Question to Those Who Think Flight 77 did not Impact the Pentagon

[BlueDog2u]

I'm not going to throw up the usual objection of where the missing passengers are. In theory they could be anywhere, so this objection, although pertinent, is not decisive. But it is also my understanding that the forensic evidence from the scene has positively identified the remains of most if not all of the persons allegedly on board that aircraft.

If this is so -- and please feel free to correct me if it is not -- then doesn't that simply seal the case? From what I can tell, the other physical evidence is quite ambiguous and on both sides depends on all sorts of common sense assumptions about the physics of a crash of this nature which are themselves somewhat open to question.

What I mean by this is that it seems that all of the supposedly anomolous physical evidence, from the size and dimensions of the bore hole in the wall to the supposed absence of 757 remains and just about everything else, has been answered by the orthodoxists (wings sheer off, the body of the plane acts like a molten missile, and *does* leave visible, documented fragments both in and outside of the building). I'm not saying that I am completely convinced by these answers, because frankly I don't have a clear understanding of much of the physics (I'm learning as I read on both sides). I'm open to the fact that maybe things are not what they seemed to be.

But then when I come to this forensic evidence, I have to say, if that is real then the case is closed. So, how do those on this board who are holding onto a "missile hit the Pentagon" theory accomodate this forensic evidence?

I apologize if this question has already been asked and answered. To me it seems like the linchpin in any argument that we should -- if we can -- put this particular CT to bed and pay attention to more important matters.

[mr_hat]

1. All they found was DNA. In addition to high explosive,

the missile that hit the Pentagon was laden with QTips containing the mouth swabbings of the misfortunate passengers of Flight 77.

What's unclear is when said swabbings were obtained.

[BlueDog2u]

4. Thanks for the answer

Here is what I found using google:


http://w4.pica.army.mil/voice2001/011207/Forensicid.htm

"pieces of tissue"

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/evidence/afip_pentvictimid.htm

Forensic dentistry experts then performed dental charting and comparison with existing dental records. Full-body radiographs followed to document skeletal fractures and assist in identification, followed by autopsy inspection. At autopsy, forensic pathologists determined the cause of death, and a forensic anthropologist determined race, sex and stature of victims when necessary.

Apparently, at least parts of some skeletons, including jaws with teeth, survived.

http://www.afip.org/Departments/legalmed/legmed2002/kelly.htm

Reports on Operation Noble Eagle, the Pentagon's name for the forensic investigation.

I'm sorry, but this seems like more than a few microns of DNA which someone took out of a test tube and scattered over the charred up floor of the Pentagon. It sounds pretty unfakable to me.

[mr_hat]

5. Baby teeth and assorted plastic surgery left-overs.

Planted ahead of time and nicely toasted in the fire.

[BlueDog2u]

7. the missile that hit the Pentagon

was laden with QTips containing the mouth swabbings of the misfortunate passengers of Flight 77.


Sure. And they threw in the teeth just to make it look real, right? And Rummie himself must have hauled the American Airlines aluminum skin piece onto the lawn just in time for the photo-ops? I get it, finally!:silly:

[DulceDecorum]

94. He did not haul it out in time.

..... an inquiry found Rumsfeld has a piece of the airplane that flew into the Pentagon inside his office.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114355,00.html

[MercutioATC]

106. A piece of the airplane? Not a missile?

Hmmmm....

[Sweet Pea]

140. LOL Mercutio....

Perhaps we're finally convincing them!

[MercutioATC]

141. One step forward...

...two steps back...

Just wait, you'll see...

[DulceDecorum]

143. for Hani Hanjour

Q: How could terrorists fly these? Were they trained?
A:Whoever flew at least three of the death planes seemed very skilled. Investigators are impressed that they were schooled enough to turn off flight transponders -- which provide tower control with flight ID, altitude and location. Investigators are particularly impressed with the pilot who slammed into the Pentagon and, just before impact, performed a tightly banked 270-degree turn at low altitude with almost military precision.
http://www.detnews.com/2001/nation/0109/13/a03-293072.htm

Not bad,
not bad at all,
for someone who never got on the plane.

[Sweet Pea]

151. Of course...

They never got on the plane. The aircraft never were hijacked. They never crashed. It never did happen. Stolen or bogus passports with someone else's name or an alias on them were never used or, perhaps, the possibility that the names WERE REAL and were shared by others in the Mideast is apparently...ummm.......not possible.

There is a DB Cooper who lives in New Jersey, so the hijacking and subsequent parachuting out of the Northwest Orient Flight 305 must not have EVER HAPPENED, since DB Cooper is still alive. Interviewed at his home in Jersey City, Cooper stated "Don't know what they're talking about! I'm alive and never did hijack that plane!" (an Onion moment there)

http://phone.people.yahoo.com/py/psPhoneSearch.py?srch=bas&D=1&FirstName=D&LastName=Cooper&City=&State=&Search=Yahoo%21+Search


And could you define "military precision", please, since you choose to quote that term? I'm just curious if you have a definition of the standards that make up "military precision". Is it within g-limits? a constant-rate turn not to exceed 15-degrees angle of bank? never have a descent rate in feet-per-minute that is higher than your current altitude (the minute-to-live law)?

[WoodrowFan]

152. "military precision",

"military precision" in this case means the equivalent of hitting the broadside of a barn with a basketball from 10 feet away.

[DulceDecorum]

159. and flying

merely consists of throwing oneself at the ground
and missing.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

2. Please

I saw the plane hit. I live ten minutes from the Pentagon, and I was on I-395 N, which goes right past it. That morning, I was on my way into DC, and we all saw the plane hit.

No one who has any familiarity with the area could ever give that sort of "theory" any credibility.

"Remains"? Ever see what jet fuel can do?

Put it to bed and go on to sane things that matter.

[whistle]

3. Uhmm, have you and these other eye witnesses given...

...testimony on the record as to what you have claimed here? If so, can you furnish that testimony or offer the rest of us a link where we may find the eye witness testimony? Appreciate the comment, now back it up with proof please.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[MercutioATC]

49. We really need a "tip of the hat" smilie...

:thumbsup:

Until then, this'll have to do...

[BlueDog2u]

6. Thanks for weighing in.

My point -- and I'm sorry if its a gruesome point -- is that no matter how badly damaged the bodies were, the forensic evidence proved that they were there. Modern science allows identification of individuals using only teeth, DNA, and skeletal remains.

This is not to discount the value of your eyewitness testimony. In fact, the point of my argument is precisely to try to lay to rest, if it is at all possible, what seems to me to be a diversion from rational investigation of IHOP.

But the point of my post was really to ask those who are still skeptical of the orthodox view that 77 landed in the Pentagon to speak up for themselves and explain how they can rationalize their beliefs when confronted by the forensic evidence.

[Abe Linkman]

11. Your conclusion is based on unproven premises.

"no matter how badly damaged the bodies were, the forensic evidence proved that they were there."

First of all, forensic evidence is only forsenic evidence. The issue would be where did it come from, how did it get there, WHOSE is it etc..

No one disputes that people died at the Pentagon. The fact that forensic evidence was found there doesn't prove anything other than just that.

IF FL 77 HAD crashed at the Pentagon, the Gov't would have released proof of THAT. They haven't, and the evidence you would expect to find IF a B757 had crashed there isn't there. The totality of the available evidence does NOT support the theory that a B757 crashed at the Pentagon.

One of the FIRST and MAIN lies that most Official Conspiracy Theorists have backed off from are the alleged calls from FL 77 by Barbara Olson to her husband (sic) Ted. Most people now accept that those calls never happened. So, THAT lie about a CRUCIAL point suggests that the Gov't will lie about what really happened.

If FL 77 had crashed, the world would have seen videotape proof of it a very long time ago. We still might one day see an alleged videotape of what happened, but its authenticity will have to be proven before serious people accept it as being truthful, and not like one of those faked Osama videos.

[MercutioATC]

13. I was wondering how long it would take....

BlueDog asks a question that I've been trying to get you to answer for a while and you comment on everything EXCEPT the question.

:eyes:


Just stop for a moment and realize how many pieces of "planted" evidence have to exist to make your scenario even remotely plausible.

Forget light poles...you're claiming that dozens of eyewitnesses were wrong, that 757 parts were planted, that DNA recovery was faked, that the ONLY evaluation conducted by specialists who actually examined the site was "propaganda", ad nauseum...

But you can't account for the fact that nobody saw an F-16 or a missile, that no F-16 or missile parts were found, or that the physical damage to the Pentagon (and the light poles) doesn't support a scenario involving an F-16 or a missile.

Of course, all of us who see these gaping holes in your argument are "PR flacks" and "disinformation agents"...

:tinfoilhat:

[AZCat]

15. He's just employing the "Truth Suppression Techniques"

In Abe's post (#11) I spot Technique #19! (can I get a no-prize?)

Truth Suppression Techniques
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

You know, I think these can be applied to just about any statement. What fun!

[MercutioATC]

17. I've been meaning to bring that up again...

Thanks, AZCat.

:hi:

[AZCat]

20. No problem

I've been growing frustrated with the repetition of this here, and thought that a little reciprocation might help quell it's use.

:hi:

[BlueDog2u]

24. The beauty of principles is that they cut both ways....

That is why all intelligent discussion, especially on matters about which the discussants feel passionate, needs to be guided by principles. I agree that the principle seems to fit the foot in this instance.

[AZCat]

25. I'm not quite sure what you mean

by "the principle seems to fit the foot in this instance."

:shrug:

[BlueDog2u]

38. If the shoe fits, then put it on

Look, I have a real warm spot in my heart for people who think independently. But independent thinking also has to be principled and rigorous. You haven't really answered my point about the abundance and quality of circumstantial evidence in this case. At some point, the coordination required to manufacture the consent required to suppress the truth which you claim is being concealed would have to fall apart.

There is no way that fifty forensic scientists are going to all agree to wink at something like this. Sorry, its just not going to happen. And while compartmentalization could surely allow for the BuschCo to wink while 9-11 went down, and maybe even to direct the timing and details of the destruction, I just don't think that compartmentalization would allow the cover-up you must postulate to perpetuate the missile theory. These were forensic scientists whose first loyalty is to the uncovering of the truth. They would surely have known if someone was trying to scatter a few DNA samples around the crash site to create a cover-up. They are professional crime scene analysts for crying out loud!

And the idea that DNA of the victim's was placed into the missile before detonation? I'm sorry, but Puleeze....these people took off in flight 77 only--how long?--before the Pentagon impact. Yet you folks would have them murdered, ground up into little bits, and then loaded into the missile, which is then put back into an F-11 or whatever the delivery vehicle was, all in the space of an hour? Dr. Evil would be very jealous of the technical skill of your conspirators.

[AZCat]

41. Wow.

I think you may have misunderstood my use of the "Truth Suppression Techniques". I was poking fun at the use of the TSTs because I feel that they get in the way of actual dialogue (what little there is sometimes). I don't agree with Abe's conclusions, but I support his right to express them. What I don't like to see are accusations of truth suppression and the like.

Did that clear things up? :shrug:

[BlueDog2u]

44. Sorry, I think the foot in question was Abe's

Now am I making sense?

[AZCat]

50. Yes.

Much better now. :)

[BlueDog2u]

23. Speak for yourself, Mercutio

Of course, all of us who see these gaping holes in your argument are "PR flacks" and "disinformation agents"...

I wear my :tinfoilhat: with pride.

[MercutioATC]

28. I WAS speaking for myself.

I'm not advocating blind acceptance of ANY story.

Asking questions is a good thing. I'm commenting on the posters here who forward scenarios with NO evidential grounding while they claim that the evidence supporting other scenarios is all "planted".

Specifically, a poster here is demanding to know why no intact 747 wings were found at the Pentagon. That's a reasonable question. The ASCE report covers this, though.

At the same time, this aforementioned poster is married to some F-16/missile theory. No F-16 parts were found at the Pentagon. No missile parts, either. However, anybody who points this out is a "PR flack" and a "disinformation agent".....

Questioning things doesn't earn you a :tinfoilhat:.

Spectacularly defying logic does.

[Abe Linkman]

40. ASCE report was conducted long after the events at the Pentagon

It was a building damage assessment report -- headed by an ARMY engineer.

IF FL 77 had crashed at the Pentagon, the wings would have broken off upon impact with the building, and debris from them would be seen in photos taken only a few minutes after the attack.

NO wing debris was found...and that means FL 77 didn't crash at the Pentagon. If someone wants to contend that the wing debris somehow just disappeared, then fine: explain how the trick was done. Unfortunately, and sadly, the truth is: NO B757 crashed at the Pentagon. I say "sadly", because it means that our Gov't has lied to us...and in the process it has fooled many good people...perhaps even including the gentleman who claims to be an ATC.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[BlueDog2u]

55. Abe, don't be shy now....

:beer:

[MrSammo1]

198. The only thing

that matters is the lack of wings and vertical stabilizer marks on the pre-collapse Pentagon wall. Nothing else!

If there had been debris to equal a 757 lying in front of the wall. The same problem would exist. You can't defy the laws of physics.

There are a lot of posters here that can't come to grips with this.

He said, she said, is nothing but hearsay.

[Name removed]

203. Deleted message

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

[Abe Linkman]

60. M-ATC's "Magic Wings Theory"

Wake Up Arlen! YOU'VE got company.

M-ATC's wings (even great big ones from a B757 can:

* Shear off

* Fold in

* Telescope

* Break up into millions of tiny pieces...too small to be seen by the camera's eye, too small for the human eye to observe, and THEN just magically........POOOF -- disappear without a trace. Bye-bye. WHERDY GO? Who knows? (not even the noze knows) They are not here. They are just away. But, they said to wish all good fairy tale lovers a very "Merry Chrisbus".

[MercutioATC]

79. Again, not MY theory. Besides, you have it wrong.

The wings would have sheared off, rotated backwards, and been pulverized with the rest of the plane as it traveled through the interior of the building (as the fuselage was). The pieces were not too small for the human eye to observe, they were just too small to be easily recognized as aircraft pieces.

Wherdy go? Through the interior of the Pentagon...causing a LOT of damage as they went through.

[Abe Linkman]

80. Those are SOME kind of "Magic Wings". You say they went IN the bldg?

Now, you're saying the wings went into the building? Which entry hole did THEY use? Your "Magic Wings" Theory is getting Mercuriouser and Mercuriouser all the time.

I'm staying tuned.

[MercutioATC]

85. They "used" the same hole the fuselage went through.

Where's the "curious" part? The force of the crash had to go somewhere. The path of least resistance was through the breach.

[Abe Linkman]

87. And, your theory for how they entered thru the same hole as the fuselage?

So, is this one a new theory? Either way, those wings are 120 feet + wide, each. What are you saying? That they folded up alongside the fuselage? If so, what happened to those great big engines on the jet?
Thank you. We'll wait. Just don't take too long.

Remember:

* WINGS - what happened to them & how did they get in?

* ENGINES - what happened to THEM? How did the wings go in, but not the engines? Did the engines shear off? If so, WHERDY GO?

[MercutioATC]

88. 120 feet + EACH?????

The wingspan of a 757-200 is 124 feet, 10 inches. That's not each, that's the total wingspan. Maybe this fundamental mistake is (at least partially) causing you to make erroneous conclusions.

"The size and position of the actual opening in the facade of the building (from column line 8 to column line 18) indicate that no portion of the outer two-thirds of the right wing and no portion of the outer one-third of the left wing actually entered the building."

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

That would indicate that at least a portion of the inner third of the right wing and at least a portion of the inner two-thirds of the left wing entered the Pentagon.

The remaining portions of the wings were pulverized on impact. Eyewitnesses reported seeing what looked like a cloud of silver confetti immediately following the crash. Little bits of aluminum would look like....well, silver confetti, wouldn't they?

[Abe Linkman]

97. You didn't answer the critical question about those big B757 engineS.

WHERDY GO? Is it your position that THEY too just up and vanished into thin air, as "Magic Engines"?

[MercutioATC]

104. Pulverized with the rest of the wing (and fuselage).

The high-pressure rotor from one of the engines and part of its housing can be seen in one of the debris pictures, but we've already discussed that.

One eyewitness said that one engine detached and wound up by a loading dock, but I've seen nothing to corroborate that story.

Where are your supposed F-16 parts? Wherdy go?

[Abe Linkman]

115. No WINGS, No 757 ENGINES, NO MUSH = NO FL 77 Crash.

YOU have totally and utterly failed to provide even a single coherent theory, much less a logical case that takes into consideration all of the major factors that must be taken into consideration.

The idea that FL 77 crashed at the Pentagon has no basis in reality.
No one has ever produced even a half-way credible, logical argument for why anyone should believe that fairy tale. It's impossible to prove a lie is true. In the case of FL 77, there are so many contradictions, known lies (Olsons), and absence of credible evidence that it really does seem reasonable to wonder what would be a reason for not just letting it drop.

Wouldn't it be better if YOU did? It really is time to do that. I wish I could say that the Gov't is telling the truth, but it isn't telling the truth. The proof is all around us. We know there ARE times when any loyal American is willing to be lied to by the Gov't, if National Security really requires it, but the lie of FL 77 isn't one of those times, and I know it. I believe that in your heart, you know it, too.

You've given it a good shot, Mercutio. You've done about as well as anyone could, under the circumstances. You're sort of in a position like that of Scott Peterson's lawyer, Mr. Garagos. Your client is not a very sympathetic figure, and the circumstantial and physical evidence do not support your theory of the case.

Your "Fl 77 crashed at the Pentagon" facts are fatally wrong, your reasoning is logically unsound, and there is nothing you can do to change the facts or the obvious conclusion together with all of its devastating implications and consequences for the world. It's time to accept that whatever happened, it didn't include a B757 crash at the Pentagon.

[MercutioATC]

122. I've presented my views and the evidence that supports them.

I think most agree there's more evidence supporting a 757 crash than an F-16 crash.

It's not my job to convince anybody, least of all you. I'm comfortable with my views. My facts are sound and my reasoning has been logical. Might I have still reached an erroneous conclusion? Of course it's possible. Still, I think it's a well-founded conclusion based on the available evidence.

[Abe Linkman]

123. You've presented MANY views, but can't prove a crash that didn't happen

You are trying to suggest that even though the truth is that FL 77 didn't crash, since a lot of people believe it did (thanks to Gov't lies & Disinformation)...then it must be true. That's a fallacious way to argue, and a very Old trick. Unworthy.

You also throw in another old fallacious argument which you hope will bolster your case and make it sound more credible that a 757 "might" have crashed...trying to divide the argument about what happened at the Pentagon by using a trick straight out the GOP's book on the use of so-called wedge issues. Your trick is to use "false choices" as a way to "keep 757 hope" alive. You do that by trying to make it seem as though the uninformed public (YOUR audience) has two choices about what happened at the Pentagon: either with what the Gov't & Mercurious tells you, or choose to believe an F-16 did the foul deed. As YOU well know, but your primary audience doesn't know - there are other possibilities like "no plane at all", or plane & a missile, or only a missile etc.
Who told you that the only choices are the ghost 757 or an F-16?

You were at least smart enough to leave the door open for when the truth DOES come out in a big way. Your side knows that you have to be ready to allow for the public to come to learn that even though FL 77 didn't crash, no matter what DID happen, IF the Gov't was involved, it
was an accident or at the most - negligence...and some low-level nobodies will have to pay.

Readers who have some capacity for independent THINKING now know that
there's at least one person here who believes in "Ghost planes", "Ghost engines", "Ghost MUSH", "Ghost luggage", and applies "Ghost logic" to try and convince the rest of us, even while protesting that they aren't here to try & convince anyone. I, for one, certainly do believe THAT.
What INFORMED person WOULD be convinced?

[MercutioATC]

130. The F-16 isn't my invention, it's yours.

Obviously, there are many choices...AAL77, another 757, an F-16, a missile, shaped charges, holograms, aliens...

Of the choices that have been presented here, I believe the evidence supports the crash of AAL77. I don't base my conclusion on the fact that "a lot of people believe it did", I base it upon the available evidence and common sense. Obviously, we have different ways of reaching conclusions.

[Abe Linkman]

163. F-16 ? I don't know, but it sure fits the evidence. B757 has NO evidence

Why anyone who is objective, has no hidden agenda, is sincere, and who is able to think critically...why anyone like that would insist on a scenario that requires "Magic Wings" and the ignoring of a total absence of evidence that would be expected to have been found if a B757 had crashed...is beyond me. Or, at least beyond my willingness to speculate here on this forum.

Obviously, SOMETHING funny is going on. Blind obedience to such a mess of contradictions suggests I don't want to get into it! But, it is your right to promote whatever you want to, so have at it.

[MercutioATC]

166. An F-16 "fits the evidence"? Kindly state said evidence.

Aside from the engine part that could theoretically be either the high-pressure rotor and housing from a 757 engine or part of an engine from a smaller jet, I haven't seen any evidence of an F-16.

What I HAVE seen is a lot of evidence that doesn't fit an F-16:

1) Fuselage piece, wheel, gear strut debris.

2) 120' of damage to the limestone facing (an F-16 has a 31' wingspan).

3) Eyewitness reports.

4) Light poles downed.

5) DNA and black boxes from AAL77 recovered.

Oh, that's right. There's the blurry video that only CTists can see clearly that "shows" an F-16.

Got anything else, or is that about it?

[Abe Linkman]

168. You forgot something. WINGS, M-atc, WINGS? Oh, and 757 ENGINES.

No WINGS, No 757 Engines, No MUSH, = NO crash of FL 77.

All of the available evidence suggests a small jet crashed. The engine that was found is from a small jet and while it may or may not be from an F-16, it sure wasn't from a big B757. The LACK of MUSH, LUGGAGE and airplane pieces in front of the building are all strong evidence that a big B757 didn't crash there.

Only Disinformation agents and a few other CTists like yourself are still trying to sell the impossible. There's just no getting around the fact that you have zero plausible explanation for those "Ghost wings", "Ghost 757 engines", "Ghost MUSH, "Ghost Luggage" etc. Oh, and NO "Ghost Top Gun Pilot" -- unless you're still trying to claim that Hani The "Can't Fly a Paper Plane, Much Less Anything Bigger" Hanjour did it for Osama.

There's plenty more, but what there isn't ANY of...is evidence that FL 77 crashed at the Pentagon. And, it's more than passing strange to me, that an alleged ATC employee would be promoting such nonsense. I dare say that any other ATC employee who has been exposed to more information than just the CTheorists who promote the "Caveman Did It" Theory ... would be shocked to learn that you are an ATC employee. They'd surely wonder about your knowledge and experience around large commercial airliners. I certainly do, and I'm not an ATC employee.

[MercutioATC]

171. You don't read well?

I've explained these issues to you many times. I'd understand disagreeing, but asking the same question over and over? That's just silly.

"The remains of most of the passengers on the aircraft were found near the end of the travel of the aircraft debris. The front landing gear (a relatively solid and heavy object) and the flight data recorder (which had been located near the rear of the aircraft) were also found nearly 300 ft into the structure. By contrast, the remains of a few individuals (the hijacking suspects), who most likely were near the front of the aircraft, were found relatively close to the aircraft’s point of impact with the building. These data suggest that the front of the aircraft disintegrated essentially upon impact but, in the process, opened up a hole allowing the trailing portions of the fuselage to pass into the building."

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

Do you not understand this or do you doubt it? If it's a matter of understanding, let me know...I'll walk you through it. If you don't accept that analysis, just tell us why (and include any technical qualifications you have which gave you that insight).

There was no "mush" outside because the majority of the plane (passengers included) was carried inside by the momentum of the plane.

Please let me know if I can be of further assistance in clearing up any of your other misconceptions.

[Abe Linkman]

174. Your "explanation" just ignores reality. Too much "Magic". Get real.

You have yet to give a straightforward narrative of what happened at the Pentagon that would explain the lack of evidence for your main contention: that a B757 crashed there but left no credible evidence of having done so. Even your "Magic" explanations contradict each other and fail to account for the lack of evidence that would have been there if your claim was true.

You're a magician, not a realist. (yes, I know that isn't your "real" occcupation. or, is it?)

[MercutioATC]

176. We seem to have found the "caveman". It's not "magic", it's physics.

Welcome to the 21st century, Abe.

[Abe Linkman]

177. Maybe METAphysical, but not real physics.

You just can't explain the impossible without using Magic. And, YOU need a lot of it to explain all the impossible, contradictory, mish-mash and missing things that you need since the only evidence you have is an irrelevant "report".

Osama is a caveman and CIA asset. He's not a magician. But, he'd sure have to be for your story to make any sense.

[MercutioATC]

178. Fine, explain the "real physics"...PLEASE!

I'm SO glad you broached the subject. Enlighten us, Abe...

[Abe Linkman]

183. Real physics isn't about IMpossible scenarios like what you're saying

Your story has too many contradictions and omits critical factors. You have to resort to way too many "Ghosts" in order to try and make your story fit the available evidence.

In short, it just isn't realistic. It might work as a script for a "Twilight Zone" show, but only if it's scheduled for late at night.

[MercutioATC]

186. Tell me what it IS, not what it ISN'T.

You claim to have a better command of crash physics and how they relate to reinforced concrete structures than the ASCE engineers.

I've never had the opportunity to talk with somebody as knowledgeable as you. I was hoping you'd explain it to me...crash physics, not hype.

[tngledwebb]

185. Thanks for posting this-

Some oddities: 'The front disintegrated essentially upon impact', yet 'opened up a hole.' Probably just sloppy writing, but not entirely out of keeping coming from from engineering or middle school students.

And the attention to detail: The 'remains of a few individuals'-not one or three or five, but yes, they were 'highjacking suspects' and, yes,they were 'most likely near the front' and therefore would have been found 'relatively close' to the airplane's point of impact.

The topper is 'These DATA SUGGEST'. Yes this 'DATA' does SUGGEST, in fact this 'DATA' clearly IS the biggest bunch of pseudo-scientific gobbledygook since Colon Powl read his lies to the UN. This is total DADA DATA.

So all the pros and experts, or newbies and lurkers out there, with or without a university degree, can you not recognize gobbledygook when the bastards throw it in your face?

[MercutioATC]

187. I'll extend the same offer to you, tngledwebb.

Show me a conflicting report written by engineers with credentials equal to those of the ASCE engineers who actually examined the site firsthand.

Since the ASCE report is such "gobbledygook" (written by "students"), this shouldn't be to difficult, right?

[tngledwebb]

188. All in good time. For now, this makes clear the degree of cover-up.

But don't fret, when we kick out the BFEE and their and accomplices, there will be a true accounting. And it won't be long.

Btw, hope you have recovered after the last stolen election?

[MercutioATC]

189. "All in good time"? Why not now?

If you're going to claim that the ASCE report is "gobbledygook", why not substantiate that claim.

Go ahead...dazzle us.

By the way, I'm disappointed that more of America voted for Bush than Kerry, but I'm surviving. Thanks for asking.

[tngledwebb]

190. The report IS what it is.

After-the-fact second-hand BS, that's all. Why they couldn't do a better job, I don't know.

Back to the elections for a sec. Important issue, though off-topic. You've read about the voting irregularities in Ohio and other states, I'm sure, and how they've been labelled just another 'internet based CT' by some, etc? What's your take?

[MercutioATC]

191. So refute it! I'm begging you!

Again, this should be an easy task, it being such BS and all....

[Abe Linkman]

192. ASCE "report" doesn't support the 757 theory at all. But, it's ALL...

he's got to lean on. Like Scott Petersen's lawyer, Mark Garagos, he knows his client is guilty, but for UNinformed people, new visitors, the naive, and maybe a higher authority, you gotta have SOMETHING to use to try & cast a little doubt on impressionable people.

I don't believe it's worked, though. Who, in their right mind would believe that something can disintegrate, go thru a three foot thick wall, travel 300 feet as CONFETTI, and THEN crash thru yet another wall, after going thru/past all those in-between, and as a finale, create a nine foot round exit hole...and simply vanish into the muggy air.

Not one single person here has said they believe that horse puckey, and who can blame them. Even anonymous folks don't like to be laughed at and thought THAT foolish.

[MercutioATC]

195. So you disagree with the statements of the ASCE engineers

when they say "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."

and

"The impact effects may be represented as a violent flow through the structure of a “fluid” consisting of aviation fuel and solid fragments. The first-story columns in the path of this rushing fluid mass must have lost their shells immediately upon impact. It is very likely that there was never a finite time in which the affected columns responded as tied columns. The column shells must have been scoured off on first contact with the fluid. Bending resistance to the pressure created by the velocity of the fluid must have occurred in the cores only. "?

On what basis do you claim these statements are "horse puckey"?

[Abe Linkman]

193. Voting irregularities? Have you heard ANY right-wingers mention it?

I haven't either.

[tngledwebb]

194. No, not much from MSM either.

But it's become a big CT on DU, even has a forum of its own, and I'm curious how the DU'ers down here feel about the latest 'CT', or the election in general. I know a few are a little depressed about four more years or longer under the BFEE, or whatever we should now be calling those bastards.

[Abe Linkman]

101. "Magic Wings' theories (all 3-5 you use) are all nonsensical, Too silly.

The overiding issue is whether or not a B757 crashed at the Pentagon.
If one had crashed into the building, the wings would have sheared off.
If they had sheared off, they would have been OUTSIDE the building.
Photos taken shortly after the attack plane hit, do not show any wings.
The explosion was largely confined to the INterior of the building.
It would NOT have consumed the sheared wings which would have been outside the building, if a B757 had crashed there.

There IS evidence of a small jet INSIDE the building.

Your various, wandering, "okay, if you won't believe that one, then how about this one" theories about the missing wings are factually and logically wrong. AND, the available evidence at the Pentagon is NOT consistent with what would be expected if a B757 had crashed there. Besides, you have to account for the two big engines that are mounted underneath those massive wings, and NONE of your various theories even mentions the engines. It's all a hodge-podge of illogic.

You are promoting an impossible bunch of theories, NONE of which is anymore persuasive than ALL of them put together.

Anyone who bothers to read your messages on this subject can plainly see that all you are doing is throwing out a bunch of different lines and hoping no one will notice.

All of which raises a serious question: why do that?

[MercutioATC]

102. What didn't you understand about my post?

Roughly half of the wings wound up inside the building. Roughlt half wound up outside the building.

In both cases, the force of the crash pulverized the wings into small pieces (as it did the fuselage).

If you don't agree with this scenario (which isn't mine, it's mostly from the ASCE report) kindly post the expertise you possess that makes your conclusion more reliable than that of professional civil engineers who viewed the site firsthand. Thanks in advance.


As far as "evidence of a small jet"...please enlighten us. How did a small jet damage 120 feet of the limestone facing? How did it drop landing gear struts and wheels from a commercial jet? How did it drop the black boxes and DNA from the passengers of AAL77? Where are the WINGS?

I eagerly await your response...

[Abe Linkman]

118. Wouldn't it be better if you didn't use nonsense to try & make sense?

All of that nonsense about pulverized wings and 20,000 pound jet engines that just vanish into the ether --- really, it's almost becoming comical.

Whoever is dreaming up that stuff must by an Arlen Specter wanna-be.

[MercutioATC]

167. Just respond to the question, Abe.

Your famous Arlen Specter comparison aside, what qualifications do you have that allow you to make a better determination than professional civil engineers?

Hell, it doesn't even have to be you personally. Give me a link to a conflicting report written by somebody with qualifications equal to those of the ASCE engineers who aren't basing their conclusions on a few pictures, but on firsthand examination of the site.

[Abe Linkman]

169. Didn't anyone tell you that the ASCE report isn't about what crashed?

The ASCE propaganda piece is a building damage assessment report. You didn't know that? I can spot an Arlen Specter number from a mile away,
and you've got a bunch of 'em you can't explain away: "Magic Wings" that fold, telescope, and vanish into thin air...wings that shear off outside, don't shear off outside, partly shear off outside, turn to confetti & become a FORCE so powerful it breaks thru walls, breaks up before it even enters the building, flys thru the building, creates nine foot holes and THEN breaks into confetti. I tell you, Mercutio -- you got one pile of doo doo to deal with, my boy...and I don't know of a single person here who's buying it, do you?

[MercutioATC]

170. I know exactly what the ASCE report is, do you?

To correct a couple of your issues (again):

1) The wings didn't "fold, telescope, and vanish into thin air". Part of them were sheared off and part of them entered the building. The entirety of both of them was turned into aluminum confetti by the force of the impact.

2) The fuselage and wings that entered the building broached the outer wall which pulverized them. The mass of the aircraft still had momentum, which carried it and the unburned fuel through the building, causing the interior damage.

Your post demonstrates one ir more of four things:

1) You still haven't read the ASCE report.

2) You read the ASCE report but don't understand it.

3) You read the report, understand it, and take issue with its conclusions (in which case I'll ask you to refute the specific points with which you disagree and detail your qualifications).

4) You're intentionally misrepresenting the issue because you don't have any real answers.


Which is it, Abe?

[Abe Linkman]

173. Did You Help Write the Building Damage Assessment Report?

You said:

* Part of the wings sheared off. WHERDY GO? No confetti in the photographs. Wherdy go?

* Fuselage & wings entered the building & "broached the outer wall which pulverized them" -- say WHAT? They entered, broached & got pulverized.
"Magic Fuselage & Wings". But wait, there's more. You said the mass still had momentum. WHAT mass? The mass of confetti? "Magic Confetti"
that was strong enough to cause all that interior damage? AND create a nine foot nearly circular exit hole? Man, I think what you're talking about is some kind SUPER "Magic Mass".

You really deserve to be paid for coming up with this stuff. You're one some kind of CREATIVE ATC. I thought most of 'em are a little on the peculiar side due to working in the dark and so forth, but you take the cake, mercutio. I bet you don't believe a word of any of that stuf, either!

Where does the ASCE report talk about "Magic Wings", Missing 757 engines, NO MUSH on the lawn, No confetti on the lawn? Where? Tell me.

[MercutioATC]

175. Your ignorance of physics is astounding.

Mass exists regardless of the size of the pieces involved. Once again, I'll ask you to imagine a shotgun shell. Even birdshot (very small pieces) has mass and will do considerable damage at high velocity. To answer your question directly, "Yes, the mass of confetti.".

You sound as if you and your deficient understanding of physics are directly refuting the elements of the ASCE report. We're getting somewhere. Just tell me how physics works in your world and how it momentarily superceded the physics of the world the rest of us live in. Should be simple, no?

[MercutioATC]

103. Unintentional dupe

.

[MrSammo1]

245. Question

What opposite force would come into play that would stop the wings and vertical stabilizer from marking the limestone wall?

[MercutioATC]

246. The wings DID mark the limestone facing

as did much of the tail. Why don't the marks extend the full height of the tail? I don't know, but there ARE tail markings.

[MrSammo1]

248. There was

no vertial stabilizer mark.

Check for yourself!

[MercutioATC]

249. Untrue:

"The height of the damage to the facade of the building was much less than the height of the aircraft’s tail. At approximately 45 ft, the tail height was nearly as tall as the first four floors of the building. Obvious visible damage extended only over the lowest two floors, to approximately 25 ft above grade."

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

[Abe Linkman]

250. Your propaganda piece CONFIRMS that the "untrue" IS true.

The disnfo is deliberately contradictory and vague. When any fool knows the damage that should have been inflicted WASN'T inflicted, and ATC
posts an excerpt from his favorite propaganda stating the obvious, then
we know we're in the midst of the 9/11 BS fog.

[MercutioATC]

251. Did YOU examine the site? I thought not.

Since that's the case, we have to rely on the statements of those who did. That quote was a direct observation.

I know you've taken quite a dislike to the ASCE report, Abe, but you haven't been able to refute a single piece of it so far. Start disproving it and maybe somebody will buy your "propaganda" charge.

[Sweet Pea]

253. The Tail Impact

Mercutio,

No one is a total expert on the dynamics of what an passenger aircraft would do in those circumstances. The variables include angle of impact, were there any lateral forces on the aircraft (rudder inputs?), height/altitude, speed, any number of things. That is a data set that we lack definitive points on. I'm reminded of what happens when a plane is flown into icing conditions - every pilot at the controls becomes the test pilot of a brand new airframe configuration, trying out new wing/fuselage airflow dynamics. Same in the Pentagon impact case - why did the tail not make significant damage marks? Could have snapped off at the moment of impact, could have been sheared by wing parts since we know the wings sheared off and folded back....any number of possibilities and anyone who states definitively that they *know precisely* what happens, especially here, has delusions of aerodynamic grandeur. Sure, there are tons of *likely* scenarios that I respect from those with a basic knowledge of aircraft crash dynamics, but it is all speculation from there.

[Abe Linkman]

64. Two good eyes, Mercurious. No "Magic Wings" Theory

Your "Magic Wings" Theory may sound impressive to impressive folks who've taken a few hits during their initiation here, but you'll never be able to produce the proof you need, because FL 77 simply didn't crash at the Pentagon. If it had, there would be credible evidence to prove it. There isn't any.

[MercutioATC]

82. WHY do you insist on posting TWO replies to my posts?

Can't you combine them into one?

I don't "need" to provide proof. I present the proof that's been widely released and let people make their own determinations.

Any answer yet on the location of those F-16 parts or a theory on how an F-16 with a 31-foot wingspan did 120 feet of damage to the front of the Pentagon?

[AZCat]

54. Nitpicking here, but...

Dr. Paul Mlakar is a civilian. He is a Technical Director in the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center at Vicksburg, Mississippi. The Army Corps of Engineers supports the military but also does civilian work, and it is made up of (mostly) civilians.

I know, this is kind of screwy, but it's the way it is set up. Check out the employment page if you don't trust me. Oddly enough, you can be gay and work for the Army Corps of Engineers.

[BlueDog2u]

45. Sorry, I realize that when you read that header

You probably get a wrong impression about my tone. I was being sarcastic/ironic about speaking for yourself. I agree completely with you.

[MercutioATC]

47. No problem. I think we understand each other.

Peace

:smoke:

[BlueDog2u]

51. Also, how did they fake that big piece of aluminum from the

fusilage of the 757 that is plainly visible in numerous photos? It occurred to me that Rummy might have carried it on to the lawn, but as there is no evidence supporting that theory beyond my assessment that, if he had needed to, he would have done it, I conclude that it must have got there some other way.

[MercutioATC]

52. Maybe it was the missile...

...or the F-16, or the shaped charges, or the fuel sprayers.

Maybe it was a hologram...

(I know it's a lot to take in right now...look at some of the older CTist posts...)

[BlueDog2u]

53. Could Be

I'm no expert, admittedly. I'm just a poor boy from the caves of Bora Tora. It looked just like a garden variety hunk off a Boeing 757 fusilage, but what the hell do I know? They make missiles out of skinny aluminum like that? Paint 'em green on the inside too, I suppose. :party:

[Abe Linkman]

61. Sorry to disappoint your little Conspiracy Theory party, but...

it was really very simple: since it has been long proven that the piece of aluminum didn't come from a B757 --- it had to have been planted there. Most people know that cops plant evidence every day. Many of those same people have difficulty believing that bushco would do something like that (and don't start bringing WMD evidence, either).

Official Conspiracy Theorists will say: "Yes, but". Yes, but it didn't happen THIS time. Right. You're right. Of course you are, sir. Of course you are.

Now, tell us about the excellent Ted Olson. Or, the MUSH. Or, how about revealing how those "Magic Wings" do their thing. Then, tell us about those TWO great big B757 ENGINES: WHERDY THEY GO?

[MercutioATC]

84. A piece that size was planted under the noses of scores of onlookers?

Was it teleported there by aliens?

I'm not saying the government WOULDN'T do that, I'm saying that, in this case, they COULDN'T do it.

[DulceDecorum]

109. Are you taking about THIS bitsy piece of aluminum?

[MercutioATC]

131. That "bitsy" piece is at least four feet long.

I suppose all of the other pieces of fuselage in that picture were planted, too?

[DulceDecorum]

133. How did you get four feet?

Look at the grass.
Is it long or short?
Compare the height of the grass to the height of the piece.

What makes you think the piece is FOUR feet long?

[MercutioATC]

139. Well, this:

[DulceDecorum]

144. Make that five feet.

[MercutioATC]

147. I'm at a loss. Is that supposed to mean something?

:shrug:

[DulceDecorum]

158. Four feet, five feet

who's counting?

Explain how you arrived at the conclusion that the bitsy bit was four feet long.

[MercutioATC]

165. Did you see the picture in my last post?

What would YOU estimate the length of the piece of fuselage to be?

[DulceDecorum]

180. The picture in your last post

was even more meaningless
than the picture of the five footer.

MercutioATC says:
What would YOU estimate the length of the piece of fuselage to be?

Print out the photo of the debris lying on the Pentalawn.
Look at the length of the grass right next to, and underneath
that bit of debris.
Use one blade of grass as a measure.
Construct a "ruler" using that particular blade-length as a standard unit.
Measure the length and the height of the bit of debris,
using your homemade "ruler."
Record the numbers obtained.

Estimate the height of the grass.
Look at the shoes on the lady on the far right to assist you in this.
Multiply this number by the previous results.
(estimated height of grass x number obtained via the ruler.)

That should give you some idea of the size of that bitsy bit of aluminum.

[MercutioATC]

181. Comparing it to grass is more accurate than comparing it to a truck?

The length of the gras is an unknown. The dimensions of the truck can be estimated with greater accuracy.

How is this photo "meaningless"?


...and how big do YOU claim the piece is?

[DulceDecorum]

196. There is grass in the original photo

Where is the damn truck you have posted?
Hiding behind the lamb?

The length of the grass can very well be estimated.
Just about everyone here has had considerable experience with lawns
and can easily obtain a reasonable guestimate
of the length of the average blade of grass
of the Incredible Pentalawn 2000.

[MercutioATC]

197. You don't see the truck in the picture I posted???

You're joking, right?

the grass could be 1 1/2 inches high...it could be 3 inches high. That would significantly alter the estimation. Comparing the piece to a known object (like a truck fender) would result in a much more accurate estimate.


Again, what's your estimate?

[Sweet Pea]

199. My take...

definitely a 5 foot or so piece of the fuselage. Not only with the truck reference, but in the photo with the photographer in the background on the right, a rough eyeball of the distance give perspective to the scene and as such provides size to the piece.

[Abe Linkman]

200. And that tells you WHAT? Proves WHAT? That a CaveMan did 9/11?

The fact is, that piece did not come from FL 77, and was most likely planted out on the pristine Pentalawn...just to give OBJECTIVE people like you something you can talk about.

[MercutioATC]

202. "Planted"....hehehehe

Abe, you're going to have to better than claiming that every piece of contrary evidence was planted.


Tell me...with dozens of onlookers, exactly HOW was this piece "planted" in the middle of the Pentagon lawn?

[tngledwebb]

214. Dozens of onlookers? Not hundreds?

But items could have been easily planted, in all the smoke and mirrors and fire trucks spray and general confusion, or items may have been photographed later and elsewhere, etc. Even if this stuff is 'real', it is not from Flight 77.

And let us not forget there were many people involved in the 'exercises' at the P-gon on that day, and quite a few must have realized there was no Flight 77, yet have still not come forward to contradict the official story.
Can't say I blame them- they saw what the evil-doers did to innocent bystanders in NYC and DC.

[Abe Linkman]

216. You'd think a former police officer would understand this all too well.

After all, dealing with planted evidence is part and parcel of the "work" they do. Sometimes as a "planter" and even occasionally as one who discovers & exposes planted evidence.

[MercutioATC]

204. No, it proves the piece was at least four feet long.

That's what's being discussed here, Abe. Try to keep up.

[Abe Linkman]

205. That piece was fabricated & planted...on the wrong side of where ...

it would have been if it had actually come from a Pentagon plane crash.
It's pristine condition makes it stand out on the pristine Pentalawn.
No flames, no soot, and explanation for it all except that it had to have been planted. And, of all people here, I'm sure YOU would know what is meant by the term "throw down" evidence. That's all it is.

[MercutioATC]

210. It must be easy to "refute" claims when everything is "planted"...

Debris? Planted.

Black boxes? Planted.

DNA? Planted.



How convenient!

[Abe Linkman]

211. Members of a certain vocation are very familiar with planted evidence....

it's just standard practice in that biz. Along with heaping helpings of perjury, frame-ups, setting people up, fabricated evidence, Patsies, coerced accounts, and on and on.

[MercutioATC]

212. Still, it's rather convenient, isn't it?

Demand proof and then claim that all evidence contrary to a theory is planted...

[Abe Linkman]

213. No evidence to the contrary. Only claims by non-objective people.

Yes, I think we all know that REAL cops don't plant evidence, do they?
And, REAL cops don't regularly commit perjury, do they?
Oh, and no REAL cop would dispute what another cop says, would they?
Same principles as the Mafia operates under. Imagine that.

[MercutioATC]

217. Yes, Abe...and SOME conspiracy theorists are clinically insane.

Does that mean they ALL are?

Do some investigations involve the planting of evidence and perjury? Yes.

Do all? Of course not.

If you have ANY proof that evidence (debris, DNA, black boxes) was planted, please provide it.

[DulceDecorum]

218. Lime green proof?

You now begin to see the problem.

The yellow-green paint,
Dexter Aerospace's 10P20-44
was qualified as a low-VOC primer system by
Boeing Materials Technology
in JULY 2000.

N644AA (the Pentagon plane) was built in 1991
which is NINE WHOLE YEARS
BEFORE
that lime-green exterior paint entered general usage as a primer at Boeing.

HOW IS IT
that a Boeing 757 plane built in 1991 using dark-green primer
is reduced to a few small pieces of metal coated with yellow green primer?

Does the lime-green debris
CLEARLY AND VISIBLY
demonstrate that something OTHER than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=20583&mesg_id=20583

[Abe Linkman]

219. Yes, it's proof...unless M-ATC is claiming those pieces were PLANTED.

Unless M-ATC has some proof he's been waiting to reveal, your dogged research has turned up evidence that proves that whatever kind of plane (if any) crashed at the Pentagon, it wasn't FL 77.

Of course, a clever Disinfo Agent would respond by saying that THOSE "few small pieces of metal coated with yellow green primer" were OBVIOUSLY planted evidence, put there by evildoers to confuse Infidels and DUers.

[MercutioATC]

221. So, "clever Disinfo agent[s]" claim evidence is planted?

"Of course, a clever Disinfo Agent would respond by saying that THOSE "few small pieces of metal coated with yellow green primer" were OBVIOUSLY planted evidence, put there by evildoers to confuse Infidels and DUers."

What does that say about your Pentagon argument, Abe?


What I WILL say is that I haven't really researched the paint color issue thoroughly, though I hope to do so in the future.

[Abe Linkman]

226. DD has provided proof FL 77 didn't crash & M-ATC can't refute it.

We are all indebted to DD for discovering a "Smoking Gun" that proves FL 77 did not crash at the Pentagon. Not even the biggest bush911 Conspiracy Theorist here has refuted it in the months since DD first brought it to the attention of 9/11 researchers, students, and Disinfo Agents of all political stripes.

[Sweet Pea]

224. Lime Green Comments

Do you know, Dulce, what parts of the aircraft you saw that had "dark green" primer?

You do realize, don't you...

(you MUST else you would not come across as such an expert in such matters....)

You do realize that many parts of the aircraft, as they reach flight-time limitations and mandatory inspection dates, are routinely removed and replaced with refurbished hardware - items such as the horizontal stabilizers, the vertical stabilizer, the engines, wing portions, flaps, slats, landing gear doors, cabin access doors, bulkheads, etc so on and so forth.

DO YA THINK......

that perhaps some of those pieces of equipment MAY HAVE possibly....just POSSIBLY now....been replaced with NEWER or REFURBISHED equipment? Ya THINK????

Joe Mechanic 1: Sheesh...its time for the horizontal stab 120-day replacement. You got that order to the intermediate maintenance facility for replacement stabs?

Joe Mechanic 2: Yep! Arriving tomorrow - brand new ones! Fresh off the assembly line!

Joe 1: Oh DAMN....! I hate it when they do that! They arrive with that dang new yellow-green primer! It really messes up the color coordination of the fuselage.

Of course you knew that.

Else you would'nt come across as such an EXPERT in aviation and aircraft and aircraft maintenance-related matters.

Lime green/dark green/ yello/whatever primer on aircraft parts sighted at a crash scene (read the next line carefully....)

(c a r e f u l l y)

MEANS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WITH REGARDS TO WHEN THE AIRCRAFT WAS BUILT.

[seatnineb]

225. Lime green du's

Sure Sweetpea.........

Perhaps you'll care to repudiate the comments made by your ex-pentagon colleague.......the most courageouse Dr Rokke......

Answer me this........

If the plane known as Flight 77 was only built in 1991........

HOw come there would appear to be evidence of depleted uranium at the crash site......

DR Rokke: "What I will state: Unless I'm wrong, the radiological contamination at the Pentagon and some distance from the Pentagon was absolutely confirmed."

I was under the impression that depleted uranium was phased out in the construction of planes in the early 1980's.........

Was flight 77 an early 80's boeing plane?

[Abe Linkman]

227. Sweet pea (sic) makes an easy to make claim. Got PROOF?

DD provided evidence to support a claim that FL 77 couldn't have crashed at the Pentagon. YOU disagree, but your disagreement is weaker than water unless and until you provide PROOF to substantiate your argument.

[Sweet Pea]

229. Abe(sic)- what sort of proof would you be satisfied with?

Far be it from me to think that ANYTHING I post here would NOT be sufficient to make my point that a fair portion of that airplane could very well have new or refurbished parts containing current or up to date primer paint.

A .pdf from a 757 maintenance manual stipulating flight hour restrictions on horizontal stabs before they have to be removed?

An online link to a posted maintenance manual stating something similar?

I'll work on that....I don't usually keep aircraft maintenance manuals around the house (operating manuals for military jets, yes, but no maintenance manuals handy. I'll have to find one).

This, though, is so funny that I can't really believe it. It would seem to me that MOST sensible, logical people would take what I said in that last post as common sense - not only from a maintenance perspective but a safety one as well: those mechanical parts of an aircraft that suffer the greatest stress need to periodically be removed and examined, with refurbished or new equipment installed in its place.

Trust Abe(sic) to find fault with such a practice. Must be a ruse!

[Abe Linkman]

233. What a sweet guy you are.

Very welcome here. Not many DUers support buscho values.

Oh, no. You really must do some research on the Pentagon self-attack.
I know it must be hard to tear yourself away from that maintenance manual, but it won't prove a thing about what happened at the Pentagon.

NO discernible 757 pieces (from FL 77)
NO 757 Engines
NO MUSH
NO Wings
NO Luggage
NO single crash theory that is consistent w/crash scene
NO recording (released) on what would be a deafening crash
NO deafening roar (only reports of what was described as sounding like a missile)
NO video showing a 757 crash (no explanation for why & no explanation for the faked video that came from the Pentagon...only weak BS from Disinfo Agents on spinning wheels to try and explain away the inexplicable truth)
NO explanation for the lack of a major (expected) jet fuel fire
NO explanation for why the contractors weren't working that day
NO explanation for why no damage to the pristine Pentalawn
NO explanation for why the Pentalawn was quickly covered over
NO explanation for why at least one 757 engine didn't separate upon impact with the generator or the Pentagon
NO explanation for why no body parts were found on the Pentalawn
NO credible explanation for how the exit hole was created
NO explanation for why the OCTheorists should be taken seriously, in light of the long-ago proven lies of Ted Olsen. Lies that were told in order to establish the very core claims of the Official "Cavemen Did It" Conspiracy Theory.

ONLY an engine from a small jet & tons and tons of inconsistent, contradictory disinformation, distortions, conjectures, excuses, reliance on an irrelevant government-sponsored report, enough fallacious reasoning to fill two books, bullying techniques by a "sweet s/he" person, and attempts to justify suppressing the truth.

Trust "sweet" (sic) person to spin thru all the damning evidence and still have the chutzpah to proclaim Commander Bunnypants is telling us the truth about what happened on 9/11. Must be something in the ink of that spinning wheel maintenance manual.

[DulceDecorum]

232. got RH's website yanked

and the pieces of lime green debris are known to the FAA
which demands meticulous record-keeping of its carriers.

We know that the FBI picked up some crap from the Penta-lawn
and we even know that the NTSB inspected and cataloged it
before being kicked off the scene.
http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2001/010913.htm


http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=2456

We also know that the NTSB account of the accident
differs greatly from that of the FBI.
(See number of passenger injuries.)

NTSB Identification: DCA01MA064
Scheduled 14 CFR Part 121: Air Carrier operation of American Airlines
Accident occurred Tuesday, September 11, 2001 in Arlington, VA
Aircraft: Boeing 757-200, registration: N644AA
Injuries: 189 Fatal.
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and this material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI. The Safety Board does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20020123X00105&key=1

Now,
Sweet Pea would have you believe that the color of the primer does not matter.
BUT
it does.
There was very little debris ever recovered from ANY of the four planes and almost all of it appears to have to the lime-green primer.
Not one single scrap has dark green primer.
So unless the entire bloody plane was replaced
(and that IS what you are inferring Sweet Pea)
then the gig is up.
All your base are belong to us.

[MercutioATC]

201. Thanks, Sweet Pea...

...somebody who's able to deal with a simple picture is rare here these days...

[DulceDecorum]

207. And a little lamb

shall lead them.....

[tngledwebb]

215. Some captions come to mind-

1.Glad I don't fly thru Cleveland.

2. My computer could sure use an upgrade this X-mas.

3. If we ever get a single payer health plan, hope it pays for new eyeglass prescriptions.

4. The WORD (of an expert) may actually be worth a THOUSAND pictures, if they all look like this.

5. Sorry, my hands were shaking, I got so nervous when I saw Rummy serving hot-dogs to the participants. It was quite a day...

[MercutioATC]

222. Oooooh! "Truth Suppression Technique" #......nevermind...

:eyes:

[exploited]

244. There's an abundance of irrefutable evidence in existance

The scores of fixed security cameras in the vicinity.

Why is it that only 3 frames have been released to the public?
Three frames that have clearly been CGI "enhanced".

[BlueDog2u]

14. I don't question that the government will lie

And I agree with you that the refusal to release the videotapes could be significant and certainly arouses legitimiate suspicion.

But we are talking about a forensic investigation which allegedly identified the remains of more than sixty passengers from flight 77. I personally don't find a credible scenario for the scattering of those remains from some other location just to corroborate the story. What would be the purpose for such a deception?

If you are going to kill all those people anyway, why would you kill them someplace else and then try to make it seem like they died at the Pentagon?

Occam's razor applies here. Let's take the point about the difficulty of flying such a plane into the Pentagon for an inexperience pilot. I can grant you that problem and show you how ultimately it gets you into a deeper problem. What are the two alternatives?

1) The damage was done by a missile, the passengers were killed elsewhere and the remains were deposited at the Pentagon for forensic analysis as the final "proof."

2) The plane was guided by remote control to strike the Pentagon, and therefore no pilot expertise was required.

Which is the simpler explanation? Obviously, the second one. For one thing, it doesn't require lugging the remains of DNA from seventy plus corpses from one crash site to another. And that's just for starters.

So, although I could entertain LIHOP with remote control -- though I'm not completely convinced its necessary -- I don't find the missile scenario to be plausible in the least when we take the forensic evidence into consideration.

Thanks for reading.

[Abe Linkman]

32. Forensic evidence (DNA) could have easily been taken to the Pent....

The fact that DNA was found doesn't prove FL 77 crashed at the Pentagon.
The fact that remains were identified doesn't prove that FL 77 crashed at the Pentagon. Who told you that someone "scattered them" anywhere?
What is at question here is whether or not a B757 crashed - NOT whether or not DNA was found. Stick to the question you posed.

IF FL 77 had crashed at the Pentagon, WHY wasn't any MUSH found outside the building, and why weren't any body parts also found outside the building. Furthermore, why wasn't any LUGGAGE found? Why weren't TWO 757 engines found? Why wasn't there ANY blood on the pristine Pentalawn? Why weren't ANY parts of the wings found outside the building? Why wasn't there any wing debris found...and seen in the photos that were taken just minutes after the alleged crash?

You can "entertain" anything you want to, but until the Gov't releases the best evidence of all (videotapes)...the theory that a B757 crashed at the Pentagon is not proven by the available evidence. The burden of proof is one whomever makes the assertion that FL 77 crashed. Those who have made that assertion have failed to make their case.

[demodewd]

56. what CAN be deduced

But there is photographic evidence that needs to be convincingly explained by Mercurio et al. Thus far their explanations are superficial,unscientific.
1. We have the aeronautical wizardry of said hijackers. My take? Impossible. Remote control on this point alone becomes much much more feasible.
2. A plane did hit the Pentagon. But no witness who saw the plane can positively identify it as Flight 77. That is physically impossible.
3. Then there is the flash precipitating the fuel explosion. This cannot be explained away as fuel initiated. It was light,bright and had sonic wave properties. This suggests shaped charges and/or a bomb or missile.
4.And the hole into the A-E drive with that scant amount of debris attributed to its making? How is this explained when the plane essentially disappears upon impact?
5. And I am indeed curious as to why NO body parts are strewn on the Pentalawn when the Pentagon's video release clearly shows an explosion upon impact by something.There is something too neat and tidy about this.
6. And why was that video obviously tampered with? Where is the goddamn plane? The Pentagon is hiding something. Absolutely.

As for the DNA. Who collected it? That's a more pertinent question than who analyzed it.

Whatever the truth is... a few summations can be made.
1. The plane was not flown in by manual control. It was controlled from the outside.
2. Shaped charges and or a bomb were planted in the building or on the plane(possibly carrying a missile) and timed to go off at the plane's entry.

[tngledwebb]

66. You said a plane but you meant missile or bomb, correct?

If so,was this a missile

shot from a plane,

that flew over the building,

that eyewitnesses saw,

that caused the shocks,

that knocked over the poles,

that Rh once used,

on his website to prove,

that a plane hit the wall,

made an the 18 ft. hole,

in the re-enforced section,

near the indestructible lawn,

that grew round the pentagon,

that Bush ( re-) built?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

26. The "forensic evidence"

(You might be watching too much tv - the "forensic evidence" was that big, black hole in the side of the Pentagon.)

The plane came down almost vertically at hundreds of MPH, and it was fully fueled. Don't delude yourself that there was anything from which DNA could be retrieved. Go read up on jet fuel. I saw what it did.

"Orthodox view," my ass. Give it up. The plane hit the Pentagon.

[Old and In the Way]

59. You gave that as a deposition?????

"The plane came down almost vertically at hundreds of MPH,"

Everything I've read and seen has this as a horizontal attack.

And it wasn't fully fueled. It had been airborne for over 60 minutes.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

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

[Old and In the Way]

69. "The plane came down almost vertically at hundreds of MPH,"

Your words. You were an eyewitness, remember?

It was in the air for an hour.

And I believe you are an "OldLeftieLawyer" as much as I believe you were an eyewitness to the events.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

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

[Old and In the Way]

73. Aren't you interested in seeing justice served for the 3000 Americans

who died on 9/11? I am. The Pentagon was hit 52 minutes after the 2nd plane went into the WTC. At the very least, there was criminal incompetence (as an 'OldLeftieLawyer' you certainly must know what that is, right?) No one has been reprimanded, demoted, prosecuted or held accountable for the deaths of 3,000 innocent Americans on that day. We couldn't even get to hear George Bush explain what he meant when he said, "I saw the 1st plane hit the WTC on TV". He's on record of saying that twice.

So OLL, why haven't you responded to my question?....you were an "eyewitness" that day and you saw the plane go down almost vertically into the Pentagon. You didn't perjure yourself, did you?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

77. My goodness, Part Two

Sweetheart, it's a message board. You are not the Avenging Angel, but, if you think you are, you should take it up with the Bush Admnistration. I believe they're in charge of all those alleged criminals to whom you refer.

I'm being far more polite to you here than you deserve, but, truly, I feel sorry for you. So, I'll repeat it for you, and, if you read it verrrrrrrry slowlllllllllly, and try not to move your lips, maybe you'll retain at least the essence of these simple sentences:

The statements were given to the Arlington Police.

Go check their files.

Now, get on with your fulltime job of spreading joy, and have a wonderful, wonderful Christmas.

[Old and In the Way]

89. Dearest. Why would I bother running down to the Arlington Police

looking for your bogus statement?

You are quite adept at insulting while not answering the questions, though...it must be that OldLeftieLawyer in you.

PS Don't bother responding.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

99. Walk, don't run

That way, when you read the statements, you'll still have enough energy to celebrate the American spirit of people who try their hardest at the worst possible times.

You out spreading that joy, like I told you?

[Old and In the Way]

111. You still seeing planes flying vertically into the Pentagon?

I'll be celebrating when we bring these Republican criminals to justice....how about you, Leftie?

[tngledwebb]

71. What do you know, another 'expert' telling amateurs to fuck off!

Thanks, but no thanks. Just saying you have expertise don't mean shit round here, even if you are an 'old leftie lawyer'.
Only thing that matters is the debate itself. This is a DEMOCRATIC underground. You know what that Big 'D' stands for, do you not? It means us 'dummies' have the same rights as 'pros' like yourself.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

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

[tngledwebb]

121. You, an old leftie lib lawyer, finds that offensive?

What left lib causes did you get involved in?

[Solomon]

220. Ok. Let me have a piece of this. I notice everytime people talk about

the pentagon lie, they get confused about the "bodies."

I.e., "it must have been the plane because they found body parts.", and they would have had to plant too much evidence", etc.

Why does everybody keep forgetting all the employees of the pentagon that were killed in that crash? They weren't on the plane, but their body parts, teeth, etc. were all in there.

The government wouldn't have had to plant forensic evidence. All they had to do was tell us lies about the body parts.

There is a secretary in my office who kept holding on to the lie that it must have been the 77 because her brother-in-law supposedly helped with the clean-up and he told her that there were body parts etc.
When I suggested to her to remember there were employees killed there
and to check with her brother-in-law, she later came back and said, that this little detail hadn't occurred to anybody and that the people working on the clean-up had no clue as to whether the body parts they saw were people on the plane, or employees.

Just my two cents.

I'm convinced it wasn't the 77 because the pentagon is under 24 hour surveillance. They would have video of that plane smashing into the pentagon, but they won't show it. The image of the planes hitting the WTC is all they need to convince most people of anything that day.

[MercutioATC]

223. Not "bodies"....DNA.

Dna that matched the passengers and crew of AAL77, to be specific.

[Abe Linkman]

228. Totally UNresponsive to the argument made by Soloman.

M-ATC is being intellectually dishonest and unfair to a fellow DUer.
M-ATC can't refute Solomon's message, so M-ATC uses the trick of reframing Solomon's point and responding to THAT, rather than Solomon's points. M-ATC claims to be an air traffic controller and former cop. To my knowledge, M-ATC makes NO claim to being a (professional) disinfo agent. M-ATC has said that his only purpose here at DU is to answer questions about air traffic control issues, but it's just another coincidence that M-ATC happens to be in ATC where so much of the peculiar events of 9/11 unfolded...but that doesn't mean M-ATC has any inside information about what REALLY happened on 9/11 that he hasn't shared with the rest of us.

[MercutioATC]

230. Are you feeling all right, Abe?

Solomon said that he didn't understand why people used bodies inside the Pentagon as evidence of a crash because those bodies could have been those of Pentagon workers.

I pointed out that some of the body parts found in the Pentagon had DNA that matched that of AAL77 passengers which WOULD be evidence of a crash.

How is that being unresponsive or intelectually dishonest?

[Solomon]

234. But you left out the part of my post that deals with telling us that the

"DNA" matches the passengers and crew. They could tell us anything. The point of my post was to show that the fact that some people got creamed in that incident means that they didn't need to conspire to plant evidence everywhere. There was dna there from employees. All they have to do is tell us what they want as far as whose it is.

The fact that they told us it matches the dna of the passengers and crew is no proof to me that it's true.

[Abe Linkman]

235. M-ATC also (and usually) conveniently ignores the ILLogic in his claims...

"The fact that they told us it matches the dna of the passengers and crew is no proof to me that it's true."

M-ATC fails or refuses to acknowledge the lack of proof of:

* WHERE the DNA (in question) was actually found. EVEN if you assume that it was from people allegedly on FL 77...it could have been brought to the Pentagon.

* WHOSE DNA they're actually talking about (as you pointed out).

It's difficult to know exactly (wink, wink) why M-ATC uses deceptive reasoning. He says he's a former cop and that he attended college for a while. Might be helpful to take that into consideration, along with his present job, which he says is full-time work in ATC...which doesn't necessarily mean his work is limited to watching screens all day. He may be a multi-tasker...perhaps working in PR part of the day...or all day, for all we know.

[MercutioATC]

238. I'm flattered that you've taken such an interest in my career, Abe.

For the record:

I am a full-time civilian ATC working at Cleveland Center, and have been for nearly 14 years.

I'm also a certified ATC OJTI (on the job instructor) and I occasionally participate in FAA development and training programs (to date, National Airspace Redesign and Reduced Visual Separation Minima).

However, I'm just another grunt working airplanes about 95% of the time.



...and no, I've never been involved in any sort of PR for the FAA.

[MercutioATC]

237. Yes, they COULD tell us anything.

But is it reasonable to disbelieve EVERYTHING the government says? The government has stated that DNA from the Pentagon matches AAL77 passengers and crew. Nobody has provided any evidence to the contrary. Based on a LOT of other evidence, I don't see that claim as being something to dismiss out of hand.

[Abe Linkman]

239. They DID tell us anything and everything. Mostly lies.

Is it reasonable to question the 9/11 Fairy Tale, now that we know the that the most basic claims we were told about what happened are lies?

Yes, unless we had been given some incentive to dismiss the truth and promote the OCT.

[MercutioATC]

240. Well, I'm off to my meeting at Langley now....

...or is it dinner at my parents' house? Either way, I'm afraid I'll have to postpone our little discussion.

Merry Christmas, Abe.

[tngledwebb]

254. Good point,

All they have to do is tell us what they need to tell us. And what we find, throughout all the official reports and MSM articles, is vague and contradictory high-school level journalese, in all its glory, aka gobbledygook, undeserving of a gentleperson's C.

[Abe Linkman]

255. All that can be realistically expected since OCT is a lie.

The public cannot be trusted to accept the truth about much of anything.
Which is why the Gov't lied about:

"Remember The Maine"
"Pearl Harbor"
"Gulf of Tonkin"
"First Golf War" )First U.S. Invasion)
"Invasion of EYE Rack" (Second Invasion)
"OBL/CIA"
"WMD"
"Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory"

[DulceDecorum]

241. About those body parts

Am I the only person who feels that the Tri-State Crematory was in the business of supplying corpses to willing buyers?

Who would want a stiff, you ask?
Artists.
Scientists.
People who want to be presumed dead.
Politicians who want to fake an atrocity.

Do the math.
If Tri-State did not cremate people for OVER TEN YEARS and yet only 340 corpses were recovered.

A check of records in southeast Tennessee counties found that funeral directors sent 257 bodies to Tri-State Crematory since 1999. County health departments in Tennessee are required to keep cremation records only for three years.
www.oakridger.com/stories/022702/stt_0227020035.html
340 - 257 = 83
See what I mean?

Now the latest development at the crematory is that the alleged "broken" incinerator, isn´t really broken as Marsh said it was, and this was confirmed after the machine was successfully tested last week. So the cremation incinerator is in fine shape and operational. Why then did Ray Brent Marsh lie?
http://login.bellaonline.com/articles/art1362.asp

Where did those bodies all vanish to?
Plenty of funeral homes were shipping one body a week to that place.
So sad.
So so sad.
http://www.jewishsf.com/bk010608/comm3.shtml
http://www.juf.org/news_public_affairs/article.asp?key=3011

[MercutioATC]

242. You're claiming that Tri-State supplied bodies for the crashes as

"window dressing"?

THAT'S a new one...I've gotta give you credit for creativity.

[frylock]

8. no disrespect, and i'm not taking the side of one theory or the other..

but whenever I hear someone state that they witnessed the plane while driving on the interstate, I can't help but wonder if you are absolutely certain of what you saw. The reason I ask this is because I live near a major airport, and also near a Marine Corp Air Station that is adjacent to the freeway. I see aircraft make their approach often, and they are moving quite fast. However, they are never traveling near the speed that they allege that 77 was.

How far from the aircraft were you, and what distinctive markings were you able to make out?

[BlueDog2u]

9. I think you have a point

Which is correct, namely that eyewitnesses can be mistaken. And eyewitnesses apparently have divergent accounts of this incident. My impression is that the vast majority testify to seeing a 757 or similar plane, but a few described what they saw as a missile.

What is your opinion about the forensic evidence? Much as I admire the energy and research of those exploring this issue, I fail to see how this evidence can be reconciled with the CT theories that the colliding object was not flight 77.

[frylock]

10. hard to argue against the forensic evidence..

however, who was the agency (independant or governmental) who conducted said investigation, and has any evidence ever been produced to substantiate their findings (as gruesome a thought as that may be)? It would be simple enough for someone to complete a (faked) report putting to rest any thought that it was anything but 77 that struck the Pentagon.

I could really go either way on this, but what would really put my mind to rest is if they would release just one video showing the plane strike, just one. One thing I can be certain of, is IF it was a plane that hit the Pentagon, there is no way in hell it was piloted by who we were led to believe it was. It was either A) radio controlled, or B) flown by a trained military pilot.

[BlueDog2u]

18. I think your two scenarios are both possible,

maybe even plausible. Much more plausible than arguing that the remains of seventy victims were transferred to the site just to fortify the orthodox story. That's just way too complicated. If you're going to kill those people, just radio control the plan into the building for crying out loud. Anything else is just way to risky.

[tngledwebb]

153. The remains may have been anywhere. Remember

the ONLY evidence of any DNA is taken from reports, 'official' reports. Like evidence of WMD's, you know, as sworn and stated in official reports. You understand how just about anything could have been covered up?

[MercutioATC]

19. Actually, I haven't seen ONE eyewitness who SAW a missile.

One or two reported "missile" sounds or said the plane was moving as fast as a missile.

Dozens claimed to have seen a large commercial plane.

Granted, eyewitness reports can be unreliable, but when it's this overwhelming, I tend to take their recollections into account.

[BlueDog2u]

27. Could be

I haven't done a census of the accounts. I was leaning over backward to be fair to missile theory folks. I think I've seen one or two or a few accounts, but I could be confusing acoustic with visual accounts. There certainly seems to be plenty of eyewitness testimony for a passenger plane. And, of course, even though eyewitness testimony can be mistaken, the more eyewitnesses you have reporting the same thing, the more reliable the testimony becomes.

Compare this incident, for example, with TWA 800, in which dozens if not hundreds of eyewitnesses reported seeing a missile which took down the plane (and photographic evidence, although mostly confiscated by the FBI and never released, confirmed this), while the CIA spent millions of dollars to produce a simulation specifically designed to contradict the eyewitnesses. In that case we had abundant eyewitness testimony contradicting the orthodox, consensus-reality, government cover-up. But in this case we apparently have abundant eyewitness testimony which corroborates the official story, at least up to the point of correctly identifying the weapon which struck the Pentagon.

The rest is still up for grabs. But based on what I've seen so far in this thread, I'd have to go with the "conservative" faction on this one.

[MercutioATC]

31. That's all I'm saying...

I've even said that (while I personally don't subscribe to the notion) I've seen no evidence to eliminate the possibility of remote control of the planes.

I'm not attacking those who don't blindly accept the government's version, I'm just asking that the same rules apply to everybody. I'm a lot less concerned with what's "official" than with what makes sense. If you have no real evidence to support your claim and have to resort to claiming that overwhelming contrary evidence is all bogus (without substantiation) I feel that deserves a question or two.

[BlueDog2u]

34. Well then, Mercutio, you and I are playing on the same team...

:toast:

[MercutioATC]

35. That's the way I see it.

Your posts seem to be pretty neutral.

If mine seem a little heated at times, please consider that I've been here for over a year and a half...I see the same "issues" brought up time after time by the same posters when contrary evidence has already been provided (months ago).

I get a little testy sometimes.


:spank:

[BlueDog2u]

43. Understood

Actually, you seem pretty reasonable most of the time.

[Abe Linkman]

236. Being Intentionally vague must serve a purpose, M-ATC. What is it?

"Dozens claimed to have seen a large commercial plane."

Yes, there were three or four large planes in the vicinity of the Pentagon. ONE was doing aeronautical acrobatics, as a distraction.
ONE flew OVER the Pentagon (and may have landed at National Airport), and ONE flew very near that same aircraft (a C130).

One thing that the Conspiracy Theorists who are here to sell the "Cavemen Did It" Storyline do is conveniently neglect to inform you about what should have been 100s of people who would have heard a deafening roar if a B757 had been traveling at 400 miles an hour just a few feet over their heads and cars. To my knowledge, no one has come forward with a sound recording of any B757 crashing into the Pentagon. Why do you think that is? Surely, SOMEWHERE around there, a sound recording device must have been in use and would have captured the loud roar and Big Bang. But, so far, the only "recording" of the event are those images from the Parking lot that do NOT show a 757, but DO appear to show a missile being fired at the Pentagon (apparently, that was the missile that Defense Secretary Rumsfeld said had hit the Pentagon). Why M-ATC & "sweet" and the others ignore THAT is beyond me. Maybe you know. If you were on their side, how would YOU spin THAT? But, wait until you hear what THEY have to say about it first.

[MercutioATC]

247. A couple of issues with that, Abe:

1) The plane doing "aerobatics" and the C-130 were not "large commercial airplanes". They were military planes.

2) Where is the audio recording of a missile strike/F-16 strike/shaped charges? If you're going to use the lack of audio as an argument, you have to apply it to your scenario also.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

29. There is no airport near I-395 in Virginia

There's an exit for National from the Interstate, but the planes there take off over the Potomac and that's past the Pentagon. I was traveling north and hadn't reached the 14th Street Bridge yet, over which the planes take off. So, yeah, we see planes all the time, taking off and landing. Remember when the Air Florida flight hit the Bridge in that snowstorm maybe 23 years ago? That's still the National Flight plan. That's irrelevant here, though

Because flight 77 took off from Dulles, which is a long distance from the Pentagon, and the flight path out there enabled the plane to get up speed, to ascend, and then, when that guy put it into a nosedive, to crash.

I had just passed the exit for Washington Boulevard/Columbia Pike and was coming up on the National Airport exit when the plane hit. All you heard in advance was a ragingly loud noise - it was a nice morning, and I had the car window down - and then this fucking big thing dropped so fast out of the sky. The sound of the explosion scared me more than the explosion itself, since I think it took my brain a few seconds to comprehend what had happened.

Then the smoke.

Then the smell. You cannot believe the smell.

[DulceDecorum]

107. How far is it from the Pentagon

to Dulles?

And how far is it from the Pentagon to Regan National?

About how long do you estimate it would take
for a police cruiser to get from each airport to the Pentagon,
if the cruiser was going at full speed on a Tuesday morning?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

119. Distances

From Dulles to the Pentagon is about thirty miles, and it's heavily travelled road once you leave the Dulles Access Road and get on the Beltway and then the GW Parkway. For a cruiser to get from Dulles to the Pentagon, during the late rush hour (9-10 a.m.), with no jams or accidents, I'd say it could be done in twenty-five minutes. Maybe twenty, but I'm shaking my head as I type that number.

From the Pentagon to National (I refuse to call it the R name, which I regard as bogus) is about four miles. A cruiser from National to the Pentagon could make that trip at that time in about five minutes, with all conditions being ideal.

[FannySS]

120. Pentagon - Reagan National = less than 1 mile (nt)

Pentagon - Reagan National = less than 1 mile (nt)

[OldLeftieLawyer]

127. No, that's incorrect n/t

[FannySS]

134. It´s less than 1 mile to the runway, see pic

You can see the runway of RRNational on the left bottom of the pic.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

136. Wait a minute

You're measuring the end of a runway as "the airport"?

The airport is almost 5 miles from the Pentagon. I can believe that the far end of a runway would be a mile away, but that's not what you asked.

[DulceDecorum]

142. A cop car not a helicopter

is what we are talking about.

A cop car has to use the road.
A cop car cannot go in a straight line over rivers and houses.

How long would it take a cop car to travel from Dulles to the Pentagon crash site?

How long would it take a cop car to travel from National to the Pentagon crash site?

On a Tuesday morning.
Starting from 9:30AM
(about the time the first messages about the plane went out.)
Lights flashing.
Siren blaring.
With the usual traffic.
How long?

[Old and In the Way]

12. Let's see that impounded FBI tape from the gas station accross

from the Pentagon. That should show a 757. If it does, then all the speculation would cease in an instant. They released that other security cam tape, which was inconclusive....so why not release the evidence that would stop all the endless speculation in a minute?

[BlueDog2u]

16. Agreed, in both cases

The refusal to release evidence is bad, unless of course there is something to hide, or possibly those who do not release are intentionally fueling paranoia and CT.

But what is being hidden through the failure to release is not necessarily proof of a missile scenario. Given the other evidence which is available -- and I will just say that I, for one, accept the forensic evidence for the simple reason that it was conducted by a team of over fifty scientists, and I think that if any of them had suspicions that everything was not legit, we would have heard at least a whisper about it by now -- I just don't see any scenario other than the orthodox one as being reasonable. That doesn't mean I accept the government's fairy tale about 9-11. I don't at all. The evidence for LIHOP, to me, is overwhelming. But I just don't see that this particular line of reasoning contributes to it.

[MercutioATC]

21. How do you know what that tape would show?

Yes, it was allegedly confiscated. Yes, if it was confiscated, it hasn't been released.

However, it's a gas station security video from across a lawn and a road. None of us know exactly how it was pointed. Its focus would certainly not be set to view objects hundreds of yards away. It's an issue, but I don't see how anybody could say it would offer definitive proof.

[BlueDog2u]

30. No idea what the tape would show

I am merely suggesting on principle that whenever the government refuses to release evidence, it is inflaming conspiracy theories, perhaps even, in some cases, creating them. For that reason alone, I wish the tapes, if they do exist, would be released.

Given all of the other circumstantial evidence, and the numerous mistatements of fact which have often been offered in support of the missile theory (no evidence of 757 wreckage, no downed lamp posts, etc., etc.), I find it hard to believe that the tapes in this case would really disprove the orthodox story.

But as long as they are not released, I can understand the suspicions which are provoked. Its just that in this case, my assessment of the remaining evidence which is available for inspection leads me to reject, or at least feel highly doubtful of, the missile scenario.

[MercutioATC]

33. I completely agree.

I was commenting on Oldandintheway's contention "Let's see that impounded FBI tape from the gas station accross from the Pentagon. That should show a 757."

[Abe Linkman]

36. Maybe you could get a job helping to sell the "caveman did it" story.

Given that after an exhaustive study and much THINKING and analyzing and
seeing what others (who, in some cases might be just as smart as you are) have concluded, and your willingness to be so reasonable sounding ("I can understand the suspicions which are provoked")...you might have a big future in a new line of work. You never know. How much PROOF of it do you need? But, don't ask me where or how to apply, because I don't know. Maybe somebody else here does.

[MercutioATC]

37. You gotta admit I warned you, Bluedog....

you "PR Flack"....


:evilgrin:

[BlueDog2u]

39. O holy christ

It wasn't the cave men?


:nopity:

[Abe Linkman]

42. Yes, it WAS cave men. But, they're not from caves in Afghanistan.

The "cave men" responsible for 9/11 are all from ReallyReallyBadistan.

How about that career suggestion? Like it?

[BlueDog2u]

46. ReallyReallyBadistan

I tend to agree. But the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that they made use of Jihadists to effect their aims. Do you agree with that?

About the career idea...sorry, I already have a job. Thanks for asking though.

[Old and In the Way]

58. Abe, got a question.

Obviously, Atta and the band of hijackers (the alive ones, anyway) weren't much of the fundie Muslim types. In fact, Atta had rather interesting ties to our military establishment:

http://anderson.ath.cx:8000/911/news41.html

"For at least four years while living in Hamburg during the 1990's terrorist ringleader Mohamed Atta was part of a 'joint venture' between the U.S. and German Governments, the MadCowMorningNews has learned, an elite international "exchange" program run by a little- known private organization with close ties to powerful American political figures like David Rockefeller and former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.

The jointly-funded government effort picked up the tab for Atta on sojourns in Cairo, Istanbul, and Aleppo in Syria during the years 1994 and 1995 and employing him as a "tutor" and "seminar participant" during 1996 and 1997.

Moreover Atta's financial relationship with the U.S.-German government effort, may even extend back to his initial move from Egypt to Germany in 1992, after being "recruited" in Cairo by a mysterious German couple dubbed the "hijacker's sponsors" in a recent news account in the Chicago Tribune."

And then there was that Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California which Atta attended.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/ISA206A.html

Shortly after September 11, several US news outlets reported that Saeed Alghamdi—named as taking part in the hijacking of United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in western Pennsylvania—had taken courses at the Defense Language Institute, the US military’s primary foreign language facility, where Butler was a leading officer overseeing students (essentially, dean of students).

Alghamdi, a 41-year-old Saudi national, was one of several alleged hijackers, including accused ringleader Mohamed Atta, who reportedly trained at US military facilities, according to a series of articles published between September 15 and 17 in the Washington Post, Newsweek magazine, the New York Times and several other newspapers.

On September 15, Newsweek reported: “U.S. military sources have given the FBI information that suggests five of the alleged hijackers of the planes used in Tuesday’s terror attacks received training at secure U.S. military installations in the 1990s.”

The magazine said that Saeed Alghamdi was among three who had taken flight training at the Navy Air Station in Pensacola, Florida—known as the “cradle of US Navy aviation”—which also administers training of foreign aviation students for the Navy. The magazine, citing “a high-ranking Pentagon official” as its source, reported that two others—both former Saudi air force pilots who had come to the US—also attended such facilities. One received tactical training at the Air War College in Montgomery, Alabama and the other language training at the Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas.

Over the next few days, more detailed information appeared in several other newspapers. A September 16 article in the New York Times reported: “Three of the men identified as the hijackers in the attacks on Tuesday have the same names as alumni of American military schools, the authorities said today. The men were identified as Mohamed Atta, Abdulaziz al-Omari and Saeed al-Ghamdi.

“The Defense Department said Mr. Atta had gone to the International Officers School at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama; Mr. al-Omari to the Aerospace Medical School at Brooks Air Force Base in Texas; and Mr. al-Ghamdi to the Defense Language Institute at the Presidio in Monterey, Calif.”

Now we also know there was a majot exercise underway on 9/11 called Vigilant Guardian. http://www.911review.com/means/wargames.html

Now, I wonder if Atta and Co. were actually "playing" the role of terrorists on some/all of the flights that crashed that day? What if 11, 175, 77, and 93 were actually in that exercise but had special remote control equipment installed? Maybe Atta, et al, boarded those planes as part of the exercise, but ultimately also became victims in this terrorist act.

[Abe Linkman]

62. Your idea makes imminent good sense & is internally consistent

You may well be 100% correct. I've long believed that is what happened.
9/11 has many familiar signatures...both for domestic as well as operations conducted by perps in other contries. Even in the Phillipines, when Cory Aquino's husband was "offed" by the Marcos regime, a Patsy (Rolando Gaillindo -sp- ) was used and then he too, was offed. Just like Lee Harvey Oswald and Harvey Oswald. Whether it's a "legend" (as in the two Oswalds), a simple Patsy (Gallindo--the lone COMMUNIST!), or setting up Atta and the boys..."they" get away with it so easily that apparently they don't feel any need to change their M.O..

[Old and In the Way]

72. I'm really leaning that way, too.

Atta as Oswald. Sadly, I think the House of Saud was in on it, too. For a country where 15/19 alledged hi-jackers came from, we punished them by:

(1) Taking out their secular neighbor that posed a threat to their interests, but who had nothing to do with 9/11.
(2) Exited our military bases in their country.
(3) Provided US muscle to the region and our military has become a lightening rod to focus radical fundiementalism's attention away from the economic disparity between the haves (House of Saud) and the have-nots (rest of the country).
(4) Crippled Iraq's oil industry....thus making Saudi Arabia's product a whole more valuable in themarket today.

I'm beginning to also wonder if the whole "ISI general gave Atta $80,000" was perhaps some disinformation to corroborate 'the terrorists were hijackers' meme. That story disappeared rather quickly down the memory hole, didn't it? And remember that story of Atta in the bank? I believe that was bogus, too....and if it was, then you need to ask why such a story would be planted for public consumption.

[Abe Linkman]

74. Very good point about the "ISI & $ as disinformation"

Makes sense. Real good sense. Same with the (Mouse in) the House of Saud. Spread the wealth (amongst the wealthy) and spread the risks, too. Preventive medicine & lid-tightener. As of today (literally), Larry's $7 billion award (REward?) looks hard to beat.

[Old and In the Way]

75. The House of Saud and the RW Isreali government seem to be 9/11

winners. They've gotten the US military squarely into the ME quagmire.

And where do these 2 countries seemingly exclusive interests intersect? In the 'Project for a New American Century'.

[demodewd]

108. $100,000

I've always wondered what Atta would do with $100,000 just a few days before he was going to meet Allah.

[Old and In the Way]

113. Downpayment for that cropduster he always wanted?

[Abe Linkman]

116. Maybe it was to buy gifts of "EightBalls" to pass around once he got there

Or ounces, maybe.

[BlueDog2u]

100. Interesting idea.

"Now, I wonder if Atta and Co. were actually "playing" the role of terrorists on some/all of the flights that crashed that day? What if 11, 175, 77, and 93 were actually in that exercise but had special remote control equipment installed? Maybe Atta, et al, boarded those planes as part of the exercise, but ultimately also became victims in this terrorist act."


Interesting idea.

[tngledwebb]

128. You said CAVEMEN!

I'm alertin' the DU and the BushCo PC police.:spank:

[Old and In the Way]

57. I assume it would show a 757 ....that's the whole point of wanting it.

released.

I saw a picture of the station looking past the pumps to the Pentagon

It looked like a pretty clear view. Frankly, I don't know if there were security cameras there, But it's probably not unreasonable to assume I'd guess. Anyway, from what I could see in that picture, we'd have seen a very clear look at the event.

Has the FBI denied the existance of the tapes? If so, maybe someone can provide a link confirming it. If they did confiscate the surveilance tape, I wonder why that wouldn't be part of the official record? I'd be interested in why they wouldn't.

[Abe Linkman]

63. 100% safe to assume the Pentagon has lots of the best cameras everywhere

In my opinion, it is absurd to even assert that there is any possibility that the Pentagon attack WASN'T captured on very high resolution cameras. There are photos on the Web that show some of the security cameras on the Pentagon building.

Besides, for a Big event like 9/11, you KNOW they had good cameras set up to capture all the action. Just like the CCTV that allowed Commander Bunnypants to view the first WTC hit (a savvy move that simultaneously gave Boy George "guilty knowledge").

[MercutioATC]

78. I've seen the same photo.

However, we don't know in which direction the security camera(s) pointed and it'd be unlikely that their focus would be set to such an extreme range.

[Abe Linkman]

83. Do you have some reasonable basis for saying that? If so, do tell us. n/t

n/t

[MercutioATC]

86. Stating what? That we don't know which direction the camera was pointed?

I don't know, do you?

[Old and In the Way]

90. Well, if they did confiscate the film, I'd think they'd have figured it

would be of some importance in documenting the event.

For those that haven't seen the picture:

<>

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/footage.html

"The FBI visited a gas station across from the Pentagon within minutes of the attack to confiscate film that may have captured the attack. According to Jose Velasquez, who was working at the gas station at the time of the attack, the station's security cameras would have captured the attack."

[MercutioATC]

91. If you were investigating, wouldn'y you have confiscated anything that

could possibly have shown anything? Just because they confiscated it doesn't mean it held anything useful.

[Old and In the Way]

92. True....so why not tell the public if that tape was helpful or not?

The point being is that they neither confirm nor deny that the tape has conclusive evidence. Why is that? Assuming it is conclusive, why not release and put an end to all the questions? Call me a doubting Thomas. I want to believe, just show me the evidence. Or, as Ronald Reagan once said, "Trust, but verify."

BTW, from the same article:



"The FBI visited a hotel near the Pentagon to confiscate film from a security camera which some hotel employees had been watching in horror shortly after the attack. The FBI denied that the footage captured the attack."

I wonder if the 9/11 Commission asked those hotel employees to give their testimony?

[MercutioATC]

93. We agree on that.

I'd like to see some of this stuff dealt with.

[Abe Linkman]

98. The issue is why no video proof has been shown, not why it was taken

If bushco wanted the public to know what really happened at the Pentagon, they'd release video proof of it. The gov't released the Zapruder film which showed the actual murder of President Kennedy, so a video showing a plane crash shouldn't be any big deal...unless, unless, like Ted Olson's claims, it might turn out that the video would show the Gov't has lied to the world. Just like Ted Olson did. Remember?

[MercutioATC]

105. "it might turn out "....EXACTLY.

It MIGHT. It might not.

I've never said that the video couldn't have shown something. I'm taking issue with a post that claimed it WOULD have shown what happened. I made that quite clear.

[Sweet Pea]

112. This picture.....

is not from any surveillance camera. This was a public affairs picture taken for whatever event was going on at the Citgo. The surveillance camera in question (and yes, I will try and get pictures of the thing) would have a much shorter field of view, would certainly not have the quality of a still photo and my guess, seeing the things and where they are positioned, would not likely have provided any sort of video record of the impact.

[Old and In the Way]

114. Well, I appreciate your guess.

The only thing we seem to know for sure is the FBI confiscated some film from the camera and to date we have not had any comment on the contents nor actual release to the public. They had no problem releasing those crappy webcam shots, so I really can't fathom why they'd keep this open to debate.....particularly if it supports the government's story. There's evidence or there isn't on the tapes. Why keep it open for speculation?

[Abe Linkman]

117. There is nothing new under the sun. Same thing was done w/11.22.63 movies

The Gov't confiscated movies and photos of the JFK assassination that have NEVER been returned to their rightful owners, and have never been shown to the public.

The Zapruder film was doctored before IT was released and shown to the public for the first time...in 1975.

So, there's a good possibility that the Gov't will release an Osama-like
video, complete with a model B757 that looks kinda, sort of like a REAL B757, and we'll all see it crash into a papier-mache "Pentagon".

Coming to a Teevee near you sometime around 2014.

[seatnineb]

124. Abe

Looks like you are onto somethin.......

Lo and behold!




P.S.....wonder if that is SweetPea?

[Abe Linkman]

125. On my screen, the hair looks too white, but I'm using an old monitor.

Still, in these days of modern times, when you can't tell the ACs from the DCs, pretty much anything is possible...so you might be right.

[tngledwebb]

148. Interesting how smoke blows from unexpected location?

From another area than the entry hole, perhaps the exit hole, inside the rings?

Would that imply the front of 'the plane' blew up inside the rings, or had an exploding tip?

While the extremely high spray of water from the firehoses aims at the UPPER floors, and/or helps hide the scene of the crime.

[Abe Linkman]

149. Is your home address on a street that begins with "B" - say the 200 block?

Very good. Please continue.

[seatnineb]

150. Well spotted!

Yeah!......

I did not actually notice that when I posted the pic yesterday.

Good point.

[tngledwebb]

154. Been spotted elsewhere, but this photo is a better angle.

That 'Govt plans for a plane attack' photo, with the plane inside the architectural model of the P-gon, may be useful, if anyone can find it.

[k-robjoe]

129. Cameras

Can you guys ( Sweet Pea too ) let me know what you think about the two pics on this site : http://www.policestate21.com/ ( 1/3 down )



"Upon further examination of this area of the Pentagon, one can clearly count at least five additional security cameras, two of which were unmistakably aimed directly where the plane would have impacted with the Pentagon."

It´s not all obvious from the pics, but it does make sense that there were cameras in place. Just look at what the security was like at the WTC in January 2001 :

CEE News, Jan 1, 2001.

About the security at the World Trade Center :

" Hundreds of cameras videotape the activity both inside and outside of the complex. The videotapes are then archived for reference."

http://september11.ceenews.com/ar/electric_towering_security_2/

[Sweet Pea]

67. Question

Have you ever been to that Citgo station across the road from the Pentagon? Do you know of what you speak of with such certainty? Do you know *where* the cameras are pointed? Primarily towards pumps to tape customers as they engage in their transactions. Do you even know if any of the cameras can even *see* the Pentagon?

FYI...I stop by that gas station regularly. I don't believe any of those surveillance cameras would have shown anything, based on where they are located, pointed and oriented.

[FannySS]

95. Could you take photos of the cam?

Hi Sweet Pea,

couldn´t you take some pics of those security cams and present them here? That would be extraordinarily!

Use a digital cam, and then host the pics here:

http://imageshack.us/index3.php

Edit: and also have a look at the Sheraton.

Fanny

[Old and In the Way]

96. Great idea FannySS!

[DulceDecorum]

110. In the meantime........

[Sweet Pea]

132. "In the meantime, as well..."

got any more photographs you could post that contribute precious little to the thread? This is a digital camera public affairs photo of the southern end of the Citgo service station. It has nothing to do with any of the security surveillance cameras that are mounted up under the overhang positioned to image the gas pumps and the cars that stop there.

What was the point of this photograph?

[tngledwebb]

126. Having been so close to this crime scene on occasion, do you think

there be anything at all of interest those cameras could have taped, Rummy getting a lube job, Rh talking to eyewitnesses?

[demodewd]

135. If that is the case

FYI...I stop by that gas station regularly. I don't believe any of those surveillance cameras would have shown anything, based on where they are located, pointed and oriented.

If that is the case,why would the FBI be in such a desperate hurry to confiscate them? What were they intending on concealing?

[BlueDog2u]

137. A friend suggested to me the very plausible

notion that the tapes were confiscated because they provide film evidence of the vulnerablity of the Pentagon to attack. Think about it for a moment. Is that the kind of thing our top Brass wants out on the internet if they can help it, a videotape showing a plane headed for the Pentagon? People copy things they can see.

I'm not saying that under the circumstances this is a justification for the concealment of the tape, but I do believe it constitutes an innocent rationale for how some people responsible for the confiscation might look at it.

[seatnineb]

146. Too late!

If such a premise is to be believed.....

Then they would probably have concealed this angle too......



and like the gas station video....they would have made sure that it never got leaked to the public......

[BlueDog2u]

172. Interesting...thanks for the evidence.

[Sweet Pea]

138. Have you considered...

at all....that possibly.....just possibly....they weren't trying to conceal anything? That possibly they didn't show ANYTHING? That possibly, like I said in the previous post, that the location, orientation and focus of the cameras did not show *anything*?

You don't know where the cameras are positioned, you don't know where they are pointed, you don't know what is in the field of view, you don't know what they recorded or what the DIDN'T record - yet you automatically assume that the confication was done to "conceal" something.

Ok.....

[seatnineb]

145. No escape.

O.K Sweetpea.....

So the cameras at the gas station are pointed to the ground......

Then....goddamit.......

We should at least be able to see peoples(who were fillin up their cars at that moment) reactions as they looked up towards the cameras and the sky......if we are real lucky....we may even get fl77's shadow!!

Sgt. William Lagasse, a pentagon police dog handler, the son of an aviation instructor, was filling up his patrol car at a gas station near the Pentagon when he noticed a jet fly in low.
"I saw the aircraft above my head about 80 feet above the ground, 400 miles an hour."

[tngledwebb]

155. Ever imagined anyone in the illegal and utterly evil BushCo regime

might have once lied to the public about anything? Or the CIA, or the military or even Bill Clinton, would they have once lied to us?

Please follow the new and improved easy to use 'Yes or No answer only' rule, to help out those who aren't pros.

[Abe Linkman]

156. Have you considered...

that possibly, just possibly that "have you considered" questions like
yours were considered by many, many serious-minded 9/11 researchers as far back as three years ago?

Wouldn't it be better if you spent a little more time getting up to speed on the state of 9/11 research before posing questions that logic would suggest have all been thoroughly thought-thru and answered?

[tngledwebb]

157. I think blue is up to very much 'up to speed'

on 9/11 skeptics research.

[Abe Linkman]

160. okay, but my message was in response to "sweet pea" n/t

n/t

[tngledwebb]

182. Right, hard to keep up without a program.

Sweet pea too.

[Sweet Pea]

162. Well, that's just it!

Abe, old bean! LOGIC! I've seen precious little of it in these claims that Flt 77 never hit the Pentagon because:

a) there were no "wing pieces" outside the building
b) there have not been any photos posted of human remains from the crash site, therefore there were no humans on board
c) any piece of non-building attributed piece of aluminum that is found around a supposed aircraft crash site is said to have been "planted"
d) any other non-building damage, such as downed light poles or damaged multi-ton generators are dismissed casually out of hand
c) someone with so-called minimal flight training "simply could not execute a 270-degree turn with 'military precision' (whatever the hell that is)" when in actuality flying a jet aircraft with computer assisted controls is one of the easiest things in the world - you point the damn thing where you want it to go and it goes there. Someone with minimal flight training would actually be able to "fly" one of these things very easily
d) the damage is not consistent with an airliners crashing into a kevlar-reinforced concrete building (as if as airliner crashing into a kevlar-reinforced concrete building is a common occurrence)
e) surveillance cameras from surrounding businesses and locations, when not released by the authorities, is automatic proof that "they are HIDING something!"
f) databases belonging to the airline and to the government are out of date or not updated, so therefore the aircraft that crashed is still or was still in existence or people who have been long since dead and buried are therefore still alive.
g) aircraft parts found inside the building are dismissed as....well....as who knows what - a nose-gear strut of a 757 is a nose-gear strut of a 757. But it had been PLANTED! Of course!!!!!
h) it was a cruise missile/executive plane/global hawk/F-16/F-18/F-15 controlled automatically by a C-130/Elvis/JSTARS/The White House/the Pentagon.

i-through-infinity I'll leave up to your imagination - Lord knows there are enough claims that lack the framework of logic in this matter.

[Abe Linkman]

164. If you really believe all that, then you really SHOULD read that book.

You are using the most crude form of reasoning there is: "If this, then
it must mean THIS".

Get a copy of the book I told you about, and read the damn thing.

[Sweet Pea]

179. No thanks

If reading that book means I would have to eschew logic for your more...shall we say...."creative" interpretation of events, it would definitely be a regression *down* the food chain.

Back in my programming days, if/then statements were the most basic of logical analysis. Sorry you don't subscribe to that philosophy.

[Abe Linkman]

184. I'll stick with logic, and you continue on with your unfounded speculation

Sorry you aren't interested in correcting your fallacious way of dealing with uncomfortable facts, but I would appreciate it if you would stop ascribing views to me that I've never stated and don't believe. Try that with OCTheory supporters. They aren't bothered by things that don't make sense.

[Name removed]

231. Deleted message

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

[impe]

161. oh brother

There are multiple highway camera's, pentagon camera's, hotel cameras, so you're right, who needs citgo's. I would even bet the heliport tower captured it all as well.

Did you see any of those pictures? I know, there probably wouldn't be ANYTHING on them. And that my sweet pea is probably closer to the TRUTH than you think.

[rman]

252. so why were recordings from that cam confiscated, along

with recordings from other cameras (ie one on the roof of a Hotel nearby)?

[tngledwebb]

68. Don't be a victim of 'imagination failure' that's how we got attacked

in the first place. But putting 9/11 aside, take a look at BushCo's reiterated ad nauseum 'proof' of Saddam's WMD's or links to terrorism, etc, and all other lies that led to an immoral, illegal 'war' in Iraq.

Do not forget the admitted duping and/or complicity of MSM and most Democrat and Republican pols.

Do you really think faking evidence, forensic or otherwise, would be any problem?

Really, one would almost think that you still believed you lived under a democracy with a free and independent press.

[DulceDecorum]

81. Seismic DNA

Before we even examine the DNA,
let have a look at what this particular station claims to have been able to pick up.
http://www.mgs.md.gov/esic/seisnet/eqarchv.html

Lamont-Doherty Cooperative Seismographic Network (LCSN) monitors
earthquakes which occur primarily in the Eastern United States.
<snip>
There are over 20 short-period stations and 15 three-component, broadband stations covering New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Vermont. Broadband stations record digital seismic signals continuously with a nominal sampling rate of 40 samples/sec, whereas short-period stations record signals continuously with 100 samples/sec.
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/intro.html

Since the time of plane impact at the Pentagon had often been reported with large scatter, the United States Army contacted us to inquire whether we could obtain an accurate time of the Pentagon attack on September 11, 2001 based upon our seismic network. We analyzed seismic records from five stations in the northeastern United States, ranging from 63 to 350 km from the Pentagon. Despite detailed analysis of the data, we could not find a clear seismic signal. Even the closest station ( = 62.8 km) at Soldier's Delight, Baltimore County, Maryland (SDMD) did not record the impact.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/nodate/seismicobservations.html

Hmmmmmmmmmm
Even the closest station
at Soldier's Delight, Baltimore County, Maryland
did not record the impact.
Hmmmmmmmmmm

BlueDog2u says:
But it is also my understanding that the forensic evidence from the scene has positively identified the remains of most if not all of the persons allegedly on board that aircraft.

First,
we need to know who was aboard the aircraft, especially since hijacker Hani Hanjour is not known to have purchased a ticket and co-pilot David Cha had no right to fly as an Air Transportation Pilot since his medical certificate had expired. The rules are very clear on this.
We must obtain an official passenger manifest from American Airlines.
(Don't hold your breath.)

Second,
one must look closely at the credentials of those who claim to have positively identified those remains.
We have other jobs which require their talents.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/02/16/national/main329640.shtml
http://www.stpetetimes.com/2004/11/20/Worldandnation/Crematory_operator_pl.shtml

Third,
we need to have another lab verify the results that were obtained so very quickly.
http://www.sierratimes.com/03/07/02/article_tro.htm
AFIP's team of forensic pathologists, odontologists, a forensic anthropologist, DNA experts, investigators and support personnel worked for more than TWO WEEKS in the mortuary at Dover Air Force Base, Del., and for weeks at the DNA lab in Rockville, Md., to identify the victims of the attack.
<snip>
"Because of the combined effort of all three services and the FBI, we were very pleased with the speed of the identification process," he said. "Essential records and references were submitted to us in a timely way."
All but four of those who worked in the Pentagon were identified, and AFIP identified all but one of the passengers on Flight 77.
http://www.dcmilitary.com/airforce/beam/6_49/national_news/12466-1.html

Fourth,
we need to know the eventual fate of those remains.
Especially after reading statements such as this:
In a single casket, remains that symbolically represent all 184 victims of the attack on the Pentagon were buried with full military honors Thursday at Arlington National Cemetery, the resting place of the nation's unknown soldiers.
<snip>
All the cremated remains buried Thursday were determined to have come from victims, because they did not have a genetic trait shared by the terrorists, said Chris Kelly, spokesman for the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology.
Some of the remains buried could not be linked to an individual victim. Others were identified after a victim had been buried, and were included in the shared grave at the family's request.
The hijackers' remains were turned over to the FBI in February. Any other remains, such as ash, that could not be partially identified as victims were disposed of by the mortuary at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, Kelly said, to ensure that no terrorists were committed to hallowed ground.
http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/unidentified-091202.htm
Families of the airplanes' passengers and crews and those who died within the Pentagon provided DNA samples, typically on toothbrushes or hairbrushes, to aid with identification. The remains that didn't match any of the samples were ruled to be the terrorists, said Chris Kelly, spokesman for the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, which did the DNA work. The nine sets of remains matched the number of hijackers believed to be on the two planes.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/08/17/attack/main519033.shtml
Which brings us right back to the fact that we
need to know who was aboard the aircraft.

[glugglug]

206. Have you PERSONALLY seen the forensic evidence?

Who funded the forensic studies? Our current regime.

I'm sure, if paid enough, the forensic scientists will identify whatever they want as remains.

[WoodrowFan]

208. and the witnesses??????????

and they paid all the witnesses as well?? I know one well, to think he was "Paid off" may be the single dumbest excuse I've EVER seen here.

bye bye.

[Abe Linkman]

209. See ya. Hurry every chance you get.

n/t

[MrSammo1]

243. Has

your friend ever seen the pre-collapse Pentagon wall?
Because if he did, he might take back what he said.