Investigating 9/11: Missing 757 at Pentagon + Other Unanswered Questions

[alank]

Investigating 9/11

My inquiry relates to literature and research investigating the events leading up to and including 9/11.

An investigative video on the Pentagon crash questions the official story that Flight 77, a Boeing 757 crashed into the building. Anomalies cited questioning the "official story" of the 757 crash include eye witness evidence, the absence of debris, am 18' hole that penetrated through 6 walls, smell of cordite (explosives) etc.

The Video of the Pentagon Strike is pretty convincing (IMHO) that there was no 757 found at the crash site.

Also, a book written by David Ray Griffin titled: "The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11" raised several perplexing and unanswered questions about 9/11.

Finally, here is a short interview with the author David Griffin by Nick Welsh of the The Santa Barbara Independent titled: "Thinking Unthinkable Thoughts Theologian Charges White House Complicity in 9/11 Attack"

I also found a previous thread on 9/11 investigation literature in the DU.

My question to DU readers is:

Is there any interest in official Washington about investigating what led to 9/11, and to investigate the "missing 757" that officially crashed into the Pentagon, or

Is this a buried issue, or

Is this a solved issue?

I appreciate any comments, since it seems to me that the 9/11 commission did not have a mandate to investigate these aspects, but rather focused on how to prevent further attacks.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Here is the Ottawa Citizen article. Since you may need a subscription to view the story online, I copied it below.

Another conspiracy theory
A respected theologian has waded into the debate, and readers are lapping it up on two continents
Ottawa Citizen Dec. 14, 2004

By Douglas Todd
Vancouver
VANCOUVER - David Ray Griffin is one of the most respected philosophers of religion in North America. He is the author or editor of more than 24 academic books, including works co-written with the deans of world religions, Huston Smith and Martin Marty. He has lectured around the world, including at the University of British Columbia.

Mr. Griffin is one of those profiled in the prestigious volume, A Handbook of Christian Theologians. He's painstakingly probed countless philosophical challenges, from the question of why there is evil to the relationship between science and religion, for which he's won numerous awards.

So why did this soft-spoken professor from the high-ranking Methodist-rooted School of Theology at Claremont, California, feel it necessary to risk his hard-earned reputation as a religion scholar to write one of the most incredible -- in all senses of the word -- political books of 2004?

Because no one else in mainstream America seemed prepared to do it.

The result? Mr. Griffin's book, The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11 (Interlink Publishing, $22.50) has already sold an astonishing 80,000 copies.

Mr. Griffin's unflinching analysis of the unanswered questions surrounding the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington has made Amazon.com's bestseller list despite receiving virtually no reviews in North America's mainstream media. That's unlike in Britain, where he's had solid coverage, including a three-page spread in London's mass-circulation Daily Mail.

Personally, when people ask how a group of Muslim extremists could have pulled off the devastating suicide attacks against the U.S., in spite of the country's global intelligence network and massive defense arsenal, I tend to side with the German philosopher, Goethe, who once said: "Why look for conspiracy when stupidity can explain so much?"

But when Mr. Griffin, who's known for his careful approach to philosophical problems, poses a series of questions suggesting the administration of George W. Bush had been warned about the terrorist attacks and did nothing, it's enough to make you shudder. The implications would make the Watergate scandal look like a Sunday brunch.

In effect, The New Pearl Harbor fleshes out in 214 pages the question asked in the final moment of Michael Moore's Academy-award-winning documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11.

That's when the filmmaker wonders aloud: What exactly was Mr. Bush thinking as he sat in front of a bunch of schoolchildren reading a book titled My Pet Goat, knowing two jetliners had been flown into the World Trade Center?

Mr. Griffin's book is titled The New Pearl Harbor for two reasons. One, because that's what Mr. Bush wrote in his diary on the evening of Sept. 11: "The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today." But also because members of the Bush administration in 2000 helped author the document, Project for the New American Century, which opined it would be difficult to galvanize Americans to support military expansion in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere unless a "new Pearl Harbor" occurred.

Here are a few of the questions Mr. Griffin looks into:

- Why did the Bush administration say it didn't anticipate the Sept. 11 attacks when the CIA and FBI had repeatedly told it al-Qaeda was planning to hijack planes and fly them into U.S. targets, including the World Trade Center and the Pentagon?

- Why were standard procedures that could have prevented the tragedy not followed when the four hijacked planes went off course, including immediately sending up jet fighters to shoot down passenger planes that fail to obey orders?

- Why has there been no physical evidence a jet plane crashed into the Pentagon? Independent onlookers say they saw a missile fly into the building. Video evidence shot by a nearby gas station's security cameras was confiscated by government officials.

- Why did Bush, despite knowing about first one, then two, World Trade Center crashes, delay his response to them for up to 30 minutes and instead continue to read a children's book? Why was he not whisked away by his security agents, who are trained to believe he's a logical target of terrorists?

- Who made tens of millions of dollars by betting on the stock market in the weeks before Sept. 11 that shares in the two airlines that owned the hijacked planes were about to plummet?

The Bush administration has brushed off all such questions. For his part, Mr. Griffin doesn't argue the Bush administration was actually complicit in the attacks. Some of the professor's fans have regretted his cautiousness, because he won't compile a grand theory about why the attacks may have been allowed to happen. He consistently avoids inflammatory rhetoric.

Mr. Griffin, however, has clearly shown the gross inadequacies of the 9/11 Commission, which the Bush administration demanded be restricted to looking only at how to stop another terrorist assault.

Mr. Griffin's supporters, including top Christian theologians, say he achieved his key goal, which was to provide an overwhelming body of evidence to show it's necessary to conduct a thorough probe into how the attacks happened in the first place.

In the past month, Harper's and The New York Times have tentatively started to catch up with Mr. Griffin's questions. Harper's, for instance, published a cover feature titled, Whitewash as public service: How the 9/11 Commission Report defrauds the nation, by Benjamin DeMott, which also asks whether it was sheer incompetence or something else that made the attacks possible.

For his part, Mr. Griffin says he's been overwhelmed by the positive responses he's received to his book, which has sold 50,000 copies in the United States almost solely by word of mouth.

In an e-mail interview, Mr. Griffin said he's only received about a dozen denunciations. Many families of those who died in the World Trade Center attack are among his supporters. Two of his many high-placed admirers are Canadians; former Liberal defense minister Paul Hellyer and Michael Chossudovsky of the University of Ottawa.

Mr. Griffin continues to believe the religious and philosophical questions he's devoted his career to answering are important, but, as a Christian, he feels a more urgent need to take on the geo-political developments that have elevated the planet onto high alert. Two weeks ago, he released a follow-up book with the same publisher, titled The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions.

Douglas Todd is a columnist for the Vancouver Sun.

More Unanswered Questions About the Sept. 11 Attacks



CREDIT: Matt Moyer, The Associated Press
Did Bush Know?: Religious philosopher David Ray Griffin does not suggest President George Bush knew the World Trade Center attack would occur, but that his administration's actions afterward were highly suspicious.

[karlrschneider]

1. It is a NON-issue that is only perpetuated by insane people.

It's that simple.

[alank]

2. It is a NON-issue that is only perpetuated by insane people.

"It is a NON-issue that is only perpetuated by insane people.
It's that simple."

Well, I guess that means that David Ray Griffin is insane. According to the reported sources, he has a solid reputation, but I can't corroborate this personally.

I hope you don't think I'm insane for asking the question.

Thanks for the reply.

[pa28]

6. Real plane. Real people.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html

The above link thoroughly debunks this theory IMO.

[alank]

14. Real plane. Real people.

pa28,

That is certainly a very informative and convincing analysis. I will go over it again a few times.

What I still have difficulty understanding is that the simulation predicts that most of the wings went into the building. Indeed, from the pictures, there does not appear to be much of the fuselage found outside the building.

Presumably the wings went through in the adjacent areas, according to the Purdue simulations.

Thanks again for replying and posting the link!

Note: I just edited this post - the pictures previously posted here were of taken from the inside, as seen from the video. That's could explain why the hole was so clean.

[pa28]

15. No problem.

This photo is actually on the back wall of one of the concentric rings which make up the Pentagon.

Some of the heavier elements of the aircraft actually punched through the brick on the way back out. The metallic debris you see there are what remain of one of the Rolls-Royce engines. Other photos of this scene show identifiable compressor parts in the same area as well as landing gear rims from a 757.

[alank]

17. Debris Inside

pa28,

Any idea how much plane debris was found inside the building? i.e. Were enough pieces or mass recovered commensurate with the size of a 757?

[MercutioATC]

19. Suggested site to visit:

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

It's a long read, but it's the only report written by professional civil engineers who examined the site firsthand.

[Abe Linkman]

20. NO, and the ONLY plane debris found was from a SMALL jet.

Furthermore, the ASCE Report is a GOVERNMENT-sponsored "Building Damage Assessment Report". It starts with an UNproven premise (that a B757 crashed at the Pentagon) and is of very limited use. It's the modern day equivalent of the Warren Commission Report --- a piece of propaganda designed to give Disinformation agents something to use in trying to create doubts among people who are interested in learning the truth about what really happened at the Pentagon. You'll notice a certain party here answers questions about the Official Pentagon Conspiracy Theory...by citing the ASCE Report...as though it answers the questions.
Take it with a BIG BOX of salt.

[MercutioATC]

23. The "small jet" is complete bunk.

There's nothing that lends credibility to the "small jet" scenario except for the engine part found which could be one of two things:

1) part of a small jet

2) the high-pressure rotor and housing from a 757 engine

Plenty of people saw a large commercial aircraft...plenty of large commercial aircraft parts were found at the Pentagon (not to mention AAL77's flight data and voice recorders and DNA from the passengers)...120' of damage to the limestone facing couldn't have been caused by a "small jet"...etc.

[musette_sf]

3. Griffin's book is excellent!

Required reading for MIHOPers and LIHOPers.

Even on the morning of 9/11/01, I thought the Pentagon incident to be curious. I thought at first, Oh, okay, a military target, still sucks but at least this is something the Pentagon should always expect. (Insert emotional expat New Yorker rant here.) The WTC was a horror, but the Pentagon - um, oh well.

I too want to know, where is the AIRPLANE?

Buried issue.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

(Ya know, I actually heard big mean bouncers mutter this as I walked through the High Roller area of Binion's in Las Vegas. Binion's is an apt metaphor for this administration.)

[kuozzman]

4. While I do believe that the government and other "elite" were well aware

of the attcks of Sept. 11 in advance, I do think that a plane did actually fly into the Pentagon. I forget who it was, but there is a DUer who claims to have witnessed it while driving on a nearby highway. I'll see if I can find his post.....

[Pastiche423]

5. If a plane did actually fly into the Pentagon

why was the only video that would prove that to be true (gas station across the street) taken from the station, never to be seen by the public?

[alank]

7. "If a plane did actually fly into the Pentagon"

Good question.

Did you get a chance to check out the video in the lead article?

[Pastiche423]

9. No

My computer is too old and too slow to view it.

Can you tell me about it?

[alank]

16. The video

Pastiche423,

"My computer is too old and too slow to view it. Can you tell me about it?"

To summarize:

-lack of a debris field exterior to the building (pa28's link gives an explanation which includes that the wings went through the building facade. On this, I don't know how much debris was found inside)
-pristine grass outside implies great flying ( a few feet off the ground on impact), but the flight school said the guy the FBI identified as the pilot "couldn't fly"
-some witnesses saw a small commuter plane whoosh by at low altitude, others saw a 757
-one witness smelled cordite(an explosive)
-camera evidence removed by FBI, never released to public

[kuozzman]

11. OK, now I'm having 2nd thoughts......

I had originally looked at some of the evidence behind this theory about two years ago and it wasn't very convincing. But this seems rather conclusive......

Here is another good link that makes the same points as the movie above, but has the stills and more....

http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911/Eastman/m18h05.html

[MercutioATC]

24. Oh, Christ! Eastman!

PLEASE look at the rest of Eastman's rantings before you decide to listen to him.

There are a few professionals involved in aviation and engineering here at DU and all agree that Eastman has no realistic basis for his claims.

[Abe Linkman]

26. OBJECTIVE 9/11 RESEARCHERS,,almost to a person, admire Dick Eastman

You pays your money and you takes your pick:

* Self-described professionals with direct, indirect, and past ties to
Gov't departments...whose mission is to defend the Official Conspiracy Theory and help suppress the truth about what really happened.

OR

* Independent researchers whose sole interest is in uncovering the truth about what really happened on 9/11.

Who you gonna trust? Claims that require "Ghost-like" powers or GHOST BUSTERS?

Choose wisely.

[MercutioATC]

35. Abe, it took me a couple of minutes to find serious holes in Eastman's

Pentagon rantings. Then it took me 15 minutes to type them all up in a post.

Eastman doesn't have any knowledge of the fundamental issues. He's strictly a layperson with an opinion and a lot of free time.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=652#17102

[Abe Linkman]

13. Remember all the WHERDY GO questions, too.

If a B757 did strike the building at a 52 degree angle, whenever the right wing made contact with the building, the plane would have pivoted
around to its left, by design, the right engine would have separated, and it should have been found outside the building, along with a large piece or pieces of the wings. WHERDY GO?

There is NO actual one "Official Story" version of exactly how the building was allegedly hit by a B757. Did it come in nose down, perfectly horizontal...or nose up? One alleged eyewitness claimed to have distinctly heard the sound of a plane pulling up.

Depending on which version of the so-called "Official Story" you encounter, the evidence that should be consistent with a particular version is either contradictory, non-existent, or fails to take into account critical factors.

The entire Pentagon story is a lie. A fairy tale. Anyone who troubles themselves to read some of the excellent research that has been done will very quickly come to realize that the so-called Official Story Version is nothing less than totally absurd.

The list of absurdities which undermine the Official Conspiracy Theory
are a mile long...and are only answered by equally absurd disinformation stories and claims designed to suppress the truth, discourage further search for the truth, undermine the credibility of those who question the Official story, and disrupt those who are trying to exchange information about what really happened.

[MercutioATC]

18. Alank, search the Pentagon crash history on this board...and elsewhere.

You'll find no shortage of conspiracy theorists who are willing to tell you that the crash of AAL77 into the Pentagon is a lie.

I disagree.

Hey, what do I know? I've been an air traffic controller for 14 years. The only other professionals who have taken a stake in this debate here are a professional airline pilot and a degreed engineer....both dispute Abe's claims. Who knows what the qualifications of the conspiracy theorists here are? They refuse to answer any questions.

Don't take my word for anything, but please don't take theirs, either. Look at the evidence yourself.

[Abe Linkman]

21. Good advice. Do a little research & you'll quickly learn the OCT is a lie

Once you become aware of even the most basic lies told to us, then you'll begin to quickly see how the rest of the Official version story makes no sense.

You can start with the alleged video of the Pentagon attack: It's an obvious fake, because the DATE is 9/12/01, not 9/11/01.

Next up, today, even most of the supporters of the Official version admit that Ted Olsen lied whenever he claimed to have gotten cell phone calls from his wife from aboard FL 77.

Keep in mind that an Administration that would lie to the world at the U.N. about WMD, and start wars based on THOSE lies may well be suspected of lying about anything...including 9/11.

[MercutioATC]

22. Abe's giving good advice. Do some research, don't just listen to us.

Come to your own conclusions.

If you want the input of professional engineers, commercial pilots, air traffic controllers or military aviators we're here to answer questions.

There are a bunch of people who decline to provide credentials that you can listen to also.

Either way, welcome!

[Abe Linkman]

25. "air traffic controllers here to answer questions" --- then, kindly do.

The most obvious lies about 9/11 concern very basic things.
The only answers you've provided require MAGIC to explain them.
WHERE are the 757 engines, M-ATC?
WHERE is the MUSH, M-ATC?
HOW did confetti create a nine foot circular hole, M-ATC?
EXACTLY HOW did the attack plane come into contact with the Pentagon, M-ATC? Was it nose up, nose down, two feet off the ground in a horizontal strike? WHAT?
WHY wasn't even a single body or body part found on the Pentalawn, M-ATC?
IF the alleged piece of aluminum "found" on the Pentalawn came from FL 77, why was it "found" on the opposite side of the Pentalawn from where it should have been, M-ATC?
HOW did a young M.E. man who couldn't even fly a Cessna perform aeronautical maneuvers that only an experienced expert could perform?
WHY weren't Pentagon windows broken where the wings would have had to hit them if a 757 had crashed into the Pentagon?
HOW could a 757 penetrate the Pentagon's reinforced walls and continue moving thru another group of walls WITHOUT coming apart and leaving visible pieces?
WHERE is the LUGGAGE from the passengers on FL 77, M-ATC? Why are there NO photos of ANY luggage?
WHY didn't the 6,000 gallons (or ever how many there were) cause fire damage to the Pentagon offices directly above where the "inferno" would have to have been...if a 757 had crashed into the building?
TED OLSEN lied about having gotten cell phone calls from FL 77. If the Solicitor General of the United States would lie so easily, and if the Administration would lie about WMD and put out fake Osama tapes, then you are going to have to provide a lot more CREDIBLE, FACTUAL information than you have thus far if your purpose here is to be an objective participant interested in the truth.

No one has ever provided credible answers to any of the above. Every time YOU have been pressed to answer these kinds of questions... all you've ever done is cite a propaganda piece and CLAIM that it answers them.

There are many good, intelligent, knowledgeable, reasonable, objective people here at DU who are very interested in learning the truth about what really happened on 9/11. You cannot cite even ONE person who will confirm that you have given a credible answer to just one of the above questions, let alone more than one.

Three years later, and the Official conspiracy theory is as bogus as ever. Three years later, and no one has ever given a credible answer to any of the questions and contradictions about the Conspiracy theory that the Gov't has promulgated, and that you support.

[MercutioATC]

36. Yawn...

Abe, you really need some new material.

I've explained these issues every time you've brought them up. It's not my fault if you can't understand the ASCE report.

Half of your questions contradict themselves ("HOW did confetti create a nine foot circular hole" vs "HOW could a 757 penetrate the Pentagon's reinforced walls and continue moving thru another group of walls WITHOUT coming apart and leaving visible pieces")...

The other half have been explained numerous times...by others as well as by myself.

If you're so upset about my citing the ASCE report, just explain the mistakes made by the engineers who wrote it (and your qualifications) or provide a contrary report of equal weight (written by equally qualified engineers who have examined the site firsthand).

[tngledwebb]

32. Now, doesn't everyone feel safer about flying on the holidays?

n/t

[EVDebs]

8. Why the 'standdown' of NORAD ? Wargames...on 9-11 ?

Neither the 9-11 Commission Report nor the media have adequately covered the lack of air force response on 9-11-01 or the fact that war-games (involving hijacked aircraft etc) were ongoing that day.

See http://www.oilempire.us/wargames.html

""CIA / National Reconnaissance Office "plane into building" exercise

Associated Press, August 21, 2002 simulation of a plane crash into the NRO headquarters (near Dulles Airport, Virginia) - this was not a "terrorism" exercise but it did result in the evacuation of most NRO employees just as the "real" 9/11 was taking place, making it more difficult for the nation's spy satellites to be used to track the hijacked planes

Vigilant Guardian

Aviation Week & Space Technology, June 3, 2002, Newhouse News, others (these articles are reproduced below) The publicly available mass media articles about these exercises state that they were similar enough to the actual events that top NORAD personnel were confused, not sure if 9/11 was "part of the drill" or a real world event.

Vigilant Warrior

Richard Clark, "Against All Enemies" (March 2004) referenced by Richard Clark, but other information is not publicly available. Vigilant Guardian and Vigilant Warrior were probably related exercises (defender and attacker).

Northern Vigilance

Toronto Star, December 9, 2001 "Operation Northern Vigilance, planned months in advance, involves deploying fighter jets to locations in Alaska and northern Canada." This ensured that there would be fewer fighter planes available to protect the East Coast on 9/11. Simulated information was fed into radar screens - is this what confused the air defenses that morning?

Northern Guardian

Toronto Star, December 9, 2001 only mention was in the early edition of this article, no details publicly available (probably related to Northern Vigilance)

Tripod II

US Department of Justice and City of New York Rudolph Giuliani's testimony to the 9/11 Commission, May 2004 biowar exercise in New York City scheduled for September 12, 2001""

The media's silence is DEAFENING !

[Old and In the Way]

10. Here's a rather large thread on this very subject.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=26843


You may not be aware since you're new, but this thread belongs in the 9/11 forum which is buried in the archive & leftover forum....lots of interesting posts on 9/11 there.

BTW, here is a photo of the gas station:

<>

[alank]

12. Thanks for the link!

Hi Old and In the Way,

Thanks for the link!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=26843

I will read it, and perhaps it will help answer my questions. If the first post in it is true, that is that genuine forensic evidence was found, and the evidence is irrefutable, then I would be disappointed in the Ottawa Citizen for publishing a "conspiracy" story that was already mis-proven.

[Sweet Pea]

27. Can someone explain to me....

this statement:

"...is pretty convincing (IMHO) that there was no 757 found at the crash site."

and reconcile it with the fact that at numerous crash sites throughout recorded history of flight no "aircraft" was found at the crash site?

Did an 757 *not* crash at Shanksville, PA., since "no 757" was found there?

Does anyone around here realize how ludicrous the opening statement sounds? "There was no 757 found at the crash site?" What do you expect - fly an fuel-filled airliner into (I've said this before...again and again) a kevlar-and-steel-rod reinforced concrete building at close to 400 knots and find nice pieces of the cockpit and fuselage and WINGS and tail laid out all nice and neat? THE PLANE WAS DESTROYED ON IMPACT - can't say it any clearer than that.

Man...it hurts the brain reading some of this stuff.

[Abe Linkman]

28. You are free to leave immediately and permanently. Help yourself out.

"Man...it hurts the brain reading some of this stuff."

[Sweet Pea]

31. I'm sure...

you'd like anyone who disagrees with your alternative-physics approach to aerodynamics to disappear, but I think I'd like to hang around for a while. :)

[BlueDog2u]

33. Wow!

Abe, buddy, cool off a bit. Is a agreement with one position a prerequisite to discussion? And why is it that the rational exploration of LIHOP, even MIHOP, seems to get so easily derailed on doubtful lines of inquiry?

[DulceDecorum]

29. If the plane was destroyed on impact

then how come they still had bodies upon which to conduct autopsies?

Álvarez, a parishioner of Holy Trinity Parish in Georgetown, worked with the FBI and the Major Case Response Team. She said that during her work at the crash site, the Pentagon "smelled of death... and chemicals."
She said that she and fellow recovery workers had to sift through "giant mountains of rubble."
"We had to sift very slowly and very carefully because everything was evidence," Álvarez recalled. "We had a sacred job to do. We were all proud to serve our country, and to serve our agency."
Álvarez said she and her fellow workers sorted through debris from collapsed Pentagon walls and pieces of the hijacked airplane. They found the box cutters used by the hijackers to commandeer the plane, identification papers, money, jewelry, and body parts.
"These pieces of bodies, we treated like precious treasure," Álvarez said. "We knew this was somebody's family member. We knew they were waiting for the bodies to be returned so they could bury them properly and begin the healing process."
Álvarez said one of the disturbing aspects of her job was recovering the items of children who had been on board the plane. "It was upsetting to find children's shoes, their little suitcases and their stuffed animals," she said.
She also recalled participating in the recovery of the body of a friend of hers.
"I entered the Pentagon once. The one person we pulled out whose body was intact was a friend of mine. His uniform was perfect. His ribbons, his belt and his shoes were clean. I thought, 'How befitting a hero.' I said a prayer over him, and then they zipped up his body bag."
Picking up body parts, and pieces of aircraft at the Pentagon, Álvarez said she would pray, "Help me Jesus. Please don't let me cry yet, because I will never stop, my mask will fog up and I have a lot of work to do here."
http://www.cathstan.org/news/09-05-02/3.shtml

Sweet Pea says:
Man...it hurts the brain reading some of this stuff.

Sweet Pea,
are you calling this woman
a lying bitch?

[Sweet Pea]

30. Au Contraire!

Mon Dulce! First off, I would never call any woman a bitch - my mama raised me better than that. Second off, I believe her story, down to the last ribbons on the uniform of the friend's body she helped recover.

You see, for most of 2000 my navy reserve assignment was with the Navy Command Center (NCC) in the Pentagon. I'll let your Amazing Google-Ranger Fingers look that up, if you dont' already know what happened to the NCC in the attack. Suffice it to say I knew people who were on duty that day and who are not here any more. Someone here (was it you, perhaps?) in the past has derisively posted a charred and burned ID card belonging to Patrick Dunn, with the implication that it was amazing the lengths that were taken to "perpetuate" the hoax. I find that, to be honest, nauseating but something that Abe and others here find, well, humerous.

I believe your quote of the Holy Trinity parishioner. Finding pieces of the hijacked airplane, the box cutters used by the hijackers, identification papers, money, jewelry, and body parts, children's shoes, their little suitcases, their stuffed animals. All planted, no doubt, since this event never happened - according to Abe and his believers. Perhaps you should re-direct your commenst to Abe - I'd like to hear his rebuttal on the parishioner's comments - a paid government stooge, perhaps.

"If the plane was destroyed on impact then how come they still had bodies upon which to conduct autopsies?"

Are you serious? Seriously....are you serious? Do you not understand how everyone *on* the plane would become "body parts" at impact while a number of people *in the building* would die yet their bodies would remain intact? Do you find that a difficult concept to get your mind around?

[BlueDog2u]

34. Greetings, Sweet Pea

"I believe your quote of the Holy Trinity parishioner. Finding pieces of the hijacked airplane, the box cutters used by the hijackers, identification papers, money, jewelry, and body parts, children's shoes, their little suitcases, their stuffed animals. All planted, no doubt, since this event never happened - according to Abe and his believers. Perhaps you should re-direct your commenst to Abe - I'd like to hear his rebuttal on the parishioner's comments - a paid government stooge, perhaps."

I'd like to hear this also. The details from this account support my contention on this thread of the central importance of the forensic evidence in disposing of this silly notion that something other than flight 77 hit the Petagon:



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=26843

Sweet Pea, incidentally: do you follow a LIHOP scenario, or do you accept the government's orthodox fiction? I'm just wondering -- because I do see abundant evidence for LIHOP even though I think this particular line of inquiry is bankrupt. Haven't made up my mind yet about explosives in the WT Towers.