris. And why waste plane or pilot? Missile might be bunker-buster prototype, used for the 'exercise' to test the new wall, and even shot from a jet, but I still can't see evidence of a F16 hitting the building. BTW, interior photos of engine, wheel, etc... how does anyone know their provenance? IE, 'evidence' not actually planted, photos could haven been taken elsewhere. But planted is no problem either.

[impe]

91. Bowie Airport in Maryland

wouldn't even certify HH to fly a Cessna much less a commerical plane.

I agree that it was an F-18 that flew into the pentagon, though my take on "why" differs from any offered so far. The pilot
probably wanted to take out the top brass but wanted Americans to know who the enemy really was that day. That's why the
Administration had to create another plane scenario, because the question would beg asking, why would an officer try to attack his
own.

[MercutioATC]

95. Was the pilot acting under orders or on his own?

I'm just trying to understand the scenario.

[impe]

98. Acting on Orders

from within.

[ramblin_dave]

132. Re Pentagon attack, how many believe the only video

that captured that event was the parking lot camera? Is that really plausible? Shouldn't there have been many other cameras as part of the Pentagon's security system?

Even the parking lot camera video wasn't officially released, and it was only a few frames at that.

Now that the 9/11 commission has completed its report, is there any any further reason to deny public access to other videos?

[Abe Linkman]

135. Of course, there's further reason to deny access to other videos, dave.

What's really scary is realizing that they could probably get away it, pretty much unscathed...in my opinion. The public is so apathetic, I doubt that too much of a rukus would be made if it became public knowledge that 9/11 was an inside job.

Besides, the Gov't already has a perfectly plausible explanation: first of all, Rumsfeld said publicly that a missile struck the Pentagon. Furthermore, they'll say that the attack jet that followed the missile was flown by a heroic American who died in the service of his country (never mind that it was probably pilotless). Get the idea? I'll bet even merc and bolo could spin the truth about what REALLY happened!
You and I probably could, too.

Anyhoo -- no doubt there'd be some sacrifical lambs if the public was to learn the truth, but in the long run...no big woof.

[RH]

145. Security cameras.

are usually directed where people or motor vehicles go, not towards the sky.

And what please then is supposed to suggest a denial of access? Do you have a reply to any FOIA request to show us?

[RH]

168. Please. Save us the trouble.

The intro is old hat.

What if anything at all is thought to be in this film that we'd not already seen or heard of a year ago, if not two whole years ago?

[Abe Linkman]

171. You're referring, of course, to the way too small to be a 757 in the video

You are right about that. In fact, it's been known for more than two years going, that AA FL 77 did not crash at the Pentagon. The Gov't released evidence which proved that. Anyone who sees the video images released by the Gov't, can tell that the image in the video is way too small to be a 757.

[MercutioATC]

172. Maybe they "planted" that evidence just to confuse you, Abe...

:tinfoilhat:

[RH]

174. video?

None of the original news publications of those images ever referred to a "video", nor since did any official version.

The 'missing frames' inference is thus entirely a fabrication, with not a shred of hard evidence to substantiate it. Yes?

The original Associated Press report was quite specific:

"The photographs were not officially released by the Pentagon, but officials said the images were authentic and had been provided to law enforcement officials investigating the attack. The photographs were obtained Thursday by The Associated Press and other news organizations."

http://www.911review.org/Wget/geocities.com/s911surprise3b/

(the original Fox link is now defunct)

And this has all been pointed out to you before hasn't it Abe?

So how about, just for once, who really passed them on to Associated Press, why they've since been so quiet about it and what they got back for for it?

[Abe Linkman]

176. Those photos show a plane way too small to be a 757. You know that,

don't you, ron?

btw - Thanks for printing the quote saying Pentagon officials said the images are authentic.

Just one question: why do YOU continue to dispute the U.S. Government?
I think I know at least one reason why murky does, but I can't say so here. But YOU. Why do YOU accuse the U.S. Gov't of lying?

[RH]

177. Read the archives

When those images first appeared most of those who responded on the internet said that they show no plane at all.

So why then continue to refuse to address the issue of who really gave that material to Associated Press? With regard to their credibility that is surely the most crucial factor. Or do you seriously expect us to think that no news media image was ever enhanced to improve an effect?

My opinion is otherwise that the alleged tail fin is no such thing, not from any aircraft. The illusion is a composite effect of a tree beside the beltway and the River House apartments in the distance, which stood exactly in line in that position.

The alleged missile smoke may or may not be the B757. That would at least be the correct position for it. The alleged tail fin is too high. The beltway in the distance is elevated, about 50 feet above the level of the Pentagon lawn, distorting the impression of perspective. Given that we do not see each end of the white object I do not not know how to reliably estimate the size of it. That part of the image is unfortunately distorted by the heat haze.

It is very sad that after more than two whole years none of the loud mouths has yet managed to obtain a more authentic version, nor any authentic data to identify the original format of the images. Without better information there is no point in going on about it any further.

[impe]

200. You know alot about the locale in No Va.

Where was USA Today reporters, or any reporters for that matter? 2 highjacked planes veering for DC and there was never any live feed, ever. Unlike N.Y., where the pictures were rolling non-stop. Why no pictures from
tourists at Arlington Cemetary, why no cell phone clips from anyone in this age of reality tv from the hundreds of high rises facing the pentagon? Why is the only video from a cam parking lot? Oh yes, there is another video but unfortunately for the American people the FBI had to
quickly confiscate the morning of the "crash".

DC was on alert for about 40 mins., but no one was able to catch this on film?

[Abe Linkman]

201. Maybe there was nothing to see...OUTSIDE of the Pentagon building.

You might also ask why no one has come forward with a sound recording of the alleged "Really BIG plane crash". Surely, SOMEONE (actually, lots of people) would have had at least one of thoe digital note taker recorders that they could have used.

It's becoming more and more likely that NO planes crashed into ANY buildings on 9/11.

Truth is, thanks to Dulce Decorum's research, we know that NOT one of the alleged WTC flights or the Pentagon flight...was even scheduled for 9/11.

So, there's NO proof that FL's 11, 175, 93, or 77 ever left the ground on 9/11.

THINK maybe 9/11 was a hoax? A giant theatrical production? An inside job that included framing some OUTside Patsies (starting with the bush family's long-time business partner's "black sheep" son...Osama)?

THINK any of the above has anything to do with why there is so much spinning and disinformation being promoted here and elsewhere, all obviously for the purpose of distracting and undermining the search for the truth about what really happened on 9/11? With so much at stake, and with a bushco that lies so often few of us would believe them even if they swore they WERE lying...does anyone here (other than the sales reps for "Cavemen Did It") think bushco WOULDN'T lie about 9/11?

[impe]

202. No 757!!

While I believe the WTC's were the work of the current administration and friends, I believe the pentagon was the 5th wheel and caught them totally off-guard.

I do believe 9-11 was a military coup and take-over of our government BUT I believe the pilot that
flew his F-18 into the Pentagon did so as a strike against the evil inside after wittnessing the attacks on innocent civilians in NY.

The administration was able to use the plane story but unlike WTC story, there was no video to roll and those
that did exist had to be destroyed. How would they explain a missile hit by their own.

[MercutioATC]

203. Any specific reason it was an F-18 instead of another fighter?

[impe]

215. Parking Lot Video

shows some white turbulence around aircraft before it hits the building. This means the aircraft
was flying sonic before it hit. F-18's have that typical white turbulence cloud.

It flew in undetected and/or was possibly escorting the plane that turned around over Ohio
back to D.C. for landing at Reagan.

The passenger Plane flew over the pentagon as the F18 did his fly-over approach.

[RH]

210. OK then, wise guy, please tell.

I've been asking this question for two years now and never yet did I see a sensible answer. If there was no B757 how then would you propose to explain the demise of the five fallen lamp poles?

http://www.dragonslair.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/77/poles_.htm

[impe]

216. Sorry

I'm not trying to be a wise guy.

If this was an F-18 flying Sonic that close to the ground, on an S-turn approach, the shock waves from
the boom could explain the downed light posts and broken car windows. Not falling plane debris!!

[RH]

218. Go on then.

Explain how a shock wave destroys lamp poles while a hurricane does not. Refer us to any sort of precedent for such an event or any other meaningful evidence. Explain how a lamp pole disturbed by a shock waves comes to be sheared into two parts, as if by a flying scythe.

On several occassions I have pressed Ditch Eastman to do the same. He never came up with anything. He has insisted that no witness actually said they saw the B757 hit any lamp poles poles, which is simply not true, so in the mean time may I take their word for it?

http://www.dragonslair.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/77/pole_reports.htm

It is horribly disappointing to put a lot of work into impartially collecting the simple facts of the matter, pro bono, only to find it was not worth the trouble. With the time to use over again I wouldn't have bothered.

[impe]

221. Was there a Hurricane

at the Pentagon too? See Breakaway Light Poles. (made to fall in predictable patterns) The pictures of the 5 light poles clearly show the poles broken at their base. I didn't see the pictures of the pole(s) broken in two. Can you provide?

Can you provide evidence of a 757 hitting 5 light poles with its wings, and the fuel (plane) not exploding immediately?

[RH]

223. There was a tornado.

in the same vicity, 24 September 2001.


SEVERE WEATHER STATEMENT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON
504 PM EDT MON SEP 24 2001

TORNADO SIGHTED NEAR THE PENTAGON...

AT 502 PM A TORNADO WAS SIGHTED JUST SOUTH OF THE PENTAGON OFF
I-395. IN ADDITION DOPPLER RADAR SHOWED A TORNADO WAS INDICATED IN
THE SAME AREA MOVING NORTHEAST AT 25 MPH INTO THE DISTRICT.

RESIDENTS IN THE PATH OF THIS TORNADO SHOULD TAKE SHELTER
IMMEDIATELY!

http://www.wrel.com/torn0924.htm

[RH]

224. Broken in two

http://www.dragonslair.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/77/poles_x_5.htm

It is all there.
Follow the links!

Who ever said that the fuel did not explode immediately?

Guess what Ditch Eastman had to say about that when I proposed it as an explanation for his alleged missile smoke. Do you not realise that merely by asking this you are now at risk of being a fully fledged paid disinformational Bushco apologist?

[RH]

208. We know very well that Flight 77 was scheduled.

The flight was regular. It had been scheduled to fly every day for many years before. It is therefore absurd beyond to belief to suppose that on that one particular day it was not scheduled to fly but nobody concerned noticed the fact, nor was any notice of any cancellation ever evident to anybody.

64 passengers and the alleged hijackers all purchased tickets from a variety of reliable sources. The paper trail is verifiable. Airport staff and others involved confirm the fact. Relatives of some of those who flew saw them off from the airport. The departure time is therefore known. ATC tracked the flight from the airport. The black box from Flight 77 was discovered at the Pentagon. The subsequent autopsy positively identified all but one of the regular passengers.

[RH]

204. never?

This may come as a terrible shock to some around here, but the internet does not happen to be an omnipotent source of information intended or expected by intelligent people to cover the entire Universe.

As it happened some news reporters were near to the Pentagon to see for themselves as flight 77 went in, and they were then of course in touch with their own people quickly enough. For further details consult them. Phone recordings may exist.

There were then live feeds. From what I have gathered they appeared locally, not networked.



I have heard tell of lots of live witness interviews which appeared on local TV but not since anywhere online.

Recordings of live emergency service radio broadcasts have appeared online since the event.

Most of the witness reports came from people at work, en route to work, or at home. Evidently there were not so many tourists in the vicinity.

While there is no lack of evidence to verify the essential facts there was not apparently any attempt to alert any news organisation in advance to anything about to happen at the Pentagon, which would of course be easy enough to achieve if the event was pre planned.

Cameras were however in place on roofs nearer to the Capitol.

Because of that and several other reasons I doubt that the Pentagon itself was deliberately intended as a target by anybody. It would make no sense to sacrifice so much for such a bold stunt if nobody was actually going to see it except by chance. On that point I agree.

[Name removed]

205. Deleted message

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

[onefreespiritedchick]

191. Coast to Coast AM is Covering this NOW!

www.coasttocoastam.com

[RH]

194. Wow !!!

tedious old crap arguments long since thoroughly refuted

:wow:


Thanks a million Mr. vonKleist for wasting so much more of our time.

:cry:

We already knew that the USA is awash with gullible fools

:silly:

This site is much more promising:

http://www.mikejwilson.com/911/

:thumbsup:

[parasim]

206. Curious...

So, what is it about that site that is so promising, may I ask?

Oh, I see, it was a joke, right? Because the guy's got a link to Art Bell?

[RH]

209. Mike Wilson notices details

completely ignored by the usual fare of far off fiction, the gouge over the generator, the destroyed tree, the damage to the steam vault cement wall. His 3D quality is remarkable:

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/gen/page602.html?theme=light

[parasim]

225. Oh, so you weren't kidding...

So you seriously think that the guy's website and 3d modelling/animation explains everything? Wow...

I downloaded the 3D animation and I have to say it is one of the poorest demonstrative evidence pieces I've seen in a long time. And this is coming from someone who used to do 3D modelling for court cases for a living. (I got out of it because I was tired of lawyers trying to get me to "enhance" things to better make their case. But that's beside the point.)

Assuming the animation I downloaded is the one you are referring to, here's why I think it is not too convincing:

1) The numbers in the legend don't match up with anything in the animation. Not to mention the legend is configured in columns, yet the numbers zigzag (1's in the first column, 2 is in the 2nd, etc... makes it confusing)

2) The colored regions depicted on the Pentagon indicating minor and major damage, don't match up with the plane when it hits the building. For instance, the tip of the right wing and the tip of the tail enter the building where there is no indication.

3) There is no damage to the building shown at all. The plane just passes through the building. Now, perhaps if he used a photographic texture superimposed on the building based on the actual photographs of the site, it might have helped.

4) The modelling of the scene is okay but not exceptional. Somebody with my skill level (and I'm not really all that good) could probably reproduce it in the better part of day. However, it certainly is competent enough for a simply simulation like this.
As for the plane itself, that would take a bit longer if done from scratch, but free models of airliners (including the surface textures, logos) are readily available on the web.

5) The animation leaves something to be desired to say the least. And again does not seem to match up with the legend:

"Right engine strikes top of generator" - Where's the generator? Looks like it hits a truck to me.

"Many blast-resistant windows intact" - the animation shows all windows intact.

"Much of the plane enters the building" - the animation shows the entire plane entering the building.

"Section of building later collapses" - not in the simulation that I downloaded.

All-in-all, you'd have to be a pretty good, smooth talking lawyer to convince a jury with a demonstrative simulation like this. I mean, the animator could have just replaced the airplane with the model of a F-16, for example, not changing anything else, and been about as convincing.

Where's the explosion?
Where's the debris?
Where's a time stamp of some sort?
Where's the initial hole in the wall?
Where's the eventual collapse of the wall?
Where's the fires?
Why not show it from different angles?
Why not show the approach of the plane?

Perhaps I am missing something? Did I not download the correct file? Were there more than just the one file? (Oh, there was also the still of the scene from the security camera. that's even less convincing.)

[RH]

226. Your comments about the work

would best be delvered to the author. He should be grateful for the feedback. I said that it was much more promising, not perfect, nor does it pretend to be complete. If you know of a better animation I'd be interested to have the link. Did you ever actually try to achieve anything similar? Having attempted the same I know how time consuming it is, not at all so easy.

You comment about the F16 is unfortunate. An F16 lined to up to hit the entry hole on the second floor would not even hit the electricity generator. An F16 is simply not wide enough to achieve that, let alone to cause a 90 foot wide hole in the building.

Other issues have been answered before. It is all in the DU archive. Over the period of a year there were nine consecutive "Post your Pentagon crash QUESTIONS here!!!" threads.

[parasim]

228. in reponse...

I was just pointing out that I didn't think that the simulation you posed as "promising" was very promising at all, for the reasons that I stated. This is of course, my opinion. I wasn't expecting it to be perfect. I was under the impression that it was a simulation done by a professional. Hence, my critical remarks.

and yes, I have done something similar. As I stated in my post, I used to do 3D animated demonstrative evidence for a living. Now, I can't say that I have created simulations of aircraft flying into buildings, because I never have. The work that I did was simulating automobile accidents, people falling down stairwells, a diesel engine failure, things like that.

I would consider them similar to this from the standpoint that my job was to try to recreate a situation where there was very little evidence beyond eyewitness reports. In the case of the diesel engine simulation, all I had to go by were partial blueprints, disassembled diesel engines, parts, etc, plus I worked with a team of engineers. I created a simulation of a running engine, with cutaway views depicting the inner workings of the engine, pistons, exhaust, etc... It was quite complex. So I do understand how time consuming and difficult a project like this is. However, the simulation shown here is quite rudimentary and simplistic, not to mention confusing.

I got out of that type of work, because I had lawyers trying to get me to modify photographic evidence ("make that rust a little redder", "make that crack a little bigger", things like that) and other nefarious things to help their case, and I didn't want to do that.

As for knowing about better animations simulating the events of 9/11, I don't. I would love to see some myself.

Perhaps my comment about the F16 was unfortunate, for the reasons you stated. However, I was trying to point out that because the airliner depicted in the simulation did not match up to the "damage" indications on the building anyway, he could have used anything, because it didn't seem to matter to him (or you, for that matter) whether they matched or not.

Anyway, the whole reason for my critique in the first place was to counter your claim that the website that you were dismissing (911inplanesite) was a waste of time and you seemed to be using this simulation to disprove the allegations on that site.

And I have seen many threads here on DU that have posed many questions, but I have yet to see any convincing answers. Just as I have always thought that the Warren Commision was political tool to inhibit any real investigation into JFK's assassination, so do I think the 9/11 Commision report is being used similarly here. There's just too many unanswered questions.

[Blue Member]

214. Recent Developments:

http://www.911inplanesite.com/

Recent Developments:

http://www.rense.com/general56/lied.htm
http://letsroll911.org/
http://newswithviews.com/NWVexclusive/exclusive34.htm
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/spencer03.htm
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/spencer06.htm