No, boys and girls, F77 did not hit the Pentagon.

[crispy]

I say, a plane did hit the Pentagon. That plane was not Flight 77. I want you to disprove me, punch holes in my argument, or provide a better explanation about what hit the Pentagon, one that sufficiently accounts for the information I bring forward.

I want open, critical, constructive discussion. Don't give me any "Derrr, it's already been established that bla bla bla, go read past threads." I've read all the past threads about the Pentagon, and pertinent questions still remain.

Take your gloves off, 757 believers. Don't pussyfoot around. Are you afraid of open debate?


Here we go:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A32597-2001Nov2

*snip*
The airliner that slammed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11 disappeared from controllers' radar screens for at least 30 minutes
*/snip*

Hmmmmm.

*snip*
Why did the Boeing 757 simply disappear from radar screens for a half-hour or more, turn aroundover southern Ohio and get back into Washington airspace before anyone noticed it or knew that it had been hijacked?
*/snip*

Good question. But wait a second - if you say it disappeared from radar screens BEFORE turning around to head toward Washington, how do you know the turnaround even happened?

If you assumed that F77 hit the Pentagon, you'd have to say it turned around. But what evidence is there that ever even happened?

None. The people who have said that ATCs tracked F77 from over Ohio to straight into the Pentagon were either lying or misinformed. There is no radar evidence F77 hit the Pentagon.

Dulles ATCs were the first to see on radar the plane that hit the Pentagon. Their reaction?

*snip*
"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien.
*/snip*
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/2020/2020_011024_atc_feature.html

Hmmmmm, a military plane, eh?

Yes, a plane hit the Pentagon. Plane parts were found. What witnesses described could be nothing but a plane.

Flight 77, though?

There is very good evidence that what hit the Pentagon was actually a missile followed a split second later by a mid-sized plane modified to give the impression that it was an AA commercial airliner. That is, witnesses were fooled.

*snip*
Stars and Stripes reporter Lisa Burgess was walking on the Pentagon’s innermost corridor, across the courtyard, when the incident happened. “I heard two loud booms – one large, one smaller, and the shock wave threw me against the wall,” she said.
*/snip*
http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=3771&archive=true

Two booms. One large, one smaller.

"To me the explosion happened in two portions. It didn't sound like much. There was a large whoosh and then a kind of a karumph sound."
http://soundprint.org:8080/ramgen/documentaries/w/we_were_on_duty.rm (4:55)

Two parts to the explosion. A large whoosh followed by a karumph.

Missile hits the building and explodes. Loud. Large boom. Whoosh.

Plane, a split second later, flies into the hole created by the missile. Not as loud. Smaller boom. Karumph.

Missile hits split second before plane. Confused witnesses (or rather, witness - Timmerman) say the plane struck the ground before hitting the facade of the building. It is easy to see how someone could interpret the explosion of the missile and while the plane was still in the air (just for a split second, though) as the plane striking the ground first.

Timmerman, the only witness who said quite blatantly that the plane hit the ground first, was watching from his apartment in a complex some distance away from the Pentagon.

http://www.dcmilitary.com/army/pentagram/6_37/local_news/10380-1.html

But Joe Harrington, a construction foreman working on the Pentagon renovation, was very close to the Pentagon. Matter of fact, he was in the Pentagon parking lot. So he would have seen the plane hit the building from the side, meaning that of the available witnesses, he was probably in the best position for him to say what happened when.

Pause a sec. It has been proven that F77 did not hit the ground first. Only one witness said it did. Other, more credible witnesses, like Steve Riskus and Mike Walter, specifically said that it did not hit the ground first. The lawn was perfect. The ASCE's building performance study team did not raise the possibility that it did, either.

So why, WHY else would Harrington drop a bombshell like this:

"It seemed like it made impact just before the wedge."

I don't know about you, but I cannot think of one situation in which a Boeing 757 crashing straight into the facade would make him believe that the plane made contact before the wedge.

However, I can easily see why he'd say that if a missile impacted the building a split second before the plane did.




I can't believe how people can still think a B757 caused that.

Please tell me why, if you do, you still believe F77 hit the Pentagon. Inquiring minds want to know.

[ant]

1. out of curiosity...

...if Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, where did it go? What happened to the people on it?

[Prodemsouth]

2. Yeah, that what I ask, is the wife of Ted Olson part of a conspiracy?

Did she go on something like a witness protection in hidding?

[crispy]

5. Re: "out of curiosity..."

Not necessary to demonstrate where F77 did go to show where it did not go. But it's an interesting question nonetheless.

I suspect something like this: it landed somewhere near Ohio, the passengers were killed, and possibly their remains were used for DNA identification. Whatever it took to get the job done.

Courtesy of DulceDecorum:
In 1984, the Reagan administration insisted that it had no knowledge about any casualties from secret fighting in Central America. But the Knight-Ridder story ended with a chilling quote from a former covert military specialist who explained the practice of "bodywashing."
"If a guy is killed on a mission," the former officer said, "and if it was sensitive politically, we'd ship the body back home and have a jeep roll over on him at Fort Huachuca," a remote Army intelligence base in Arizona. "Or we'd arrange a chopper crash, or wait until one happened and insert a body or two into the wreckage later. It's not that difficult."
http://www.oz.net/~vvawai/sw/sw33/pgs_10-19/el-salvador.html

[RH]

32. necessary

nevertheless to provide a story that would make some kind of sense.

[demodewd]

45. How about...

..gassing the Flight 77 passengers and crew in flight bringing down the plane by remote and loading them on a miltary plane near the size of the Boeing 757 and then guiding it by remote into the Pentagon?

[RH]

47. Why?

If the intention was to create the very effect of a B757 hitting the Pentagon why would not simply do the same?

[demodewd]

54. control and maximization...

Would you be able to guide the 757 effectively into the intended target by overiding its computer guidance system? I don't know...someone help me here.Maybe it would effectuate certainty by installing a military guidance system equivalent to a smart bomb on a alternative plane along with adding a missile/or bomb and perhaps additional fuel to maximize destruction ?

[RH]

62. Of course it would be possible

to steer a B757 remotely.

Have you not yet heard of the 'home run' system?

To catch up google for "Home run" and "hijack".

The possibility was developed precisely in order to take control of a hijacked plane.

[demodewd]

77. re: Home Run

Yes I understand that,but is it possible to "Home Run" a 757 in the manner in which the planes crashed into the South Tower and Pentagon with such drastic maneuvers accompanied with high speed?

[RH]

106. First convinve me

that the said maneuvers were so drastic.

I contuinue to be concerned with the extraordinary dearth of specific tesitmony and corroboration with regard to the alleged U turn to hit the Pentagon.


Before you begin it would simply not the most sensible way to achieve the end effect as a premeditated intention. Why fly so dangerously low and close to the Navy Annex? Why fly between lamp poles?

How would you have gone about attacking the Pentagon? To avoid intereception I'd have followed a normal flight path towards DCA (as if to feign to land there) .. diverting to hit the east side of the Pentagon at the last minute.

Why then is everybody so keen to go along with the official version of the Pentagon as a pre intended target?

I don't buy it.

It makes no sense.

:freak:

[gristy]

3. I opt for the simpler explanation of what happened.

You seem to be proposing something vastly more complicated. Reminds me of how people were working so hard trying to explain what happens at the sea's "horizon" when everyone thought the world was flat.

But I'll take a swipe at one of your snippets:

"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien.

It most certainly was a passenger plane simply being flown (and turned) in a manner they had never seen before.

[crispy]

6. Re: "I opt for the simpler explanation of what happened."

> It most certainly was a passenger plane simply being flown (and turned) in a manner they had never seen before.

By Hani Hanjour?

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hanjour.html

[crispy]

10. Complicated? So what?

> You seem to be proposing something vastly more complicated.

Yeah, it would have been more complicated. But what would the motive behind adding so much complication?

Precision. If you are attacking your own building, you don't want to decapitate the U.S. government (Rumsfeld, etc.) so you fly a drone aircraft into the section of the building under renovation.

[ant]

12. wouldn't it be easier..

...to arrange for the important people to be elsewhere?

If they can set up all this, surely they could make sure Rumsfeld was elsewhere for a meeting or something.

[crispy]

16. You'll have to ask the conspirators on that one.

It's not just Rumsfeld, you're talking the military brass. Secret areas. Documents and other crap you don't want lying around on the Pentagon lawn.

And you're also talking HANI HANJOUR.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hanjour.html

Why take the chance of letting Hanjour, a crappy pilot, fly a 757-200 into the building, and hoping he doesn't hit somewhere important?

[gristy]

13. So why not fly a 20-seater commuter jet into the Pentagon?

if your goal is to not "decapitate the U.S. government". Shit, you have all kinds of jet-size choices.

[crispy]

17. Because.

You have to fool the witnesses. You have to account for the missing F77. You have to cause a good amount of damage. You have to cause an emotional impact.

Those are only my guesses from me trying to think evil-like. But you'll really just have to ask the conspirators.

[gristy]

21. So use a 40-seater, then.

Whatever you like.

[crispy]

26. Wouldn't work

If you're trying to convince people that a Boeing 757 hit the building, you don't want the wreckage of a 40-seater all over the Pentagon lawn.

So you have your drone plane fire a missile first, so the plane goes completely into the building.

No telltale non-757 parts.

[RH]

51. Why

do you have to account for a missing F77?

Why not fly the said F77 into the building?

[crispy]

57. .

> Why not fly the said F77 into the building?

Who's going to fly it? Hanjour? No. You going to remotely hijack B757 and fly it into the Pentagon?

Do you not see the advantage of using a precise missile/military plane?

[RH]

61. I have not yet seen

anything at all, anywhere, to prove the supposition that the Pentagon was a deliberately chosen pre mediate target to begin with.

The notion would apear to be entirely conjectural, as would be your presumption to the effect that Hanjour flew the plane, given that the remains of the suspected hijackers were not positively identified.

[soothsayer]

4. i recall a couple of eyewitnesses on local news here (arlington va)

saying they saw 2 planes---one that hit the building, and then a military plane that swooped down towards the building and then flew away somewhere.

One guy was stuck in traffic on 395 when it happened (saw him in a live interview) and one was at least one other person either that day or the next day who said there were 2 planes. no one else says that.

mysterious.

[AWD]

7. I have a friend

..who works in a building where her window overlooks the Pentagon. She also said there were 2 planes.

[RH]

31. There were two planes.

A C130 followed the B757.

It flew through the rising smoke plume.

The pilot has since been interviewed.

This has been discussed many times before. It arose on a recent DU thread.

Aspects of the involvement of the second aircraft are somewhat dubious but there is hardly any room to doubt the basic fact.

[MrSoundAndVision]

8. Man, if I run into you at a party

Are you going to throw this upon me? Is it okay that I just walk away? 9/11 conspiracy theories will never be proven nor disproven. I think they let it happen, but I don't think that it was a missle attack. Analyzing vague news articles, and analyzing what people think they heard doesn't prove anything.

Me, I'm not really interested in what actually happened. I'm satisfied just seeing who really benefited from 9/11 and that's enough. I think it's enough for most people.

[crispy]

14. Let's hope we don't meet, then

> 9/11 conspiracy theories will never be proven nor disproven. I think they let it happen, but I don't think that it was a missle attack. Analyzing vague news articles, and analyzing what people think they heard doesn't prove anything.

I never said it was a "missle attack". If two people, both inside the Pentagon, say they heard two explosions, and one of those people said it no later than 9/12/01, I think it's relevant. When taken in context with everything else, it's very significant.

> Me, I'm not really interested in what actually happened. I'm satisfied just seeing who really benefited from 9/11 and that's enough. I think it's enough for most people.

Intriguing. Being given the chance to demonstrate FULL COMPLICITY doesn't interest you? Why not? Full complicity is much different than "they benefited". Nothing of any significance will be done in the public arena by proving that "they benefited".

[RH]

30. FULL COMPLICITY ?

... chance to demonstrate FULL COMPLICITY ?

Which would consist of what?

Even if perchance an F16 or a missile were shnown to have hit the building you'd still have nothing more that that. All sorts of possible explanations would arise. To prove complicity you need to account in detail for background events.

By alienating all those who know your ignorant nonsense to be the embarassingly pathetic fantasy that it is, the prospect of discovering any REAL evidence of complicity continually recedes.

[crispy]

36. You're right.

Showing that a 757 didn't hit the building wouldn't by itself demonstrate full complicity. And by full complicity I mean that people within the gov't planned and orchestrated the attacks. But that's where other researchers and other research come into play. By demonstrating that no 757 hit the building, it's possible to show that a big part of the 9/11 attacks is a huge lie. Combine that with other stuff, like planted evidence to frame Arabs, and you're looking at the finger of blame being pointed squarely at the U.S. gov't, or portions thereof.

I have more to say but this is getting off topic.

[RH]

41. The fact

that a B757 hit the building is already demonstrated.

How come this simple fact continues to fail to impress?

Those who were there to judge for themselves are all convinced, hundreds, if not thousands of them.

I am in turn convinced of the same, having spent many hours last year trawling the web for any sign of anything to any other effect. Hundreds of people saw the B757. Dozens must have seen the C130.

Frequent misquotes or narrowly selected quotes of some witness reports as if to contradict the official version serve only to prove to me the prejudice of those who come up with them.

Or can you name but one single person who was actually there or directly involved with anything presently to say for themselves to any other effect?

This simple fact of the matter sets the Pentagon event apart from many other previous events where some of those immediately involved
have expressed some serious doubts.

Mind also please that those involved included many who were very well qualified to judge for themselves, in terms of experience and motivation. They feared of their own lives. Some had previous experience of aircraft fires or ballistic incidents.

[crispy]

42. eh

> Some had previous experience of aircraft fires or ballistic incidents.

How many had been involved in a crash where they were tricked into believing one thing? How many had experience in discerning a B757 from the impression of a B757 generated by a modified, painted-up military plane?


> The fact that a B757 hit the building is already demonstrated.

Where? Archives? Been there, done that.

If a B757 hit the Pentagon, it should not be difficult to point out flaws in my logic. On the other hand, if you cannot disprove my scenario, what does that say about yours?

If you don't want to go through the work of, what probably would be in your mind, "re-proving" that a 757 hit the Pentagon, don't. But also don't get in the way of my appeals for honest discussion about it. If a B757 did hit the Pentagon, and it has been proven, it should not be a problem at all to disprove or impeach the credibility of my arguments.

There's been alot of generalities, I want specifics.

[RH]

44. You want?

"How many had been involved in a crash where they were tricked into believing one thing? How many had experience in discerning a B757 from the impression of a B757 generated by a modified, painted-up military plane?"


Because of the simple fact of being there to see for themselves I would expect that every one of those who were actually there would be better qualified than yourself to judge the reality.

The difficulty you seem to have in appreciating that consideration betrays a lamentable lack of logic.

So whay then should anybody be bothered at all to disprove your scenario, and to whom should they be concerned to disprove it?

If you want to be taken seriously bring a case a court of law; there should be no better way to realise the proofs of the matter.

[Abe Linkman]

52. Eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable

Eyewitness accounts to unexpected events are simply not credible. I'm surprised you don't know that.

[RH]

53. Your extraordinarily negative, boring repetitions

serve only to betray the pathetic lack of anything better than the contributions of those who were actually there to rely upon.

No evidence of any sort has any validity without a person to testify to vouch for it. Who then would be appropriately qualified to vouch for your case, whatever it may happen to be? The case would rather seem to rest mostly upon a contested interpretation of the dubious "video"(sic) the particular provenence of which I have not yet seen a proper account of.

[Abe Linkman]

97. RH - Notice NO ONE defended your ignorance about eyewitnesses

Not even any of the regular defenders of the Official Story Conspiracy.
You're busted.

[RH]

104. If 'dI said that

the sky was blue

I wouldn't expect to see anybody defend that either.


:eyes:

Who do think should need to read your childish rant?

Who wants to read old news?

:hurts:

[Abe Linkman]

120. Why no one agrees with you

You're wrong. You are intentionally pretending like the public is too stupid to not know eyewitness accounts of sudden events is wholly unreliable. And, when you add traumatic along with sudden, not only are you not believable, eyewitness accounts not coorroborated are as worthless as your stilted, obtuse style of presenting whatever it is.

[RH]

123. Nobody?

Don't be so stupid.

[Abe Linkman]

135. That's right, NOBODY agrees with you about the reliability of...

eyewitness accounts of sudden events; and especially those of a traumatic nature that unfold and end within a few seconds or less.

You're just pig-headed and wrong. And that is why NO ONE has come to your defense. You can't even get your fellow spinners to back you up.

[LARED]

136. Dear Abe

Yes the sky is blue.

[crispy]

55. No

> Because of the simple fact of being there to see for themselves I would expect that every one of those who were actually there would be better qualified than yourself to judge the reality.

No, because they did not have context in which to place the events they were seeing. If they had known that 9/11 was a Big Lie to begin with, they might have paid a little more attention to the pertinent details. Each one of them has a piece to the puzzle. I am trying to put them together. They may have better knowledge of their individual piece than I do, but I can see the whole puzzle.

[RH]

63. It is precisely

because they did indeed have the context that I prefer the judegements of the eye witnesses.

They were in the context. You were elsewhere.

Putting your own opinions into context "have the context" = "prejudice". You do not know that know that 9/11 was a Big Lie to begin with. You may have good reason to suspect so, but you're as far away as ever from proving the case.

[crispy]

72. You don't know what context is, do ya

> They were in the context. You were elsewhere.

It's not a very difficult concept. They have their individual observation, I have the context in which to place all of them.

[RH]

84. Context

"the situation within which something exists or happens, and that can help explain it:"

(Cambridge English Dictionary definition)

[crispy]

94. Precisely.

The plane's final descent into the facade of the Pentagon was part of a larger "F77 event" which in turn was part of 9/11. The witnesses have one piece of the puzzle, but they put it in the "official story" puzzle rather than the "what really happened" puzzle.

[RH]

105. According to what

was it a part of a larger event?

How do you presume to know that the Pentagon incident was not entirely coincidental?

How do you know that it was not in effect an act of God, an unfortunate accident or a sudden fit if insanity on the part of the usual pilot?

If you're supposing that the alleged hijackers were not responsible what is then supposed to connect the events?

What do you then have apart from your own imaginative speculative presumption?

[crispy]

130. I think you have a future in stand-up comedy. nt

edit: Funny coincidence, I posted this independently of Abe's post 121 lol

[RH]

131. So you have no sensible answer then?

:nuke:

[crispy]

132. I apologize.

I simply couldn't believe you were being serious. But I guess you were.


> If you're supposing that the alleged hijackers were not responsible what is then supposed to connect the events?

I am not supposing simply that the alleged hijackers were not responsible. I am saying those alleged hijackers were on F77, but F77 is not what hit the Pentagon. I know you aren't stupid enough to believe that the scenario I propose, that a modified plane flew into the Pentagon, was not related to the 9/11 attacks.

[RH]

134. What I believe

is not the issue.

If for the sake of argument the alleged hijackers were not aboard the plane that hit the Pentagon they would presumably not then be responsible for the same. I'd have thought that was clear enough.

The scenario you propose is obviously not related to the other attacks. It is entirely hypothetical, with nothing whatsoever to prove the fantasy. The other events were real, with more than enough to prove the reality.

[celestia671]

9. Just out of curiosity....

are you killtown from the Yahoo boards? He has(or had) a website dedicated to this very topic.

I'm not sure if we've been told the whole truth on the Pentagon strike, but it doesn't look like a large plane hit it.

[crispy]

11. Nah.

No I'm not Killtown. His website had some good stuff on it but it wasn't the best.

I'll put up a website of my own eventually.

[Racenut20]

15. So where did it go? Did it land on the Grassy Noll in Dallas?

[crispy]

18. See post #5 (nt)

nt

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

19. what are the odds

of a plane hitting the one spot in all of DC that has just been renovated and re-enforced to cope with an attack?

why don't they release the security camera film of the entire
impact and not just the explosion?

[ant]

20. well...

...considering it was the Pentagon, I'd say 1 in 5.

:evilgrin:

[gristy]

23. Yeah. LOL

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

71. i said in all of DC

not just the pentagon. i know the pentagon isn't technically in the district. obviously it's 1 in five if it's just the pentagon.

[RH]

27. Security Camera Film?

Perhaps because there was never any to release.

Not one of the original media presentations of the images so often seen since refered to them as being from any film or video.

The notion is a web myth.

:argh:

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

69. here's the photo

i don't know why it says sept 12, 2001

edit: left out a word

[jonoboy]

22. my uncle who is a pilot with a major international airline

..who is a total sceptic, conservative, thinks I'm an over the top liberal has said from 10/11 that he could not possibly see how this bunch of amateur pilots executed all the difficult manouvers required to pull off this whole incident ( the 3 crashes) let alone manage to hit the targets which he would have found difficult to do with a lifetime of service..has no theories about it just completely mystified.

[CaptainMidnight]

24. (sigh)

we've seen enough of this Pentagon mystery.

It does NOBODY any good unless you include your evidence of what they did with the passengers. Why "explain" one thing and not the very crucial other thing that had to happen in order to carry out what you are asserting that they did.

2 planes hitting the WTC, either the original planes or not, remote control or not, was good enough a means for those attacks for the conspirators. Why not the Pentagon? Oh, they might kill Rumsfeld. Again, remote control or some other means scored bullseyes with a much narrower and harder to hit target. Surely, the Pentagon would be hit where they needed it to be.

Please, don't put forth these theories unless you explain what they did with the passengers. It just complicates things to have a missile or other plane, then missile, whatever.

We chase our tails over this, and don't have time to explore more deeply the more damning and convince evidence of conspiracy.

Maybe that's your motive...

Captain Mike

[RH]

28. Motive....

Whatever their intentions those who have wasted so much of our time over this ought at least to bear some responsibility for doing so.

What is their game plan supposed to be? Where will it or was it ever supposed to lead to?

:crazy:

The main effect has been to insult those who were there at the scene to see for themselves, those who may otherwise have something useful to add with due regard to aspects of the event which would more usefully have been explored.

[crispy]

29. ...

> we've seen enough of this Pentagon mystery.

Have we? Has it been proven? Disproven? No? Then it's still a valid topic of debate.


> It does NOBODY any good unless you include your evidence of what they did with the passengers.

I'm supposed to know... how?


> Why "explain" one thing and not the very crucial other thing that had to happen in order to carry out what you are asserting that they did.

Because if you can prove the one, or show it to be more likely than the 757 scenario, it means the other one had to happen. Like I've said before, you don't need to prove where something did go to show where it did not. The fact that F77 disappeared over Ohio indicates that's probably where it went down.


> 2 planes hitting the WTC, either the original planes or not, remote control or not, was good enough a means for those attacks for the conspirators. Why not the Pentagon? Oh, they might kill Rumsfeld. Again, remote control or some other means scored bullseyes with a much narrower and harder to hit target. Surely, the Pentagon would be hit where they needed it to be.

I have no idea what your point is, please rephrase what you're trying to say.


> Please, don't put forth these theories unless you explain what they did with the passengers.

I offered a hypothesis in another post. What was done with the passengers has no effect on what happened in Arlington.


> We chase our tails over this, and don't have time to explore more deeply the more damning and convince evidence of conspiracy.

How am I not being convincing? Is there something wrong with the information I put forth? Do you disagree with my conclusion? Why? What information impeaches the credibility of the information I put forth? What makes you think F77 hit the Pentagon?

[RH]

35. What was done with the passengers

has no effect on what happened in Arlington.

So how then, otherwise, would the body parts of passengers aboard Flight 77 get to be found in Arlington?


"How am I not being convincing? Is there something wrong with the information I put forth? "

YES

You were not there.

You are not a primary source, nor even a secondary source to be recommended.

You have nothing to gainsay the experience of those who were there.

[crispy]

56. sigh

> So how then, otherwise, would the body parts of passengers aboard Flight 77 get to be found in Arlington?

Where did I say that they were?


>>"How am I not being convincing? Is there something wrong with the information I put forth? "
> YES You were not there. You are not a primary source, nor even a secondary source to be recommended.

Such is the limitation of investigation. It is a flaw we all have and must attempt to work around. Can you never know what happened that day just because you weren't there? No.


> You have nothing to gainsay the experience of those who were there.

Am I contradicting them? Calling them liars? No. I am placing their experiences in context with the other information I bring forth. Don't think my information is accurate? Correct me. Don't think my interpretation is valid? Provide a better one.

[RH]

85. Can you never know

what happened that day just because you weren't there?

Was not the point.

The point is that you have no hope to know without respecting the judgements of those who were there.

I see no information brought forth or interpreted here that was not already seen or said and done with long before.

[crispy]

95. And by judgments you mean...

...what? Their judgment that it was F77? No, I don't trust that, because that judgment rests on their observation. I do trust and respect people's observations. I am not saying about people who said they saw a very B757-looking craft "oh they are just lying, they just don't know what they saw" because I do trust and respect their observations, or rather, the observations of the aggregate of witnesses. I am simply interpreting them differently than the establishment would have us believe.

[RH]

107. All good judgements rest upon observation.

The rest is what is usually known as "prejudice"

[RH]

25. F77 did hit the ground first

"proven that F77 did not hit the ground first." is an irritantingly ignorant distraction.

Those who were there to see for themselves have since harboured no doubts at all as to what hit the building. Even after all this time and so much said I have not yet heard from or of any single person present durting or after the event to have since expressed any doubt at all about the issue.

This has all been dealt with many times over before.

To open a critical, constructive discussion you need to have something new to say or something new to show. The continuous regurgitation of old material and old argyuments serves only to accentuate how completely bankrupt the 'no Boeing' fantasy is.

The plane did hit the ground first. It hit the corner of the low wall around the steam vault structure about in front of the building .

The damage caused can be seen in contemporaneous photos.

"It seemed like it made impact just before the wedge." would therefore be a fittingly accurate observation.

The plane also hit the electricity generator, displacing the object (which would wiegh about 30 tons) towards the building. Not one of the 'No Boeing' time wasters has yet provided an alternative explanation for the same effect.

Their continuad ignorance of the five felled lamp poles is also remarkably disingenuous. What please is the 'No Boeing' gloves off explanation for that supposed to be?

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

[crispy]

33. Kinda sorta but not really.

> To open a critical, constructive discussion you need to have something new to say or something new to show.

I have no real new information. What I have is a new interpretation of old information. Interpretation can be discussed in a critical manner.


> The plane did hit the ground first. It hit the corner of the low wall around the steam vault structure about in front of the building .

I wouldn't really say "first". According to the ASCE "the left engine struck the ground at nearly the same instant that the nose of the aircraft struck the west wall of the Pentagon." The impacts were at the same time, thus it would have been impossible for a witness to discern two different impacts. The generator isn't the ground. I do admit the possibility that Harrington was describing the plane hitting the generator.


> The plane also hit the electricity generator, displacing the object (which would wiegh about 30 tons) towards the building. Not one of the 'No Boeing' time wasters has yet provided an alternative explanation for the same effect.

> Their continuad ignorance of the five felled lamp poles is also remarkably disingenuous. What please is the 'No Boeing' gloves off explanation for that supposed to be?

Who says it had to be a B757 to strike the light poles and the generator? I'm not a "small plane" person, I'm just a "no Boeing" person.


I like your posts the best because they challenge me the most. But I still see nothing that contradicts my scenario.


Now might be a good time to talk about the white trail of smoke in the explosion photos.

[RH]

37. Meaning what?

"What I have is a new interpretation of old information"?


Do you propose therefore that a plane the same shape and size as a Boeing B757 hit the Pentagon?

If it looks like a duck....


Search the archives.

I see nothing here, and not least the "white trail of smoke", that was not already done to death in 2002.

:nopity:

[crispy]

40. ...........

> Do you propose therefore that a plane the same shape and size as a Boeing B757 hit the Pentagon?

Not the same, but definitely similar. What kind of moron conspirator would use an F-16? What was the minimum wingspan required to hit the light poles? 100 ft? Not a big stretch to imagine a missile-firing jet having a 100 ft wingspan, if it were specially modified.


> Search the archives. I see nothing here, and not least the "white trail of smoke", that was not already done to death in 2002.

I've read the Pentagon threads 1-9 from the old board and every Pentagon thread on this board. I have not seen anyone come to any conclusion of the white trail of smoke. Since it has been done to death already, I hope it wouldn't be too much trouble for you to just summarize what conclusions have been reached.

[RH]

43. "Not a big stretch to imagine" ...

So hitting the light poles would all be a part of a deliberately pre conceived plan, would it?

Easy to imagine, perhaps, in the land of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, but not so easy to take seriously.



"I have not seen anyone come to any conclusion of the white trail of smoke."

You have in effect a Rosarch test.

People see whatever suits them.

Fascinating enough, no doubt, to those with nothing else to jerk off over.

For my part I have no further inclination to review the psychosis.

With regard to more serious affairs it doesn't help.

[crispy]

58. No

> So hitting the light poles would all be a part of a deliberately pre conceived plan, would it?

Uhhhhhh no. The purpose is fooling witnesses. An F-16 would not fool witnesses.


>> "I have not seen anyone come to any conclusion of the white trail of smoke."
> You have in effect a Rosarch test. People see whatever suits them. Fascinating enough, no doubt, to those with nothing else to jerk off over. For my part I have no further inclination to review the psychosis. With regard to more serious affairs it doesn't help.

LOL. Way to dodge my question. What conclusion was reached? If you don't want to say or don't remember then just tell me approximately what number post the discussion was in (I'm assuming it was in the numbered Pentagon threads) and I'll go back and look myself. I do not remember the white trail of smoke being seriously discussed.

[RH]

64. So

they managed to fool thousands of intelligent people who experienced it all it for themselves but they were then careless enough to show some pictures by which the superior intelligence of crispy knew better?

What, pray tell, would qualify such an omnipotent divination?

To catch up with the discussions try for instance the archive to the Yahoo 'frameup' mailing list.

There is no conclusion to be reached from inadequate unreliable evidence.

The conclusion to be reached from reliable evidence was never a secret, Flight 77 hit the building.

[crispy]

73. Thousands?

> So they managed to fool thousands of intelligent people who experienced it all it for themselves but they were then careless enough to show some pictures by which the superior intelligence of crispy knew better?

"Some pictures"? That's kind of trivializing my case, dontcha think?

Eyewitnesses described seeing a plane with blue and red stripes and with windows. I agree with them.

[RH]

86. Doncha think?

That's kind of trivializing my case, dontcha think?

So what exactly would your claim to significance consist of?

Who's listening?

Your case was already trivial, as a simple matter of fact, regardless of any further comment from me.

[crispy]

96. case

> So what exactly would your claim to significance consist of?

I already summarized that in post 38.

I have not presented "my case" in its entirety. I simply wanted comments on and questions about what I did post. Only person to do that adequately so far is Lared.

[RH]

108. significance?

Nothing arises in your post #38 that was not already done to death many times over long ago.

I respond in good faith as best I can.

If that's not good enough then I shall not waste any more of my precious time on you, and I doubt that Lared should wish to. To do so would seem to serve only to foolishly feed your ego anyway. I discern no other probable result.

[Abe Linkman]

121. Such a comedian.

n/t

[LARED]

34. Evidence?

There is very good evidence that what hit the Pentagon was actually a missile followed a split second later by a mid-sized plane modified to give the impression that it was an AA commercial airliner. That is, witnesses were fooled.

Could you provide any other than some people heard two booms?

Two booms. One large, one smaller.

Echo?

[crispy]

38. .

Not hard evidence, soft evidence.

- Uncharacteristic radar gap of 30 minutes opens the possibility that it wasn't F77
- Hani Hanjour piloted that? HAHAHAHAHA
- ATCs' "military plane" observation and other "interesting" witness accounts
- two booms (missile and plane)
- white trail of smoke in photos (from missile)
- crash damage/hole explained better by plane/missile - how does the nose of a plane punch an eight foot oval in C ring and not remain intact?
- witness accounts show they were fooled (I don't expect you to believe me, I have yet to put my analysis of the accounts up here)

By evidence I don't mean stuff that just disproves the 757 scenario (though one might argue that white trail of smoke precludes it right away) I mean stuff that, when taken all together, makes a more convincing scenario than the 757 scenario.

> Echo?
The echo of a whoosh is not a karumph.


I acknowledge that I haven't put forth a convincing enough scenario to convince the likes of RH, Lared, etc. I'll be putting it up in parts, and I'll thread it all together later.

Please keep trying to poke holes in my scenario though, this is fun weeee! :bounce:

[RH]

49. Hani Hanjour piloted that?

So a bad pilot crashed a plane. Seems consistent enough to me. If he'd landed it safely, then you'd have an argument.

Evidence to the effect that Hanjour flew the plane at all seems to be harder to come by.

Why should a white trail of smoke preclude anything? What else would happen when a turbofan engine hits a lamp pole?

The crash damage/hole is not at all explained better by a missile. A missile explosion would betray a blast effect away from the building. Motor vehicles close by were hardly damaged.

The damage pattern to the face of the building and to the objects in front of it fits perfectly with the dimensions of a B757. How else do you explain the scrape mark across the top of the electricity generator if it was not caused by a B757 flap track fairing?

[crispy]

60. Errr

> So a bad pilot crashed a plane. Seems consistent enough to me. If he'd landed it safely, then you'd have an argument.

Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes. The steep turn was so smooth, the sources say, it's clear there was no fight for control going on. And the complex maneuver suggests the hijackers had better flying skills than many investigators first believed.
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/national/main310721.shtml

7000 feet in the air, and this guy spirals down at 500 MPH, flies at nearly ground level for a few hundred or thousand feet, *clipping a car antenna*, and strikes the ground level of a squat five-story building. Right.


> Evidence to the effect that Hanjour flew the plane at all seems to be harder to come by.

Ooooh, you 9/11 skeptic you! He was the only one among the 5 hijackers on F77 that had flying skills! Don't tell me you're questioning the official story?!?!?!?!?!


> Why should a white trail of smoke preclude anything? What else would happen when a turbofan engine hits a lamp pole?

Well I'm not saying it does preclude anything. But uhmmm I didn't know turbofan engines spew white smoke when they hit stuff. And I'd like to see your evidence that the engine did hit the pole.


> The crash damage/hole is not at all explained better by a missile. A missile explosion would betray a blast effect away from the building.

Thank you for proving my point. Debris literally rained down on the highway which was on a higher elevation than the impact point. It takes a pretty hefty away-from-the-building blast effect to do that.


> The damage pattern to the face of the building and to the objects in front of it fits perfectly with the dimensions of a B757. How else do you explain the scrape mark across the top of the electricity generator if it was not caused by a B757 flap track fairing?

I'd like to see some proof of your assertions.

[RH]

66. No.

Radar did not show that Flight 77 did a downward spiral.

That version would appear to rely entirely upon the testimony of the pilot of the C130. The sufficiently definite eye witness reports that I found referred only to only to a B757 approaching low from the south west. Air traffic controllers saw nothing more than an unidentified blip that they'd thought was a military plane.

Re the impact you seem to have already seen the proof. The fault is in your lack of analysis.

Don't take my word for it. Work out for yourself the distance between the corner of the steam vault that was hit and the scrape mark across the top of the electricity generator. This is done easily enough. The dimensions of the Pentagon, hence the surrounding objects are published. Please also note the serious damage to the end of the generator and the fence around it, which would therefore precisely locate the starboard engine nacelle. Then compare those distances with the dimensions of the corresponding parts of a B757. It is also possible to discern the exact point (above the building's entrance behind the generator) where the starboard wing tip hit the building.

Alternatively, find your way to the presentations of Pierre Demoulins. He used to believe that a B737 hit the building. Then I invited him to estimate the said dimensions. Now he appears to accept that the engines of a B737 would not have been far enough apart to have straddled the relatively undisturbed cable spools.

[crispy]

98. F77 did a downward spiral

> That version would appear to rely entirely upon the testimony of the pilot of the C130.

Why would they say "radar shows"? And do you mean Steve O'Brien? Are you sure he gave his account to ABC before the article was written in mid-October 2001?

This quote was from a TLC documentary which I'm quite sure was not aired before Oct 2001:

"We were at about 3,500 feet at the time that I first noticed this commercial airliner in our 12 o'clock position in about a 45-degree bank, which is unusual for a large aircraft to be descending and turning at a 45-degree bank turn like that, so that really got our attention. The next thing we saw was a fireball and a big plume of smoke."

Sounds pretty downward spiral-ly to me.


> The sufficiently definite eye witness reports that I found referred only to only to a B757 approaching low from the south west. Air traffic controllers saw nothing more than an unidentified blip that they'd thought was a military plane.

Eh, not really.

From Lexis-Nexis, ABC 20/20 transcript 10/24/01:

*snip*
Ms. O'BRIEN: And it went six, five, four, and I had it in my mouth to say three and all of a sudden the plane turned away. In the room it was almost a sense of relief. 'This must be a fighter. This must be one of our guys sent in--scrambled to patrol our Capitol and to protect our president.' And we sat back in our chairs and breathed for just a second. In the meantime, all of the rest of the planes are still flying and we're taking care of everything else. And the plane turned back. He continued in the right-hand turn, made a 360 degree maneuver.

ROSS: A big loop?

Ms. O'BRIEN: Correct. And we're telling the supervisor, 'He's turning back in, he's turning back eastbound.'

Mr. HOWELL: Then the turn kept going. And that's when I think I yelled to John. I said, 'Oh, my God, John, he's coming back.

Ms. O'BRIEN: We lost radar contact with that aircraft. And we waited, and we waited. And your heart's just beating out of your chest. And then the Washington National controllers came over our speakers in our room and said, 'Dulles, hold all of our inbound traffic, the Pentagon's been hit.'
*/snip*


I will look for the Pierre Demoulins stuff. An analysis of the stuff the plane hit and plane dimensions is my next order of business.

[RH]

109. So why then

do you mistrust everything else about the event while apparently willing take the uncorroborated word of pilot Steve O'Brien as gospel?

If there is some independent corroboration let's have the details.

In the mean time, please note that at the early stages after the event there was not even a public official admission that the C130 was in the vicinity. Why then be so quiet about the star witness?

With a transponder turned off ATC would have a blip on a screen, nothing more. How then would they know that the turning blip was the B757, not for instance the C130 chasing to intercept it?

And why did the earlier media reports of the ATC's part show no mention at all of the C130 which would in retrospect seem to have been their only way to identify the circling object? A remarkably negligent omission, don't you think?

[RH]

46. Not an echo.

Two explosions were reported by many witness.

A fireman at the scene said that the second explosion was caused by a subsequent ignition of fuel cascading down the side of the building.

[crispy]

59. Source, please?

Note that I am talking about the two consecutive booms one right after the other when the plane hit, and not the later explosion reported.

[RH]

65. Use google.

[RH]

67. "What had happened was

there was aviation fuel cascading out of the third floor," he says. "It hit a tree and went down the tree and set the tree on fire, then set this firetruck that was set next to the tree on fire, then the truck exploded."

George E. Clodfelter III, Pentagon police officer, was thus quoted
in an articly by
By Guy Taylor, THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The item was here:
http://www.washtimes.com/september11/scene.htm

======================================================

[crispy]

74. Okay thanks.

Good to know. Better to know that you are talking about a different "second explosion" than I am.

Two witnesses inside the Pentagon heard two separate booms at the time of impact.

[Abe Linkman]

39. Congratulations, Crispy. You have a first-rate mind.

I'm especially impressed with your ability to not become sidetracked by irrelevant (whether intentionally brought up to distract or not) issues and questions. E.G. Explaining that it isn't necessary to know wherdy go, in order to prove wherdy not go.

Powerful logic, reasonable explanations, very illuminating.

You have obviously studied the subject in great depth, and your mastery of the facts combined with your fine ability to THINK, make you a formidable ally of those of us who are less well-informed, but eager to know the truth.

[WoodrowFan]

68. You muts be joking!

I know eyewitnesses who saw the plane hit, there was hundreds who say they saw the plane hit. Funny, I just got done reading a thread about the metal gymnastics that Christian fundementalists go through to "prove" the Bible has no errors and then I see some of those on the left who go through the same mental twists to try and disprove observed facts. Sad.

[crispy]

75. Wanna explain that?

> I know eyewitnesses who saw the plane hit, there was hundreds who say they saw the plane hit.

What "the plane" are you talking about? Did I ever say a plane didn't hit the Pentagon?


> I see some of those on the left who go through the same mental twists to try and disprove observed facts.

Want to say what "observed facts" I'm trying to disprove?

[RH]

89. Does it come naturally

to be so embarassingly thick, or do you have to work at it?

:eyes:

Want to say what "observed facts" I'm trying to disprove?

Flight 77 hit the Pantagon.

[crispy]

99. "observed"

My contention is with the phrase "observed facts".

Do you not see the impossibility of observers being able to discern an AA B757 from a plane modified to look like one?

[RH]

112. In the real World there is simply no need

to see such a possibility.

The plane was positively identified.

Amen.

[OneBlueSky]

48. here's a page with a lot of information to support your theory . . .

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/flight77.htm

bottom line: if you look at the Department of Defense photos of the Pentagon right after the impact, there's simply no hole big enough for a jetliner to fit through . . . I don't know what hit the Pentagon, but it certainly wasn't Flight 77 . . .

[RH]

50. The hole

penetrated to nearly three hundred feet within the building.

That's far enough to accomodate two B757s.

[LARED]

70. Are you afraid of open debate?

You are asking people to ignore the 99+ percent of evidence that establishes the flt 77 did hit the Pentagon and instead ask people to disprove me, punch holes in my argument, or provide a better explanation about what hit the Pentagon, one that sufficiently accounts for the information I bring forward.

And this is what you bring forward?

Not hard evidence, soft evidence.

- Uncharacteristic radar gap of 30 minutes opens the possibility that it wasn't F77
- Hani Hanjour piloted that? HAHAHAHAHA
- ATCs' "military plane" observation and other "interesting" witness accounts
- two booms (missile and plane)
- white trail of smoke in photos (from missile)
- crash damage/hole explained better by plane/missile - how does the nose of a plane punch an eight foot oval in C ring and not remain intact?
- witness accounts show they were fooled (I don't expect you to believe me, I have yet to put my analysis of the accounts up here)


Let me address some of these

- Uncharacteristic radar gap of 30 minutes opens the possibility that it wasn't F77

In what way is it uncharacteristic? It also opens up dozens of other benign possibilities. This proves obsoletely zero. It's not even an argument.

- Hani Hanjour piloted that? HAHAHAHAHA

Someone piloted the plane you think hit the Pentagon. Are you suggesting a highly skilled pilot committed suicide. Also for all you know the Pentagon was not the original target or in fact if it was flt 77 impacted as planned. Again this does not even qualify as an argument for your position.

- ATCs' "military plane" observation and other "interesting" witness accounts

You must be kidding about the military plane comment. It is meaningless. The only thing interesting about the eyewitness accounts you are pushing that that that are taking out of context, or are interpreted to suit your agenda and you purposefully ignore the large majority of witness that don't provide fodder for your fantasy.


- two booms (missile and plane)

Two booms huh? Only about 10 reasons two boom were heard other than it proof of a plane and missile.

- white trail of smoke in photos (from missile)

That not even clear if thats true. Even if it is so what?

- crash damage/hole explained better by plane/missile - how does the nose of a plane punch an eight foot oval in C ring and not remain intact?


This notion has been beaten to death. That fact that you even bring this up as 'evidence' shows a clear intent at sophistry.

- witness accounts show they were fooled (I don't expect you to believe me, I have yet to put my analysis of the accounts up here)

I can hardly wait for your analysis.

[crispy]

76. Where's that 99+ percent

> You are asking people to ignore the 99+ percent of evidence that establishes the flt 77 did hit the Pentagon

Ignore? No, I don't want people to ignore anything. I am putting forth an alternate scenario, one which accounts for everything that happened. So then there are two scenarios, the 757 one, and mine.

If there is evidence that "establishes" that F77 did hit the Pentagon and thus I am wrong, let me know what it is. But I'll bet I have a feasible explanation for how whatever you bring forth fits into my scenario.

[skypilot]

78. a slighty off-topic question

Were the other four sides of the Pentagon ever reinforced and given blast proof glass like the side that was struck on 9/11?

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

79. no, this is the first side completed

just completed btw

[RH]

90. It was

a corner rather than a side, i.e. 'Wedge 1', the first stage of an ongoing project to renew the whole caboodle.

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

102. wedge, schmedge

it hit the fucking side.

[RH]

110. It damaged a part

of wedge one and a part of the adjacent wedge which was not yet renovated

It is unworthy to neglect or deny that.

[LARED]

80. How do you figure?

I am putting forth an alternate scenario, one which accounts for everything that happened.
Your scenario does not account for;

The recovered bodies were on flt 77.

Where flt 77 went to if it did not hit the Pentagon.

Where did the replacement flt 77 come from and how did it get to DC with no one noticing?

Where did the missile came from?

Why attempt to pull off this incredibly complicated switch of planes when just flying flt 77 into the Pentagon has the same affect?

How the black boxes were switched?

How the 'replacement jet' pulled off the dive into the Pentagon that was supposedly impossible?

Why was a missile required?

Why do you ignore the plausible reasons that your concerns about the official story can be accounted for though simple explanations?

How was the replacement jet piloted?


I could go on but why bother.

[crispy]

81. Answers

> Your scenario does not account for

What I meant is that my scenario accounts for the known facts and leaves open the possibility that everything that needed to happen for the operation to be pulled off did happen. So to your questions I respond not with what happened (cause I have no way of knowing) but what could have happened.


> The recovered bodies were on flt 77.

What recovered bodies? How do you know where they were recovered from?


> Where flt 77 went to if it did not hit the Pentagon.

Disappeared over Ohio, I assume it landed somewhere nearby.


> Where did the replacement flt 77 come from and how did it get to DC with no one noticing?

Doesn't matter exactly where; it could have been anywhere between Ohio and DC. It was noticed, noticed by Dulles ATCs 12 minutes before it struck. It had no operational transponder.


> Where did the missile came from?

Fired from the plane just before it crashed into the facade.


> Why attempt to pull off this incredibly complicated switch of planes when just flying flt 77 into the Pentagon has the same affect?

What do you mean incredibly complicated? It was a piece of cake. Disable F77's transponder in an area that had no primary radar and fly a decoy into Washington 30 minutes later. Like I said before, what makes sense is that it was done for precision.


> How the black boxes were switched?

What black boxes?


> Why was a missile required?

So telltale not-B757 pieces wouldn't spray all over the lawn.


> Why do you ignore the plausible reasons that your concerns about the official story can be accounted for though simple explanations?

They require stretches of logic in every case. I propose a more feasible explanation. I'm sorry you don't see how it is so.


> How was the replacement jet piloted?

Remote control was a possibility, but they probably had a course programmed into it, and for the missile to fire at the right time.


Anything else?

[LARED]

82. Irony defined

They require stretches of logic in every case. I propose a more feasible explanation.

[Abe Linkman]

83. WHAT? No rebuttal? None? Call bolobat & crew...

surely THEY have one.

[LARED]

87. Rebuttal?

To what? The same speculation and sophistry dressed as an argument that has been addressed countless times?

No thanks.

[RH]

88. Review

What I meant is that my scenario accounts for the known facts and leaves open the possibility that everything that needed to happen for the operation to be pulled off did happen. So to your questions I respond not with what happened (cause I have no way of knowing) but what could have happened.

Nonsense.

Your scenario denies the known fact is that the remains of Flight 77 were discovered amidst and around the Pentagon.



What recovered bodies? How do you know where they were recovered from?

The bodies of F77 passengers as subsequently identified by autopsy, known because of an organised investigation, hence a paper trail, hence those thus involved to testify to the fact.



Disappeared over Ohio, I assume it landed somewhere nearby.

Doesn't matter exactly where; it could have been anywhere between Ohio and DC. It was noticed, noticed by Dulles ATCs 12 minutes before it struck. It had no operational transponder.

and with sort of idle nonsense you hope to hold attention?

To show that the scenario could have happened it has to matter where. Planes do not just come and go ad hoc from anywhere. With this you'rte not even generating a reasonable doubt, let alone any case to convict a culprit.


Fired from the plane just before it crashed into the facade.

and this could have happened with not one of the witnesses at the scene nor anybody involved with the siubsequent investigation being at all aware of any evidence of the said missile? This, we are supposed to take to be a serious proposition?


What do you mean incredibly complicated? It was a piece of cake. Disable F77's transponder in an area that had no primary radar and fly a decoy into Washington 30 minutes later. Like I said before, what makes sense is that it was done for precision.

"incredibly" would presumably imply "unnecessarily".

How would the felling of five lamp poles fit with the supposed precision? Looks more like a "wing and a prayer" case to me.


What black boxes?

Flight recorders found at the scene of the crime, as recently discussed on another thread.


So telltale not-B757 pieces wouldn't spray all over the lawn.

So how come then that telltale B757 pieces were sprayed all over the lawn and elswhere?


They require stretches of logic in every case. I propose a more feasible explanation. I'm sorry you don't see how it is so.

Too bad. Perhaps your brain is just not up to the task.


Remote control was a possibility, but they probably had a course programmed into it, and for the missile to fire at the right time.

Probable according to what calculation? I see no case made out to that effect.

Anything else?

How about the reality?

:eyes:

[crispy]

100. More answers

> Your scenario denies the known fact is that the remains of Flight 77 were discovered amidst and around the Pentagon.

Known fact? I've never seen any proof that what was found around the Pentagon definitely came from F77.


> The bodies of F77 passengers as subsequently identified by autopsy, known because of an organised investigation, hence a paper trail, hence those thus involved to testify to the fact.

I never said they weren't. My question was, how do you know they were recovered from the Pentagon?


> To show that the scenario could have happened it has to matter where. Planes do not just come and go ad hoc from anywhere. With this you'rte not even generating a reasonable doubt, let alone any case to convict a culprit.

Reasonable doubt? F77 being the only plane to disappear completely from radar for 30 minutes doesn't seem at all strange to you? Worth investigating?


> How would the felling of five lamp poles fit with the supposed precision? Looks more like a "wing and a prayer" case to me.

They were in the way of the plane's programmed course. Not too difficult to imagine. I can believe a drone could clip the antenna of a car on the road, not a B757 piloted by ace Hani Hanjour.


> Flight recorders found at the scene of the crime, as recently discussed on another thread.

Hmmm yes, found at the scene of the crime. Does that prove F77 crashed there? NO it could have easily been planted. If they had yielded any information it might mean something, but no info was recovered.


> So how come then that telltale B757 pieces were sprayed all over the lawn and elswhere?

"Sprayed"? How do you know the pieces (or, piece, rather) came from the plane that crashed? How do you know they weren't planted?

[RH]

116. Too bad.

Known fact? I've never seen any proof that what was found around the Pentagon definitely came from F77.

Why should we care what you've seen?

Many whose locus standii is far far greater than yours are convinced, including injured bystanders and the relatives of the dead victims. What's good enough for them ought to be good enough for any other busy body.


....I never said they weren't. My question was, how do you know they were recovered from the Pentagon?

...because of an organised investigation, hence a paper trail, hence those thus involved to testify to the fact.


Reasonable doubt? F77 being the only plane to disappear completely from radar for 30 minutes doesn't seem at all strange to you? Worth investigating?

Who ever said it dissappeared completely from radar?

My understanding is that they'd simply lost track of it, which under the circumstances should not be so remarkable. Many thousands of civilian aircraft were in the skies above the USA.


They (lamp poles) were in the way of the plane's programmed course. Not too difficult to imagine. I can believe a drone could clip the antenna of a car on the road, not a B757 piloted by ace Hani Hanjour.

I see reason why a programmed course should risk hitting other objects before hitting a target, nor anything at all to prove the supposition that Hanjour flew the plane.


"> Flight recorders found at the scene of the crime, as recently discussed on another thread."

Hmmm yes, found at the scene of the crime. Does that prove F77 crashed there?

Yes, of course it does.

NO it could have easily been planted. If they had yielded any information it might mean something, but no info was recovered.

Until and unless you can prove that anything was planted (which of course you are consumately unable to do) the fact of the matter shall stand as such.


"Sprayed"? How do you know the pieces (or, piece, rather) came from the plane that crashed? How do you know they weren't planted?

Because a remarkable number of witnesses are available and willing to testify to the facts of the matter.

Because not one of the thousands of those immediately involved has since been known to have the slightest doubt about what hit the Pentagon.

That's good enough for me. If it is not good enough for you then that may perhaps betray something about your state of mind (to whosoever may be unfortunate enough to be concerned) but it adds nothing whatsoever to our knowledge of the the reality of the event in question.

[demodewd]

93. Another 757?

Why couldn't it have been another 757 loaded up with the dead (previously gassed to death) Flight 77 passengers and crew? If the plane that flew out to Ohio was a decoy and Flight 77 was soon brought down after takeoff,there would have been time for this scenario.

[RH]

111. The aircraft was positively identified.

"Most of the wreckage was in very small pieces and most was carried out in drywall buckets. Some was large enough to identify -- including the tail number on the aircraft. I don't think there's any doubt about what it was and who owned it."

http://www.humanunderground.com/11september/comments-general.html

[demodewd]

117. re:tail number

A duplication of AA markings and numbers?....same tail number etc...

[RH]

125. Sure.

Maybe it was not even the same Pentagon, just a cardboard replica painted up to look like the Pentagon.

Maybe it all took place on another Planet.

:eyes:

[demodewd]

127. re:replica

Replacing the 757 with the same or near the same is a possibility.Why do you think otherwise?

[RH]

128. Did I ever say

it was not a possibility?

:shrug:

I just happen to think that, for the sake of argument, extraterrestial interference is a far more probable possibility.

[demodewd]

129. As crispy..

...has emphasized..we are looking for precision here..just how precise is it to overide the plane's guidance system and ride it into difficult targets via "Home Run"? And I also believe that the South Tower hit was beefed up with extra fuel and a possible ignition devise to set the whole thing off. The cabalists were zeroing in on a spectacle and they were going to make damn sure they got one.

[RH]

133. Home Run

could presumably do anything with a plane that a pilot could.

Why not?

How easy it would be is then a relative question.

What units would you employ to measure easiness?

To achieve precision you need to pose a precise question.

[RC]

122. 100+ tons of airplane carried out in drywall buckets?

What of engines, hydraulics, wheels assemblies, galley equipment? To name just a few things that don't shred very well.

[RH]

124. 100 tons ?

That's way off the mark.

The airframe per se would have weighed about 60 tons, much of which fell as metal confetti beyond the building.

Woork it out. If a mere once ounce of metal fell over every square yard within a square mile, that would amount to a total of about 90 tons of metal.

Recognisable engine parts and wheels were indeed found. Pictures of them have appeared online.

[RH]

91. Of course

there is evidence.

What do you think happened after the event?

An investigation followed.

Plane parts and body parts were collected.

The rubble was sifted through meticulously, with the remains of the plane gathered in the north car park.

The FBI photographed the evidence.

A thorough autopsy followed.

There was therefore a comprehensive paper trail with hundreds of people from different agencies variously involved.

With what would you then hope to contest the weight of that?

Would you then go to to a court of law with nothing to gainsay it except to imagine that the said evidence cannot exist because you did not happen to see so much about it on the internet?

:cry:

Wake up.

:donut:

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

92. RH i'm waiting for a response

to your "web myth" (message #27).

[RH]

113. A response to what?

Do you have a point or are you missing the point?

This was all done to death more than a year ago not so long sfter the images were first published.

[LARED]

115. Apparently

GSG does not understand the difference between video, film, and the time lapsed images from the parking lot at the pentagon.

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

118. yeah i'm a moron

so tell me what these time-lapsed photos were recorded on?
video? film? daguerreotypes?

maybe you could explain "the difference between video, film,
and the time lapsed images from the parking lot at the pentagon" so i can understand.

my point with RH is that he said they never existed and were a web myth.

[RH]

126. Discussing the sender rather than the message

is contrary to the rules of the forum

I see no reason, though, to dispute the confession.

I did not say "they never existed". I said "perhaps because ..."

This has been discussed before.

I have never seen a definite account of the nature of the recording medium. I only know what the original media releases had to say. They did not in any reasonable sense allude at all to a 'video' type of recording.

I was copied in to written questions put to the Pentagon but the enquiry got short shrift.

In the mean time I would guess that the recording medium was digital. The security booths were a part of renovations during the last few years.

I would also guess that the camera was trigged by movement; a continuous recording would be pointless for a camera obviously set up to record passing road traffic.

[crispy]

101. Hehe

> An investigation followed.

Yep. Investigation .. and possibly a coverup too.


> Plane parts and body parts were collected.

Yes. A plane hit the Pentagon. People died in the Pentagon. Makes sense.


> The FBI photographed the evidence.

Indeed they did.


> A thorough autopsy followed.

Oh yeah.


> With what would you then hope to contest the weight of that?

What is there that can't be explained in my scenario? That's what I want to know.

[Abe Linkman]

103. Very good question.

"What is there that can't be explained in my scenario? That's what I want to know."

Impressive work. You have exceptionally good communication skills. Exceeded only by your capacity to apply common sense and reach logical conclusions; free of fallacies.

[RH]

114. "Oh yeah."

is not a valid argument

"What is there that can't be explained in my scenario?"

Much more than 9.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999 per cent of everything that happens in the Universe.

:eyes:

But for as long as you'd prefer to think you know more than that what about the time factor?

At what speed did Flight 77 have to fly to get from Ohio back to Washington DC and what then would the logistics be of landing in the mean time to transfer passengers? How long do think that would take?

[DulceDecorum]

119. Hold that thought: NEW THREAD

This thread is nice and juicy.
But after one hundred posts, the discussion tends to die off because the dial-up crowd have difficulty handling the volume.
Therefore, welcome to PART TWO.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=3996

[vincenzo]

137. A blind man could see F77 never hit the Pentagon

Delurking here. I started reading all the arguments and then looked at the photo sites. Argument over. No large plane hit the Pentagon. I'm afraid that anyone who thinks otherwise is one of the following: psychologically challenged (as in "Oh no, the Authorities would never lie to us. They want what is best for us, just like Mom and Dad!); reality challenged (perhaps not understanding that reality is really real and that the laws of physics are immutable); or ethically challenged (as in "Of course, Mr. Rove, I'll say what ever you pay me to say). I think it is that simple.