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

[DulceDecorum]

The first thread was getting really good but it is now contains over one hundred posts and the dialup crowd is getting intimidated.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=3860

Just to stir the pot, we present:
Jean-Pierre Desmoulins, planet Earth citizen
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/english.html

[La_Serpiente]

1. I am not a big fan of conspiracy theories

I mean, these guys are saying the plane didn't hit the Pentagon, but what the hell happened to all of those passengers on the plane?

I believe that a plane hit the Pentagon that day.

[Punkingal]

3. I believe it did, too....

and I worked for American Airlines at the time. The grief and sadness at AA was very real. We lost an airplane full of passengers, period. As for the rest of the 9/11 theories, well I am a firm believer in LIHOP, and I could be convinced of MIHOP.

[mhr]

4. Bogus Plane, Bogus Passengers, Bogus Pilots, Bogus Terrorists

The Pentagon was hit by a cruise missile.

Notice that there are no collision marks on the Pentagon facade where the plane's wings hit the building at 200 MPH.

Any material traveling that fast will leave some surface marks.

However, there are none to be seen.

[demodewd]

8. light poles?

How were the light poles brought down?

[RH]

11. ?????

Notice that there are no collision marks on the Pentagon facade where the plane's wings hit the building at 200 MPH.

Yes there were.

The mark where the tailfin hit is even discernible in some of the pics.

But never mind.

For the amusement perhaps you'll be kind enough to dare to tell us how a cruise missile would have moved a 30 ton electricity generator towards the building and how come the heliport operatives' motor vehicles standing nearby were hardly damaged by the alleged missile which nobody saw nor found any trace of?

[Frodo]

12. Never served a day in the military, did you?

Care to tell me which missle in the inventory could do that kind of damage?

[crispy]

14. Wrong.

> The Pentagon was hit by a cruise missile.

Incorrect. Read through Part 1 of this thread.

[DulceDecorum]

2. Flight 77 sites

http://www.911review.org/Wiki/Flight77Sites.shtml

[dofus]

5. Once again,

if AA 77 didn't really crash at the Pentagon, where's the plane? Where are the passengers?

As a former airline employee myself, who like many airline employees past and present obsesses on various crashes, I can tell you that most people have no idea into what tiny pieces an airplane breaks up into when it hits the ground at several hundred miles per hour. Or a building.

I agree that the Bush administration has a huge responsibility for what happened on Sept 11, 2001, and I have a few theories of my own, but none of them involve cruise missles and airplanes full of passengers that mysteriously disappeared and have somehow been kept hidden for more than two years.

[mhr]

6. Once Again, Bogus Airplane, Pentagon Hit By Cruise Missile

Speaking as a pilot here!

[RH]

10. A pilot

of a bogus aeroplane?

:toast:

Or one who crashes aircraft often enough to know exactly what then to expect?

[RC]

7. Where did the two engines, three wheel assemblies, all the seats...

And don't forget the tail section. These things usually survive a crash and even fire. Where where they?

All the pictures I have seen of "engine" parts and "wheel" pieces have been so closely cropped they could have been taken of something setting on a kitchen table in someone's home for all I know.

The only picture of an engine part not cropped at the Pentagon is from an aircraft far smaller anything from a 757.

[crispy]

15. Kept hidden?

No one is saying they were kept hidden.

A cruise missile did not hit the Pentagon. Whoever says that one did has zero credibility because of all the evidence to the contrary.

If you are going to weigh in on this post, do us a favor and read Part 1 first. People have said the exact same thing you did, and their concerns were dismissed as irrelevant.

You don't need to prove where something did go to prove where it did not go.

But we can speculate. F77 completely disappeared from radar over Ohio. How the hell do you know it turned back around and hit the Pentagon?

Oh, you're a former airline employee. You must know. I apologize.

[RH]

16. F77 completely disappeared from radar over Ohio?

According to what?

Where do you get that version from?

Lost track of because a transponder was off is not the same as being completely invisible to all radar.

[crispy]

17. Not invisible

It completely disappeared from the radar that was monitoring the area in which the transponder was disabled.

No one tracked it to Washington.

An unidentified blip was picked up on radar just outside Washington.

There is no proof they are the same.

[RH]

19. Who said

that "It completely disappeared from the radar"?

:shrug:

You fancy yourself as an expert; give us the answer.

According to what exactly do you suppose your self to be able to prove the negative?

As you yourself have demonstrated here many times over, not having noticed something does not at all mean that it was not there to be seen.

No one tracked it means that no one tracked it, no more no less.

Except perhaps that "unidentified blip" would rather indicate that it was there to be seen.

[crispy]

21. nono

I specifically said the plane was NOT INVISIBLE.

As far as the plane "disappearing" from radar, that's from the Washington Post.

"Why did the Boeing 757 simply disappear from radar screens"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A32597-2001Nov2

The fact that no one between Ohio and DC didn't see F77 on their radar screens harms your case, not mine.


> Except perhaps that "unidentified blip" would rather indicate that it was there to be seen.

The "unidentified blip" is what we both agree hit the Pentagon. Not necessarily F77.

[RH]

22. You're still missing the point

I do not accept "The fact that no one between Ohio and DC didn't see F77".

I think it perfectly possibly that somebody saw it without realising what it was.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

For your scenario to be remotely credible there needs to have been not just the off chance that Flight 77 landing elsewhere was not to be noticed. Your conspirators would have needed to be sure that it was not to be noticed.

Ergo, if indeed then it was NOT INVISIBLE, how then would the required deception be reliably achieved? You are not making sense.

[crispy]

38. Nah

> I think it perfectly possibly that somebody saw it without realising what it was.

I did not say no one saw F77. I said: "No one tracked it to Washington."

Because of this, radar data does not establish that F77 made it back to Washington.

Assume F77 flew from Ohio to Washington. Someone may have seen it. No one reported an unidentified blip travelling toward Washington. Nor would they have, because they would have had to be looking at primary radar, and why would they do that when they had secondary radar, which held the transponder info?

The simple truth is that there is no evidence F77 turned around and flew back to Washington. Unless you proved that F77 hit the Pentagon. But that's another matter.


> For your scenario to be remotely credible there needs to have been not just the off chance that Flight 77 landing elsewhere was not to be noticed. Your conspirators would have needed to be sure that it was not to be noticed.

Planes were landing all over the place. F77 could have easily landed at a military base.

[demodewd]

47. Wouldn't..

... it be a far more air tight conspiracy if the passengers were actually on the plane that crashed into the Pentagon?

[RH]

46. You wrote

"The fact that no one between Ohio and DC didn't see F77 on their radar screens harms your case, not mine."

Was that not intended to mean that nobody saw F77.

If you meant "noticed" rather than "saw" you could and should have said so. The difference is important.

:spank:


And further to
"The "unidentified blip" is what we both agree hit the Pentagon."

When did I ever say antyhing of the sort?

On the contrary, I have expreessly speculated to the effect that the unidentified blip may have been the C130 which did not hit the Pentagon.

You really should try to pay more attention.

:spank:

Do you have no substantial answer to pertain to my other objections?


:shrug:

[crispy]

73. Other objections?

> When did I ever say antyhing of the sort? On the contrary, I have expreessly speculated to the effect that the unidentified blip may have been the C130 which did not hit the Pentagon. You really should try to pay more attention.

You are responding to a post I wrote two days ago before you speculated what you did about the C130.


And yes, I meant "noticed".

No one noticed F77 fly back to Washington.

It is a simple fact, and is not worth arguing over.

[crispy]

74. Or

> before you speculated what you did about the C130.

Or at least before I read what you speculated

[watkins936]

9. Hey Tinfoilers! J explains all: F77, 911, $2/NYT, JFK's death!

Defend this one. There is only one conspiracy!

amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0303/msg00088.html

or GOOGLE "RUMSFERATU" and go to nettime entry

Did you know:

That ZIA (sic) geniuses McCloy and Gehlen formed a 50 year plan for takeover?

That not only is there a shadow government there is also a shadow society of secret psykopaths (sic) (ooh, how scary!). These genetic pod people (sic) have taken over many high profile positions throughout society and across the political spectrum! Including certain DU heroes.

HA, HA, HA!

Therer are no pink tutu Democrats, only psychopathic Republican moles and sleeper agents! HA, HA, HA! Maybe he wears those glasses from THEY LIVE?!

Hollow eyed psychopaths, indeed!! HA!

We should keep an eye out for Barbaro Olson wandering around with a nose and dye job! HA, HA, HA!

J wants to test DNA from all politicians and military officers for ADHD gene (oh, yea he says that's the p gene (shhh -- that's part of the conspiracy, it's all part of the conspiracy))

(Note,the email is truncated. I'd love to see this guy's finale. Has anyone ever seen the complete version?)

[vincenzo]

76. Wow! Amazing read!

I alternately loved and hated his arguments. But it was totally fascinating (absolutely non-PC however). Unique conspiracy theory, one I've never run into before.

A taste of the good:

SO WHERE DO WE STAND?
On shifting sands. Bizarro World, House of Mirrors, Puzzle Palace, Endless Maze, the Grand Charade, use whichever image you wish. My friends we are all lost in a tall grass swamp, not knowing which paths lead to solid ground, we can hear other lost parties but not see them through the tall grass. My friends we need to put aside past differences, ideological, political, religious. We are all patriots now. We must pool our efforts, our knowledge to defeat the
psykopaths. George Washington: "We have, therefore, to resolve to conquer or die."

I've never heard of human cheater strategists or high level passing psychopaths before. A friend recommended MASK OF SANITY, by Cleckley, and the PSYCHOPATH'S BIBLE. I haven't read them yet, but I thought I'd pass the titles on.

[crispy]

13. Response to RH's posts from last thread

>>> A thorough autopsy followed.
>> Oh yeah.
> Oh yeah. is not a valid argument

It wasn't an argument. I agree. Human parts were collected and identified.


>> "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.

This is what I was talking about when I asked "Are you afraid of open debate?". You keep dodging my question, attacking what you perceive to be faulty methods, and not the information itself and interpretations therefrom. Still waiting for that.


> 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?

Huh? Why would F77 have to fly back to DC? I never said it did. I said it probably landed somewhere near Ohio, where it disappeared from radar.


> "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

Your amazing quote there is from an email by the otherwise anonymous "April" who has a friend at the Pentagon. Highly reputable, I'm sure.

Find me another source that said the tail number was found, if you can.


> 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?

I don't. But it's your word against Steve O'Brien's and Danielle O'Brien's, and I have no reason to doubt them.


> 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?

Show me where it says the C130 had its transponder off too.


> 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?

> 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?

Why would they need his testimony? Hundreds of people saw the plane, and tens of people identified it as an AA flight.


>> 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?

Don't be stupid. I have not seen any proof that the plane parts from the Pentagon came from F77, or even a B757. I have seen just about everything there is to see regarding the Pentagon crash. If you are saying that there is proof, why don't you let me know what that is, or even better where it is.

>> ....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.

I say, how do you know they were recovered from the Pentagon.
You say, there was an investigation.

SO WHAT?


>> 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.

It disappeared completely from radar over Ohio, because that section had no primary radar, only secondary, which picks up transponder signals. Does that sound like a coincidence to you? Do you think the "hijackers" intended to do that? If they went to such a length to crash F77 into the Pentagon, why wouldn't they hijack it right after takeoff from Dulles?


>> 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.

I assume you meant to say "I see no reason". In that case, do you think whoever programmed the course, who had to know the contour of the land real well for it to fly so low, took into account light poles? Do you think it mattered to the programmer? Did it matter in the long run? No. It hit the building with perfect accuracy.

If you don't think Hanjour piloted the plane, you are contradicting the official story. There were five hijackers on F77, according to the official story, and the only one who took flight training was Hanjour. Are you suggesting that's false?


>> Hmmm yes, found at the scene of the crime. Does that prove F77 crashed there?
> Yes, of course it does.

Lol. How do you even know they came from F77? They were damaged beyond repair. Yeah, a damaged black box REALLY PROVES that F77 was there.


>> "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.

"Joe Smith, a witness to the Pentagon crash, said, 'No. I observed the entire scene with my eagle-eye 360 degree vision from the moment of the attacks for 20 minutes, and I can assure you there is no way anyone could have planted anything.'"

"Pat Robertson, an expert on everything, said, 'It is also impossible for the piece on the lawn to have come from the plane itself, which some people say was painted up in the AA colors and possibly logo. It is also impossible for the piece to have been stored on the plane or in the building.'"

There you have it!


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

Not true. Only after the propaganda machine said "IT WAS A B757" over and over did many people "know" it was so. If you are referring to the workers, how would they be able to discern a modified military craft from a B757? What reason would they have for disbelieving the official story?


> 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.

I don't know why you still don't acknowledge the possibility of my scenario being correct. You have yet to point out one contradiction that I have not dealt with.

And that is good enough for me.

[RH]

18. Yawn yawn yawn.

It wasn't an argument. I agree. Human parts were collected and identified.

OK.



This is what I was talking about when I asked "Are you afraid of open debate?". You keep dodging my question, attacking what you perceive to be faulty methods, and not the information itself and interpretations therefrom. Still waiting for that.

I see no information that was not already done to death over and over a long time ago. Life is too short to go over it all again.



> 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?

Huh? Why would F77 have to fly back to DC? I never said it did. I said it probably landed somewhere near Ohio, where it disappeared from radar.

F77 would have to fly back to DC to hit the Pentagon, as we know it did.



> "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


Your amazing quote there is from an email by the otherwise anonymous "April" who has a friend at the Pentagon. Highly reputable, I'm sure.

So what do have that's any better? I wait in vain to hear of one person close to the scene who would even be willing waste any time on your nonsense.




Find me another source that said the tail number was found, if you can.

The best source is obvious. If you really eant to know, ask the FBI or those who worked at the scene.


> 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?

I don't. But it's your word against Steve O'Brien's and Danielle O'Brien's, and I have no reason to doubt them.


So what reason do then have to doubt anybody else?

I give no word against them. Their own inconsistencies bring them into doubt.


> 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?

Show me where it says the C130 had its transponder off too.

If you expect all military planes to transpond, how come then they'd thought that their unidentified blip was a military plane?



> Why would they need his

Because he had the best view, and because as yet he seems to have been one of a small number if not the only the only one to locate the 'spiral' trajectory as being that of the B757. Other witnesses only saw the plane during the last couple of miles of its flight.



Don't be stupid. I have not seen any proof that the plane parts from the Pentagon came from F77, or even a B757. I have seen just about everything there is to see regarding the Pentagon crash. If you are saying that there is proof, why don't you let me know what that is, or even better where it is.

I am not here to spoon feed you to compensate for your idleness. Photos of identifiable parts, e.g. a wheel and an undercarriage strut have been published. This has all been done to death before. If you prefer to think otherwise, that's up to you. Who should lose sleep over your ignorance?

I say, how do you know they were recovered from the Pentagon.
You say, there was an investigation.

SO WHAT?


So that's how we know. The usual purpose of an investigation is to discover and report.



It disappeared completely from radar over Ohio, because that section had no primary radar, only secondary, which picks up transponder signals. Does that sound like a coincidence to you?

Sounds like a simple statement of fact, not especially remarkable.

Do you think the "hijackers" intended to do that?

Intended to do what? I'd guess that the transponder was not turned off accidentally.

If they went to such a length to crash F77 into the Pentagon, why wouldn't they hijack it right after takeoff from Dulles?


Did I ever say that they went to any length to crash F77 into the Pentagon?

I have seen nothing whatsoever to prove that the given result was intended.


>> They (lamp poles) were in the way of the plane's programmed course.

According to what?

What is the proof of any pre programmed course supposed to be?



I assume you meant to say "I see no reason".

right. I get tired.

In that case, do you think whoever programmed the course, who had to know the contour of the land real well for it to fly so low, took into account light poles?

I see no reason to believe that the course was in any way pre programmed. It sounds to me like the plane was headed for the other side of the river, ending up at the Pentagon to avoid the intercepting C130.

Do you think it mattered to the programmer? Did it matter in the long run? No. It hit the building with perfect accuracy.

I see no proof of any program.



If you don't think Hanjour piloted the plane, you are contradicting the official story.

Really? When did an official story state this as anything other than a provisional conjecture?

There were five hijackers on F77, according to the official story, and the only one who took flight training was Hanjour. Are you suggesting that's false?

According to what do you presume to know that Hanjour was the only one with any previous experience? Some of the suspects are not even positively identified.


Lol. How do you even know they came from F77? They were damaged beyond repair. Yeah, a damaged black box REALLY PROVES that F77 was there.

This has already been answered. Does it come naturally to be so irritatingly thick or do you have to work at it?



"Joe Smith, a witness to the Pentagon crash, said, 'No. I observed the entire scene with my eagle-eye 360 degree vision from the moment of the attacks for 20 minutes, and I can assure you there is no way anyone could have planted anything.'"

No, I have not yet heard of any Joe Smith at the scene. You'd do better to consult the photographers and others who were there.



"Pat Robertson, an expert on everything, said, 'It is also impossible for the piece on the lawn to have come from the plane itself, which some people say was painted up in the AA colors and possibly logo. It is also impossible for the piece to have been stored on the plane or in the building.'"

There you have it!

No, there we have nothing. I have not yet heard of any Joe Smith at the scene. Is this the best you can do, in the absence of any real information to add, to descend ever more to infantile heckling?


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

Not true.


Name your witness then. Who do you mean to refer to?


Only after the propaganda machine said "IT WAS A B757" over and over did many people "know" it was so.

That's the most ignorantly, deceptively wrong thing you've yet said. Many witnesses identified the aircraft immediately, as it happened. e.g. by radio to their colleagues.

And once again, this had all been done to death too many times over before.

I don't know why you still don't acknowledge the possibility of my scenario being correct.

Because it is so obviously wrong and pointless.

[crispy]

20. Yada yada yada.

>> This is what I was talking about when I asked "Are you afraid of open debate?". You keep dodging my question, attacking what you perceive to be faulty methods, and not the information itself and interpretations therefrom. Still waiting for that.
> I see no information that was not already done to death over and over a long time ago. Life is too short to go over it all again.

But it's not too short to sit on these boards and snipe at every moron who says no plane hit the Pentagon? You sure have been doing that for a long time.


> F77 would have to fly back to DC to hit the Pentagon, as we know it did.

Your original statement was "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?" ...implying that I had suggested that passengers needed to be transfered. I did no such thing.


> So what do have that's any better? I wait in vain to hear of one person close to the scene who would even be willing waste any time on your nonsense.

Let's analyze that. I am offering an alternative interpretation for the facts and observations on record. You are saying that no one close to the scene would waste any time on my "nonsense". You are implying that for my scenario to be correct it would require a witness there to go "Hey, wait a second. That wasn't a B757. That was just modified to look like one, to fool witnesses! You see, F77 disappeared from radar over Ohio! We don't know that's F77!"


> The best source is obvious. If you really eant to know, ask the FBI or those who worked at the scene.

Don't make an assertion that the tail number was found at the scene unless you have a reputable source backing it up.


>> I don't. But it's your word against Steve O'Brien's and Danielle O'Brien's, and I have no reason to doubt them.
> So what reason do then have to doubt anybody else? I give no word against them. Their own inconsistencies bring them into doubt.

Like the witnesses? In my scenario witnesses were targets of a psyop, they were meant to think something else happened than really did. C-130 pilot and ATC are not included in that group.


> If you expect all military planes to transpond, how come then they'd thought that their unidentified blip was a military plane?

I don't really know enough about what type of planes have transponders and other kinds of identification military planes have to say much about this. But for the sake of argument we will say that the military plane did not have a transponder, and was also an "unidentified blip". The answer to your question "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?" is that the unidentified blip disappeared from radar moments from crashing into the building - because it went below the radar. The C-130 did not spiral downward to below radar range where the plane-that-hit's trajectory would have been.


> I am not here to spoon feed you to compensate for your idleness. Photos of identifiable parts, e.g. a wheel and an undercarriage strut have been published.

Most planes have wheels and struts.


> So that's how we know. The usual purpose of an investigation is to discover and report.

So you know for sure that in said investigation parts of passengers were recovered from the Pentagon debris?


>> Do you think the "hijackers" intended to do that?
> Intended to do what? I'd guess that the transponder was not turned off accidentally.

Correct. What I meant was, do you think the "hijackers" intended to turn off the transponder in one of the few areas of the country without primary radar, thus enabling it to "get back to Washington" undetected?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A32597-2001Nov2


> What is the proof of any pre programmed course supposed to be?

> I see no reason to believe that the course was in any way pre programmed.

> I see no proof of any program.

I am not saying that a definite course was programmed into the killer plane. I am saying that is what likely happened, as opposed to being remotely controlled.


> According to what do you presume to know that Hanjour was the only one with any previous experience? Some of the suspects are not even positively identified.

The FBI knew who every one of the hijackers were, and it has been said (I will get the source info on this for you if you want) that Hanjour was the only one of the five who had flight experience.


>> Lol. How do you even know they came from F77? They were damaged beyond repair. Yeah, a damaged black box REALLY PROVES that F77 was there.
> This has already been answered. Does it come naturally to be so irritatingly thick or do you have to work at it?

OH! It's already been ANSWERED! I'm so SORRY! I'd HATE to inconvenience you by asking you to give one sentence explaining HOW it's already been answered!


> No, I have not yet heard of any Joe Smith at the scene.

I made up Joe Smith and Pat Robertson to demonstrate the stupidity of your assertion that we know stuff wasn't planted because witnesses were there.


>>> Because not one of the thousands of those immediately involved has since been known to have the slightest doubt about what hit the Pentagon.
>> Not true.
> Name your witness then. Who do you mean to refer to?

Many witnesses had doubts about what hit the Pentagon. Some said a helicopter hit it, some said a small commuter jet hit it. Some didn't know. Those are called doubts.


>> Only after the propaganda machine said "IT WAS A B757" over and over did many people "know" it was so.
> That's the most ignorantly, deceptively wrong thing you've yet said. Many witnesses identified the aircraft immediately, as it happened. e.g. by radio to their colleagues.

I said "many" not "most". The people who said "It was a B757" can be counted on one hand. "Most" people simply described a plane in AA colors, if that, "many" did not "know" it was a B757 until they were told.


>> I don't know why you still don't acknowledge the possibility of my scenario being correct.
> Because it is so obviously wrong and pointless.

:eyes:

[RH]

23. Yes, a lot of valuable time

has been wasted on the ungratefully ignorant.

Others such as Sarah Roberts and Dave Bosankoe long since gave up on hoping to save you and your ilk others from making fools of yourselves. Your loss, not theirs.

You did imply that passengers needed to be transfered. Failing to deny that passengers' remains were found in Arlington, you wrote "Am I contradicting them? Calling them liars? No."

If the passengers aboard flight 77 were not aboard the plane that hit the Pentagon, why then were their remains found at the scene ?

You are not offering an alternative interpretation for the facts and observations on record. The facts and observation on record are in short that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, a fact and observation that you especially appear to be determined to deny.

I am not at all implying that for my scenario to be correct it would require a witness there to go "Hey, wait a second. That wasn't a B757." The diversion is ludicous regardless of such an eventuality.

I made no assertion that the tail number was found at the scene. That arose as a part of an article I cited.

I find that on the whole the eye witness ccounts are remarkably consistent. Not one of them saw a missile.


The C-130 must have spiralled downward to a similar height as the B757. It was seen to have followed the B757. It flew through the smoke above the Pentagon soon after the impact.


The wheels and struts were identifiable in published photos. Have you actually compared them with those of a B757? I find that they match exactly and the notion that nobody at the scene would have known the difference is ridiculous.


According to any normal standard of jurisprudence we know for sure that in said investigation parts of passengers were recovered from the Pentagon debris. A proper investigation took place. Is there even any valid criticism to impugn the investigative procedure? To gainsay the fact of the matter the onus would fall to you to prove otherwise, which all too obviously you are unable to do.

I have no ifea which areas of the country were without primary radar. According to what would you presume to know this?

I never presumed anything got back to Washington undetected, why do you say that I do? I would rather think it possible that the C130 was onto the trail some considerable time before Flight 77 got to Arlington.


The FBI did not pretend to know who every one of the hijackers was.

On e.g. the FBI web site hijackers' identities were advertised as being "probable".


Furhter to "OH! It's already been ANSWERED! I'm so SORRY! I'd HATE to inconvenience you by asking you to give one sentence explaining HOW it's already been answered!"

It was recently answered by me in a post to this forum, to you.

The repetition is tedious.

It is not at all absurd to know anything because witnesses were there to tell you so. That's exactly how social communication has always worked. What is extraordinarily stupid is to think you know better albeit that you were nowhere near to the event.

Which witness had doubts about what hit the Pentagon?

I have not yet seen or heard of anybody who was there who is not convinced that Flight 77 hit the building, not one of them.

Whether or not anybody originally said a helicopter hit it or a small commuter jet hit it is beside the point. Such occurrances are called discrepancies, not doubts. Not one of the people who may thus be in question ever come close to suggesting that they somehow knew better than the sum total of others' experience of the same event.

The witnesses whose perceptions were seriously inconsistent with a B757 hitting the building can be counted on one hand. "Most" people did indeed describe a plane in AA colors. Other inconsitencies seem to have arisen from sloppy reporting, e.g. the notorious Steve Patterson version from a reporter who had not even spoken to him.

It is simply wrong to suppose that the identification of a B757 in the mass media preceded the identifiction from those at the scene. The identification came from those at the scene even before it came from American Airlines.

[demodewd]

24. The white flash and shaped charges

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/ericbart/inv2.html White flash

Remember that the white flash is like a sudden white cloud preceding a slower fireball. It's water steam condensed by the shockwave. The colour of this sudden flash may vary, white, light yellow or light orange. As the shockwave is like a sound wave, it does not displace matter, it's a travelling high pressure that can get through air, through matter, through walls. Thus a white flash can occur behind a standing wall.

"I saw the flash and subsequent fireball" Terry Morin
There was a silvery flash, an explosion, and... " James S Robbins
The fireball was coming like a wind-cloud of smoke trailing it" Victor Correa. The "smoke " is the white flash (i.e. water steam) that appeared before the fireball. This gave the strange impression that "smoke" appeared before the fire.
"the room filled with this real bright light, just like everything was encompassed within this bright light" Michael Beans. The flash got through the walls.

White flash




Shaped charges

Pierre-Henri Bunel explains that the "punched out hole" was more likely caused by a shaped charge jet stream. Hot plasma jet streams are designed to pierce concrete, they go far inside the building and end up in winds, smokes and heat.

Because it was supposedly found a nose gear there, it was considered as a proof that the plane's nose made this hole. It is more likely that this gear wheel rim rolled there, pushed or drawn by the above jet streams.

In any case the wheel rim did not make such a big hole. Where are the plane parts that broke this wall ? These parts should be visible in the A-E drive and even damage the next wal : the B ring wall.

Nope. The next wall is intact. No damage. Only some smoke spot waiting to be washed. Finally, it seems that no solid matter made this hole. It was made by the forceful pressure of hot gases and smokes. This is much more consistent with shaped charge explosions.




The shaped charges were ignited before the nose touched the wall. That's why some witnesses reported signs of an early impact, before the plane touched the wall :

"It seemed like it made impact just before the wedge" Joe Harrington
"I heard a sonic boom and then the impact" Joel Sucherman
Other witnesses understood that the plane hit the ground before the wall :

"It didn't appear to crash into the building, most of the energy was dissipated in hitting the ground, I saw the nose break up, I saw the wings fly forward" Donald "Tim" Timmerman
"The fuselage hit the ground and blew up" Mary Ann Owens
"The nose of the plane curled upwards and crumpled before exploding into a massive fireball" Vin Narayan

But there was no mark of the plane on the ground. Other witnesses reported an impact on the building :

"The large aircraft struck the outermost corridor (E-ring) of the five-ring building at ground level (the second floor)" Aviationnow
"The aircraft went in between the second and third floors." Lincoln Leibner
Why did some witnesses think that the plane hit the ground before the wall ? I see two reasons. First, the explosion of the charges created white flashes around the fuselage that seemed an early contact with the ground. Second, shaped charges in a plane have a RECOIL EFFECT like powder in guns. Their explosions should have pushed back the fuselage and slowed it down, giving the impression that it hit something. It could also make the wings detach and fly forward because, unlike the fuselage, they were not slowed down, "I saw the wings fly forward".


The Penny Elgas statement : "At the point where the fuselage hit the wall, it seemed to simply melt into the building. I saw a smoke ring surround the fuselage as it made contact with the wall. It appeared as a smoke ring that encircled the fuselage at the point of contact and it seemed to be several feet thick. I later realized that it was probably the rubble of churning bits of the plane and concrete. The churning smoke ring started at the top of the fuselage and simultaneously wrapped down both the right and left sides of the fuselage to the underside, where the coiling rings crossed over each other and then coiled back up to the top. Then it started over again -- only this next time, I also saw fire, glowing fire in the smoke ring."

The analysis of this report is complex. However I'll try here.


First I believe Penny Elgas. Under adrenaline things go definitely slower. The report she gave is so unexpected that I don't think she made it up. It's just a pure factual report.

The interpretation she gave is false. : "the rubble of churning bits of the plane and concrete". The smoke moves are too perfect.

My speculation : The "churning smoke" is the white flash of inside charges. Penny Elgas saw the white flashes of these charges exploding in two overlapped and opposite helices.


There was not a single large shaped charge in the plane. I did not see any large shaped charge on the web. The best anti-bunker weapon (BLU-113) is only 1.2 foot large (diameter). Instead, there were many shaped charges (one feet diameter) inside the plane. Roughly, a one foot diameter will make a one foot hole. These charges were arranged in circle inside the fuselage and along the fuselage. Thus it was possible to make a large hit on the wall with small shaped charges. These charges were not fired all at the same time (probably to be more silent or for having a "hammering" effect on concrete). So what is the best sequence for igniting all theses charges ?

Maybe things are simpler then I first thought. All the plane (fuselage and wings) is laid on a rigid structure. This means that the bottom of the fuselage is strong and the top is fragile. So, when a charge explode near the bottom of the fuselage, it destroys the stiffness of it.

I think that the charges where put in two overlapped and opposite helices (clockwise and counter clockwise). The explosion started at the top front of the fuselage, continued downward and backward on each side, joined at the bottom and continued upward and backward, and so on ..., as Penny saw.

When explosions occure at the bottom, the plane fuselage stiffness is damaged. Thus,the next charges to explode are less strongly tied to the fuselage. The further they are from the bottom, the more difficult it is to tie them strongly to the fuselage. Thus,the next charges have to be attached close to the bottom. That's why I think it continued upward (and backward) on each side of the fuselage, because the next charges can't be mechanically attached far form the bottom.

"Then it started over again -- only this next time, I also saw fire, glowing fire in the smoke ring." The glowing fire is the fireball itself that comes after the white flash.



Shaped charges in the NYC Flight 11

There was a white flash just before flight 11 crashed in the north WTC tower. See this "Incredible 9-11 Evidence We've All been Overlooking". See this flash just before the plane crash. You may even check it on your own DVD player.

This flash is too big to be sparks, see the real small sparks in the flight 175 crash (picture, shockwave from thewebfairy). It's not a video recorder aberration, to few chances. Maybe it's a sun reflection amplified by an optical aberration but I think it will be difficult to find the mirror. On this morning, the sun was low above the horizon in the left.


Maybe this plane was not flight 11. Albeit it seems very difficult to exchange flight 11 with a plane bomb, some authors argue this was possible (Plissken, Dewdney).

This flash could well be the same shaped charges described above and summed up by the Pentagon witness Penny Elgas : "I saw a smoke ring surround the fuselage as it made contact with the wall."

[RH]

25. Powdered aluminum

is added to fire works, to increase their brightness

:nuke:

Finely disintegrated alumunum will oxidise (i.e. burn) spontaneously anyway. The B757 also hit an active electricty generator.

Considering the violence of the event I am not therfore at all surprised if there was a flash. The plane would have vanished into the building in less time than it takes to blink, with a great deal of kinetic energy thus to dissipate.

Where then is the need to invent tall stories to explain the flash in the face of a total absense of any forensic evidence to support the fantasy and a total lack of any such suspicion from those who were themselves hurt or in mortal danger, including miltary personnel who ought well to know enough about the subject?

You're chasing a red herring up a cul de sac.

The Elgas account seems to me to be very similar to what was observed from the Sandia fighter plane crash experiment as discussed previously.

I am not sure that the wheel parts found at the far end of the damaged area did come from the nosewheel. What is the authority for that understanding?

[demodewd]

26. what what why why

What forensic evidence and scientific study explains your powdered aluminum conjecture? The aluminum oxidizes during fireworks because the firework is detonated. What military personel present were standing where they could actually see the explosion and have the expertise of the contributor of the web site cited? It doesn't matter really what part of the plane the wheel parts visible in the A-E drive came from...it was surmised to be there because of a shaped charge jet stream. If the aluminum is profoundly disintegrating by impact to cause such a penetrating flash("the room filled with this real bright light, just like everything was encompassed within this bright light" Michael Beans.) how does the plane(nose)maintain its structural integrety to punch out the A-E ring hole? Why was the lawn strewn with confetti sized metal pieces..a sure sign of a blast?The sustained intense heat of the fire...a characteristic of blast explosions as opposed to just fuel explosions. That the generator caused this phenomenon is fantasy on your part.

[RH]

29. Aluminum dust.

Try google

Ther's plenty to be found out about aluminum, for instance:

Board says aluminum dust caused fatal explosion

The Associated Press
November 5, 2003 6:14 PM


HUNTINGTON, IND. -- An explosion at a casting plant that killed one worker and critically injured another was caused by aluminum dust near a melting furnace, federal investigators said Wednesday.

etc.

http://www.indystar.com/articles/0/089894-3230-127.html

[demodewd]

35. Proof of what?

And this lends proof to your Pentagon crash theory? If true the crash would proceed the blast . Does it? And would the type blast incurred by aluminum dust be commensurate to what occured? Do you know? How could you assume that it would? First you would have to establish that there was aluminum dust at the site. References?

[RH]

41. Yes indeed.

The crash must have preceeded the blast.

The plane was observed to dissapear into the buiding.

This was described in some detail e.g. by Penny Elgas.

Others spoke for instance of the wings flying forwards.

A bright flash would of course have precluded those observations.

If aluminum dust did explode there would then be no aluminum dust to look for. You'd have to look for the oxide. Notwithstanding the reality of the fire would you then seriously expect to find no oxide?

You're not thinking straight, are you?

[demodewd]

45. Certainly...

... there must be references to the "aluminum dust" explanation you're citing from other crashes? Right?

[RH]

48. Why

must there be references?

Since when and according to what would or should the Internet provide an omnipotent account of everything in the Universe?

Not one report about the Pentagon event to be seen on the Internet made any mention of any sort of the demolished tree which had stood between the electricity generator and the building but to judge from from circumstail evidence it mast have been hit.

Not one report about the Pentagon event to be seen on the Internet had managed to count up to as many as five lamp poles hit, but to but to judge from from circumstantial evidence they must indeed have been hit. For your education I therefore published 'Spot the Lamp Poles'.

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

Perhaps I could eventually publish something about aluminum dust but in view of the extensive ignorance of 'Spot the Lamp Poles' the motivation eludes me, to waste so much time and energy pro bono. As before most of the smart arse web tossers would but carry on regardless, not even willing or objective enough to provide a link to gratify the effort.

To delve into further detail please consult those involved with the investigation. I continue to regret that so little is achieved in investigative terms apart from the continual repetition of tired old arguments amidst the continual regurgitation of two year old news articles which may or may not have been reliable to begin with.

:nopity:

[demodewd]

50. Back to the question

I firmly believe that a plane the size or near the size of a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon..and that five lamp posts were hit in its flight path...so back to my question...to what reference do you allude to that aluminum dust initiates large explosions at plane crash sites?

[RH]

54. I would allude

to anything possibly relevant.

If anything more especially pertinent were to hand I would have referred to it to begin with. With a large number of physical and chemical variables involved what exactly happens is presumably extemely difficult to predict. Aluminum may also react violently with water or with other oxygen containing compounds.

To pursue the possibilities further I would suggest to take it up with the students at Purdue or some other technical academy.

[demodewd]

56. Moving on...

it's your puppy Senator...you take it up.

[RH]

30. Metal confetti

http://www.sandia.gov/media/NRgallery00-03.htm

[demodewd]

36. Observations

Obsevations:The explosion doesn't occur until the F-4 Phantom is well past one half of its length through the building.Is this similar to the features of the Pentagon crash where eye witnesses observed a split second slowing of the plane near impact ...probably a recoiling? And the F-4 Phantom with the added advantage of the exposed flame emission from its rear. How many meters thick was the Pentagon wall? Would the resistance levels be comparable? Correct me if I'm wrong but that concrete wall looks a whole lot thicker than the Pentagon facade. At what distance did the fuel travel? As far as that at the Pentagon? How much fuel was the Phantom carrying?

[crispy]

37. Who dat?

> eye witnesses observed a split second slowing of the plane near impact ...probably a recoiling?

Never heard that before. Which witness(es) said that?

[RH]

43. Tim Timmerman

said "it didn't appear to crash into the building; most of the energy was dissipated in hitting the ground, but I saw the nose break up, I saw the wings fly forward"

I take that to mean that the wings continued onwards while the fuselage (and presumably the starboard engine) was decelerated by the impact.

[crispy]

59. Timmerman

Timmerman seems kinda shifty to me.

More than one witness gave an account indicating the plane "melted" into the building. Methinks Timmerman was bullshitting. "most of the energy was dissipated in hitting the ground". Lol.

[demodewd]

60. Why?

Why are you a proponent of the missile idea as oppopsed to charges?

[crispy]

66. Never seen anything convincing

suggesting charges

[demodewd]

68. Heh crispy!

Have you checked out http://perso.wanadoo.fr/ericbart/index.html ??

[crispy]

69. I assumed

you meant charges planted in the building.

Bart's site talks about shaped charges. Shaped charges are carried by a missile.

[RH]

42. Review

The speed of impact was similar but the events were not identical.

In the Sandia experiment the object was propelled on a rocket sledge (hence the flame) and the fuel tanks were filled with water.

The walls of the Pentagon are about two feet thick. In the Sandia case the plane hit a solid concrete block that was set up to move to measure the impact.

To my mind "wheredy go" is nevertheless that much less of mystery, especially with the added factor of an aviation fuel explosion, the wonder then being that any plane parts were found at all, not so much that so few remained. In such a circumstance aluminum airframes (especially the wings) will consumately disintegrate without the intervention of explosive devices.

[demodewd]

44. compare

How can the events be similar when the concrete block is 6 times thicker than the Pentagon wall? And wouldn't the presense of so many windows significantly lessen the lateral strength of the Pentagon wall?

[RH]

49. The experiment

indicates the effect of an aircraft hitting a solid object at speed.

It is therfore the closest approximation that I know of, or do you have a better example to cite?

Aviation disasters usually happen at lower speeds with objects hit that were not so solid while pilots were doing their best to avoid them.

[demodewd]

51. it's invalid

It's an invalid comparison due to the dissimilarities in "test" controls.

[RH]

53. There are none so blind

as those who would not wish to see

So would you therefore believe that a plane that happens to hit a solid object at around 400 m.p.h. should stay in one piece or ...?

What would you cite as a valid comparison?

:shrug:

[demodewd]

57. re: valid comparison

Erect an exact duplication of the Pentagon facade and plow a 757 into it at circa 400 mph carrying the same amount of fuel load it had on 9-11.Or something similar.

[Frodo]

58. We already have that "experiment"

We already know what happens when you plow a 757 into the pentagon in excess of 250 mph.


Why do it twice?

[DulceDecorum]

62. An arm with a bracelet still on it.

Body parts and entire corpses which were available for "autopsies."

A living hijacker or two who are STILL walking around in one big piece each.

That sort of thing.

[RH]

65. A living hijacker or two

who are STILL walking around in one big piece each?

Where are they then? And have you passed that information to the FBI or should you be charged as an accomplice after the fact?

[DulceDecorum]

70. How can they charge me with ANYTHING

when THEY are the ones who claim to have autopsy reports on all of them?
http://www.sierratimes.com/03/07/02/article_tro.htm

WHAT could they possibly charge me with when:
Scientists with the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology have mapped five genetic identifications separate from the remains of the people killed in the Sept. 11 attack, institute spokesman Christopher Kelly said.
http://www.delawareonline.com/newsjournal/local/2001/12/15dafbstaffmakepr.html

They would have to first admit they had made a mistake.
Only after that would they be able to touch me.
Besides naming living pilots as dead hijackers, the U.S. government has--fantastically--issued visas to 2 of the actual September 11 hijackers, Mohamed Atta and Marwan al- Shehhi, so that they can study at the flight school in Venice, Florida where so many of the hijackers learned their flying skills.
http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/?id=1339

Besides which RH, old boy,
I would hate to deprive you of the joy of turning me in.
http://www.talpak.org/alakulat/python/jelenetek/dead.html

[RH]

71. Made a mistake?

What mistake?

In the Delaware Online article you cite

" mapped five genetic identifications separate from the remains of the people killed in the Sept. 11 attack "

is clarified by

" Genetic information from the five does not match any DNA samples on file at the Pentagon or obtained from family members of the crash victims, ....

Unlike those victims, the institute has no DNA samples from the hijackers' relatives to compare with DNA drawn from the remains. This has prohibited them from putting names to the remains. "


Now where in that would there be a mistake?

[crispy]

39. Getting tedious

> You did imply that passengers needed to be transfered. Failing to deny that passengers' remains were found in Arlington, you wrote "Am I contradicting them? Calling them liars? No."

That statement was referring to witness accounts of the planes, not passenger remains.


> If the passengers aboard flight 77 were not aboard the plane that hit the Pentagon, why then were their remains found at the scene ?

Please share the evidence you have that passenger remains were found at the scene. I know that remains were found, because Pentagon workers died. I don't know that F77 passenger remains were found. I know that (it was reported that) remains of F77 passengers were identified as being such. What evidence is there that said remains were found at the scene?


> You are not offering an alternative interpretation for the facts and observations on record. The facts and observation on record are in short that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, a fact and observation that you especially appear to be determined to deny.

The "facts and observation on record" are NOT "in short that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon". That is your interpretation of the facts and observation. I have offered an alternative interpretation for the facts and observations on record. You have yet to point out something wrong with my interpretation that I have not accounted for.


> I made no assertion that the tail number was found at the scene. That arose as a part of an article I cited.

You mean the person who sent the email who has a friend at the Pentagon who somehow knew that a tail number was found at the Pentagon? If you have an article saying it was found, I'd like to see it.


> I find that on the whole the eye witness ccounts are remarkably consistent.

Disregarding for the sake of argument accounts describing a 20-passenger commuter jet, yes, you are right. I am not contradicting the witness accounts!


> Not one of them saw a missile.

Your point? Why would they have seen a missile? If my scenario is correct it was fired a split second before it hit the Pentagon. Witnesses did describe that the plane impacted before the facade.


> The C-130 must have spiralled downward to a similar height as the B757. It was seen to have followed the B757. It flew through the smoke above the Pentagon soon after the impact.

From 20/20 transcript:
"A representation of the FAA radar scope, based on information obtained by 20/20, shows the plane headed straight for what is known as P-56, Prohibited Air Space 56, which covers the White House and the Capitol, at a speed of about 500 miles an hour with no radio contact whatsoever."

Would the C-130 not respond to radio? Wouldn't he say "Hey, there's a runaway plane here"?


> The wheels and struts were identifiable in published photos. Have you actually compared them with those of a B757? I find that they match exactly and the notion that nobody at the scene would have known the difference is ridiculous.

I seem to recall them having different numbers of spokes. I don't know enough about how common certain struts are in planes to comment. Nobody would have known the difference between what? Do they know what kinds of struts go to every kind of plane?


> According to any normal standard of jurisprudence we know for sure that in said investigation parts of passengers were recovered from the Pentagon debris. A proper investigation took place. Is there even any valid criticism to impugn the investigative procedure? To gainsay the fact of the matter the onus would fall to you to prove otherwise, which all too obviously you are unable to do.

If you cannot point to something that even suggests that the remains gathered from the Pentagon came from F77 passengers, you aren't standing on very stable ground. If it were a conspiracy and if there were a cover-up, do you think the fact that "there was an investigation" would matter?


> I have no ifea which areas of the country were without primary radar. According to what would you presume to know this?

Please just read the entire article so you see where I'm coming from.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A32597-2001Nov2


> I never presumed anything got back to Washington undetected, why do you say that I do?

Answered in post #38.


> The FBI did not pretend to know who every one of the hijackers was. On e.g. the FBI web site hijackers' identities were advertised as being "probable".

They were probably listed as "probable" because of the possibility of identity theft, as has been suggested by military men was a good possibility. If it wasn't Hani Hanjour with flight skills, it was someone with Hani Hanjour's identity with flight skills. If memory serves me, all the hijackers who piloted the planes received flight training in the US.


> Furhter to "OH! It's already been ANSWERED! I'm so SORRY! I'd HATE to inconvenience you by asking you to give one sentence explaining HOW it's already been answered!" It was recently answered by me in a post to this forum, to you. The repetition is tedious.

Because I'd so hate for you to have to repeat yourself, just tell me the post number it was in.


> What is extraordinarily stupid is to think you know better albeit that you were nowhere near to the event.

I see you did not understand my points about context. Shall I rephrase them like I was talking to a 4th grader for you?


> Which witness had doubts about what hit the Pentagon?

Skarlet/Punk Princess, to name one.


> Whether or not anybody originally said a helicopter hit it or a small commuter jet hit it is beside the point. Such occurrances are called discrepancies, not doubts. Not one of the people who may thus be in question ever come close to suggesting that they somehow knew better than the sum total of others' experience of the same event.

Why would they doubt what hit the Pentagon? If they saw the plane, they should be pretty sure that an AA plane hit. I say this again: witnesses do not have the ability to distinguish between a B757 and a plane modified and painted up to look like one.


> The witnesses whose perceptions were seriously inconsistent with a B757 hitting the building can be counted on one hand. "Most" people did indeed describe a plane in AA colors. Other inconsitencies seem to have arisen from sloppy reporting, e.g. the notorious Steve Patterson version from a reporter who had not even spoken to him.

My case does not rest on "small plane" witnesses.


> It is simply wrong to suppose that the identification of a B757 in the mass media preceded the identifiction from those at the scene. The identification came from those at the scene even before it came from American Airlines.

"identifiction" Interesting typo, lol.

Two people said right off the bat it was a B757. Okay. I am speaking about the majority of witnesses. People did change their testimonies in response to media coverage. Right after the attacks, accounts were very nebulous as to what, but as time went on, after people were told what hit the Pentagon, you get your "Oh yeah, it was an AA B757. I saw the windows, and I saw faces inside." etc. Small example of changing testimony: CNN woman Greta van Susteren said on 9/11/01 she wasn't sure what hit the Pentagon, 9/12/01 she said it was a plane. Similar thing with Ed Plaugher. After the attacks, there aren't alot of big pieces, no fuselage sections anything like that. Digipresse interview in March, "Oh yeah we found seats luggage engine bla bla bla." People embellish their testimonies as time passes.

[RH]

52. Tedious indeed.

Your challenge was to "Take your gloves off,"

Going a bit weak at the knees now, are we?

"That statement was referring to witness accounts of the planes, not passenger remains."

Whatever it may have meant to do, your statement referred to nothing apart from the context, i.e. the passengers' remains.


"Please share the evidence you have that passenger remains were found at the scene. I know that remains were found, because Pentagon workers died. I don't know that F77 passenger remains were found. I know that (it was reported that) remains of F77 passengers were identified as being such. What evidence is there that said remains were found at the scene?"

A full autopsy was conducted. This was widely reported.

U.S. Army Sgt. Major Tony Rose said
“I picked up a child's hand. That was it. Just a child's hand and that's when I got angry.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/11/earlyshow/main521568.shtml

Do you therefore call him a liar? Or would that have been some kind of unfortunate mistake?

This has all been gone over during previous discussions. Your ignorance is unfortunate.


The "facts and observation on record" are NOT "in short that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon". That is your interpretation of the facts and observation.

No that would not be my interpretation. It is the official version which shall stand until and unless you can prove otherwise, which of course yuou are consumately unable to do.


I have offered an alternative interpretation for the facts and observations on record.

An alernative misinterpretation, the market for which was already saturated.

You have yet to point out something wrong with my interpretation that I have not accounted for

I did so. The cause of the tedium is then your own reluctance to acknowledge the same and in the mean time you prove nothing but you own ignorance.


You mean the person who sent the email who has a friend at the Pentagon who somehow knew that a tail number winterpas found at the Pentagon? If you have an article saying it was found, I'd like to see it.

That was an article to say what was found. To delve deeper consult them, not me.


Disregarding for the sake of argument accounts describing a 20-passenger commuter jet, yes, you are right. I am not contradicting the witness accounts!

I do not recall any account of a 20 passenger commuter jet to discount.



Your point? Why would they have seen a missile? If my scenario is correct it was fired a split second before it hit the Pentagon. Witnesses did describe that the plane impacted before the facade.

If the evidence of a missile (e.g. alleged smoke) was to be seen by
a camera then it was also there to be seen by witnesses. If it was fired (as has been alleged) before the point where the alleged smoke appears, then that was more, not less than a second before the impact.



From 20/20 transcript:
"A representation of the FAA radar scope, based on information obtained by 20/20, shows the plane headed straight for what is known as P-56, Prohibited Air Space 56, which covers the White House and the Capitol, at a speed of about 500 miles an hour with no radio contact whatsoever."

Would the C-130 not respond to radio? Wouldn't he say "Hey, there's a runaway plane here"?

The pilot's version has been published.


I seem to recall them having different numbers of spokes. I don't know enough about how common certain struts are in planes to comment. Nobody would have known the difference between what? Do they know what kinds of struts go to every kind of plane?

Different to what? The wheel pic I saw showed an identical object, not discernibly different in any way to those of a B757. The undercarriage strut pic appeared to be the same object as one of the main struts on the main gear.


If you cannot point to something that even suggests that the remains gathered from the Pentagon came from F77 passengers, you aren't standing on very stable ground. If it were a conspiracy and if there were a cover-up, do you think the fact that "there was an investigation" would matter?

You're betraying your ignorance. Use google.


Please just read the entire article so you see where I'm coming from.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A32597-2001Nov2

You wrote "Does that sound like a coincidence to you?". What else would it sound like?


> I never presumed anything got back to Washington undetected, why do you say that I do?

Answered in post #38.

Huh??? Post #38 from demodewd?



> The FBI did not pretend to know who every one of the hijackers was. On e.g. the FBI web site hijackers' identities were advertised as being "probable".

They were probably listed as "probable" because of the possibility of identity theft, as has been suggested by military men was a good possibility. If it wasn't Hani Hanjour with flight skills, it was someone with Hani Hanjour's identity with flight skills. If memory serves me, all the hijackers who piloted the planes received flight training in the US.

My question stands. How come?

What places either Hanjour or somebody aka Hanjour at the controls of the plane? The remains of the hijackers were not positively identified.


Because I'd so hate for you to have to repeat yourself, just tell me the post number it was in.

And how would I have that to hand without searching for it, which you could just as well do for yourself? What an idle little **** you are!


I see you did not understand my points about context. Shall I rephrase them like I was talking to a 4th grader for you?

Don't bother.

> Which witness had doubts about what hit the Pentagon?

Skarlet/Punk Princess, to name one.

According to her accounct the plane she saw hit the building.

http://punkprincess.com/archives/002150.html#002150

Sure the event was incredible per se, but that is not at all the same as doubting the investigative result, that Flight 77 hit the building. When and where did she ever say aything to that effect? Have you spoken to her? Have you mailed her?


Why would they doubt what hit the Pentagon? If they saw the plane, they should be pretty sure that an AA plane hit. I say this again: witnesses do not have the ability to distinguish between a B757 and a plane modified and painted up to look like one.

And you nevertheless posses some sort of superioir ability do you? Because of what particular qualification? Did you visit the site? Were you there to examine the debris? Do you somehow think that you've spent more time on better evidence than those professionally employed to do so?


"identifiction" Interesting typo, lol.

Would it not reasonably refer for instance to the Steve Patterson 12 passenger version?

Two people said right off the bat it was a B757.

More than two, albeit that some were tentative, "either a 757 or ...".

e.g. Steve O'Brien; Timmerman; Wallace; Hemphill;

Okay. I am speaking about the majority of witnesses. People did change their testimonies in response to media coverage. Right after the attacks, accounts were very nebulous as to what, but as time went on, after people were told what hit the Pentagon, you get your "Oh yeah, it was an AA B757. I saw the windows, and I saw faces inside." etc.

Small example of changing testimony: CNN woman Greta van Susteren said on 9/11/01 she wasn't sure what hit the Pentagon, 9/12/01 she said it was a plane. Similar thing with Ed Plaugher. After the attacks, there aren't alot of big pieces, no fuselage sections anything like that. Digipresse interview in March, "Oh yeah we found seats luggage engine bla bla bla." People embellish their testimonies as time passes.

I had also noticed the Susteren discrepancy. I had also noticed that some the most dubious versions came from politicians; not such a great surprise.

If seats, luggage etc. were found later on then Ed Plaugher's earlier version was resonable.

[crispy]

61. Weee

> Your challenge was to "Take your gloves off,"

Yes, and I thank you for doing just that.


> Going a bit weak at the knees now, are we?

Not really. You raised some points and aspects of the Pentagon crash I hadn't looked into, so I can't comment on them. When I look at them, if my scenario can account for them, I'll let you know.

Let me state my purpose here, so you know. I started off thinking a missile hit the Pentagon. Ruled that out. Then I thought F-16-sized jet+missile. Ruled that out. Now I think mid-sized plane+missile. If I rule this out, I will admit that F77 hit the Pentagon, because there's no other reasonable scenario I can think of. My purpose is not to adhere blindly to my scenario and deny evidence to the contrary. I am trying to figure out the truth. Debating with you helps. If I ask you a question like "How do you know..." or "What evidence shows..." it's not out of condescension or that I automatically think you're wrong, it's that I want to know why you think what you do. If your ideas about what happened are unsubstantiated, I want to know, and I want you to know. Because my scenario has not been discussed before, it will take some work to rule it out, or at least establish that the official story better accounts for everything. I adhere to my scenario not out of stubbornness but because all the research I've done over the past few months supports it. But in my scenario, stuff is unexplained. All the research I've done, except for a few unexplained things, could also support the B757 scenario since it is similar to mine (more similar to it than to the missile theory, anyway). It depends on how you look at it. Once I measure the external damage and investigate some other things then I'll post my findings. But for now...


>> That statement was referring to witness accounts of the planes, not passenger remains.
> Whatever it may have meant to do, your statement referred to nothing apart from the context, i.e. the passengers' remains.

I would not have said something about witness accounts in a paragraph where I was talking about passenger remains. How would my statement even have applied to remains? I said "Am I contradicting them?", tbem referring to witnesses. Who do you think I was referring to?


> "I picked up a child's hand. That was it. Just a child's hand and that's when I got angry."

Well if it has been established that no children were in that area of the Pentagon, then yeah I guess it would mean something. I'd need to know how big the hand was to make sure it couldn't have been from a petite adult and he just assumed it was a child's hand.

But no I don't think passenger remains were planted, and no I don't think the guy was lying.


> I do not recall any account of a 20 passenger commuter jet to discount.

NBC 10pmET transcript
Unidentified Man #3: I saw what looked to be maybe a 20-passenger corporate jet, no markings on the side, coming in at a shallow angle like it was landing right into the side of the Pentagon. And then a huge fireball, perhaps five times the height of the Pentagon.

I'm not saying that's credible, I'm just saying the account exists.


> If the evidence of a missile (e.g. alleged smoke) was to be seen by a camera then it was also there to be seen by witnesses. If it was fired (as has been alleged) before the point where the alleged smoke appears, then that was more, not less than a second before the impact.

How long was the trail of smoke in the Pentagon pictures, do you think? According to ASCE, the plane was 320 ft away .42 seconds before impact and 100 to 110 ft away .10 seconds before impact. So it is fair to say "split second". People would have thought it was an AA plane, and AA planes don't fire missiles. But in the confusion many probably thought it hit the ground or the smoke was dust kicked up by the plane so low to the ground.


> Huh??? Post #38 from demodewd?

Demodewd's was #47 and below my #38.


> My question stands. How come? What places either Hanjour or somebody aka Hanjour at the controls of the plane? The remains of the hijackers were not positively identified.

It's impossible to say for sure Hanjour was at the controls, because the government itself doesn't know. If you can rule out Hanjour being at the controls of what hit the Pentagon (and I think we pretty much did) then it is safe to say that we don't know who did.


>> Because I'd so hate for you to have to repeat yourself, just tell me the post number it was in.
> And how would I have that to hand without searching for it, which you could just as well do for yourself? What an idle little **** you are!

If you say, "I'm not repeating myself, I posted that somewhere else," I assume you know where you posted it. If not, just say so.


>> Why would they doubt what hit the Pentagon? If they saw the plane, they should be pretty sure that an AA plane hit. I say this again: witnesses do not have the ability to distinguish between a B757 and a plane modified and painted up to look like one.
> And you nevertheless posses some sort of superioir ability do you? Because of what particular qualification? Did you visit the site? Were you there to examine the debris? Do you somehow think that you've spent more time on better evidence than those professionally employed to do so?

Is it or was it the job of these professionals to determine what plane hit the building? Whose job is that?



We're going in circles here; I'll make a new post after I do some more research.

[RH]

63. And then?

Yes, and I thank you for doing just that.

I get to be depressed with myself after glancing at the clock to see how much time I've spent on these messages.

Not really. You raised some points and aspects of the Pentagon crash I hadn't looked into, so I can't comment on them. When I look at them, if my scenario can account for them, I'll let you know.

Let me state my purpose here, so you know. I started off thinking a missile hit the Pentagon. Ruled that out. Then I thought F-16-sized jet+missile. Ruled that out. Now I think mid-sized plane+missile. If I rule this out, I will admit that F77 hit the Pentagon, because there's no other reasonable scenario I can think of. My purpose is not to adhere blindly to my scenario and deny evidence to the contrary. I am trying to figure out the truth. Debating with you helps. If I ask you a question like "How do you know..." or "What evidence shows..." it's not out of condescension or that I automatically think you're wrong, it's that I want to know why you think what you do. If your ideas about what happened are unsubstantiated, I want to know, and I want you to know. Because my scenario has not been discussed before, it will take some work to rule it out, or at least establish that the official story better accounts for everything. I adhere to my scenario not out of stubbornness but because all the research I've done over the past few months supports it. But in my scenario, stuff is unexplained. All the research I've done, except for a few unexplained things, could also support the B757 scenario since it is similar to mine (more similar to it than to the missile theory, anyway). It depends on how you look at it. Once I measure the external damage and investigate some other things then I'll post my findings. But for now...

I'd still like to know where it is all supposed to be going. Is there a political or practical purpose beyond this vainly indulgent posting to web sites?

In so far as I have a purpose in this it would mainly be to save others from wasting as much time on it all as I did last year.



>> That statement was referring to witness accounts of the planes, not passenger remains.
> Whatever it may have meant to do, your statement referred to nothing apart from the context, i.e. the passengers' remains.

I would not have said something about witness accounts in a paragraph where I was talking about passenger remains. How would my statement even have applied to remains? I said "Am I contradicting them?", tbem referring to witnesses. Who do you think I was referring to?

Those who witnessed or took part in the collection of debris, plane parts and human remains.


> "I picked up a child's hand. That was it. Just a child's hand and that's when I got angry."

Well if it has been established that no children were in that area of the Pentagon, then yeah I guess it would mean something. I'd need to know how big the hand was to make sure it couldn't have been from a petite adult and he just assumed it was a child's hand.

Then I would but ask again, if you are not intending to call him a liar because of what then should you not trust to his judgement? I'd not have expected anybody to be so far off beam on that sort of thing.


But no I don't think passenger remains were planted, and no I don't think the guy was lying.

It would indeed be an extraordinary thing to lie about.


> I do not recall any account of a 20 passenger commuter jet to discount.

NBC 10pmET transcript
Unidentified Man #3: I saw what looked to be maybe a 20-passenger corporate jet, no markings on the side, coming in at a shallow angle like it was landing right into the side of the Pentagon. And then a huge fireball, perhaps five times the height of the Pentagon.

I'm not saying that's credible, I'm just saying the account exists.

Thanks. I wonder how far away the witness was. "no markings on the side" would possibly describe the military C130.


How long was the trail of smoke in the Pentagon pictures, do you think? According to ASCE, the plane was 320 ft away .42 seconds before impact and 100 to 110 ft away .10 seconds before impact. So it is fair to say "split second". People would have thought it was an AA plane, and AA planes don't fire missiles. But in the confusion many probably thought it hit the ground or the smoke was dust kicked up by the plane so low to the ground.

320 feet in .42 seconds works out to 519 mph. Most estimates were well below that. Washington Boulevard is around 720 feet from Pentagon along the flight trajectory. Even at the higher estimate of speed that works out at .945 seconds to cover the distance.

Maybe smoke was kicked up from the ground. I am not so sure that the alleged smoke was smoke. There is no smoke around there in the Steve Riskus pics taken soon afterwards. If there was smoke around there I'd think it most likely resulted from the port engine clipping the second lamp pole.



It's impossible to say for sure Hanjour was at the controls, because the government itself doesn't know. If you can rule out Hanjour being at the controls of what hit the Pentagon (and I think we pretty much did) then it is safe to say that we don't know who did.

Are you sure they don't know?


If you say, "I'm not repeating myself, I posted that somewhere else," I assume you know where you posted it. If not, just say so.

Seek and ye shall find. It sounds like you're bickering over this for the sake of it and I really do not have the time to back track.


Is it or was it the job of these professionals to determine what plane hit the building? Whose job is that?

Apart from the FBI, what about the underwriters? Aircraft are insured and airline operators must beware of claims from passengers' relatives. Or did you think they'd just shrug their shoulders and look the other way?


We're going in circles here; I'll make a new post after I do some more research.

You were going around in a circle to start off with. The B757 landing elsewhere thesis and the misile firing thesis have both been seen before.

[RH]

64. Sorry about the formatting failure.

Not sure what happened there. Hopefully you'll manage to sort out this from that. I'm getting tired again.

[crispy]

67. Just this

I will save us both time and not give a full response until I've researched this more.

For now I will respond to just this:

> I'd still like to know where it is all supposed to be going. Is there a political or practical purpose beyond this vainly indulgent posting to web sites? In so far as I have a purpose in this it would mainly be to save others from wasting as much time on it all as I did last year.

As I stated I am trying to discover the truth so I can disseminate it to as many people as possible. I began this many months ago when I started at the missile theory and kept chipping away at the claims and observations and purported facts until I arrived at where I am now. The way I see it, either my scenario is correct, or the 757 scenario is correct. I do not care which one ends up being true; I simply want to have thought through every side of the spectrum of the Pentagon incident so I can best destroy the arguments of people who believe something that is not true. If I end up "changing sides" to say that F77 did hit the Pentagon, I figure I will end up doing much what you are doing. But not before I rule this out.

The end goal is unification of the 9/11 skeptic scene with regard to the Pentagon incident, which would greatly help the skeptics' cause because this has been such a divisive issue since the beginning.

:grouphug:

[LARED]

27. To RH; definition of crazy

Continuing to do the same thing and expecting different results.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

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

[RH]

72. How sick it is

in a forum that would overtly appear to purport to be Democratic to repeatedly suffer the irritation of this sort of arbitrily whimisical censorship.

Please explain what was thought to be wrong with that message.

I shall otherwise never again waste my time on this unfortunate cess pit.

:hurts::hurts::hurts::hurts::hurts::hurts::hurts::hurts::hurts::hurts::hurts::hurts::hurts::hurts::hurts::hurts::hurts::hurts:

[DulceDecorum]

28. Nothing from nothing leaves nothing

If you search for AA 11 or AA 77 on different days, you will find that they were regularly scheduled flights
right up to Sept 10. AA 11 was scheduled daily from Logan to LA at 8.00, and AA 77 from Dulles to LA at
7.45. On Sept 11, they were not scheduled. Not cancelled. Just not scheduled.
On Sept 12, they re-appear in the schedule (obviously as cancelled for the next few days) up until Sept 20
when both flights change their numbers.

Thus the official figures from the Bureau of Transportation statistics indicate that neither AA 11 nor AA 77
flew on Sept, 11 2001. This solves the question of what happened to them. Nothing. Because the flights did
not exist. This is consistent with other evidence which shows that they were not the objects responsible for
the Pentagon and Nth WTC tower incidents.

This still leaves unanswered the question of what happened to the passengers alleged to be aboard the non
existent flights. In the case of AA 77, while one can always speculate about the most plausible scenarios, I
prefer to wait until some real evidence emerges. However in the case of AA 11, I think it is worth noting
that UA 175 left from the same airport, at the same time for the same destination as that normally applicable
to AA 11. Therefore, although there is no direct evidence to support the claim, it would seem reasonable to
speculate at this stage that any passengers who were regular fliers on AA 11, and asked to booked on it that
day, went to the airport, expecting to get on AA 11, as per the normal routine. They were then told that
there was a last minute problem with the flight which could not be fixed within a reasonable period of time,
and were offered a flight on UA 175 as compensation.

The data in this search indicates that we have been systematically lied to about the alleged flight paths and
hijacking sequence of AA 11 and AA 77, as well as the alleged phone calls made from the planes.

It also indicates probable complicity by American Airlines in the events of Sept 11 , 2001.
http://sydney.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=36354&group=webcast

[RH]

31. The data in question

is not possibly a proof of anything in view of

http://www.bts.gov/disclaimer.html

i.e.

"BTS makes no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the contents of this website and expressly disclaims liability for errors and omissions in the contents of this website. "

[DulceDecorum]

32. Oh dear

yet another case of "sloppy reporting" or eyewitnesses who cannot be trusted.....
What is a body to do?

[RH]

33. I would presume that

the decision to discount the four 9/11 flights was statistically motivated, to keep the record straight, to dodge the arrival data discrepancy that would otherwise result.

[MrMonk]

34. What are the data for other crashes?

If those flights are not reported, the lack of data supports your argument.

For example, look for a Flight 587 out of Kennedy on November 12, 2001.

[RH]

40. Indeed,

there would also appear to be no record of flight 587.

Well contributed, Rumpole!

:toast:

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

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