Tinfoil hat site shows jet couldn't have hit Pentagon

[Peak_Oil]

It's almost all pics, originals showing the footage and doctored ones showing the Boeing hitting the building, supposedly done to scale. Anybody here already debunk this site?

http://0911.site.voila.fr/

[DinahMoeHum]

1. Plain common sense can debunk this shit easily.

If a jet didn't hit the Pentagon, then what, pray tell, happened to Flight 77 and its passengers? Did they just walk away, laughing at their joke? Are they in Tahiti or the Marquesas islands right now??

Christ, this shit is an insult to the memory of the people of Flight 77 on that terrible day. It really isn't worth the broadband its on.


:evilfrown:

[RC]

3. Where are the pieces of

that 757? No seats. No luggage. Only part of ONE engine found. And the parts of that engine are too small for the massive 5 foot diameter fan-jets. The hole in the Pentagon is too small for the size of the plane. Something hit the Pentagon, yes, but it sure was not a 757.

[MercutioATC]

5. This report deals with some of that:

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

(the damage report for the Pentagon)

[RC]

33. So where are the engines?

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

Show me some pictures of two different fan-jet engines, in or around the Pentagon with something of a known size, such as a person to indicate scale. Until someone can come up with these pictures or evidenced of plane parts that are only on a 757 or simular, there is no proof a 757 hit the Pentagon.

[MercutioATC]

34. Well, here:

Engine (parts) #1:

"Some observers have claimed that these engine parts are too small to have come from a 757. The confusion is because the RB-211 engine configuration is dominated by the large turbofan at the front of the engine, which is what people expect a 757 engine should look like. However, because the RB-211 is a "high bypass" engine, the high-pressure compressor, combustion chamber and turbine are all much smaller than the turbofan, as shown in the small overview figure at the top left of the drawing. It is perfectly reasonable to ask what happened to the turbofan -- but the compressor disk and the combustor case do look like 757 parts."

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

Engine #2:


Charles H. Krohn, the Army's deputy chief of public affairs reported that one of the aircraft's engines somehow ricocheted out of the building and arched into the Pentagon's mall parking area between the main building and the new loading dock facility, http://www.aviationnow.com/content/publication/awst/20010917/aw48.htm"

http://www.dragonslair.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/77/ffdd.html

[Abe Linkman]

35. He can't do that, RC, because the engine part found is way too small.

The engine part found is less than half the size of what it would be from a 757.

And, do you really believe that a 2000 pound (or is it 20,000?) engine would just somehow disintegrate into nothing? It would be a first in aviation disasters, if it did.

The engine part found is consistent with it being from a small jet airplane. Likewise, the landing gear and one pilot's seat.

If you bother to read the "report" they try to use to claim it was a 757, you'll see how the facts are fudged and if I remember correctly, it doesn't say WHO the person is who is claiming that it is theorectically possible that there is a version of a 757 engine that the part found COULD have come from. NOTE: the "report" doesn't say that the engine part found DID come from a 757 - and it WOULD have said that, if it were true. In other words, the cited "article" is merely an opinion that was probably purchased...just like you can pay an engineer or doctor or any other self-styled expert to give an opinion in court...for money.

[Frodo]

74. You can't tell the difference between 2,000 and 20,000....yet

you want to be believed when you judge wreckage that you don't even try to claim is that far off? You can tell the "engine part" is half the size of what it would need to be... but you don't know what THAT size is to within an order of magnitude?

A telling example is your "engine part found is consistent with it being from a small jet airplane. Likewise, the landing gear and one pilot's seat".

I know that fighter pilots tend to be in slightly better shape than commercial pilots, but a seat is pretty much a seat. You're looking at a photo and can tell "that's not big enough to be a 757 pilot seat... it's from a fighter"?

[vincent_vega_lives]

112. The Crux of you argument

The engine part found is consistent with it being from a small jet airplane. Likewise, the landing gear and one pilot's seat.

1. Engine parts:

combustion chamber housing


Engine compressor or turbine disc


RB-211 overview, combustion chamber housing and high-pressure compressor disc


RB-211 cutaway. Note the size of the compressor when compared to the Fan housing. Compressor diameter: 79.2 inches, Fan diameter: 94.4 inches.

2. Landing Gear:

From the Pentagon (note 8 oval holes)


From a Global Hawk (note 12 oval holes)


From a 757 (note 8 oval holes)

3. Pilot's Seat:

A commercial pilot's seat is nothing like an F16 pilots seat.


An F16 would have an ejection seat.

[dick_eastman]

134. hats off! frame-up/cover-up foiled by Dewdney-Longspaugh-Eastman-Russell

:kick:

Greetings thinking Democrats,

You want the proof succinctly.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pentagon911/message/507

http://www.bedoper.com/eastman



Cynthia McKinney



http://groups.yahoo.com/group/911crimefile/message/3

[Abe Linkman]

136. Thanks, Dick Eastman. You've done it again!

Until now, I've never had a good understanding of how the flight paths of the killer jet and the B757 approached the Pentagon and how it is impossible for the B757 to have clipped that light pole -- something which has given artificial comfort to both sincere and INsincere apologists for the Official Story Conspiracy.

The persuasive evidence continues to pile up...thanks in no small part, to dedicated, intelligent, meticulous researchers like yourself.

Your ability to communicate clearly is a very helpful bonus to those of us who aren't as knowledgeable as yourself. You make complex information easy to understand.

[Bolo Boffin]

146. Abe's worshipping Dick again. Mood music, anyone?

But wait! What mere song could truly capture the intense devotion that causes Abe to sound Dick Eastman's praises as profusely as a Ronco studio audience? How about a little Atlantic Rhythm Section parody?

Imaginary logic
Never lets you down
When all the facts are in your way
It's around
It's my private pleasure
Darkweave fantasy
Someone out there is
Plotting to snare little me
Imaginary logic you blind any mind
Imaginary logic, oh yeah

Imaginary logic never disappoints
It's always right
As long as you light some joints
Then add five exclamation points!!!!!
Imaginary logic, imaginary logic
You'll blind ev'ry mind
My imaginary logic
You blind any mind

[Abe Linkman]

150. Eastman wins! Eastman wins! Eastman bitch-slaps Osama apologists.

Three up and three down. merc links, bolo winks, and lared slinks.

Anybody else? Or, shall we declare Eastman the winner, in a unanimous decision?

[objection]

151. Winner of what?

:shrug:

[Abe Linkman]

152. After your nap, ask your mommy.

Maybe she'll explain it to you in a way that you can understand.

[objection]

153. My mother died three weeks ago.

So how about, just for once, accepting the responsibility for your own infantile outlook?

:puke:

[Abe Linkman]

154. Well then, you'll just have to sort it out yourself.

The fact that Dick Eastman has presented a powerful case that the Official "Cavemen Did It" Conspiracy Theory is a total lie is far more important than your trying to figure out the meaning of a message subject line.

Equally important is that no one has even attempted to refute what Eastman presented.

FL 77 didn't crash at the Pentagon. The evidence continues to pile up.

[objection]

155. Really?

No assistance. No recollection. No responsibility. No credentials. No substance. No facts. No research. No analysis. No integrity. No originality. No heart. No brain.

What an impressive piece of work you are.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x15354#15617

[Abe Linkman]

156. REALLY! No Kidding. NOT 1 person has even tried to rebut Eastman.

Amazing. You'd think that would be a minimum requirement. Would you like to step up to the plate and try and show what, where, and how you think Eastman is mistaken? Or, are you from San Diego? bok bok bok bok

[objection]

157. Follow the link.

:think:

[MercutioATC]

159. Not ONE? How about me? I did right here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x14613#14853

I even forwarded the link to Mr. Eastman to give him the opportunity to reply directly.

[Abe Linkman]

163. Ha ha ha. It looks like a duck, quacks like a duck. It's a merc duck!

Isn't there even one apologist for the "Evildoer Cavemen Did It" Conspiracy Theory brave enough to at least TRY & rebut Eastman's case?

The Official Conspiracy Theory is a lie, and the evidence continues to pile up.

[MercutioATC]

165. Abe, I did refute it and I've provided a link where I did so.

In case you missed it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x14613#14853


If you have something substansive to say about my rebuttal, I'm more than happy to discuss it. Otherwise, this is the ONE reply you'll get to this accusation in this thread.

[Abe Linkman]

167. That's nothing but the SAME LINK you provide for EVERYTHING ...

you can't rebut!

Okay, take your ball and go home. We know you can't refute Jack.

[judy]

4. I agree with you Frank, that none of the tinfoil hat stories about

Flight 77 have any theory about what really happened to the flight and its passengers.
That said, I do not agree that asking questions about something that continues to be puzzling is an insult to anyone's memory.

No more than Kristen Breitweiser et al's search for the truth about the WTC is an insult to the memory of their loved ones.

What is puzzling about this Pentagon thing to me, is how is it possible that a hijacked commercial airliner could smash into the most guarded building in the world, one hour after the first hijacked airliner crashed into the WTC, without ANY intervention by ANYONE or anything, knowing that at least 4 airplanes had been hijacked already.

It could be possible, though I don't know enough to advance any theories, that 77 had already been shot down by NORAD...Who knows.

The real tinfoil hat part is that the Government of the United States of America is continuing to stonewall and obstruct any investigation into the worst terrorist attack on US soil. How can that be??? Why?? People have already gotten so used to this stonewalling that it's not even surprising anyone anymore.

It does keep that tinfoil cap tightly on my head, though...

[objection]

110. There was an intervention.

The B757 was chased by a C130.

[StClone]

19. When the jets hit the WTC

If not for the fuel-driven flames and without seeing the planes hit the structure you could make the case that the damage done at and debris found were suspiciously minimal at first.

Also, the Pentagon strike was muted because the plane hit the ground in front of the structure absorbing kinetic energy.

[demodewd]

24. StClone

The plane did not hit the ground before impact.

[StClone]

62. Read the Civil Engineering Report

I have pulled these to fact from the on-site investigation:


"Eyewitness accounts and photographs taken by a security camera suggest that the aircraft was flying on nearly a level path essentially at grade level for several hundred feet immediately prior to impact."

"This is consistent with eyewitness statements that the right wing struck a large generator before the aircraft struck the building and that the left engine struck a ground-level, external vent structure. It is possible that these impacts, which occurred not more than 100 ft before the nose of the aircraft struck the building, may have damaged the wings and caused debris to strike the Pentagon facade and the heliport control building."

My mistake was saying ground when I meant ground-level objects.

There is no doubt that mass (jet parts) and the motion energy they contained were shead prior to impact.


Found at:

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

[dick_eastman]

135. ASCE (civil engineers report) what it was, what it proved

Three days after the attack on the Pentagon Civil Engineers went through the ruins with clip boards examining each of the pillars that held up the Pentagon, for each location they checked off the condition of the pillar -- their results were put in a diagram.

Like the 911 commission, the ASCE structural study was circumscribed in intent. They only commented on damage to the pillars.

They did conclude, rightly it I think the damage photos show, that the killer jets nose struck at a particular pillar, pillar AA14.

With this ascertained, however, the question then arose, where is the penetration, even of the outer wall, by a starboard-wing engine, if indeed the killer jet was a 757.

The answer to that question is most quickly answered by the photographs here:

http://www.bedoper.com/eastman


By the way -- the french site that was the occasion of the initiation of this thread has been around for almost two years. It is old info -- the discussion and the conclusions not at all closely tied to the photos exhibited on its pages.


To be brought up to date try these sites:

http://www.911-strike.com/pentagon-all.htm

http://www.globalfreepress.com/ewing2001/911/1.shtml

http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911

[MercutioATC]

138. Mr. Eastman, I'm curious how you'd respond to my comments on your theory.

(well, the Pentagon/AAL77 theory, anyway)

Abe was kind enough to provide a link to your page:

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman1.htm

and asked for my response, which is here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x14613#14853

Your comments on the seeming contradictions and innaccuracies?

[Abe Linkman]

144. Are you waiting for bolo to try & refute message #134?

Eastman hit another home run...but speaking only for myself, I won't argue that it isn't a rebuttable message. You must not feel up to the task, though. Can't say I blame you. Let's see if one of the other "Osama Did It" apologists is willing to step up to the plate.

[objection]

148. Waiting? ... What's new?

What do you think that #134 is about that was not long since thoroughly responded to?

Please if possible be specific.

[MercutioATC]

158. No, I was asking Dick Eastman a question.

I thought the message spoke for itself.

[Abe Linkman]

164. You DUCKED Eastman. I'm disappointed in you.

I don't think you can rebut what he said, because it's the truth.

[MercutioATC]

166. See Post #165:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x14613#14853

[objection]

168. That's very very sad.

:cry:

Is there a doctor in the house?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x15647

[DulceDecorum]

41. WHERDY GO?

Every time I ask
WHERDY Go?
they accuse me of slandering the memory of Barby the Harpy.

How come you get away with it?

No matter.
Allow me to debunk yo bunk with the equivalent of four thousand words.









How did that burned-out white vehicle move?
Please don't tell me that it was Hani Hanjour's getaway car.

[Bolo Boffin]

42. Theredy GHo...

Every time I ask
WHERDY Go?
they accuse me of slandering the memory of Barby the Harpy.

There were a few other victims aboard Flight 77 besides Barbara Olson, Dulce. Perhaps we're accusing you of slandering the memory of those kids on the National Geographic field trip, and fock a buncha of Barbara Olson.

How did that burned-out white vehicle move?

Please point out why you think that white vehicle moved, based on the visual evidence you posted. From what I can tell, it didn't move at all.

[RC]

43. In picture #1: Look at the fire truck and the building on the

extreme left of the picture.
Then look at picture #4.
The fire truck has not moved, But there is no way the first picture could have been taken without the burned out white car being in it.
The first picture obviously was taken before the last picture because in the first picture there is smoke and firemen are still hosing the building.
The last picture there is no smoke. There is a standing ladder, a red pickup (not burned) right next to a burned out vehicle.

So, the question is valid. How did those burned out vehicles get there?

[Bolo Boffin]

69. Gotcha...

My bad. Yes, both cars have been moved between the taking of the first picture and the fourth picture. When was the fourth picture taken? An hour later? The next day? A week later? Does anybody know?

Was there enough time to get a vehicle capable of moving those cars out of the way onto the lawn? Like a tow truck, or a crane?

Furthermore, Dulce promised us that this debunks frankzappa's argument about the location of Flight 77's passengers. How?

What do the cars being moved out of the way have to do with anything? It's surely not a distraction from frankzappa's point...not our Dulce.

Go 'Head, Dulce, tell us how.

[Abe Linkman]

113. bolo: What's YOUR explanation for the big round exit hole?

Do you agree that the most plausible explanation is that it was caused by a shaped charge explosion?

NOTE: merc tries to leave some wiggle room with his explanation of some kind of "force" hurtling debris thru the building and somehow causing a near-perfectly round nine foot hole. Since a shaped charge explosion would certainly cause a powerful concussion, merc is probably just cleverly inoculating himself by wording his explanation as a "force" - ("see, look, I've always said it was some kind of force...and that's just what you'd get from a shaped charge explosion"), but I'm not a mind reader, so I can't say if that's what he's doing or not.

Anyway, what's the bolo explanation?

The infamous Pentagon Damage Assessment Report that I've read doesn't even mention it, but maybe I haven't read the entire report.

[MercutioATC]

114. I'll be perfectly clear. I do NOT believe shaped charges were involved.

No "wiggle room" there.

[Abe Linkman]

115. You realize what that means?

It means that you need a plausible explanation for what caused the hole, and so far, you have failed to give one. Reposting a link to an article that is biased in favor of the Official Conspiracy Theory won't cut it, because that Damage Assessment Report doesn't even mention the Big hole.

[MercutioATC]

117. And you have an engineering report that DOES explain the hole?

You throw around the idea of "shaped charges" but how much do you know about them? Were they part of the "missile" or were they planted in the Pentagon beforehand? What specific type of ordnance was used? Show me anything that suggests a "shaped charge" could be detonated, penetrate a reinforced outer wall, cause the damage that occurred at the Pentagon, and make an exit hole like the one that exists over 300 feet away.

I've told you what I think made the hole and how.

You've recently become enamored of shaped charges, but have neglected the "how". Go for it...

[Abe Linkman]

125. Shaped charge explosion makes more sense than your Voodoo idea.

Here's what a military expert (Battlefield Damage Assessment Officer in the 1991 Gulf War) has to say about the physics of why a shaped charge explosion explains how that great big nine foot exit hole was created.

http://www.911review.org/Wiki/ShapedCharge.shtml

[objection]

126. Perhaps you failed to notice

The Pentagon is a Military establishment, with many thousands who work there, all likely to be somwhat concerned by what put their lives at risk.

Do you think then perhaps that some among them would know something about shaped charge explosions?

Because of what then is the word to be preferred of somebody far away whose prime agenda is clearly enough to promote a controversial book?

Do you think that people whose own lives were at risk were lying when they said that all the human remains recovered were tested for explosive residues?

You know, that's a very odd sort of view to try to sell.

[MercutioATC]

127. He's totally ignoring the inertia of the debris, but O.K.

Frankly, I'm surprised that this "expert" holds the opinion he does, simply because the profile doesn't fit the existing damage.

If a shaped charge did, indeed, pierce the outer wall and then deliver a bomb to the interior of the Pentagon, Why is the interior damage all in a straight line?

I'm just a layperson when it comes to explosives, but it doesn't make much sense to me.

It all comes down to plausibility. The damage doesn't fit the profile of a shaped charge/bomb to me. The need for such a scenario doesn't make sense to me. The rest of the evidence (eyewitnesses, body parts, wheel, gear) fits a 757 much better than this scenario to me.

You see it differently.

And, to be perfectly clear, this report eays nothing about the size or shape of the exit hole, either. It simply says that a shaped charge could penetrate multiple leyers of concrete wall.

[objection]

124. plausible explanation

Flight 77 hit the building.

[vincent_vega_lives]

116. Abe you have no, zero, zip understanding

of shaped charge warheads. Or else you would never even have considered it in this case.

[DulceDecorum]

169. Huh?

BOLOboffin says:
....and fock a buncha of Barbara Olson.

Are you channeling Dick Cheney?
AGAIN?

[MercutioATC]

2. I'm posting the experts' report before this gets out of hand...

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

...for those who claim that the damage COULDN'T have been caused by a 757...

[Abe Linkman]

6. That "report" is like the Warren Commission Report: part of a coverup.

Your report assumes a 757 crashed, and only attempts to provide a plausible explanation of how some of the observed damage could have happened IF a 757 had crashed there.

In other words, the report you cite is worthless evidence that doesn't prove anything.

[MercutioATC]

8. Have you READ the report, Abe? You had refused to as of a couple

of hours ago (except for an "excerpt").

Again, bring me an expert report that supports your theory and I'll read it (in its entirety).

[Abe Linkman]

12. Yep, I read it, and it's definitely Propaganda. n/t

n/t

[MercutioATC]

14. I'm impressed! What, exactly, do you take issue with?

What about the findings do you refute?

More importantly, do you have any expert opinion that would counter the findings of the report?

[Abe Linkman]

18. The report's basic premise is TOTALLY UNPROVEN because it's bogus.

The report is extremely limited in its scope and doesn't even make an attempt to explain what really happened. It's more an examination of the building damage and a theoretical explanation of how the damage COULD have occurred IF a 757 crashed.

The available facts and evidence do not support the conclusion you are here trying to sell.

[MercutioATC]

20. But YOU said that a 757 couldn't have possibly caused the damage.

The report explains exactly how it could have. Limited in scope or not, it refutes your claim.

[MercutioATC]

49. YOU were the one trying to sell a conclusion. I just called you on it.

I didn't claim that the report was proof that AAL77 crashed into the Pentagon. I claimed it refuted YOUR erroneous claim that AAL77 could NOT have crashed into the Pentagon.

...and that is what it did.

[demodewd]

26. diddly shit

That report is essentially diddly shit no matter what your take on the Pentagon is.

[MercutioATC]

28. Oh? In what way? It describes the physics of the crash quite thoroughly.

Why is it "diddly shit"?

[demodewd]

29. excuse...but..

It doesn't examine the physics of the crash at all. It examines the physical and structural aspects of the building and the destruction it incurred from an alleged crash of Flight 77.

[MercutioATC]

30. I stand corrected. It examines the physics of the damage to the Pentagon

and explains how the damage would have been caused by a 757.

[demodewd]

31. lots of possibilities..

It assumes the damage was caused by #77. It could have been caused by a plane of possibly similar size or it could have been caused by a bomb and/or shaped charges and/or a missile.

[MercutioATC]

32. I posted it in response to Abe's assertion that a757 could not have caused

the damage at the Pentagon. No, it doesn't address all of the possibilities, it wasn't meant to. It's a building performance study, not a crash investigation.

It DOES, however explain (in great detail) how a 757 could have caused the damage.

[Abe Linkman]

36. In other words, it's unhelpful to truth seekers & is meant only for PR

The "report" doesn't prove one thing in issue. As demodewd said, the damage could have been caused by in number of things.

Your "report" is a propaganda piece, meant to give people like you something, anything -- that you can cite as "proof" of the impossible.
It would be like a report put out by OJ's defense team that describes Nicole & Ron's wounds, and then concludes that they COULD have been caused by a shovel blade.

[MercutioATC]

47. Actually, the report proves that the damage could have been done by a 757.

It's helpful to "truth seekers" because it clarifies the possibility of part of a scenario. It shows that, contrary to your claim, a 757 crashing into the Pentagon is NOT refuted by the damage sustained by the building.

[Abe Linkman]

50. And, the Warren Commission Report "proves" LHO COULD have done it

The report you keep citing has nothing to do with the question of whether or not AA FL 77 crashed at the Pentagon...or anywhere else.

How could it? DD has given powerful evidence that FL 77 did not even take place on 9-11.

[MercutioATC]

54. The report gives evidence that a 757 could have caused the damage to the

Pentagon.

To say it couldn't have (as you did) eliminates a 757 as a possibility.

The report contradicts that premise.

I'd say that had a bearing on whether it was even possible for AAL77 to have crashed into the Pentagon.

[demodewd]

39. Freeperville

Of course its going to explain in great detail how #77 could have done the damage. Do you think these well healed tenured folk are going to cross the line and put themselves,their families and their goodies on the line? Do you think I talk freely about this stuff in this little Freeperville I live in?

[MercutioATC]

46. So the physics and conclusions are unsound, how?

Your rebuttal is that they're probably lying???

[MercutioATC]

45. Bombs/shaped charges/missiles don't leave landing gears behind.

...or bory parts, or airline oxygen bottles...etc.

[Abe Linkman]

58. How many landing gearS does a 757 have?

The PR report you keep citing refers to ONE landing gear.

[MercutioATC]

61. Yes, ONE landing gear that couldn't be from an F-16.

How many landing gears does an F-16 have? (3)

How many does a missile have? (0)

Hmmm...it must have been some new prototype weapon with only one gear...

[Abe Linkman]

63. You didn't answer the question. Let's try again. How many on a 757?

We know that a missile doesn't have any --- which is why none was found at the famous nine foot circular exit hole. (obvious evidence that the hole wasn't made by an airplane)

The question was: how many landing gears does a 757 have?

[MercutioATC]

66. Three.

Two four-wheel main units and one two-wheel nose unit.

[Abe Linkman]

37. Diddly S--- is when you cite a report as proof of something not in it

That's what you've been doing with your propaganda piece for the past few days. You can't answer the legitimate questions and doubts raised by your claims, so you dig up a "report" that examines the damage to the Pentagon and try to use that report as proof that AA FL 77 crashed into the building. FL 77 didn't crash. The report doesn't claim it did. And, in fact, the report itself contains statements that impeach the very claim you are trying to establish by citing it.

[MercutioATC]

44. Actually, that's not true. YOU made an incorrect statement. This report

refutes it.

It's not meant to be a comprehensive investigation of the crash. It's a building performance study.

YOU were the one who claimed that a 757 couldn't have caused the damage to the Pentagon. This report shows that it could have.

[Abe Linkman]

51. Read my messages. STOP lying about what I said.

Facts:

1.) The question is: did a 757 crash at the Pentagon?

2.) The evidence at the Pentagon is inconsistent with what would be expected if a 757 had crashed there.

[MercutioATC]

53. I'm not lying. You said it. (look below):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=14637&mesg_id=14745

[Abe Linkman]

56. What is said is consistent. You are trying to distort it. Why?

I said the evidence shows that a 757 couldn't have crashed at the Pentagon. That's not the same thing as saying that a 757 couldn't have done some or all of the damage at the Pentagon.

Is that really so hard for you to grasp?

P.S. You are a quick researcher. Does bolo work there with you?

[MercutioATC]

59. So you admit that a 757 could have caused the damage to the Pentagon?

Bear with me...I'm going somewhere with this.

P.S. Researching your posts is easy. The only difficlut part is finding ones that actually make a clear statement.

[Abe Linkman]

64. I admit that the evidence is inconsistent with a 757 having crashed there.

If a 757 had crashed there, there would be evidence of it having done so. There is no evidence of a 757 having crashed there. The evidence there indicates something other than a 757. Most likely, a missile and a small jet.

The only video released shows something other than a large commmercial airliner. THAT'S the very reason why no other video has been released, isn't it? You are trying to sell the notion that the reason why no other video has been released is because of an on-going investigation.
We know that's hogwash, because it that were the reason, the security camera video images from in the parking lot wouldn't have been released.

You're in a bit of a pickle with this Pentagon stuff, aren't you?

[MercutioATC]

68. That wasn't my question...

I'll even rephrase:

Do you believe that a 757 could have caused some or all of the damage to the Pentagon?

[Abe Linkman]

71. Even the Government doubts the story you're pedaling...you've said

that the reason why the video tapes from the service station and the Sheraton haven't been released is because of an on-going investigation.
That suggests that the Gov't isn't sure that a 757 crashed at the Pentagon. If the Government was sure, they'd wouldn't still be investigating it. Maybe the reason why they released the parking lot video is because that way, people like you could argue it any way they need for you to. That's of course, exactly why they released the video they did. That video (even though it was most likely doctored) is the one they could make the least clear & that's why IT was released. But, you want to have it both ways. Certainty that a 757 crashed, but denial that the video shows a plane too small to be a 757, all combined with the notion that the very fairy tale you're trying to sell is STILL being investigated. Man, you're all over the place, aren't you? You're a real mess.

Do you believe that an F-16 or some other aircraft (or aircraft and missile) other than a 757 could have caused some or all of the damage to the Pentagon?

[MercutioATC]

79. It suggests no such thing. Just because a piece of evidence is

withheld, it doesn't mean that it's suspect.

I don't know enough about crashes and their effects on buildings to know if an F-16 and a missile could have caused that damage, but I'd be happy to review a structural report outlining that scenario if you have one.

[Abe Linkman]

81. Knowing that you're a busy, full-time ATC employee, let me help you .

An F-16 and a missile not only COULD, but most likely DID cause the damage at the Pentagon. I'm surprised you would feel the need to claim ignorance just because a truthful response would make you look silly.

[MercutioATC]

85. Are you relying on your extensive civil engineering background

or something else? I'm sure an F-16 and a missile would have caused damage. I don't know that the damage would be similar to the damage done to the Pentagon. I don't know of anybody but an engineer (with training similar to the engineers that wrote the Pentagon report I posted) that could make that call.

You feel qualified to state that the damage is consistent with a fighter and missile hits?

[Abe Linkman]

86. You sound like you're nervous, merc. Does this subject make you jumpy?

YOU are the one who thought it would be clever to try and frame the issue as whether or not a 757 could have damaged the Pentagon. All I did was use your own reasoning and ask you if YOU believed that it could have been done by an F-16 and a missile etc.

Do you believe a bomb could have been involved?

Do you believe a shaped charge could have caused damage?

Do you believe that bolo's Spinning Wheel could have caused damage?

Do you believe that the Gov't is telling the truth about the Pentagon attack, merc?

[MercutioATC]

89. I'm actually quite comfortable. YOU'RE the one who keeps reframing the

conversation. You said that an F-16 and a missile caused the damage to the Pentagon and it was obvious by the damage that it hadn't been a 757. I posted a link to a report written by six professionals that actually visited the site and explained the physics behind the 757 strike scenario.

First, you refused to read the report. Then, you called it "my" report and demanded that I make my own analysis (despite my lack of civil engineering schooling). Next, you called it "propaganda" and a "fairy tale" while refusing to address a single issue from the report.

I've repeatedly invited you to show me a report that either refutes the conclusions of the one I posted or arrives at different conclusions. You've declined to do so.

Who's "spinning" here?

[Abe Linkman]

91. You ARE concerned. Well, I've got a report for YOU to refute.

We'll see if you have the cojones to match your bravado. I don't think you do. I think you'll have to find a cop-out, because YOU can't even make a coherent argument. You have to fall back on that one "report" you cite for everything.

[MercutioATC]

97. I don't cite that report for "everything", just this one issue.

I had company last night so I didn't get a chance to read your article. I'll try to get to it today.

[MercutioATC]

99. See Post #98 below. (my comments on Eastman's "report")

[demodewd]

25. Abe&Merc

I was wondering where you guys went.

[ms.smiler]

7. If Flight 77 struck the Pentagon

The F.B.I. should release the security camera footage they seized from the nearby gas station and the Sheraton Hotel. Why haven't they released that footage? That would settle the matter unless there is something they don't want us to see.

[Abe Linkman]

10. The images from the parking lot camera proves it wasn't a 757.

The only images that HAVE been released proves that FL 77 didn't crash
into the Pentagon...or anywhere else. The parking lot video images show
a small jet shooting a missile just before the plane hits the Pentagon.
That plane is most likely an unmanned F-16.

There's no way the Gov't can afford to release the images from the Sheraton camera or the service station camera...although it might be kind of interesting to see how the Disinfo agents would try and deal with the reality. I think if the images ARE ever released, the "line" will be that the F-16 was sacrificed in the line of duty, and the Gov't will do everything in its power to find the "Evil Doers" who "took over" FL 77 and went to parts now "unknown" (to the public, anyhow).

[Ready4Change]

15. Any links to this video? n/t

.

[objection]

108. "Released"?

Released by who?

[MercutioATC]

11. It's common to not release evidence in an incomplete investigation.

I would have real problems with the FBI refusing to release the evidence after the investigation is completed, though.

[Abe Linkman]

16. Haha. How old are you?

There hasn't BEEN an independent investigation, and there won't be one, because FL 77 didn't crash into the Pentagon and the vast majority of citizens will always believe what the Gov't tells them. They've even got you fooled, and you've been around here long enough to know damn well that FL 77 couldn't have crashed into the Pentagon, yet you still contend that it did. (unless you're really pressed, in which case you try to dance by saying that you "still have questions")

[MercutioATC]

17. You're denying that an investigation is in progress?

"independent" was your word, not mine. I stand by what I said. Frequently, evidence id not released untin an investigation (governmental or independent) is concluded.

[objection]

111. Good question.

Is this a game for everybody to play?

I am 55 years old. From the way that you write, Linkman, I would guess that you are not yet 15 years old.

[Abe Linkman]

40. They released the parking lot video & they should release the others.

You're using a typical cop-out without even realizing (I guess) what you said. The Gov't released the video image from the parking lot ONLY because they felt pressured to. That video PROVES that a 757 DID NOT crash at the Pentagon. That video PROVES a small jet crashed at the Pentagon.

The reason that the other video images haven't been released is that they TOO prove that FL 77 did NOT crash at the Pentagon, and if it were to be released NOW, there's too much of a chance that too many people would be sure to see it and then, the cat would be too far out of the bag. Right now, Disinformation agents are working mightily to keep the lid on the truth, and there are even some people here at DU who still don't know they're being lied to about 9-11. Once the public at large
learns that FL 77 did NOT crash at the Pentagon, then the entire 9-11 Fairy Tale will come unraveled.

The spinners will have to start claiming that the Evildoers were so clever that they even fooled our Gov't into thinking that it was a 757 that crashed, not an F-16...AND they'll have to somehow deny that it's an F-16. They'll claim it was a commuter jet painted to LOOK like an F-16 so that the American people would think their own Gov't is the real perp.

The sad, scary truth about FL 77 is still Wherdy go?

[MercutioATC]

48. So let me get this straight...

You refuse to believe eyewitness accounts of a large commercial airliner hitting the Pentagon. You refuse to believe their accounts of the wreckage they found. You ignore actual pictures of the wreckage (like the landing gear that is too big to be a "small jet" gear).

...but you'll base an entire conspiracy theory on one blurry frame from a security video.

Does that about sum it up?

[Abe Linkman]

52. You believe a 757 would NOT have been in the video?

Are you seriously trying to argue that if a 757 had crashed at the Pentagon, it would NOT be in security video images, but instead, you'd see a small jet plane firing a missile?

[MercutioATC]

55. I don't see a "small jet plane firing a missile". I doubt many people do

I see one blurry frame with an unidentifiable object in it.

[Abe Linkman]

57. Sounds like a personal problem to me.

Don't the taxpayers provide you with vision insurance?

[MercutioATC]

60. Sorry, my "second sight" insurance isn't paid up...

My vision is fine. Maybe I'm just lacking the proper "creativity".

[Abe Linkman]

65. You obviously have poor visual acuity & poor reasoning skills.

If you had good vision, you would be able to see that what's in the video image taken from the Pentagon parking lot is definitely NOT a 757 or any other large commercial airliner. And, if your critical reasoning skills were even a notch or two higher, you'd realize that if the video image is too small to be a commercial airliner, then it's reasonable to conclude that a 757 didn't crash at the Pentagon.

In fact, as we now know, courtesy of the great Dulce Decorum, there was no such FL 77 that left Dulles on 9-11. You knew that, didn't you?

[MercutioATC]

67. Nobody's "visual acuity" is sufficient to see that without a LOT of

imagination.

DD is wonderful at citing incomplete databases as "proof". Unfortunately, AAL77 is still missing. If not crashed into the Pentagon, "wherdy go"?

[Abe Linkman]

72. That's why God gave most of us the ability to learn to THINK and reason

Absolute truth is impossible to ascertain. That's why you have to use your brain every once in a while, and it's also why YOU would be well-served by acquiring some skills in logical reasoning and how to spot and over fallacious reasoning.

The video image shows a plane much too small to be a 757. So, we can rule out THAT as a possibility. You don't have to imagine anything to be able to know that.

There's a strong case to be made that what IS in the video fits what you'd expect to see if it was a small jet that fired a missile.

THINK, merc. It might be a new experience. I'm going out on a limb and assuming that you don't have a hidden agenda here. I'm assuming you simply have a limited knowledge of the possibilities involved in the Pentagon hit.

[MercutioATC]

78. The video image shows a single frame of half of SOMETHING.

...and it's blurry.

Call it an F-16 if you'd like. Say it fired a missile. The problem is that you're applying the scientific method backwards, which necessitates that you ignore other evidence to support your theory. You're starting with the assumption that a 757 didn't crash there. That means there should be some evidence of either a fighter or a missile. The only "evidence" there is of this is a single, blurry frame of video that could really be anything. Since you're committed to the "fighter and missile" scenario, though, it MUST be a fighter. The problem now is that you have to discount all of the eyewitnesses, the fact that no F-16 parts were found, and the glaring fact that AAL77 is still gone.

Had you gathered evidence and THEN made a conclusion, you might not be having this problem.

[Abe Linkman]

83. That SOMETHING sure as heck ain't a B757, and you know it.

I don't know if it's an F-16, a Global Hawk or something else. But, all things considered, it's hard to get away from the conclusion that whatever it was, it was a small jet and it apparently shot a missile into the Pentagon. I'm not sure how a shaped charge works, but based on what I've read here (and other places), that too, sounds plausible.

But, a 757? No way.

[MercutioATC]

84. I'm not assuming it's even a plane (or missile, or drone).

Give that frame to 100 people and don't tell them what it is. How many do YOU think would see a plane of any kind? I'm betting zero.

That's what I mean about starting with a conclusion. A lot of things can look like an F-16 if that's what you're determined is there.

[Abe Linkman]

87. No, no. No assumption is needed. But, that sucker AIN'T a 757, is it?

You don't have to do any assuming. Just use those two eyes the Good Lord gave you. As an ATC, you need good vision, right? Well, you see the image, and there's no way around it is there, merc: what hit the Pentagon wasn't a 757. It was something considerably smaller.

So, Barbara Olson. Hani Hanjour. Wheredy go? Wherdy go, merc?

[MercutioATC]

88. Obviously, whatever hit the Pentagon left parts of something else behind..

I can't tell what the video shows, but I CAN tell that the wheel at the crash site isn't from an F-16.

I'm all for getting the other frames released, but with the single frame at hand and its abyssmal resolution, I don't see how anybody can tell what that shape is.

Question: If the FBI covered up evidence by removing frames from the video, why did they leave that one frame in?

[Abe Linkman]

90. Have you ever read this? If not, please do & then try & refute it.

No cop-outs, now merc. If you are so sure about whatever it is you claim that you know about the Pentagon attack, then deal with the message. Trying to smear the messenger might be cute, but the disturbing message makes whatever claims you're making on any given day, sound pitiful and woefully lacking in basic logic. Also, no fair copping out by saying you "never claimed to know what happened." Just try and refute the points made in this analysis. Go ahead. If you can do that, I'll agree you're one Helluva ATC guy.


http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman1.htm

[MercutioATC]

98. After reading Eastman's theory, a few things come to mind:

1) Did I miss a bio, or is all we know about Eastman's training is that he's an "M.A., M.S." Masters of WHAT? Could be Literature and Horticulture.

2) "Comment: The man being interviewed by CNN above was also a CNN reporter. No one else reports having seen in the hole pieces of aircraft"

This simply isn't true:

"Lt. Cmdr. David Tarantino, U.S. Navy
I stepped into the open breezeway between C and B rings to get some fresh air. I saw these two holes where the aircraft had come through. You could see an aircraft tire that had come through three rings of the Pentagon, and there were charts and other stuff that was obviously from the aircraft."

"Tom Hovis, [e-mail] a Fairfax, Assoc. Member, reports: The nosewheel I understand is in the grass near the second ring."

"Todd Tiahrt, Kansas District 4 representative, U.S. House of Representatives wrote:
The next day we came to the Pentagon. The Pentagon has five outer rings labeled A through E, with E being the outer ring. In the C and B rings the plane had punched a hole you could a drive a truck around in, and I saw an airplane tire. It made it very real."

"Carlton Burkhammer was bussed to the Pentagon with other firefighters from Fairfax County Fire and Rescue Station 14. Within the building he spotted lime-green pieces from the interior of the plane"

"“I picked up a child's hand. That was it. Just a child's hand and that's when I got angry. To wonder why someone could do this. You can come after me. I'm a soldier. I have sworn to protect and defend, but that wasn't right,”

3) Eastman believes that the debris that could be associated with a 757 was planted "An early picture shows an agent in white shirt carrying a piece of "debris" that looks very much like the "planted" piece of false evidence" and yet admits that "The first photographer to capture this specimen did not arrive at the scene until 10 minutes after the crash.". I have doubts that people had run around and finished "planting" evidence 10 minutes after the crash. Most of the pieces that could be identified as coming from a particular plane were larger (engine parts, wheel, cockpit seat). With dozens (if not hundreds) of onlookers, it seems unlikely that this evidence could have been planted without detection.

4) His scenario detailing how AAL77 got to Reagan Airport is flawed. Eastman states "With its engines off so that its silence was remarked by Riskus and other witnesses, Flight 77 approached the Pentagon's west wall at an angle much closer to 90 degrees than the 45-degree approach of the killer jet." A 757 is not a sailplane. With its engines "off" it would never have made it to Reagan. In the next paragraph, he states "At a speed between a third and two-thirds that of sound and leveling from its necessarily accelerating dive, Flight 77 was over Reagan National Airport before the sound of the killer jet's crash reached the Capitol Building or Washington Monument" Which is it? Were the engines "off" of was the 757 traveling at 300-400 knots? You can't have it both ways. At 300-400 feet, 400 knots would represent the engines at full throttle, not turned "off".

5) Eastman's statement "Any of the three runways of Reagan could have been used by Flight 77, which, by the way, did not have to land immediately for a successful getaway -- it could have disguised itself as a plane taking off as well as one landing in those critical few seconds of its disappearing act and its "blending in" operation." shows his complete lack of knowledge of ATC procedures. A 757 does NOT land at a busy airport without everybody knowing its identity. There is no "blending in" and his thought that "it could have disguised itself as a plane taking off as well as one landing" simply makes no sense.

6) In Eastman's profile of the equipment on the the supposed F-16 involved, He lists "a voice-activated maneuvering system allowing the pilot to "point" the aircraft in unusual flight attitudes." How, exactly, does a voice-actuated system allow a pilot to maneuver the plane more efficiently and, if the plane was in fact using remote guidance, why would voice commands be used at all?

7) He states "But the famous fragment
was discovered by photographers lying on the south lawn, far to the port side (left side of plane, right side of this picture) of the attack plane as it crossed the lawn in its approach to its target. Since the piece can neither have bored through the crashing fuselage to get so far to the port side nor could it have flown against an explosion radiating out in all directions, even assuming it did pop off under stresses from the compression of the plane during the first split second of the crash, we must conclude that the piece
did not come from the crash at all. The piece thus had to have been
carried to the spot and planted by an accomplice some time before the
moment, a full ten minutes after the crash". If we know that debris was found on the highway (beyond the south lawn) then Eastman is completely wrong about this particular fragment not being to be where it was without being planted. He also says "The wind, as the photos of smoke show, was blowing from the southwest -- against alleged flight path of this light piece of sheet aluminum." A wind would have to be very strong to have any effect on the trajectory of blast debris. The wind in question would have made no difference.

The other issues I have with Eastman (his spelling, his weird Geocities web page (look at the picture of "ol Dick Eastman" on the upper left)

http://www.geocities.com/oldickeastman/Dick_Eastman_page.html

notwithstanding, all I see in his report is a mix of lay opinions with incorrect facts liberally mixed in. There is NO input from anybody with technical qualifications.

Yeah, Abe, it's a "report". I could rant on a webpage and use it as a cite, too. That wouldn't make either page worth the bandwidth it took to download it.

[Abe Linkman]

101. Congratulations. You found a few minor points to pick apart.

I'm surprised that you didn't even attempt to refute the major points he makes in his analyis. That's a pretty devastatomg ommission ("confession by ommission").

I expect if you tried to make a case for the Official Conspiracy, it would be just like your comments on Eastman's analysis: weaker than water.

[MercutioATC]

103. "minor points"???

The location of debris relating to whether it was genuine or not and the entire theory of what happened to the "real" AAL77 are "minor points"?

They seemed like central issues to me. Without them, he's essentially basing the whole theory on a single frame of blurry video.

[objection]

109. The wind in question would make a difference.

Aircraft take off and land into the wind, right?

[Bolo Boffin]

161. "Its engines off?????"

Dick Eastman believes that his large AA jet that sailed over the Pentagon and landed at Reagan did so with its engines off????????????

:silly: :wow: :bounce: :crazy: :loveya: :headbang:

Oh, sweet Jeebus. My sides hurt...

[objection]

162. Maybe one of the engines came off,

destoying lamp poles as it went before going on into the Pentagon while in the mean time the invisible B757 landed with the other engine.

That would explain everything, wouldn't it?

:tinfoilhat:

[objection]

107. Why would a security camera show anything of interest?

Please tell me.
Why would a gas station security camera point at the sky?
Why would a hotel camera point at the sky?
Just in case a B757 happened to pass by?

[NecessaryOnslaught]

119. Right

Thats why the FBI took the tape, because it was so uninteresting.

[MercutioATC]

120. I'd imagine the FBI took EVERYTHING, interesting or not.

[NecessaryOnslaught]

121. Indeed

The FBI must still be searching the tape for clues, 3 years later.

The fact is, is that tape may be the only footage that shows what really hit the pentagon.

Why not release it?

No, instead they act like it doesn't exist.

It must be locked away in that big warehouse right next to the ark of the covenant.

[MercutioATC]

122. Because it's part of an ongoing investigation...

Evidence that's part of an ongoing investigation it typically not released until the investigation is complete.

[seatnineb]

130. Mercutio in a twist........

You doin your paradox thing again Mercutio......

From the honarable ATC......Mercutio.......
"Evidence that's part of an ongoing investigation it typically not released until the investigation is complete."

So what about the Naudet video......
The countless different angles filmed of 175......
The pentagon parking lot footage........

Why has this all been released if it is part of an "incomplete investigation".

[objection]

131. The pentagon parking lot footage

was not released, was it?

In the case of the Naudet video and other material, wasn't all that already in the public domain well before the FBI caught up?

[NecessaryOnslaught]

132. Naudet footage

was consficated by the FBI on the night of 9/11, as evidence. The Naudet brothers were allowed to copy the first plane crash for sale to media organizations. However, the DVD and the Television program were both edited, as evidenced by the NIST having footage of the east penthouse collapse of WTC 7, which did not appear in either the DVD or television programs. Certainly that was not the only missing footage.

[objection]

133. That's interesting but

on the other hand I know of no attempt to censor on the spot still photo evidence that has since been cited controversially.

Months after the event Steve Riskus said that he'd never even been interviewed by the FBI investigators.

From here it looks more like madness than method.

Was there ever a TV broadcast that was not edited?

[MercutioATC]

137. The parking lot footage is the only example that really applies.

The other videos were in private hands and distributed to through the media. The Pentagon parking lot video was released by the government (if memory serves). I have no idea why they did that.

Equally valid as asking why they haven't released anything else is IF the single blurry frame does show a fighter firing a missile, why they'd release it at all.

[objection]

139. The officially released video is a web myth.

No original report that I can find nor any subsequent official comment ever referred to it as a "video" or an official release.

The most specific account came from Sky:

"The series of five photographs" were "not officially released by the Pentagon, officials said the images were authentic and had been provided to law enforcement officials investigating the suicide hijack attack."
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-10273218,00.html


So who did release the images then?

Who supplied the material to the media?

[MercutioATC]

140. Well, I stand corrected.

I guess I'd just assumed it was an official release.

[Abe Linkman]

141. I'm surprised you think that you're convincing anyone here.

Of course, I know that isn't your purpose at all. You're simply here to give us the benefit of your ATC expertise and to comment occasionally on
things that are difficult to prove due to so much evidence not being avialable on account of that "on-going investigation" you mention. And what a fortuitous coincidence it is that those comments you make just happen to be about things which, if true, would support the Official Conspiracy Theory. Imagine that.

P.S. Don't let this intimidate you into avoiding a critical analysis and refutation of what Dick Eastman posted today or the new information posted by demodewd about Dov's "customized" 767s. Don't feel pressured to respond to both by simply posting a link to some propaganda article that doesn't address the evidence and its implications, as raised by Dick Eastman and demodewd.

[objection]

142. The fact remains

that not one of the witnesses that Eastman cites, nor anybody else at the scene has ever actually subscribed to his obsessively disingenuous version of events.

Just imagine the case coming to court, when Eastman's star witness Lagasse, and all the rest of them, get up onto the stand to insist vehemently that they saw an American Aitlines jet hit the Pentagon.

:silly:

What a sick joke.

[Abe Linkman]

143. Would you have refuted his ideas/logic/conclusions if you could have?

There's still time to do that, if you think you can.

[objection]

147. Ignorant nonsense refutes itself.

Eastman's misinterpretation of witness accounts is fundamentally wrong. Others have already pointed this out. Ask any of the eye witnesses where the planes realy were.

Regardless of any perversion of evidence his idea of Flight 77 landing as if normally but unseen at Reagan Airport is ludicrous to anybody with a working knowledge of the local geography and landing aircraft. Dont ask me. Ask any pilot of B757s that actually land there. Ask the underwriters of the aircraft.

His idea of planted evidence is just as silly. Dont ask me. Ask anybody who was there to see for themselves.

There is really no need to waste any further time on it. He's been ranting on for more than two whole years about it, repeating himself incessantly and how far has he got with it? What has come of it? Zilch.

Let him indulge. He does at least help us to separate the fools from the wise. Nobody of any any consequrence or intelligence is taken in by it. He has no sworn affidavit to present. He has no real evidence to show, just an obsessively detached lonely distortion of others first hand evidence. Dont ask me. Let them refute. Not one of the thousands of people qualified to testify to the matter in a Court of Law has yet subscribed to his fiction. None will.

Amen.

[objection]

123. Huh?

Like the FBI are not yet sure of what hit the Pentagon?

When police agencies do release photos or information it is usually to assist to obtain further information. For that reason passport photos were published.

If any further tapes do show anything it is hardly likely to be anything clearer than the security camera images already seen. So what then is the incentive supposed to be? Do you seriously think that anybody in the FBI is worried by the Conspiracy Theory effluence? More likely they're having a good laugh about it and they don't want to spoil the fun.

[NecessaryOnslaught]

128. Thank you for the conjecture

Is that why the decimated security tape was released, for further information? Anyone who recognizes this fireball is urged to contact the FBI immediately.:eyes:

I also want to thank your for your pure speculation as to what is visible on the other tapes. http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/pages-en/fct-videos.html

Want a good laugh? 3 years after the fact the caveman theorists, with the resources of the greatest conglomeration of intelligence and media resources in the history of the world behind them, are still arguing on a message board with "crazy conspiracy theorists" as to the events of that fateful day. Me, I'm armed simply with a keyboard and my squeegeed third eye.

[objection]

129. For further information

who released the "security tape"?

In so far as I am aware it was not an official release. No such press release that I know of ever came from the FBI or the Pentagon.

Nor do I know that it was a tape, or a "video", as often supposed.

So before chasing that wild goose any further how about a little speculation as to where the security camera really did come from?

Apart from one singly reported rumor long ago I have never seen anything to confirm the notion of a tape at the Sheraton and according to another story long ago a VDOT traffic camera was damaged when the plane passed.

It constantly amazes me to see how blind the third eye of a keyboard can be.

[WoodrowFan]

9. thanks

you won't convince the nuts, but those of us with a usable brain appreciate it.

[MercutioATC]

23. Thank YOU!

It's been a pretty thankless endeavor, so the occasional "thank you" is appreciated.

:hi:

[WoodrowFan]

27. you have more patience than I

I just stick them on my "ignore" list.

[Abe Linkman]

38. WoodrowFan -- Glad you're enjoying getting educated.

I know you wouldn't waste your precious brain on contemplating things that don't make sense. Stick around. You'll get educated, and then you'll wonder how you could have ever been so easily fooled.

9-11 IS A Conspiracy FACT. The only question is: WHO is behind the conspiracy and what really happened on that day.

Maybe you've heard that now, more than 60 years after the fact, we know that FDR knew in advance that Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked.

Conspiracies are often carried out by governments and those who want to take over governments (The Reichstag Fire in Germany, for example).

You'll also learn that there are people who are engaged in the business of using disinformation to thwart efforts to learn the truth. Remember the PR firm Hill & Knowlton? They cooked-up the story about Iraqi soldiers supposedly unplugging incubators in Kuwaiti hospitals. That was all a lie. A conspiracy to ratchet up support for an invasion of Kuwait. Governments hire PR firms and use Disinformation Agents to sew seeds of trust and to cast doubt on those who expose the truth.

Enjoy your time here. And, use a search engine and check out some of the many fine sites dedicated to discovering what really happened on September the 11th, 2001.

[Bolo Boffin]

70. Abe, you're just full of interesting ideas.

Maybe you've heard that now, more than 60 years after the fact, we know that FDR knew in advance that Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked.

That's not true. It is verifiably, certifiably not true. There is no evidence that FDR knew about the approaching Japanese fleet. None. Not a single bit. Nada.

For somebody who claims to be after "what really happened," your messages display an amazing inability to deal with the actual facts or real questions. Why don't you lay down the insinuation pen and pick up the answering questions pen?

[Abe Linkman]

73. No matter what your agenda is, bolo - you're entitled to your opinion.

For somebody who claims to be a gay 36 year old whatever -- your messages display an amazing inability to erase doubts about what it is you are trying to communicate here. Why don't you get down off your Spinning Wheel and stop trying to undermine people here at DU who only want to know what really happened on 9-11. Is that too much to ask you, bolo boy?

[Bolo Boffin]

77. And you're entitled to yours, as long as you state it as such...

But when you state your opinion as if it were fact, expect to get called on it, Abe.

Especially when your opinion is completely wrong.

FDR had no knowledge of the approaching Japanese fleet. Why do you continue to slander one of the best Democratic Presidents we ever had on this message board?

Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. Why do you continue to traffic in this palpable fiction on this message board?

When I state the truth, it does nothing to undermine anyone who wants to know the truth. It only undermines those who are not dealing with the truth.

[Abe Linkman]

80. DU must be a mixed bag for someone like you, bolo

DU is a place where we can "do our thing" and no one can dare raise any questions about anything except the message we post. On the other hand,
here on THIS forum (where you mainly post), I doubt that you've converted one single person to your point of view. Your efforts have mainly only caused frustration and aggravation -- and no one can even suggest what might really be going on...if anything. Is this REALLY your idea of a good approach to learning the truth about what happened on 9-11? Or, is there something I'm "missing"?

[Bolo Boffin]

92. "no one can even suggest what might really be going on...if anything"

DU is a place where we can "do our thing" and no one can dare raise any questions about anything except the message we post. On the other hand,
here on THIS forum (where you mainly post), I doubt that you've converted one single person to your point of view. Your efforts have mainly only caused frustration and aggravation -- and no one can even suggest what might really be going on...if anything. Is this REALLY your idea of a good approach to learning the truth about what happened on 9-11? Or, is there something I'm "missing"?

I also post at Smirking Chimp as Bolo Boffin, Abe, on a wider variety of topics. I've also got a blog, where I hardly ever discuss this topic. So don't pretend that this single forum is the only place I am on the web. I've got enough integrity to use the same name in three identifiable sites on the Web.

Have I converted no single person to my point of view? So be it. It makes me happy to debunk foolish speculation about the events of 9/11. It's a little hobby of mine. So what.

I've only caused frustration and aggravation? No. At the very least, I've had some amusement from our antics, and I suspect I'm not the only one. So your statement isn't correct.

and no one can suggest what might really be going on...if anything.

That works both ways, dearest Abraham, father of Ishmael, father of Isaac. There are all kinds of reasons for being here.

You're missing more than you realize, Abe. Have you ever considered the possibility that you might be wrong?

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

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

[MercutioATC]

100. Most of the feedback I've recieved here has been positive, Abe.

(except from the 4 or 5 diehard CTists, that is)

I've had replies from newbies on the board (or at least new to this forum) who've thanked me for my posts. They don't seem to consider me a "weak joke".

Believe me, I'd be very frightened if YOU considered me to be anything else...

[Abe Linkman]

102. Yes -- all of your fellow apologists for the power of Osama support you.

"No Cred lared", bolo ("Hey, That's MY Spinning Wheel, Get Off")...and most impressive of all: naive newbies.

[MercutioATC]

104. "naive newbies" or simply free thinkers without an agenda?

I guess it's all a matter of perspective...

[LARED]

105. Abe, your lack of credibility is well established.

It's easy to blow smoke here. When are you going to respond to issues raised by me and ignored by you in other threads.

[nomatrix]

82. Pearl Harbor as told by the History Channel

http://www.historychannel.com/cgi-bin/frameit.cgi?p=http%3A//www.historychannel.com/pearlharbor/essay.html

After the oil embargo on Japan,

President Roosevelt and Secretary of State Cordell Hull were anticipating some sort of Japanese strike.


"In November, the United States had rejected two compromise proposals by the Japanese offering a limited withdrawal of Japanese troops from Manchuria in exchange for a loosening of the fuel embargo; U.S. intelligence had also learned, via intercepted messages from Tokyo, that Japan was prepared to go to war in the event of such a U.S. rejection. Though aware of a possible military strike, Washington could not pinpoint the time or location of an attack. There were many possible targets-possibilities included the Philippines, Wake Island, and the Midway Islands.

On December 6, a Royal Australian Air Force pilot sighted Japanese escorts, cruisers, and destroyers on patrol near the Malayan coast, south of Cape Cambodia, and radioed back to command that it looked as if the Japanese warships were headed for Thailand. The U.S. State Department demanded an explanation from Japanese envoys for the fleet movements, but the envoys claimed ignorance. Through the evening of December 6, U.S. Army intelligence reassured the president that the Japanese fleet was most likely headed for Thailand, not the United States."

Check the second paragraph. That is not none, nada, bolo.

[Bolo Boffin]

93. Check out the second paragrah, nomatrix.

FDR was told by his advisors that the fleet was headed to Thailand. This is not evidence that FDR knew Pearl Harbor was going to happen - it's evidence that FDR thought the Japanese were about to invade Thailand. I'm surprised I have to explain that to you.

[Abe Linkman]

95. As w/ many things (Disinfo, e.g.) --- knowing it is ez. Proving it isn't

Many people knew, and many more long suspected U.S. Gov't complicity in the attack on Pearl Harbor, but it took more than 50 years to get past the rumors and suspicions to awareness that Pearl Harbor is little different (indeed, it is THE model) from 9-11.

You might be successful in creating doubt in the minds of those who know little about the subject, but the truth about Pearl Harbor, like the truth about 9-11, is that THIS Government, like other ones (Germany and the Reichstag Fire, e.g.) will use a self-attack whenever necessary to advance the intersts of corporate America or a particular power-hungry group.

If it makes you feel smug, or earns you a bonus, good for you.

[Abe Linkman]

96. Pearl Harbor: "Mother Of All Conspiracies"

The evidence of U.S. complicity in the attack on Pearl Harbor is abundant and persuasive.

Anyone interested in knowing the truth about Pearl Harbor can go to google and just type in: Pearl Harbor + FDR + Advance Knowledge of attack

Here is one of the many articles there:

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html

Robert Stinnett wrote the latest definitive book on the subject:
"Day Of Deceit" -- right-wing extremists (the same people who don't want you to know the truth about today's "Pearl Harbor" aka 9-11) will puff up their chests & shout loud and long in an effort to discredit the author, but most historians agree with the findings of Mr. Stinnett.

[Ready4Change]

13. My biggest problem with this tin hat theory is this.

What advantage is there in replacing the jet liner with whatever it was replaced with?

- You can't enjoy an increase in damage done, as that would stand out as unexpected.

- The same assumptions allowing the planes replacement could also be used to effect hijacked control of the plane to use it as the weapon.

- By replacing the airliner you introduce several chances to be caught by evidence which don't exist if you just use the plane itself. (How do you dispose of the real airliner and passengers? How do you create the missile that replaces the airliner without creating something that NTSB folk won't recognize as NOT being an airliner?

Even if I accept the involvement of a conspiracy, I still see no reason for them to NOT use the airliner. It simplifies a lot of matters, and that decreases the chances of making mistakes that will trip the conspirators up.

[Woody Box]

22. Easy answer

Some of the passengers (Barbara Olsen for instance) mentioned their wish to survive.

[Bolo Boffin]

76. Some of the passengers mentioned their wish to survive?

And that accounts for why they used the aerial ballet/missile scenario instead of just hijacking Flight 77 and crashing it into the Pentagon how?

Are you saying that you believe the passengers of Flight 77 to still be alive somewhere?

[Woody Box]

21. Tin foil clock shows wrong time of Pentagon hit

The pentagon was allegedly hit at 9:37.

This is a screenshot from the Naudet Video/German edition:



The German text is a translation of the words of Tony, the firefighter ("The pentagon is fucking burning. This is war!"). He's watching CNN. CNN is reporting a fire at the pentagon as breaking news.

The clock shows 9:31.

Anybody hear already debunk this clock?

By the way, peak_oil: this french site hasn't changed since at least one year. Why do you come up with it just now? There is new interesting pentagon stuff - the clocks, for instance!

[Bolo Boffin]

75. The French site's jet is in the wrong place.

Check out the Pentagon performance report, Figure 2.21.

It shows the jet at the correct angle of approach in exactly the spot it was in when it was photographed by the security camera. The nose was about 325 feet from the Pentagon.

The French site has the jet much closer to the Pentagon than it actually was. That puts all of their calculations off. It also shows the jet coming in at a different angle than it actually did, again skewing their conclusion.

Lots of pretty graphics and fade shots there, but not a scientifically verifiable look at what happened at the Pentagon. Do over.

[Zynx]

106. Nothing else fits the damage profile

How do the tin foil hatters explain that? You can't do that sort of damage with a car bomb or normal missile.

[NecessaryOnslaught]

118. you mean..

the pre collapse or post collapse damage profile?

[NecessaryOnslaught]

145. Mercutio

What do you make of this piece of hardware? You could play a hell of an office prank with one of these, eh?

http://wstc.wsmr.army.mil/technology/range_instrument/targets/UnivRad.html

[objection]

149. I'll back that.

What's that sort of stuff for if not for naughty boys to play with?

[MercutioATC]

160. Yep, you sure could.