If 9/11 was a hoax and the plane didn't crash into the Pentagon, then tell me:

[PinkTiger]

What happened,then? I've been reading a lot of stuff on "Scholar for 9/11 Truth" site (http://www.st911.org/), and I see a lot of questions and allegations. What happened, then, to Flight 77? What happened to the people on board? And what happened in Pennsylvania?

I believe evidence is there that we were not told the real story. I think the war games were planned and went ahead as planned, and that the war games is what hit the Pentagon, the World Trade Center, etc. What I don't understand is what happened to the people on those airplanes.

I find it horribly,horribly hard to believe, in my gut, that our nation's leaders, no matter how hungry for money and power, would do such a thing. And yet I believe it is possible.

Can anyone tell me what they think happened or point me to a web site that will shed light on this mystery?

Thanks.

[jgraz]

1. And we'll be moving on over to the 9/11 forum in 3-2-1...

[greyl]

2. :

The web is full of sites covering various conspiracy theories. Many seem well-researched, and appear to have plenty of detailed documentation to prove their claims. But are they really true?

We don’t know, but one good way to start is by checking a few claims for yourself. We tried that with a number of 9/11 sites, with surprising results. Many of the “facts” we read were distorted, or simply wrong. Quotes were routinely taken out of context. Relevant information was often ignored. And much of this could be discovered with a minimum of online research.

Whatever you believe about 9/11, the spreading of false claims helps no-one, and we’d like to play a small part in revealing some of them. We’re not about debunking entire conspiracies, then, but will use this site to zoom in on what we think are the more dubious stories, revealing the misquotes, the distortions, the inaccuracies that are so common online.

But does this make us an authority? No. If we’ve an overall message here, it’s check things for yourself. Don’t trust a site just because it’s telling you what you want to believe. Don’t believe us without evaluating our arguments and checking the references we provide, either (we’re as likely to make mistakes as anyone else). Look into the claims yourself, discover both sides of the argument, and make your own mind up. The truth deserves nothing less.
more

[KJF]

3. The Scholars aren't very good

And I don't recommend them, because they go for all sorts of outlandish things. These are two of the best:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project
This focuses on the non-physical evidence. I am a contributor.

http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html
This focuses on the physical evidence.

You also might like to check blogger for news. It's here:
http://www.911blogger.com/

[seatnineb]

4. Even by the FBI's admission...people go missing all the time.

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/kidnap/kidmiss.htm

Be honest....would you recognize Chuck Burlingham or Hani hanjour if they passed you on the street?

[dailykoff]

5. After six years of Enronization, it shouldn't be hard to believe.

Murder and mayhem come easily to this crowd, especially when there's a little profit, political advantage or personal payback involved. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan for instance.

As for flight 77, there are so many anomalies and irregularities I've lost track of them, but a commercial airliner certainly didn't hit the Pentagon. As for the lost passengers on the 9/11 flights, there weren't that many to begin with, and many or most had Pentagon connections, including the pilots. A few may have been collateral damage like the poor New Yorkers in the WTC. Note that the upper management all seemed to be absent that morning, except for a few inconveniently honest types.

[MervinFerd]

6. Hijacked airliners hit the towers AND the Pentagon.

This is proved as conclusively as it is possible for any public event to be proved. The "alternate" claims are analogous to claiming that John Kennedy was -strangled- and his body never found--they contradict plain facts witnessed by thousands of people.

The 911 "Truth" movement is a ragged collection of con-men, Neo-Nazis, Holocaust Deniers and Flying Saucer Freaks, with a liberal sprinkling of sub-clinical schizophrenics. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Democratic Party or Progressive politics. Stay away from it.

NO ALLEGATION ABOUT ANY -SPECIFIC- PERSON IS MADE.

[DoYouEverWonder]

7. Please present your conclusive evidence

because I certainly have not been able to find it.

[MervinFerd]

9. Please prove the Earth is Round.

It's an idiotic request.

You want "conclusive evidence" of obvious, established fact. I'm not going to play.

Kennedy was shot. A plane hit the Pentagon. Get over it.

[LARED]

11. The earth is round, but not a sphere

and I have a picture that offers conclusive proof



(This is of course an example of CT logic)

[MervinFerd]

12. The picture is FAKE.

As were the Apollo missions that the Official Moon Landing Theory -claims- took the picture.

Earth is flat and SQUARE. And if I knew how to post a picture I would give you a Mercator Projection Map to prove it.

[wildbilln864]

13. no as usuall you're wrong Merv.

It's possible to prove the earth is round! But you knew that right?
what obvious established fact are you speaking of?
You're not going to play? BS, you just did!
Get over yourself!

[MervinFerd]

16. So---if it is possible, PROVE the Earth is round!!!

If it's so easy.

The Standard Account is standard BECAUSE it is supported by the overwhelming preponderance of evidence and informed opinion. BY DEFINITION.

To claim that the universally accepted facts are not supported by any evidence at all is nonsense--like demanding proof that the city of Philadelphia is located in the United States, or that the Earth is round.

There is no good response to preposterous claims under forum rules.

[MervinFerd]

19. For that matter, prove Philadelphia is in the USA. nt

[savemefromdumbya]

30. planes were not hijacked

[HamdenRice]

8. Doesn't Katrina answer one of your questions?

You asked a question that is something of a threshhold question for a lot of people who don't believe the official story:

"I find it horribly,horribly hard to believe, in my gut, that our nation's leaders, no matter how hungry for money and power, would do such a thing. And yet I believe it is possible."

In other words, would the administration kill 3000 people and destroy several acres of lower Manhattan in order to get the justification for acquiring a huge share of the world's oil reserves in Iraq plus the billions in reconstruction contracts?

But in 2005, the administration did nothing for about a week after New Orleans was flooded. Estimates of the number of people who died range from 2,000 to 4,500. Doctors I have spoken to believe that the vast majority of the dead did not die in the storm or initial flooding, but of thirst, hunger, dehydration, lack of medicine, heat exhaustion, drinking foul water and other preventable reasons -- all the result of Bush's refusal to respond to the hurricane.

Why did they not respond? According to Newsweek, because Bush was on vacation and his staff were afraid to annoy him by telling him about the unfolding disaster.

So if the administration would kill 3,000 people just so that Bush could stay on vacation, why do you think they would not kill 3,000 for a trillion dollars worth of oil?

[MervinFerd]

10. The question is not -would- but -COULD-

The Bush Admin -might- do just about any nefarious deed we can think of.

BUT THEY DO NOT HAVE SUPERNATURAL POWERS.

The Truther "theories" are wildly impossible, needlessly complex and unsubstantiated nonsense.

There is enough -real- evil to hang on Bush. We don't need to obscure the view with bullshit Paranoid Conspiracy Theories.

[HamdenRice]

15. Completely, utterly bereft of logic

to say that the Bush administration would have to be omnipotent to carry out 9/11. After all, the official theory is that bin Laden and 19 hijackers carried out the attacks; so is it your theory that bin Laden has supernatural powers? Why would it require the Bush administration to have supernatural powers to assist bin Laden in carrying out 9/11, but it would not require supernatural powers for bin Laden and the hijackers to do it themselves?

There is a wealth of credible evidence that the Bush administration facilitated the attacks and the world is coming to the only logical conclusion. It seems that only a minority of dead-enders are sticking with the highly illogical official story.

Please explain how you can reconcile the official story with the fact that the hijackers' financier was sitting down for meetings in DC with the leadership of the defense and intelligence establishment in the days before 9/11.

[MervinFerd]

17. "Assisted" is possible; Impossible is Impossible.

How long has it been since the Truthers were claiming "assisted"??

We're now up to Invisible Planes and Star Wars Space Beams, fer Gawd sake!

Give me a plausible theory of "assisted", I will listen. Give me Romulan Disrupter Cannon, I will ridicule you.

As to a "wealth of credible evidence", its been presented over years and universally rejected. WHY IS THIS THREAD IN THE DUNGEON?

It's the Truther Movement that has reached the Dead End.

[HamdenRice]

37. Hip, hip hooray! MervinFerd is a LIHOPer???? But thinks Bush talks to God

You are willing to listen to theories of the Bush administration assisting in the 9/11 attacks? Doesn't that make you at least LIHOP or even assisted MIHOP?

I have not promoted no plane or space weapons theories, and it is disingenuous of you to tar me with that label.

By that standard and rhetorical device, I can ask you to explain why you think Bush has a personal conversational relationship with Jesus. After all, there are people who believe in the official story, as you do, who defend Bush as a man of God, and who believe that Bush actually talks to and gets direction from God. That means you must believe that Bush talks to God.

Here's the equation that you consistently use, and how it applies to you:

Some Truth movement activists believe in space weapons; you are a truth movement activist; therefore you believe in space weapons.

Some official conspiracy theorists believe Bush talks to God; you believe in the official conspiracy theory; therefore you believe Bush talks to God.

So first of all you need to defend your insane belief that Bush has a direct line to God. Then we can talk about the evidence of the administration's assistance of the 9/11 hijackers.

[MervinFerd]

42. LIHOP requires evidence. Which requires investigation, which will not happen

so long as there are nutcases talking about space weapons and controlled demolition.

What's irrefutably established are the basic facts--that airplanes were hijacked and crashed into buildings. Any sinister agency plotting 9/11 would deviate as little as possible from this basic story--every additional conspirator is a potential prosecution witness. Any theory LIHOP, MIHOP, or BUNNYHOP, that is to be taken seriously has to end with hijacked airliners crashing into buildings.

An analogy: John Kennedy was shot in the head and buried in Arlington Cemetery. There -might- have been additional guns or other players or whatever, but no Kennedy assassination theory claims that Kennedy was poisoned and his body buried in New Jersey. That would deny facts witnessed by hundreds or thousands of people and the proponents would be dismissed as nutcases. The 9/11 theories do essentially that. They claim that the events of 9/11 were stage-managed, faked and forged. They are not only ridiculous, but do severe damage to the credibility of Democrats and the Left. And provide an easy rhetorical cover for anybody who does not want a real investigation.

If you would listen to what us "OCTers" are actually saying, you will see that we have no love for Mr. Bush and no illusions about what the Government is capable of doing. But the Truthers operate outside the ordinary rules of evidence and inference. They rely on faulty logic, continually repeat evidence that has been refuted and -never- respond to criticism with rational defenses of their positions.

Tell me what you actually think and what evidence you think is -actually- valid and I (and I am sure other NWO shills) will be willing to discuss and debate in an open-minded way.

[wildbilln864]

14. We can't determine what happened...

as long as the administration is hiding the evidence and stonewalling any queries.
The people? Who knows for sure yet, but that doesn't change the fact that the Bush administration is covering something big up!

Here's an idea!
I notice that every plane involved was far below full capacity. 4 planes.
What if there were really only two planes? And the passenger lists were divided up to cover the other mythical planes. The war games were scheduled that day to help confuse and hide the facts. National security you know.
How? We'll never know unless we all demand a thorough independant investigation!
But two things are for sure! Two planes and some kerosene fire did not cause three skyscrapers to crumble completely to the ground that day! No way!
And the only ones who benefited from 911 happening are Bush and his cabal of war profiteers!
So if you believe the official conspiracy theory, OBL did them a huge favor! Just like "the new Pearl Harbor event they needed and mentioned here! Be sure to read the document there titled "Rebuilding America's Defenses".

Also look here.

[MervinFerd]

18. Your theory is ridiculous on its face.

What if there were "only two planes"? What there were ony ONE plane? Maybe there were ZERO planes! Maybe there were THOUSANDS!

Hell, I can make up ridiculous speculations all day, too.

Without doubt the Bush Admin is covering up -something-. But, you can be very sure its not a space-based laser beam or muscial jet-liners.

And all the world's structural engineers are quite convinced that collisions by planes and fires are -quite- sufficient to cause skyscrapers to collapse. Unless you are a structural engineer, your opinion is not worth a bucket of warm spit.

[Generarth]

20. Get over yourself Mervyn

you're sounding hysterical.

[MervinFerd]

21. Hysterical? Really?

That's pretty hard when talking to Truthers.

[dailykoff]

22. "all the world's structural engineers"?

You mean this guy, quoted by your new hero Alex Cockburn?

Herman Soifer, a retired structural engineer, summarize the collapse of Buildings 1 and 2 succinctly, in a letter to me, remarking that since he had followed the plans and engineering of the Towers during construction he was able to explain the collapses to his wife a few hours after the buildings went down. (sic)

It appears that Herm forgot to tell his wife about the core columns, but never mind, if Cockburn said it, it's da truth!

:rofl:

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11282006.html

[MervinFerd]

23. What has this to do with anything?

I don 't know this particular fellow or whether he told his wife about core columns.

But his reaction is pretty much same as the -other- thousands of competent professionals who have looked at these collapses.

THERE IS NO MYSTERY WHY THE TOWERS COLLAPSED. Period. End of story. Good Grief.

[dailykoff]

24. You neglected to name one, so I thought I'd help you out.

No charge. :)

[MervinFerd]

43. Unfortunately, I can't help you with a name from the other side.

Remarkable, really, that the Truther Movement cannot find even a single senile fool with an engineering degree to sign on to their theories.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[savemefromdumbya]

32. something will be revealed soon

[mirandapriestly]

33. You know I think you have something there because

I counted the people on "the flights" a few months ago and they added up to a full capacity 747, I think, I can't remember, but the number was the same capacity as one of the Boeing jets. Then Loose Change put that into their last movie.
I think there is some significance to the low number of passengers per flight. But what about the planes over the Atlantic? That's another mystery
Oh, and I wanted to add that was without the alleged "hijackers",which makes it even more interesting...

[PinkTiger]

25. Sorry, but all this bickering isn't helping.

I realize that some of the conspiracists are wacko. I know that some of what they say is erroneous. One thing I picked up on from the film Loose Change, was that the film questions cell phone calls made by people on the planes but never offers proof that the victims were using their own cellphones. They said they were using "Airphones,": which are satellite phones that do work in the planes.

However, the questions they have regarding the Pentagon crash (hole only so big, no plane debris matching the correct plane, etc.,) sounds plausible. I wonder, though, if that is true, and it is somehow true that the planes that crashed into the WTrade towers were NOT the hijacked jets, then what happened to them? And if they were not Islamic extremist terrorists, but people working as an inside job, and they WERE hijacked planes, since when do we have Kamikaze-type pilots on the payroll?

Using Ocams Razor as a guide, and supposing that the simple explanation is the correct one, I have always thought that the Bush regime simply used the terrorist plot to further their aims. However, it does seem strange, indeed, that things went down the way they did. Lots of questions. And the collapse of the towers does make one wonder.

Now, let's be reasonable and stop bickering. Let's look at answers. Please.

[dailykoff]

26. Occam's razor isn't going to help you much here.

Clandestine operations are by nature convoluted as they involve the construction of a false reality.

The fate of the passengers on the plane that didn't hit the pentagon is a good example of this. I can only speculate, but based on what is known, my guess is that they were brought to Ohio and either released or transferred onto the plane that was blown up over Pennsylvania.

[silvermachine]

49. Congratulations!!!!

<<<The fate of the passengers on the plane that didn't hit the pentagon is a good example of this. I can only speculate, but based on what is known, my guess is that they were brought to Ohio and either released or transferred onto the plane that was blown up over Pennsylvania.>>>

That wins the prize for the single most ridiculous and absurd statment that I have ever seen in any thread here at DU in all the years that I have been registered. Do you get paid to be this stupid or something??? I mean really....

[MervinFerd]

38. Occam's Chainsaw...

PT, if you are serious:
The plane crash into the Pentagon IS proved to the highest degree of certainty imaginable--
The plane and passengers are missing and there is no other plausible explanation for their whereabouts.
Hundreds of witnesses stuck in a traffic jam on the interstate SAW the plane crash.
Large parts of the plane and remains of nearly all the passengers were recovered (claims to the contrary are simply lies).
Hundreds of investigators and rescue workers swarmed the site soon after the crash, and believed they saw the crash of a jet.

The contrary claims have been refuted (here and elsewhere) to the point of barfing nausea. Google 911Myths or ScrewLooseChange, for examples.

The people who continue to spread this BS are either flat-ass crazy or con-men out to make a buck. Or, sometimes puerile fools imagining they are very smart.

[MervinFerd]

40. Occam's Giggle-Fit.

PT,
Again, assuming you are actually serious...

There's a test to apply to all Conspiracy Theories, Ghost Stories and Alien Abductions:

Figure out the Story/Theory of the Crime/Accusation that the "evidence" is -supposed- to prove. That should be easy, but usually is not. Consiracists -always- present their evidence, but will almost never present a coherent refutable actual theory.

NOW--

IF THE STORY WOULD CAUSE AN UNCONTROLLABLE GIGGLE-FIT IN A RETARDED FIFTH-GRADER, IT'S ALMOST CERTAINLY BULLSHIT.

Whatever the evidence might be.

So, go off figure out the crime the 9/11 Truthers are actually claiming happened. Write it down. If you can read it without bursting into uncontrollable laughter, you probably belong among them.

And below, you will find a link to the most effective sendup of 911 CTs to be found anywhere
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11818067/the_low_post_the_hopeless_stupidity_of_911_conspiracies/1

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[peanutbrittle]

28. Here's one train of thought on the subject......

Colonel Donn de Grand-Pre and Alex Jones:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/022904degrand.html

snip

AJ: All right, and again, we don't even do this justice to focus on one area. I mean we've got all the public officials being told not to go to New York, the insider trading by the CIA, the Bushes protecting the bin Ladens. Colonel, do you want to comment on that?

DGP: Well, what I was trying to get through here, John has done a beautiful job of laying it all out here on 911. What I want to carry away is that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs himself has agreed, there were no hijackers. There were no cell phone calls. Everybody aboard that aircraft, pilots and crew, were unconscious within 8 to 18 minutes after take-off. And you can take it from there. I've got it covered in books 2 and 3, what actually happened.

AJ: So, they're knocked out and then the remote control takes place and the rest is history.

DGP: Yeah, there was remote control and .. yes.

AJ: By the way, people don't believe they have that. Kennedy's oldest son, JFK's big brother, died in a chase plane with remote controlling in a bomber loaded with explosives as a drone in 1944.

DGP: That is correct.

AJ: So this very old technology, folks. And for people that are in total denial, it's ridiculous. Let's go ahead and talk to Wayne in Virginia. Wayne, thanks for holding, go ahead.

Wayne: Yes sir, thank you. I have a two-part question. The first part is Colonel..ah.

AJ: Donn de Grand-Pre

Wayne: de Grand-Pre. I'm sorry sir, I stumbled over your name. Could you play the instructor with us ground-pounders for a little while and tell us why, from an airmanship point of view, the maneuvers the aircraft performed were just inexplicable and bordering on the impossible from a pilot's point of view?

DGP: Yes, let me get that real quick for Wayne from Virginia. These planes were being piloted by remote control, probably an AWACs aircraft taking over that airplane or airplanes or drones, unmanned drones. And flying them at 5 and 8 G-force that no pilot could withstand. So, in short, and if you read books 2 and 3, you will discover how and why this came about.

Wayne: The second part of my question is after 911, our Congressman from down here, Randy Forbes spoke at a Veterans' Foreign Wars Hall about how close he was to the Bush and Rumsfeld cabal and how before 911 he had a briefing at the White House where they were told they were expecting something big from Afghanistan. And he also in his discussion, there were about 200 or 300 people there, it is recorded on film. And my notes are very clear on this. He also said they were following other aircraft out over the ocean. Do you have any knowledge of that? That is something that I have not heard discussed at all about 911.

DGP: No, but this comes under speculation now. And I'm telling you that we are knowledgeably speculating. Those aircraft carrying crew and passengers went over the Atlantic and that was all she wrote.



AJ: Yeah, you remote control the original planes out, then your loaded up drones attack. And the biggest and oldest newspaper in Spain just came out, three weeks ago, and they looked at the bottom of one of those jets and there's some type of giant belly attachment. It's clearly a modified aircraft.

Wayne: Can I ask one final question?

AJ: Yes.

Wayne: That your line of discussion here, the Colonel in the past few minutes, has just opened up. You said earlier that you expected when push comes to shove that this 70% of general and field grade officers are going to say that's it. Well the enterprise that we are discussing here of taking regularly scheduled civilian airlines out and ditching them in the ocean and putting in their places aerial bombs....

AJ: Yeah, that is push coming to shove.

Wayne: That is it. Why aren't these people coming forward now'

AJ: Let me say this. We know because, folks I don't want to give too much detail out. I've talked to lawyers. I've talked to them. We know hundreds of high level officers have leaked everything we are now learning about today. So, I think that this caught a lot of people unawares. Colonel, do you want to comment on that?

DGP: Well, the only thing I can say is that let's consider that second aircraft that hit the World Trade Center. It did have a control device on the belly of the 757. That aircraft was unmanned and went in and blew up as a diversion. And something else happened. This was a sideshow.


Anyone read Colonel Donn de Grand-Pre's books?

[Brainster]

48. Grand Pre Couldn't Work Up a Good Caboose

DGP: Well, the only thing I can say is that let's consider that second aircraft that hit the World Trade Center. It did have a control device on the belly of the 757. That aircraft was unmanned and went in and blew up as a diversion. And something else happened. This was a sideshow.

Gotta love these experts who don't even know what type of planes hit the WTC.

[savemefromdumbya]

29. the planes did not take off

the 'people' on the lists must therefore be alive or never existed or rounded up and killed. take your pick?

[Make7]

31. Which planes? ( n/t )

[Anarcho-Socialist]

41. Don't be taken in by the OCT

Is there any PROOF that the WTC actually existed? I've only seen pictures and video which would have obviously been faked by the Bushco-controlled media. I fail to see any evidence that buildings of that size could stand up according to scientific truth.

[rman]

34. if 9/11 was an inside job

Not a hoax, since "hoax" implies that it's not real. 9/11 was plenty real, the question is who did it and why.

So, if 9/11 was an inside job, that means the govt (or elements within the govt) has no reservations about killing US citizens. So there'd be no problem in disappearing people who supposedly were on that plane.
If that can be covered up, how hard would it be to make it seem as though a passenger plane did take of and crash into the Pentagon - and cover up the fact that there was no passenger plane to begin with.

If it was not a passenger plane, then something else caused the damage at the Pentagon. There are a number of options: explosives planted at the Pentagon, a small remote controlled plane (jet fighter) with explosive payload, a drone with explosive payload, a missile, or in fact a combination of the latter two: a cruise missile with a rocket assisted bunker buster missile as pay load:

AGM-86A ALCM - credit U.S. Air Force
http://www.softwar.net/agm86.html


WARHEAD - NUCLEAR W-80 NUCLEAR WARHEAD 250 KILOTON YIELD
CONVENTIONAL 1,000+ LB. FRAGMENTARY OR BUNKER
BUSTER WARHEAD WITH ROCKET ASSIST PENETRATION
RANGE - 750 MILES A VERSION
1,500 MILES B VERSION
WING SPAN - 9 FT. 5 IN. A VERSION
12 FT. B VERSION
LENGTH - 14 FT. A VERSION
20 FT. 9 IN. B VERSION
DIAMETER - 25 IN.
WEIGHT - 1,900 POUNDS A VERSION
2,825 POUNDS B VERSION
ENGINE - ONE F-107-WR-100 WILLIAMS TURBOFAN 600 LBS. THRUST
GUIDANCE - GPS, TERCOM AND IR/RADAR IMAGING SYSTEM WITH
ACCURACY OF +/- 1 METER
SPEED - CRUISE MACH .65 - TERMINAL MACH 1.1 B VERSION


"But what about the eyewitnesses, they all saw a passenger jet crashing into the Pentagon" you might say.

It turns out that eyewitness accounts of that event are contradictory. And virtually all of those claiming they saw a passenger plane turn out to be working for the Pentagon or for the media:

Based on the witness list assembled by French researcher Eric Bart
http://eric.bart.free.fr/iwpb/witness.html
...
"As it turns out, a substantial portion of the entries on the list are not witness accounts at all; instead, they fall into one of the following categories:"

* News reports that retell the official story without citing any specific witnesses.
* Statements by official government spokesmen who were not themselves witnesses to the attack.
* Hearsay accounts.
* Reports that have nothing to do with what did or did not hit the Pentagon (such as an air traffic control report, two seismic reports, a Navy report on treating blast injuries, a Federation of American Scientists report on blast effects, an engineer's report on the reinforcement work done on the Pentagon, and, most bizarrely, a Washington Post report on the creation of the Information Awareness Office).
* Accounts of rescue workers who tended to the wounded.
...
"After editing the Bart list to eliminate all the non-witnesses and all the irrelevant witnesses, what is left is, at most, 70 witnesses who claim to have seen something flying in the vicinity of, approaching, or actually crashing into, the Pentagon. So much for the endlessly cited "hundreds of witnesses"."
...
# Gary Bauer: Talking head and former Republican presidential candidate who has been linked to the notorious Project for a New American Century.
# Paul Begala: Democratic Party operative and nominally liberal punching bag on CNN's "Crossfire."
# Bobby Eberle: President and CEO of GOPUSA, a portal of right-wing propaganda.
# Mike Gerson: Director of George W. Bush's speech writing staff.
# Alfred Regnery: President of Regnery Publishing, another portal of right-wing propaganda -- one that has seen fit to bestow upon the world the literary stylings of Ann Coulter, the Swift Boat Veterans, and numerous other accomplished liars.
# Greta Van Susteren: Nominally liberal legal analyst for Fox News.
...
# Dennis Clem is a Deputy Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency.
# Penny Elgas sits on the FDIC Advisory Committee on Banking Policy, alongside of Jean Baker, who just happens to be the Chief of Staff at the Office of President George H.W. Bush.
# Albert Hemphill is a Lt. General with the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization.
# Captain (now Major) Lincoln Leibner is a communications officer for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
# Stephen McGraw is a former U.S. Department of Justice attorney reborn as an Opus Dei priest.
# Colonel Mitch Mitchell serves as a CBS News war spinner military consultant.
# Patty Murray is a United States Senator (D-Washington).
# Rick Renzi is a United States Congressman (R-Arizona).
# James Robbins is a contributor to National Review, a national security analyst, and a Senior Fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council
# 'm not sure exactly who Meseidy Rodriguez is, but his name appears in legal filings concerning Dick Cheney's top-secret energy policy meetings
# Vice Admiral Darb Ryan is the Chief of U.S. Naval Personnel.
# Elizabeth Smiley is an intelligence operations specialist with Civil Aviation Security at FAA headquarters -- which means that she is one of the people who inexplicably failed to perform their jobs on September 11, 2001, possibly because she was busy watching phantom jetliners crashing into the Pentagon.
# Brig. General Clyde A. Vaughn is the deputy director of military support to civil authorities
...
# Bob Dubill was the executive editor for USA Today.
# Mary Ann Owens was a journalist for Gannett.
# Richard Benedetto was a reporter for USA Today.
# Christopher Munsey was a reporter for Navy Times.
# Vin Narayanan was a reporter for USA Today.
# Joel Sucherman was a multimedia editor for USA Today.
# Mike Walter was a reporter for USA Today.
# Steve Anderson was the director of communications for USA Today.
# Fred Gaskins was the national editor for USA Today.
# Mark Faram was a reporter for Navy Times.

"Despite the dubious nature of Mr. Faram's account, he did at least provide us with some useful important information -- specifically, that USA Today and Navy Times are both part of the Gannett family of news outlets. Actually, if Faram weren't so modest, he would have noted that Gannett also publishes Air Force Times, Army Times, Marine Corp Times, Armed Forces Journal, Military Market, Military City, and Defense News. In other words, it's just your typical independent, civilian media organization."...

full article:
September 11, 2001 Revisited
ACT II: ADDENDUM 2
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr68e.html

video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6317630216235657870

[seatnineb]

35. Excellent post Rman ...very informative and concise n/t

[hack89]

36. So if I understand correctly...

a small remote controlled plane (jet fighter) with explosive payload, a drone with explosive payload, a missile, or in fact a combination of the latter two: a cruise missile with a rocket assisted bunker buster missile as pay load:

flew over a crowded freeway at rush hour and no one saw it? OK.


How would a bunker buster warhead account for all the external damage? They are designed to penetrate deep into a building before exploding. All you would see on the Pentagon wall is a small hole a couple of feet wide, not over a 100 feet of horizontal damage to the exterior wall with a 90 foot hole that would fit a 757 from engine to engine. Since the warhead would explode inside, with 360 degrees of damage, where is all the rubble that would have been blown outwards onto the lawn? Please show me any pictures showing wall being blown outwards?

[wildbilln864]

39. are you presuming there would be no outside damage!?

odd!

[hack89]

44. If you understood bunker buster warheads ..

you too would get it. These things are designed to penetrate nearly a hundred feet before exploding. Think what a damage a large, dense metal dart traveling at a high speed would do to a concrete wall and you will have the correct mental picture. There would be no external blast damage because there would be no external explosion.

[vincent_vega_lives]

46. a cruise missile with a rocket assisted bunker buster missile as pay load:

Please dont...its embarassing. :eyes:

[silvermachine]

47. That's a pathetic attempt...

...all those people are bought and paid off? Try some reality for a change.
There are many more people cited than in "researcher" Eric Bart's list. Gee. I wonder why he can't "refute" all of THESE people.

http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/JoeR/911_dump_of_Pentagon_quotes.html