Please watch...No big jet into Pentagon...what hit it then???

[revree]

http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php

[mrbassman03]

1. Yes, I had seen that posted before.

Thanks for posting it for everybody to see if they hadn't. Made me think very hard about what I thought about the attacks.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. A big jet, dammit!

This is tinfoil-hat garbage that has been repeatedly discredited. It makes DU look silly and freepy to keep bringing it up. And if a big jet didn't hit the Pentagon, where's the big jet that was, in fact, out flying around with a bunch of passengers who haven't been seen since? This is silly. Please give it up.

[mhr]

4. As A Commercial Pilot - I Would Disagree Strongly With Your Opinion!

Very few pilots in the world would be capable of flying a 757 over 500 mph at 2-10 feet off the ground - least of all student pilots that were deemed unworthy of ever being competent airmen.

The facts and story do not jibe in this case.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. I am a pilot, too.

With major airline experience and an A&P certificate. And I still want to know what happened to the airplane that allegedly didn't hit the Pentagon. Where is it? Where are the passengers and crew? This is just silly.

[mhr]

9. All Good Questions That Need To Be Addressed

Regardless, the physical evidence is what it is and it says that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon.

[RH]

17. Are you not aware

that an autopsy was conducted?

The remains of 58 passengers were positively identified.

Black box flight information was also recovered.

[demodewd]

21. claims

There is no way to verify your claims.

[karlrschneider]

43. Yep, I'm a commercial pilot (since 1963, 9000+ hours) and agree 100%

with you. It's just a bunch of tinfoil horse shit.

[demodewd]

81. Come on karlschner..

Come on karlschneider...you can do better than that. How about a little detailed analysis? Explain the 9 foot high hole into the A-E drive for starters. Come on ! I'm waiting.

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

10. This is nuts . . .

. . . I work in Washington D.C. I was at work on 9/11. A good friend of mine SAW the damned plane flying in.

Drop this stupid crap.

[Emillereid]

48. I am not taking a position of whether or not a 757 hit the Pentagon -- but

I do believe very serious questions and anomalies have arisen that should not be dismissed out of hand. BTW, I don't think the so called tin foilers have to account for the real 757 and it's passengers --- I think the people who claimed that a 757 hit the Pentagon have the accounting to do -- especially Cheney. I urge everyone to read "Crossing the Rubicon' by Mike Ruppert. If I claim that A is the cause of B and someone shows that A could not be the cause of B, that person does not have to also provide the actual cause -- it would still simple be an open question. I'd like to see a real commission take on the questions that still remain.

What I'd like to address is the eyewitness account -- when I taught psychology I used to replay an experiment wherein some incident is staged and then the eyewitnesses are asked to describe fully what they saw. I'd have a person run into the classroom and create a scene (yell and scream at me or some such thing and then leave) and then I'd ask the students to write down everything they could 'remember' about what they saw -- firstly no two descriptions were alike in every detail, no student would remember exactly what happened and more often than not, their eyewitness accounts were wildly off. When I 'd have my collaborator come back into the room and the students could then compare their descriptions with the actual, they were usually embarrassed at how 'wrong' were their memories! Furthermore, if I made 'incorrect' suggestions about what they'd seen before allowing them to write their own accounts, those suggestions would regularly appear in their 'remembered' accounts. There is a vast literature in documenting the frailty of memory and it's malleability to suggestion, etc.

[WoodrowFan]

75. Ruppert is a nut

sheesh. As for you tests, I am familar with such tests, but would any of your students miss soemthign as big as an airliner hitting a building while they watched and think it was a missile? no? thought not. bye

BTW, the remains of the passangers on Flt 77 WERE identified in the wreckage. Soi much for the burden of proof not being on the nut's head now.

[Emillereid]

84. They often got the gender wrong --

as far as missing something as big as an airliner -- I don't know. But I doubt seriously if most people could distinguish between planes at the best of times. And there were eyewitness reports that described a much smaller plane that the one claimed to have hit the pentagon.

[Emillereid]

85. Actually Ruppert is brilliant -- I'm not saying he gets everything 100%

no one does. But his stuff on 9/11 is remarkably well references -- read it before you criticize it.

[RH]

78. "dismissed out of hand"?

Are you serious?

It has all been done to death over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, in hundreds of DU threads and elsewhere.

You missed the boat. You're saying nothing was not already said and dealt with over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, in hundreds of DU threads and elsewhere.

The fact of the matter remains that not one of hundreds of people who were there to see for themselves believes that anything other than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, and having seen for themselves your psychologocal BS is not going to convince them that anything else was the cae.

Your psychiatry would be better spent on the pschychosis by which people who were not there to see hear and smell for themselves should somehow think they've got a better idea of what an eye witnesses experience really was.

[Emillereid]

86. Actually there are eyewitness reports that contradict the

official story. For instance, some insist that the plane that hit the pentagon was smaller than a 757.

[RH]

87. That's not true.

There is no such "insistance".

Not one person who was there to see for themselves is known to believe that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon.

The most frequently quoted "Patterson" version came from a Washington Post story by Barbara Vobejda who had note even spoken to the supposed witness.

[MercutioATC]

15. Nobody claims that the pilot was trying to hit that exact spot.

If I throw a ball at a wall, do I have great accuracy because I hit the wall exactly where I did? No. I was just aiming at the wall. Exactly where it hit had nothing to do with skill.

The plane was aimed at the Pentagon. It's exact flight path wasn't due to amazing piloting skills, it's just how it happened. Nobody claims that the pilot was aiming for that exact spot on the wall.

[demodewd]

22. piloting skills

You know more about piloting skills than mhr? Your positing conjecture and posing it as fact.

[MercutioATC]

25. You're misrepresenting what I posted.

I didn't argue with his claim that it would have taken great skill to pilot a plane that fast, that low.

I simply encouraged him to not look at it as a direct hit on a difficult "bullseye", but a crash that just happened to hit where it did. I believe it changes the equation.

[demodewd]

82. re: "equation"

Your "equation" contains some obvious fallacies.
1. You fail to scientifically explain the hole into the A-E drive.
2. You have no explanation for the bright flash that occurs prior to the fuel blast.
3. You have no explanation why there are no body parts on the Pentalawn when it is obvious the plane expoded very near the front of the building if not in front of it.
4. You have no explanation as to why the plane was not shot down when it entered the Pentagon's air space.
5. You have no viable scientific explanation as to the lack of smoke damage north of the alleged plane's trajectory.
6. You assume that a pilot as piss poor as Hani Hanjour would have the ability to pull off a maneuver that would be quite difficult for an ace pilot.
7. You have no feasible explanation as to the scarcity of plane debris.

[RH]

16. "The facts and story do not jibe"?

Indeed they do not.

Given that there is no evidence whatsoever to show that anybody deliberately intended to fly 2-10 feet off the ground their ability to deliberately do so is a spurious issue.

Since when would a competent pilot deliberately plan to hit five lamp poles en route?

And why would he go out of his way to dip down to hit five lamp poles when there was absolutely no need to do do?

The idea of deliberately fying 2-10 feet above the ground is not only a spurious argument; it flies perversely in the face of the evidence.

[mhr]

18. You Lost Me In Your Attempt To Defend Your Position

The supposed Pentagon video tape shows something flying 2-10 feet off the ground.

Presumably it is the 757 all of you want to believe in so desperately.

The evidence stands by itself.

If the lot of you want to continue mental masturbation, enjoy your circle jerk!

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

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

[gbwarming]

28. Why is it so hard?

All they had to do was hit the side of the building. Student pilots routinely do this kind of task during approach - pick a point on the runway and fly to it until flare. Even easier if the speed is higher (smaller crosswind and gust effect) and you don't have to control speed.

I don't beleive those hijackers could have successfully started, taxied, taken off or landed those planes - but keeping the spot from moving on the windshield is something every student learns before solo.

That's muy opinion as a long time ago student pilot. Tell me why I'm wrong.

[RH]

52. That's not what happened.

The plane did not head straight for the Pentagon. When it hit the lamp poles it had been headed for the lawn in front of Pentagon. If it had not somehow levelled off it would have hit the lawn before the building. If it had flown straight in directly towards the Pentagon it would have skimmed over the top of the lamp poles. It had to dip down to hit the poles.

[WoodrowFan]

55. looking at the building

looking at the building and driving past it I think the side the plane hit was perhaps the easist side to hit. Large parking lots, raised highways and a bus shelter made severla of the other sides a more difficult target. The side Ft 77 hit was the least obstructed.

[RH]

58. Surely not correct.

The actual trajectory took the plane with a few feet, literally, of the Navy Annex, obviously precarious, and the terrain in Arlington is elevated. The Beltway to the south of the Pentagon rises almost to the height of the Pentagon. From "tree top height" (as described by witnesses) over Arlington Village the Pentagon is not even directly visible. The spot on the windscreen idea is therefore a nonsense; it would makes no sense to head for a target out of sight over a hill.

Similarly a trajectory directly from the south would be out of the question because Pentagon City is in the way but from the north or the east, over the Potomac, there is nothing in the way, no hills, no tall buildings nearby.

[WoodrowFan]

59. I'm thinking

I'm thinking of the area right before the building. But then, I haven't been down there in awhile to see for myself. I was in Arlington National Cemetery for a funeral of one of the victims. His grave overlooks the side that was hit and it struck me at the time how open the approach was. If the pilot was uncertain and inexperienced he might have been afraid to fly over the parking lots on the other sides for fear he'd just crash into the cars. The side next to the one that was hit has a large structure at the entrance, which would have also guarded against casualties had it been hit. One side to the south-east is protected by an elevated highway. NONE of the sides are totally open but the next time I drive past I'll take a look and see which side looks the most open. (telephone poles aside :)

[RH]

63. Look at this.

It is view from the Sheraton Hotel. The B757 must have flown past "at tree top height" just to the right of the viewpoint. The smoke beyond the Navy Annex shows where the plane hit. From that height you cant see the Pentagon. It is on the low land by the River, over the brow of the hill. Maybe the plane was a bit higher than that but it still doesnt make much sense. I seriously doubt that the plane was under proper control, never mind the "expert pilot" disinformation campaign designed to fog the issue.

[WoodrowFan]

65. Is there a chart

is there a chart from eyewitnesses showing the plane's flightpath??

[RH]

69. I never saw an official chart.

But the course was described by several eye witnesses. For the last two or three miles it flew straight in, almost directly over Columbia Pike, slightly to the south of the Pike over Arlington Village and then with the port side wing just over the end of the Navy Annex.

At times I have thought that a pilot could even have hoped to crash land on the Highway or the Pentagon lawn, a crippled plane attempting to cause the least damage, not the most.

[gbwarming]

71. Here's a non-official chart based on witnesses & poles, w/ topo

FWIW. Also has a satellite photo showing Navy Annex and assumed path.

http://www.911-strike.com/quantum-path.htm


Elevation profile with approximate 757 flight path

Starting over the Sheraton and ending at the Pentagon, and noting that Lagasse estimated that the 757 passed 50 feet over the Annex, and 80 feet over the gas station, and estimating that the 1st lamp post was at least 40 feet tall, we obtain the following estimates for the aircraft altitude over sea level at various checkpoints:

0 mile mark (Sheraton) -- 320 feet

0.35 miles (Naval Annex) -- 230 feet

0.6 miles (gas station) -- 125 feet

0.75 miles (1st lamp post) -- 70 feet

0.95 miles (Pentagon hit) -- 50 feet

These estimates are consistent with an average descent rate of about 1 foot vertically for each 20 feet horizontally, except for a (possibly problematic) dip at the first lamp post, and subsequent leveling-out. At any rate it is difficult to justify the idea that the plane was low enough over Highway 27, to have clipped the antenna of a Jeep Cherokee, as Frank Probst claimed.

[WoodrowFan]

72. I'd trust that site more

I'd trust that site more if it wasn't one of the "Flt 77 didn't hit the Pentagon" crowd. Thank you though, It's a good map to help me orient. My church is just off the map to the left. And a store owner buddy along Columbia Pike saw the plane pass overhead.

[gbwarming]

76. please see RH's post 70. nt

[WoodrowFan]

77. I did

I did after I answered you. Oops. thank you though, I appreciate you looking for a map.

[RH]

79. It is wrong.

The pink line shown passes straight through the Sheraton Hotel and to the north of the felled poles on the Washington Boulevard overpass.
That is not where it was seen.

It is correct though to note that the plane had to dive down before levelling off over the Pentagon lawn in order to hit the lamp poles. I made the same point.

Better maps, including contour maps, are available online from the Arlington County Mapping Facility.

http://magellan.co.arlington.va.us/scripts/esrimap.dll?name=REAmaps&Cmd=ZoomIn&CB1=0&Left=11891655.1041187&Bottom=7002174.88826106&Right=11894163.3533633&Top=7004683.13750569&ScaleBox=&CB2=0&CB3=0&PV=&L23=ON&CB4=0&RPCnum=&click.x=193&click.y=186'

[gbwarming]

62. ok, but not inconsistant with what I said

I'm not arguing that they flew a perfectly uniform slope, just that tracking an aiming point (like a runway threshold) is a fundamental skill.

[RH]

64. See posting #63

I doubt that the aiming point was visible!

[gbwarming]

66. yeah, maybe not

I'm a little skeptical of altitude estimates by onlookers. Treetop height could easily mean an airplane length I would imagine - and that might make a big difference in view.

You've seen this with the topo?
http://www.911-strike.com/quantum-path.htm

[RH]

70. That's wrong.

The purple lamp pole path shows the the center of the trajectory too far to the south. The purple line passes by the first pole to be hit, which must have been hit by a wing, not by the fuselage because another pole by the end of the road sign gantry was still stood up.

It is so sad to see such a lot of sloppy nonsense continually regurgitated. These people think they're clever but they're not really trying.

Please also note that "Dick Eastman" was definitely not the source of the photo from the Navy Annex roof. They could at least have credited the photographer the image was originally stolen from.

[gbwarming]

73. Damn

I just posted this site again above, thought maybe nobody saw it here. Is there a better plot available?

How About the orange line on this one? It was posted here but the thread degenerated almost instantly.
http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33

I hope the Kerry administration releases the FDR and radar plots. Bushco has probably ruined any chance of convicting anyone in a court with their torture camps. Might as well let us see the data.

[RH]

80. That's better.

The orange line is about right. A line drawn straight from the impact point to the nearest corner of the Navy Annex passes mid way between the five lamp poles, which fits with the most detailed descriptions provided by witnesses, i.e. in line with the edge of the Annex by Columbia Pike.

You have to be careful with the satelite views because the shots are not maps, just photos taken from an angle, not even from directly overhead. This makes a difference because the overpass was considerably above the level of the impact point.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

5. aaaaaashaddup...you silly wabbit

:7

[ElsewheresDaughter]

3. a laser guided missile went through all 4 rings at ground level

:tinfoilhat:

[goclark]

7. I've seen a discussion about this at DU

Do a search.
I found it an interesting video link but I no nothing about planes.
The people in the thread did however.

Good luck.

[OctOct1]

8. See this

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/

This is a show airing in Canada.
Click on Speculation

[On the Road]

11. An Airplane of Some Kind Definitely Hit the Pentagon

First, there is a video clip. Second, the light poles that were hit on the way in to the Pentagon show that the plane had a wingspan of at least 100 feet. This pretty much rules out the missle hypothesis.

The video clip, however, appears to show a smaller plane. This is the one piece of evidence it's difficult for me to deal with.

[FloridaPat]

12. No parts of plane was found but enough human remans were found

to determine that no Arabs were on board. I never figured out how that could happen.

[MercutioATC]

14. Plane parts WERE found! That's the danger of trash like this video...

...they lie. Plane parts were found and eyewitnesses saw a large commercial airliner. The video conveniently lies about this to make its point.

[mhr]

35. You Mean The Bits And Pieces That No One Can Look At To Verify

their source.

How convenient!

[MercutioATC]

37. No, I mean the wheel, the gear strut, the oxygen bottle and the large

(comparatively) piece of fuselage on the lawn.

[mhr]

38. Oh, You Mean The Wheel and Gear Strut That Don't Match A 757

Sounds like planted evidence to me.

[MercutioATC]

41. They don't match a 757? How so?

You have evidence that the rest of us don't?

[mhr]

45. Over The Last Three Years There Have Been Several Discourses

On how the supposed airplane parts do not match known 757 airplane parts.

Your telling me so won't change my opinion.

The only thing that will change my mind, short of personal inspection, is "blue ribbon" independent commission with findings of fact.

[MercutioATC]

46. Yes, there have.

None of them have convinced me in the least.

If they weren't from a 757, what WERE they from?

[RH]

20. Dont fall for that crap.

Remains of suspects were not positively identified (i.e. not definitely matched to samples supplied by regular passengers relatives) but they were found and kept.

[John Doe II]

26. DNA

RH, I had posted everything about the possiility to positively identify the hijackers of Flight 77 and 93 (Thread: What really happened to the WTC, 63). So, why weren't they?
And: Did one have to leave samples of fingerprints in the US before 9/11 in order to get a visa or security card etc?

[RH]

53. DNA?

It was not so easy.

One third, approximately of all the body remains were not identified by DNA. They could only be identified from dental records or other medical records.

[John Doe II]

54. HIjackers

I'm talking about the hijackers. Have a look at the other thread please. What do you think. Why weren't the hijackers positively defined by their DNA.
Moreover: Did one need fingerprints for visa and other papers in the US before 9/11. Could you help me out please?

[RH]

56. Maybe the hijackers

were among the third of those who could not be positive identified by DNA. Their remains were found in the vicinity where the building collapsed and the fire was fierce, the inferred identification being achieved by elimination.

I have never seen a detailed report but there would presumably be one prepared for official purposes. If you want to know send a FOIA request to the Armed Forces Institute of Patholgy, Washington DC.

DNA identification is achieved by matching with supplied samples that in turn have to be positively identified as belonging to a particular individual. The remains of two hijack suspects in New York were matched to samples supplied by the FBI.

I dont know about fingerprints and visas.

[John Doe II]

57. Hijackers could have been identified

According to my list of articles the hijackers of Flight 77 and 93 could have been identified.

"What some experts have called
'the most comprehensive forensic investigation in U.S. history' ended Nov. 16 with
the identification of 184 of the 189 who died in the terrorist attack on the Pentagon."
(c)

"The AFIP <...> provided positive DNA identifications on all 40 Pennsylvania victims,
and developed genetic profiles of the terrorists
that could not be matched to any of the other victims."



"The remains of the five hijackers have been identified
through a process of exclusion,
as they did not match DNA samples contributed by family members of all 183 victims who died at the site."



"Investigators segregated remains which yielded DNA samples
that did not match DNA profiles of the 40 passengers and crew. Those,
by process of elimination, are the hijackers, and their remains are being grouped by common DNA.
The air pirates have been identified as Ziad Jarrah, Ahmed Al Haznawi, Saeed Al Ghamdi and Ahmed Al Nami -
but not so positively identified
that officials will list the names in official records.
'The death certificates will list each as
'John Doe,''
Miller said."



BUT THE FBI HAD DNA SAMPLES.
HERE YOU GO:


In Atta's rental car
"an FBI forensic team had collected fingerprints, hair and food samples, fibers and a tissue."
(Portland Press Herald, 14.10.01)

"About a dozen agents were seen carrying garbage bags out of the residence where Saeed Alghamdi was believed to have lived."
(CNN, 17.09.01)

Ziad Jarrah and Ahmed Alhaznawi's apartment, Marwan Alshehhi's rental car, Nawaf Alhazmi's cars and Marwan Alshehhi's hotel room were searched as well.
(Miami Herald, 15.09.01) (Syndey Morning Herald, 15.09.01) (Arizona Daily Star, 28.09.01) (Ashcroft, press conference, 28.09.01) (FBI, Letter of hijacker) (Department of State, 28.09.01]
Even "cigarette found near the car will be tested for DNA, the aide said."
(Los Angeles Times, 13.09.01)

The family of Ziad Jarrah declared: "We are ready to cooperate with the authorities. "
(Independent, 16.09.01)


BUT NONETHELESS:

“Genetic profiles of five people from the Pentagon crash scene and
four from the scene in Somerset County, Pennsylvania,
that did not match any of the passengers' profiles
have been handed over to the FBI, said a spokesman for the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology.
The FBI has not given the institute any DNA to match up in those crashes, said the spokesman. ”
(CNN, 2/27/03)

[RH]

60. How do you work that out?

If the FBI was unable to supply the institute any DNA to match up how would it happen?

I dont see that a failure to match DNA samples implies that the DNA information was sufficent to match to anything at all. Logically that does not follow.

[John Doe II]

61. FBI and DNA

The FBI searched the appartements of at least three hijackers and Jarrah's family offered to help out. Knowing that a hair or a used toothbrush normally is sufficient for the DNA analysis I can't help but noticing that the FBI didn't supply DNA amples although they did have them.

[RH]

67. No, it is not quite sufficient.

That's the whole point. If you happen to get a match that will possibly establish that the same person was in two different places but you would have yet to establish who the same person was. Anybody could have used a hair brush. To achieve a positive identification the provenace of the supplied sample has to be certain.

The process is also expensive. Because every unidentified victim sample has to be tested against every supplied test sample it is not practical to try thousands of tentative samples in the vague hope of a match.

[John Doe II]

68. I don't think money counts

I don't think monoey counts to identify mass murderers.
I agree that a DNA in that case might not be hundred percent sure. But nonetheless it should have been no problem to get samples ou of the different appartements, hotel rooms and cars. But the whole point is the FBI didn't give the institute anything at all.
Did you ever, ever, witness a trial where the court didn't bother to identify the murderer?

[RH]

74. There have of course

been thousands of trials where murderers were identified circumstantially and not because of DNA evidence. I have also heard of cases where the accuracy of DNA evidence was contested. The method is relatively recent.

There were some good articles around about the body part analysis in professional journals. I am inclined to trust the autopsy because a lot of different agencies were involved. It was not just an FBI or a military job. I picked up the bit about the dental contribution from a dental association website some time ago.

It is not just about money. If you want to turn a routinely small scale laboratory procedure into a mass production line you then have to train the people to do it, and that wont happen overnight.

[John Doe II]

83. So you agree

First to say: On the thread concerning the WTC you stated that FBI had analysed the DNA of the hijackers but it didn't matach. So I think you agree that it wasn't the case.
Sure circumstancely identified.
But some will say now: Neither the flight manifest, nor boarding cards were publicly released. No video footage (Hanji's video released three years later shows no proofs at all that's him). So without all this DNA analysis should be important. Moreover of all passengers (only one didn't match) the analysis was done buut not for the hijackers!!
I think it come down to the very simple statement:
The FBI could have made a DNA analysis but they obviously didn't give a f**k.
I propose if you disagree then maybe we should open a thread on this topic.

[RH]

88. Of course the analysis was done for the hijackers.

You would otherwise have to explain how, without knowing which body parts belonged to hijackers, there would be any way to exclude the body parts of hijackers from the analysis.

Why is the point so difficult for you to grasp?

:shrug:

[John Doe II]

89. Why is the point so difficult to grasp?

The FBI had DNA samples of the hijackers and didn't pass them in order the hijackers could be identified positively. Do you find this norml?

[RH]

90. The FBI had DNA samples?

According to what did the FBI have samples? Who said that? What I heard was that no relative of any suspect ever supplied a sample.

And if they were not matched how does anybody know who they belonged to? How would any sample be positively identifiable?

Never having seen anything to such an effect before, I surmise that this is yet another outright fiction.

[John Doe II]

91. Maybe I miss a point here

Maybe I miss a point here but the FBI had samples. See 57.

[RH]

93. The point is as was made before.

A positive idendification may only be achieved if and when a sample to match to is positively identified to begin with.

I see nothing in 57 to show that this was the case with regard to Majed Moqed, Ahmed Alghamdi, Nawaf al-Hazmi, Hani Hanjour or the two Al-Hamzis.

[John Doe II]

94. So you agree to two. Here are another two.

Your reply implies:
the possibility for Ziad Jarrah and Saeed Al Ghamdi.
According to the following quote DNA samples could AT LEAST have been tried to match for Ahmed Alhaznawi and Nawaf Alhazmi.
For the other five hijackers I have no source proving that samples could have been taken. But for four I do have. So lets reduce the question: Why not at least try for the four hijackers to mach the DNA samples?


"About a dozen agents were seen carrying garbage bags out of the residence where Saeed Alghamdi was believed to have lived."
(CNN, 17.09.01)

Ziad Jarrah and Ahmed Alhaznawi's apartment, Marwan Alshehhi's rental car, Nawaf Alhazmi's cars and Marwan Alshehhi's hotel room were searched as well.
(Miami Herald, 15.09.01) (Syndey Morning Herald, 15.09.01) (Arizona Daily Star, 28.09.01) (Ashcroft, press conference, 28.09.01) (FBI, Letter of hijacker) (Department of State, 28.09.01]
Even "cigarette found near the car will be tested for DNA, the aide said."
(Los Angeles Times, 13.09.01)

The family of Ziad Jarrah declared: "We are ready to cooperate with the authorities. "
(Independent, 16.09.01)

[RH]

95. The FBI wouldn't be looking

for reasons not to to do anything. They'd be working according to priorities, and presumably with the prime purpose of apprehending any suspect still alive. Their prioroity was not to appease anybody on the Internet. Their context was absolutely one where nobody doubted the basis facts of the matter; Flight 77 hit the Pentagon and the suspects were aboard.

If the FBI was then already sure of the connection between who was on the plane and where they were previously seen, the pertinent question is why try to match the DNA samples? What practical purpose would it serve? It would do nothing to positively identify anybody. DNA traces in rented cars or hotels could have been left by any one of dozens of people.

"cigarette found near the car will be tested for DNA" presumably means that in the first instance it was examined to see if any usable trace of DNA was recoverable. Do you have the result of that examination?

If you can show some hard evidence of an instruction not pass on DNA evidence, no doubt you'll get an audience. In the mean time I see nothing much more than idle speculation and conjecture.

[John Doe II]

113. Another thread

As I'd like to continue this discussion and in the hope that it might be interesting for others as well I just opened another thread.

[RH]

101. It took me a couple of months,

and most of my time for those two months, to gather all the online eye witness reports and to assemble the lamp pole photos. I took the trouble because at the time there was nothing of the kind available, thinking to save others the time and trouble of doing the same. Having done so I never urged to do anything other than to respect the experience of the people who were there to know what happened. My entire effort was performed pro bono, with never a penny returned from anybody and scarcely any encouragement to be seen anywhere along the line.

I have now completely withdrawn the pages from the site, and I feel a lot better to have done so. The owner of the site wants to use the space and I've got better things to do for myself and family.

Why bother? Just to take shit from deliberately irritating psychotic infantile idiots with nothing better to do? If they prefer to waste their time on ignorantly indulgent sensationalist fantasies that's fine by me. It will serve them all right to be so foolish.

[John Doe II]

102. Is it possible

Sorry, RH, is it possible you wanted to answer a differen post? I don't see any connection to my statement so I assume you misplaced it accidently. If that's the case then post it again. If I'm mistaken then please explain me the connection to my post.

[RH]

104. Yes. Sorry,

Confusion of reply forms.

Should have replied to #100.

I've got a headache. Must try to get on with something else.

Repetition sends the brain to sleep.

[MercutioATC]

13. AGAIN?!?!?!! Haven't we seen enough of this flash video?

This damn thing gets posted every week or so. It hasn't changed and neither have the arguments against it.

It's well-produced hype - nothing more. If you're looking for facts, try the ASCE report.

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

[mhr]

19. Why Would I Or Anyone Else Believe Officially Sanctioned Lies

eom

[TrogL]

23. Why do you cling so desperately to your delusions?

Is there any evidence whatsover that would change your mind?

I thought not.

[mhr]

30. Yes, Wings, Tails, Engines, Broken Windows, Scarred Lawn, etc.

In this case, none of it exists for public examination.

Imagine that, Bush and his cronies covered their tracks.

[MercutioATC]

24. By all means, question the "official story"...that's a good thing.

This video, however, is tripe.

[mhr]

27. Your Opinion, Nothing More!

eom

[MercutioATC]

31. Well, that and the verifiable lies it contains...

So you're right. It's my opinion that a video that intentionally misrepresents data to make a point is tripe.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

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

[MercutioATC]

36. Triper? What the hell's a triper? Beyond that, here are the lies it tells:

1) It lists 8:38 as the crash time, not 9:38.

2) It shows the few reports that make reference to a missile without mentioning that the overwhelming majority of the eyewitnesses reported seeing a large commercial plane.

3) It fails to mention that the mysteriously "intact windows" were designed to be blastproof, are over an inch and a half thick, and weigh over 440 pounds each.

4) It says that no aircraft parts were found. That's patently untrue.

5) It asks about the fire from the fuel and shows a "suspiciously" unburned book in the collapsed section of the outer wall. Since the wall collapsed AFTER the fire and the collapse exposed parts of the building that hadn't been exposed to the fire, this is a misrepresentation.

It also fails to mention the debris strewn all over the highway as reported by numerous witnesses, the light poles that were hit by the plane, or the DNA recovered.

That's all "verifiable".

[mhr]

39. Hmm, Mr. Facts, How Do You Explain The Immaculate Golf Lawn

How do you also explain that great big old plane all fitting through that little tiny hole.

Don't send me back to the report because that is official spin.

Seems the laws of physics were somehow violated that morning.

[MercutioATC]

42. Well, the plane didn't hit the lawn...it hit the building.

You know, the building with the big hole in it...


It was NOT a "tiny hole". I'm sorry that you think a report written by civilian civil engineers and published by a well-respected trade organization is nothing more than "official spin", but they WERE the ones who had access to the site. Which would you trust more, eyewitnesses to damage or somebody working from a few photos?

[mhr]

44. Well You Have Not Convinced Me. Kind Of Like How Bush Has Not

Convinced me about the war in Iraq.

[MercutioATC]

47. You're drawing an illogical parallel.

Bush hasn't convinced me about the war in Iraq either. That doesn't mean that scores of eyewitnesses, FAA data, physical evidence and the conclusions of a team of civilian civil engineers are wrong.

By the way, for whom do you fly?

[impe]

40. Most Certainly

Does ASCE have a FLASH?

[vincent_vega_lives]

29. Three years and still going strong...

Simply unbelievable.

Then again some people still think we never set foot on the moon.

[mhr]

32. Yes And Some People Are Still Freepers Despite Knowing Bush

is a fool.

What's your point?

[MercutioATC]

33. Hey, that moon landing was complete BS!

I saw "Capricorn One". I'm informed.

[DulceDecorum]

107. We like tha moon

http://www.rathergood.com/moon_song/

[MercutioATC]

109. Finally! A link that I think is valuable!

I love the spongmonkeys.

[DulceDecorum]

49. WHAT JOY

to see the Offal Story
falling
a la Humpty Dumpty.

[WoodrowFan]

50. it wasn't the brains of those who believe this video

it wasn't the brains of those who believe this video, that'd only make a BB-sized dent.

[DulceDecorum]

92. A fellow DU poster

has this on his sig line.

Brackets contain the President's brain, highly magnified: <.>

The collective brains of the Bushbot Dittoheads
have left no impression whatsoever
on anyone
who has had one good look at that flash,
which contains but a few of the photographs
of the
Amazing Penta-lawn 2000.
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/pentalawn.html

People, for months, we have heard people on this board claim
that the war in Iraq was just and justified.
Now we see their leaders publicly admit to being lying psychopaths.

For months, we have been hearing most of those self-same people on this board
insisting that September 11 was not cooked up by their lying psychopathic leaders.

George W. Bush : There's an old saying in Tennessee. I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee, that says: "Fool me once..."
George W. Bush :
George W. Bush : "... shame on...".
George W. Bush :
George W. Bush : "Shame on you..."
George W. Bush :
George W. Bush : "If fooled, you can't get fooled again."
Narrator : For once, we agreed.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0361596/quotes

[MercutioATC]

96. You keep calling it "The Amazing Pentalawn"...

Why would it be damaged if the plane didn't hit it?

That's another dishonest method the video uses. We can all see that the lawn wasn't hit by the plane. So what? Making an issue of the condition of the lawn is a distraction meant to provide support for the premise without any evidence (or reason).

[DulceDecorum]

97. The Amazing Penta-floor

Initially, the concrete portion of the project was to be more time consuming. The heat from the airplane severely burned and dented much of the concrete, and the original plans were to tear up the entire floor and start over. When Paul Scheidmantel, Ardex Sales Representative, saw the site, he made the recommendation that contractors use K-15 instead, saving the Pentagon both time and money. ARDEX K-15 technology fills in all of the gouges and cracks and uneven surfaces to produce an even, level floor that is ready just hours after installation.
<snip>
Faccina Construction, the general constructor for concrete repairs, made using K-15 a requirement in the bidding process. Ardex pioneered the technology, and enjoys an unmatched performance track record in the construction world. Lew Rea, Ardex Sales Manager, said that this project is one of the highlights of Ardex's extraordinary history. "The job had to be done fast, it had to be done perfect, and it had to be permanent...and it had to be ARDEX K-15," he said. "We have the track record of providing that. This project really confirms our position in the industry," he said. The finished product is 35,000 square feet of American pride.
http://www.ardex.com/main-news-020718.htm

ARDEX first brought self-leveling technology to the United States in 1978. The North American operations of ARDEX are headquartered in Aliquippa near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
ARDEX products have long been recognized as the standard by which all flooring preparation materials are judged. ARDEX K-15 Self-leveling Underlayment was introduced over 20 years ago and is still the market leader, despite numerous competitors. Flooring professionals and architects praise K-15 for its unparalleled performance and have learned to rely on it to get the job done right.
http://www.ardex.com/main-aboutus.htm

The key to success when installing ARDEX products is to achieve a good bond between the substrate and the underlayment or topping. Proper preparation of the surface is the most important factor in achieving this bond.
Whatever topping or underlayment is used to level, smooth or repair a substrate’s surface, it will only be as strong as the surface to which it is bonded. The surface, therefore, must be sound, clean and free of oil, grease, wax, dirt, asphalt, curing compounds, latex and gypsum compounds, dust, paint, or any contaminant which might act as a bond breaker.
http://www.ardex.com/main-guidelines.htm

Product Capabilities:
For use over concrete, metal, terrazzo, ceramic tile, wood and old flooring adhesive residue (including cutback), on above or below grade.
Pourable or pumpable. Installs from featheredge to 1 1/2" in one operation; UP TO 5" WITH ADDITION OF PROPER AGGREGATE. Designed specifically for fast leveling of floors, ARDEX K-15 provides a durable, flat and smooth floor surface with minimum labor and installation time.
http://www.ardex.com/prod-k15-bro.htm

A. Installation of ARDEX K-15 must be by an applicator using mixing equipment and tools approved by the manufacturer.
B. Underlayment shall be able to be installed from 1/8" to 1 ½" in one pour and up to 5" with the addition of aggregate. It may also be feathered to match existing elevations.
C. Underlayment to be applied to a minimum thickness of 1/8" over highest point in the subfloor, with an average typical thickness of ¼".
http://www.ardex.com/prod-k15-spec.htm

MercutioATC,
the manufacturer says that
ARDEX-15 should be
"applied to a minimum thickness of 1/8" over highest point in the subfloor, with an average typical thickness of ¼"."
MercutioATC,
the manufacturer says that
ARDEX K-15 is good for
"UP TO 5" WITH ADDITION OF PROPER AGGREGATE."
MercutioATC,
the manufacturer says that
ARD EX K-15 will only be as strong as the surface to which it is bonded,
and so,
"the surface, therefore, must be sound, clean and free of oil, grease, wax, dirt, asphalt, curing compounds, latex and gypsum compounds, dust, paint, or any contaminant which might act as a bond breaker."
MercutioATC,
"The heat from the airplane severely burned and dented much of the concrete, and the original plans were to tear up the entire floor and start over. When Paul Scheidmantel, Ardex Sales Representative, saw the site, he made the recommendation that contractors use K-15 instead, saving the Pentagon both time and money."

So that means that the Amazing Penta-floor
was sound,
clean,
and did not have any gouges deeper than FIVE INCHES,
else they would have torn it up,
and started over.

MercutioATC asks:
Why would it be damaged if the plane didn't hit it?

[MercutioATC]

105. So we've moved away from the lawn and are now discussing the floor?

After cleaning, the floor of the Pentagon was probably clean.

I don't have specifics on the thickness of the first-floor concrete at the Pentagon, but I see no reason to believe that it wouldn't be sound.

Any gouges deeper than five inches could have been easily patched and K-15 applied over the patches (and the rest of the floor).

Hardly "amazing".

[DulceDecorum]

106. I would rather have that well-behaved Boeing

come over to my house,
than the neighbour's kids.

I guess it would be too much to ask you to explain
HOW
the Penta-columns were so badly damaged
and yet the floor was virtually intact.

[MercutioATC]

108. Who said the floor was "virtually intact"?

:shrug:

[RH]

110. The impetus

was horizontal.

[DulceDecorum]

111. So was the lawn

and the floor
before and AFTER the alleged Boeing hit.

[MercutioATC]

114. Yes, well, that makes sense...what don't you understand?

The floor was horizontal. The plane slid along it. Had it been vertical, it would have looked like the wall (actually, had it been vertical, it WOULD have been the wall).

[tngledwebb]

98. And those who can't help seeing a Boeing

where none exists, and those that see 90 foot wide holes in 18 feet of damaged wall, and those that trust the current admin to tell us the truth in BS riddled Official reports, and those that have no further questions for the Neo-Cons re 9/11, after Coup 2000 and four years of Fascist rule and illegal foreign wars, and the soi dis-ant 'fans of Woodrow' who would love to see to sledgehammers to the heads of fellow DUers, may one ask what size dent their brains would make? Bigger or smaller than Shrubs?

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

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

[TheKingfish]

112. ya

So 2 planes didn't hit the WTC then?