Where did Flight 77 hit the ground? Pictures please.

[soundfury]

HereÕs a quote from the Snopes site:

As eyewitnesses described and photographs demonstrate, the hijacked airliner dived so low as it approached the Pentagon that it actually hit the ground first, thereby dissipating much of the energy that might otherwise have caused more extensive damage to the building; nonetheless, as described by The New York Times, the plane still hit not "just the ground floor" but between the first and second floors:

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

Other "eyewitnesses" said the plane hit the ground before crashing into the Pentagon as well.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.32.html

So where are the skid marks, the damage, the evidence of where the plane hit the GROUND?

http://www.govsux.com/penta-lawn.htm

RH and others, please post pictures of where flight 77 hit the ground.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Some say the plane when right into the Pentagon ( like Snopes).

Some say it vaporized upon impact, either way, how did this
BIG shiny chunk of the plane escape with no sings of fire damage?

This piece looks cut out and dented but no fire damage or paint damage.

Not even a scratch, explain the physics of that.



This solider is looking towards the "impact point", notice the smoke at the top right hand corner
of this picture, notice the lack of plane debris on the lawn.



HereÕs another photo from the same point of view of the solider above.

Notice the lack of plane debris.



Now, hereÕs a photo from the other side. No plane debris either.

[trotsky]

1. Where are all the passengers from Flight 77?

Find them, and I'll give credence to the theory that it wasn't a plane that struck the Pentagon.

[BlueEyedSon]

5. OK, where are the Flight 77 BODIES in the pentagon debris?

[trotsky]

11. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

To believe that any human remains would be incinerated in a blazing-hot explosion doesn't require much suspension of disbelief.

That dozens of airplane passengers (not to mention the plane itself) have been hidden for the past three years, THAT needs a little bit of evidence.

[stickdog]

35. But I thought the remains of the passengers were postively identified.

How could that have happened if they were "incinerated"?

[trotsky]

37. Settle on the conspiracy theory for me, please.

Others claimed there were no bodies, I was addressing why at least some remains might not even be in a state to be collected. The fact is, there were bodies recovered. Not all of them were destroyed by the fire.

[geek tragedy]

38. Most bodies were discovered, for the record

http://urbanlegends.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.dcmilitary.com/army/stripe/6%5F48/national%5Fnews/12279%2D1.html

That's right--bodies from the flight were discovered at the Pentagon. Gee what a surprise.

That won't stop the CT'ers, though. They'll claim that the medical examiners were part of a coverup, or that somebody trucked the bodies in, or something like that.

[stickdog]

51. No, they'll ask why the hijackers weren't positively IDed as well.

Why do you keep setting up puny strawmen? Is that the only way you can win an argument?

[geek tragedy]

53. Next!

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/09/12/ar911.pentagon.funeral/

"The remains of the five hijackers were identified because they did not match DNA samples given by the victims' family members."

[stickdog]

64. Umm, that statement proves only that five bodies were NOT identified.

In my world, identifying <> not identifying.

What is the color of the sky in your world, geek?

[RH]

84. There is a difference

between positive identification whereby a body is identified as belonging to a particularly identified person and identification in terms of a body existing as being distinctly separate from other bodies.

Is that really so hard to understand?

[boxster]

21. Second paragraph....

http://www.wildlandfire.com/docs/pentagon.htm

Second paragraph under 9/15/2001.

"Our work area is 300 feet from the jetliner entrance hole. In the briefing we heard they are finding "bodies in bundles"."

Keep going.

"Sheared off columns, some twisted and skinned down to the skeleton core, human remains reduced to mere pieces of the whole"

Who are you going to believe? Someone with first-hand experience or a conspiracy theorist? The person who wrote this journal was quite obviously THERE.

Maybe you should ask her where the bodies are.

Some people simply amaze me.

[Warpy]

30. Scraps of metal from the tail assembly and rear part of the fuselage

would likely have shown little or now fire damage, but been reduced to shreds by the force of the impact (that explains that shot).

"The hole wasn't big enough," well DUH, the wall collapsed into it.

"Where did the wings go?" Well, try blasted to bits by the explosion. Some of the fuel is in those wings.

"Where are the bodies?" In little burnt pieces inside the building.

"Where did the engines go?" Try INSIDE the building.

A passenger airline was seen in DC airspace, flying low. One was missing and passengers aboard said it had been hijacked. People saw a large object traveling at a high rate of speed flying toward that wall of the Pentagon. There was a tremendous explosion followed by a partial collapse of that part of the building facade. Passenger airline parts were found both inside and outside the building.

There is nothing you can do to dissuade a conspiracy nut. Presenting the facts that contradict the elegant theory only makes one part of the conspiracy.

That Bushco was warned about all this stuff beforehand and allowed it to happen is conspiracy enough. It should appall all of us.

[stickdog]

36. This EVIDENCE was from the author's IMAGINATION!

http://www.wildlandfire.com/docs/pentagon.htm

The sights and sounds of this day have brought me to my knees. Words of the rescue workers go in my ears and are translated visually in my mind. Although I am not able to see the actual sights within the dark corridors and open cavities within the crash site, my mind sees the signs of the terrorist act. Sheared off columns, some twisted and skinned down to the skeleton core, human remains reduced to mere pieces of the whole, and the emergency workers whose faces tell the horrors of the task at hand. I feel for these people, I am driven by my desire to make a difference to these Heroes. Tonight I sat with Tim Stanton, the day structural specialist, documenting the progress of stabilizing the work area. Vertical shores make columns safe and T-shores brace sagging ceilings.

[boxster]

52. Try again.

"Words of the rescue workers go in my ears and are translated visually in my mind."

So, all of the rescue workers were lying, too?

Some conspiracy you have there.

You people are amazing.

[stickdog]

62. Try again? You present hearsay as eyewitness testimony and you tell

me to try again?

You are personally amazing, but, in contrast to you, I'll refrain from tarring "your people" with any broad "guilt by association" brushes.

[frylock]

12. worst. argument. ever.

yes, they are on a beach in Tahiti sipping daiquiris. I'd ask you the same thing. If a commercial airliner did hit the Pentagon, then were are the passengers?

[trotsky]

20. See my post #11.

Apart from that, there's a little concept called burden of proof. Flight 77 was hijacked (calls were made from the flight). Flight 77's path was tracked to the Pentagon, or at least very nearby. Explaining how that airplane was magically spirited away with all its passengers while some other object (plane/missile/etc.) took its place to strike the Pentagon requires a LOT more evidence than amateur photo analysis.

Sorry.

[soundfury]

23. Where did Flight 77 hit the ground? NT

[RH]

32. You were told before.

The port engine nacelle clipped the corner of a steam vault while the other engine slammed straight, full face into a 30 ton electricity generator and then into a tree behind it.

Look.

They're in the photos.

Or see Frank Probst's account with the diagram in page 13 of this:

http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf

[geek tragedy]

33. To make the obvious painfully so (for the OP):

The grass did not go all the way up to the edge of the building. The plane hit the ground between the grass and the building.

[stickdog]

41. Look at the figures 3.8 & 3.10 on page 14 pff (pages 16 & 17 numbered).

Look at the illustration in figure 3.10 first. Now see the van in figure 3.8? How did it escape damage from the approaching wing?

More critically, how the hell did a suicidal Hani Hanjour (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hanjour.html ) manage to fly the plane within 15 feet of the ground going 550 mph for at least the last 100 yards of his approach?

[RH]

45. The vehicles

were quite simply beyond the wing tip of plane. The wing tip at that point was in any case possibly detached or displaced because of the collisions with three lamp poles. The question has cropped up many times before. The photos are decptive because narrow angle lenses foreshorten the impression of distance.

If Hanjour did fly the plane then the peculiar trajectory is presumably precisly because he was a bad Pilot. A good pilot would never have attempted to fly so low so fast. There was certainly no need to fly in such a fashion to hit the Pentagon.

[stickdog]

49. Bullshit.

The vehicles were quite simply beyond the wing tip of plane.

Really. Then what busted up the Pentagon's first floor directly in front of the van?

If Hanjour did fly the plane then the peculiar trajectory is presumably precisly because he was a bad Pilot.

Uh, OK. So the fact that he hit a low target head on flying well over 500 mph proves he's a BAD PILOT? Is that also why he hit the newly renovated section that had fewer people inside and could best withstand the punishment?

And what would a good suicidal terrorist pilot have done differently -- except, of course, hit a less reinforced part of the Pentagon?

[RH]

55. The first floor

was certainly not busted up by a wing attached to the aircraft because the plane was tilted a few degrees over, with the wing on that side low. The wing on the other side did hit the wall and bust windows. Damage to the wall immediately above the entrance to corridor 4 exactly marked the spot where the starboard wing tip hit.

Possibly the first floor on the port side was hit by a wing tip detached from the aircraft in which case it may have passed above the parked vehicles.

I have explained the pole issue elsewhere. An accurately piloted object would presumably have flown directly from above the Navy Annex to the point of impact. It would thus have missed the lamp poles. To hit the lamp poles the plane dipped down, headed initially for a point well in front of the Pentagon before levelling off across the Pentagon lawn. That does not speak to me at all of a plane under accurate control.

[stickdog]

63. Sorry, but little of what you wrote makes sense.

The first floor was certainly not busted up by a wing attached to the aircraft because the plane was tilted a few degrees over, with the wing on that side low.

So the wing was too LOW to bust up the FIRST floor? Please elucidate this seemingly bizarre claim.

Possibly the first floor on the port side was hit by a wing tip detached from the aircraft in which case it may have passed above the parked vehicles.

So the wing detached from the plane, hit the ground, bounced over the van and then back down again just in time to hit the first floor with enough force to blast a big, visible hole in a newly and expertly reinforced building?

Just one question: How many eyewitnesses do you backing up that ridiculous yarn?

I have explained the pole issue elsewhere. An accurately piloted object would presumably have flown directly from above the Navy Annex to the point of impact. It would thus have missed the lamp poles. To hit the lamp poles the plane dipped down, headed initially for a point well in front of the Pentagon before levelling off across the Pentagon lawn. That does not speak to me at all of a plane under accurate control.

Exactly. The fact that the pilot hit the target head on with virtually no clearance at an unbelievable speed certainly proves he was an incompetently rank amateur to me. I mean, it's just like when the Blue Angels fly at incredible speeds in incredibly tight formations. Rank amateurs, one and all.

[RH]

82. I think we have a linguistic mix up

In Britain the first floor is the floor above the ground floor.

I don't know what this idea of a wing bouncing on the ground is supposed to be about. The wing tip would have detached itself after hitting three lamp poles.

I await an explanation of why the plane would or should have gone out its way to hit the poles.

How many lamp poles do your Blue Angels ever fly into?

:shrug:

[MrSammo1]

71. Rational

Please no rational thinking. It's more fun to live in La-La land where jets can fold their wings, and vaporize if they see fit!

[MercutioATC]

77. More rational

than a land where jets disappear into thin air and are replaced with nearly identical replicas without windows, equipped with completely unnecessary attachments like "pods" and "fuel sprayers" all under the watchful eye of various radar systems which don't record any of it.

[MrSammo1]

103. eye problem?

I've noticed you have a perception problem? Tell me? Do you actually beleive that a jet's wings and vertical stabilizer will fold? If so, what is this counter force that comes into play called?

[Bolo Boffin]

105. Inertia n/t

[MrSammo1]

114. Inertia

Is a wonderful thing. It proves the lie at the Pentagon perfectly.

[MercutioATC]

108. Metallurgy problem?

You DO understand that airplanes are made from very thin aluminum, don't you? Hell, birds and hail can dent them. Why is it difficult to believe would fold in a crash?

[MrSammo1]

109. But

It doesn't explain the hole too small for a jet to fit. Just look at the WTC? Nice slice! Twice!

[MercutioATC]

110. Have you read the ASCE report?

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

The American Society of Civil Engineers has published a report written by professional civil engineers who examined the site firsthand. The report explains the physics of the crash and how the plane made that hole.

The hole is not "too small". If, after reading the report, you disagree with its methodology, talk to me.

[MrSammo1]

112. Yes

Their report dealt with the wall in a collapsed state.

How many columns do you see damaged or knocked down on the pre-collapse wall?

[Bolo Boffin]

117. No

Their report dealt with the wall in a collapsed state.

The ASCE also dealt with the wall in its post-impact state, before the collapse. How you missed this when you read it is beyond me.

On the facade everything between column 8 and column 18 on the first floor is either gone or totalled. That would be nine columns out of commission.

http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33

That link has pictures of the pre-collapse wall that shows the true extent of the damage.

[MrSammo1]

119. All

You have to do is look at the Pre-collapse wall to see that a 757 didn't impact it. It's so obvious I'm surprised so many don't get it!

http://69.28.73.17/todaysshow/todaysshow.html

[MrSammo1]

113. Hmmmmm

Better look at the WTC marks again. That thin aluminum had no problem slicing through those steel box columns!

[MercutioATC]

115. Nothing was "sliced through".

The ASCE report explains how the damage to the columns was caused (a mass of jet fuel and debris moving at high velocity). Didn't you read it?

[MrSammo1]

118. But

They only list 8 columns as being impacted.

This is all meaningless anyway, because it's obvious that a 757 didn't impact the Pentagon.

http://69.28.73.17/todaysshow/todaysshow.html

[frylock]

25. see my post #19

<eom>

[stickdog]

39. 1) The only calls from Flight 77 were Barbara Olson's.

And she supposedly called the DOJ collect from an Air Phone. But you need a credit card just to begin calling from an Air Phone. Even if she had to borrow somebody's credit card under these circumstance, would she have really risked not getting through by trying to call collect? And can you even call collect from a phone that costs $2.50 a minute regardless of where you are calling?

2) Let's see that flight track please. Why hasn't this information been released to the American public? More to the point, why have my FOIA requests for all of the available flight tracking information of these four flights been denied?

[Bolo Boffin]

68. A flight attendant also made calls from Flight 77.

Her name was Renee May. Google away.

[RH]

85. Thanks for that

I recalled the story but couldn't remember the name.

[geek tragedy]

40. The bodies were found at the site.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.dcmilitary.com/army/stripe/6%5F48/national%5Fnews/12279%2D1.html

Can we now put this IDIOTIC discussion to bed? It is a matter of fact that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Those who refuse to accept that cannot be convinced by any amount of conclusive evidence.

[stickdog]

42. Were the bodies of the hijackers found? Were their remains positively IDed

as well?

Note that Saudi Arabia gives all of its citizens state of the art state sponsored medical care. So waht I want to know is DID WE MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO POSTIVELY ID THE CULPRITS AS WELL AS THE VICTIMS?

And so, what was the result? If not, why not?

[RH]

47. To posistively identify DNA

a forensic sample has to be matched to a sample from elsewhere that can in turn be positively identified. In the case of regular passengers that would not be so much of a problem. In the case of the hijackers where would positively identified DNA samples come from?

[stickdog]

50. Why would this be a bigger problem for Saudis than for the passengers?

As I said, the Saudis have free state run health care for all its citizens. You seem to be a little deaf on this point. And most of the hijackers were world travelers of some means. Surely, most if not all of the hijackers had seen dentists during their lives.

And why wouldn't the families of these putative hijackers -- most of whom believe their sons were victims -- want their deceased family members to be postively IDed as well? I mean, you've seen CSI haven't you? Do you think those guys wouldn't even ATTEMPT to positively ID the hijackers just because they were citizens of foreign countries?

Seriously. Did we even TRY to identify the reamins of the hijackers from Flights 77 & 93? If so, what became of this effort? If not, why the fuck not?

[RH]

56. The fact of the matter

as best I can gather is that nobody from the Middle East came forward with anything to help. On the contrary news stories appeared to the effect that nobody knew what to eventually do to dispose of the remains because nobody came forward to claim them.

If you have any actual evidence to contradict that please show it. The constant perpetration of imaginative assertion is tiresome.

To the best of my knowledge no health professional that I ever visited kept a tissue sample for permanentt reference.

When planning a long term suicide the philosophical need to consult a doctor would possibly thus be somewhat reduced and there are many people in the World, believe it or not, who never see a doctor anyway.

[stickdog]

65. The fact of the matter is that we never even TRIED to identify the

hijackers' remains. If you have any actual evidence to contradict this, please show it. Your constant perpetration of imaginative assertion is tiresome.

And when did I bring up tissue samples? I was referring to dental X-rays, although tissue samples are another, albeit less likely, possibility. Furthermore, I assume that you are aware of the fact that one's DNA is closely related to the DNA of one's closest relatives. Aren't you?

[MercutioATC]

78. Matching either dental records or DNA would require family cooperation

unless the U.S. Government already had dental x-rays or tissue samples.

Without those, all they could do is take samples (which they presumably did) but there's no way to even try to make an identification.

[RH]

87. I dont know anyway that

Dental X rays of some of the suspects were not available.

Is there anything to actually back this up or is it yet another unfounded imaginative presumption?

[RH]

86. How on Earth do you work this out?

How would do you exlude the remains of a hijacker from any forensic analysis before knowing which of the body parts belonged to who?

:shrug:

A touch of catch 22 there, don't you think?

[geek tragedy]

54. Answer for you:

The remains of the five hijackers were identified because they did not match DNA samples given by the victims' family members.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/09/12/ar911.pentagon.funeral/

I guess they didn't get DNA samples from the hijackers' families.

[stickdog]

66. What that says is that the remains of the hijackers were NOT identified.

What I'm asking is why the fuck not?

Are you trying to tell me that we just took no for answer? That we tried to do EVERYTHING possible to confirm if our guesses about the perpetrators' identities were correct but went ZERO FOR NINETEEN when it came to asking the hijackers' families if they wanted to positively ID their dear departed loved ones in exchange for granting them the remains for a proper Muslim burial? You do realize how important it is for even marginal Islamicists to give their loved ones Muslim burial a proper burial. Don't you?

Furthermore, may I remind you that WE WAGED WAR ON TWO ARAB COUNTRIES in response to 9/11? Yet you would have us believe that when it came to POSTIVELY IDENTIFYING THE ACTUAL CULPRITS, we just took no for an answer from the Arab countries in question? You do realize just how ridiculous this sounds. Don't you?

[MercutioATC]

79. What don't you understand about DNA matching?

hint: the key word is "matching"

Without a sample to compare it to, a DNA sample is useless for identification purposes.

[geek tragedy]

2. Brilliant!

The cartoonish voice boxes show just how unserious this entire issue is.

[jtb33]

3. Agreed...

This one is one of the more ridiculous "theories" about 9/11.

[impe]

73. Compared to

the plane breaking up in itsy bitsy pieces on impact but yet, strong enough to go through the e-ring?

what your pictures don't show would be the "normal" activity level of search and rescue teams, how
come no abulances...all your team can come up with is 1 firetruck fighting a fuel fire with water.

With National (Reagan Airport) only minutes away with specially trained fire and rescue teams...

You are the one who appears cartoonish!

[geek tragedy]

76. I'll take the word over the engineers who endorsed the official version

over anonymous internet posters with no expertise and flimsy excuses like that post. When it is a question of science and engineering, I'll believe the people who know about science and engineering, as opposed to people who post cartoons.

As far as that "only one firetruck fighting a fuel fire with water" remark--oy.

[impe]

116. Are you a NASA scientist?

[carlvs]

81. One Firetruck?!?

I see three - one regular, and two specialized units normally used in fighting aircraft fires (presumably from the nearby airport.) Also, it looks like these pictures were taken later in day, when most of the fire had already been extinguished (explaining why only one truck was spraying water.)

[soundfury]

4. I want pictures not insults and dismissals. Put up or shut up.

Put up or shut up.

[boxster]

7. Then, you might want to try posting some pictures that don't include

cartoon captions. The captions lead people to a) think you're being sarcastic and/or joking, and b) not take your post seriously.

[soundfury]

9. The captions are not mine, theyÕre from the website.

So, just ignore it and post the pictures of where flight 77 hit the ground.

[geek tragedy]

10. This issue has been discussed for three years now.

This nuttery about the Pentagon has been refuted so consistently and so frequently that a person claiming to have "new questions" about it has the same credibility of someone questioning whether the earth is round or flat.

It is viewed as unserious nuttery by people who think that 9/11 was caused by remote-control airplanes.

[soundfury]

14. I want pictures not insults and dismissals. Put up or shut up.

Where did Flight 77 hit the ground?

[geek tragedy]

15. Did you read the Debunking Thread two threads below this?

If that's not enough for you . . .

The people who believe the mainstream version rely on science, math, and expertise.

Those questioning it rely on (unsuccessfully) witty remarks, jokes, innuendoes, and cartoon boxes.

[soundfury]

18. I want pictures not insults and dismissals. Put up or shut up.

Where did Flight 77 hit the ground?

[DulceDecorum]

60. Re: Insults and dismisals

On this particular forum dearie,
you do not stand a real chance of getting much else.
Trust me on that one, babe,
I KNOW.

Now, I would very much like to answer your question,
and in fact I have been trying
FOR YEARS
to do just that.
And at the end of it all,
I have but two words to share with you:
WHERDY GO?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=3550&mesg_id=3550&page=

[MrSammo1]

70. none

You're not going to get any photos, that would prove BushCo lied!

[Norquist Nemesis]

6. I'm still torn on this one

I visited Washington in May and one of our sites included a visit to the Pentagon. We didn't have a canned tour. This was led by a J4 level office working in the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Counter Terrorism.

Anyway, he had just started this position one month before 9/11. The Pentagon has a 9/11 Memorial that is a room located at the point where the plane impacted. This was the first time he had been to the room, and he was describing to us what happened on that day. He said he was in the dentists office on the other side of the building. When the plane hit, they did not even know it at first. That's how solid that place is.

Once they were aware of it, he went to the area and they were helping wounded and trying to do what they could. He pointed out the window and told us that suitcases were strung all along the road to the point of the trees (had to be there to know which trees he was talking about but it was quite a distance). He also said after first responders were on scene, he went to the courtyard in the middle of the Pentagon and they spent all the rest of the day collection debris for evidence. Said there was a lot of it.

So why am I now convinced that a plane hit? This is a career military guy. Last month, he was starting a new assignment as defense attache in Bosnia. And more moving than anything...while he was relating that day to us, he choked up, tears welled up into his eyes, and he had to stop and held his head down for a couple of minutes while he regained control. It was powerful.

Now, what KIND of plane, I don't know. But I am convinced a plane hit.

[soundfury]

16. So where did the plane hit the ground?

There were "eyewitnesses" who saw it hit the ground.

[Yogi]

8. Have you seen this?

http://thepowerhour.com/press_release/press10.htm

Lots of questions. I wish someone would tell the truth.

[soundfury]

13. I wish someone in the media would ask this question.

Where did Flight 77 hit the ground?

[olddem43]

17. where is the plane debris from the WTC? -

Do we base our knowledge of what happened there on just the debris?
If so, it could just as well have been hit by a flying saucer.

[frylock]

19. how come we're only shown the stills from the guard kiosk?

I would venture to guess that there are more cameras than the one at the guard kiosk. We are talking about the Pentagon here; arguably one of the most secure buildings in the nation. You can't even walk the grounds of an average shopping mall without being recorded. And of course there is the video that was seized from the filling station immediatly after the incident. I would imagine there are shots from multiple angles that show "Flight 77" hitting the Pentagon. If they released a couple of stills from another one of these cameras, it would go a long way to dispelling any rumors regarding a missile hit.

[geek tragedy]

26. The people who think a missile hit the Pentagon

would dismiss it as a forgery. Or move on to remote control airplanes as a theory.

[stickdog]

44. Wrong. All we are asking for is basic evidence that we deserve to see.

After all we've been asked to support in the name of 9/11, how can you be against this?

[RH]

48. What did you do to deserve it?

Who in a position to supply any evidence did you ask?

Do you have a copy of any refusal to help?

[Slit Skirt]

58. Hey....be reasonable

the families have asked many, many times......so answer this....what are they hiding?

just release the videos from the pentagon area..
just release the black box audio tapes
why did they destroy the audio tapes in the FAA
why did they ship the steel of the twin towers to China, melting it down first
why are there transcripts of police officers and firemen who say bombs were going off in the towers....why were those same people slapped with a gag order
why have they gagged Sibel Edmonds and gagged the senators she spoke with
why didn't the commission investigate the high volume trading "put" options on airline stocks just prior to 9/11
why did the EPA lie to the workers saying the air was ok...when it wasn't
why are there witnesses that say they heard a missile fly by
why are there witnesses that say they smelled explosives directly after the hit
why did building 7 fall when it only had one small fire, it was not damaged by the initial attacks and Larry Silverstein even admitted that the building was "pulled"

all of the above is evidence. We have the most sophisticated intelligence agencies, criminal labs, and military....not only did they fail to protect us on 9/11...they failed to investigate properly

AND DAMN RIGHT...WE AS TAXPAYERS PAY FOR THOSE ASSHOLES SALARIES AND HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO KNOW WHY AND HAVE A RIGHT TO ASK QUESTIONS...YOU PEOPLE WHO DISMISS US AS "ALIEN BELIEVERS" forget that 3000 living human beings died and have families that miss them dearly....they have a right to know!!!

I could go on and on...here is the point:

the minutia you are all arguing is exactly what they want you to do....argue minutia...and you will never decisively win because a good majority of the evidence has been destroyed....

The key here is the PNAC documents, Northwoods, the war games that they practiced over and over. IT'S THEIR END GAME....AND THAT IS WHAT IS REALLY SCARY....

FOR SOME REASON YOU THINK BUSH'S POWER CAN CONTROL EVERYTHING COMING OUT OF THE MEDIA, BUT THEY COULD NOT ARRANGE A FEW WITNESSES TO CONFIRM THE OFFICIAL STORY.....SWIFT BOAT VETERANS RING A BELL?...AND BY NO MEANS AM I TRYING TO SAY THAT 9/11 AND swb ARE OF THE SAME IMPORTANCE OR COMPLEXITY...WHAT I AM TRYING TO SAY IS POWER BEGETS POWER AND MONEY BUYS A LOT OF THINGS.....DON'T BE SO NAIVE!

AND FOR ALL OF YOU WHO ARE COURAGEOUS ENOUGH TO ASK THESE QUESTIONS AND RUN THE RISK OF PEOPLE CALLING YOU CRAZY AND WACKO AS THEY HAVE ME IN THE PAST........START A GROUP IN YOUR AREA AND START INFORMING THEM (9/11 VISIBLILIY IS A GOOD PLACE TO START) we started with 4 our last gathering has over 200)..THAT IS THE ONLY WAY WE CAN GET THIS OUT INTO THE OPEN...SITTING HERE ARGUING WITH PEOPLE WHO INSULT YOU IS NOT ONLY A WASTE OF TIME AND INTELLIGENCE. BUT ALSO......PERHAPS THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT YOU TO DO ..WASTE YOUR TIME.

[RH]

88. why are there witnesses that say they smelled explosive?

I mailed Don Perkal, one of the witnesses at the Pentagon who spoke of cordite.

Soon enough I got a helpful reply, to explain himself, no problem.

It is therefore perfectly reasonable to wonder why others should not have been afforded a similar courtesy.

Is it perhaps because of the discourteous attitude that they themselves set out with?

:spank:

[Slit Skirt]

97. my response was attached to your thread

but it was aimed at all the du people who were being rude. It was that behavior that needs to be spanked. I was just coming to the aid of the person who was being ridiculed.

[stickdog]

67. I filed a FOIA request.

Doesn't that fly anymore? Or did 9/11 change EVERYTHING about that, too?

[RH]

89. and ....?

You filed to ..... and the result was ....?

[geek tragedy]

72. In the minds of reasonable people, the evidence is overwhelming.

Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. There is no rational explanation for all of the evidence that supports this.

The bodies of the passengers of Flight 77 being found at the Pentagon, by itself, destroys any alternate theories.

[stickdog]

43. My guess is so TPTB can hype the "NO PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON"

conspiracy theory as indicative of the entire 9/11 truth movement and then indisputably debunk it any time this movement reaches critical mass.

[On the Road]

22. Eyewitnesses Say Conflicting Things

Maybe these eyewitnesses were wrong about what they remembered seeing. The plane was awfully close to the ground, so any down-and-up movement might have been seen as a bounce.

I agree the plane didn't hit the ground, but so what? I've entertained a lot of questions about the Pentagon attack, but this isn't a particularly good argument. The one I still have trouble with is the video clip from the gas station which, if it's genuine, appears to show a much smaller plane.

[frylock]

27. not one (1) eyewitness has signed a sworn affidavit..

stating that they saw 77 hit the Pentagon. Not one.

[On the Road]

28. Why Would They Sign an Affadavit?

Was anyone put on the spot and refused? There are a number of eyewitnesses -- not all their reports agree. Typical of any sudden unexpected event that's difficult to interpret.

This just isn't a convincing line of argument. Take something essential about the event and present clear-cut contradictory evidence. This is what the "Find the Boeing" site did, and it's why it received a lot of attention.

[RH]

29. Which is not so much of a surprise,

for none of the witnesses who saw the object hit the building would have any way to positively identify the aircraft.

Somebody who would be in better position to positively identify the object has sworn an affidavit.

In an affidavit, T. Carter states that she went to the crash
site within 48 hours after the 757 hit the Pentagon, with her
mother, to give support to the crews retrieving bodies and
wreckage. Her visit could have been late in the day Sept. 11,
or on Sept. 12.
At the pentagon, she recognized the tail section of AA 77 that she had
flown on many times, as she walked past it. The tail was on the grass,
near the crash site. She went inside the pentagon and saw other parts of
this plane that she knew from her work. She saw many charred bones of
people, among the luggage. She saw more parts of the plane inside the
pentagon, and recognized them as parts of the plane that she used to fly
on.
T. Carter was shown photographs, a few days later, of the crash scene, and
identified the bracelet she had given her friend Rene, for her birthday,
on the charred arm bones of her friend. T. Carter has no doubts that
Flight 77 crashed into the pentagon on Sept. 11th.


http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html

[soundfury]

31. Eyewitness Accounts

http://www.delawareonline.com/newsjournal/local/2001/09/12terrorspreadsto.html

Gannett News Service employee Mary Ann Owens was stopped in traffic on the road that runs past the Pentagon, listening on the radio to the news of the World Trade Center attacks, when she heard a loud roar overhead and looked up as the plane barely cleared the highway.

"Instantly I knew what was happening, and I involuntarily ducked as the plane passed perhaps 50 to 75 feet above the roof of my car at great speed," Owens said. "The plane slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon. The impact was deafening. The fuselage hit the ground and blew up."

"The fuselage hit the ground and blew up"

Where is the ground damage?
-----------------------------------------

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/war/pentagon.htm

And this eyewitness is a pilot no less.

On Thursday, the 14th I reviewed the first five hours of taping on CNN. Eye-witness Tim Timmerman, a pilot who lives (or 'lived') on the 16th floor of an apartment in Arlington, Virginia overlooking the Pentagon says he saw it clearly. His is a corner apartment with a panoramic view. Timmerman told the CNN reporter:

"I saw a Bowing 757 coming down 395 right over the Columbian Pike. As it went by the Sheraton Hotel the pilot added power. I saw it hit right in front... it didn't appear to have crashed 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 and everything was engulfed in flames."

CNN: Are you sure it wasn't a 767?

"No! 757, no question. American Airlines. I saw the plane disintegrate and just blow up in a big ball of fire. The building didn't look very damaged initially. But I do see now looking out my window there's quite a chunk in it. I think the blessing here might have been that the airplane did... before it hit the building... hit the ground. A lot of energy might have gone that way."
-----------------------------------------

Again, Where is the ground damage?

[geek tragedy]

34. Two points:

1. The ground directly in front of the Pentagon was not covered by grass.

2. Linking to Nazi filth sites like sweetliberty is against DU rules. I also recommend that you stop reading such sites if you are really interested in the truth.

[stickdog]

46. Yes. Basically, eyewitness evidence SUCKS! That's the story of Flight 77.

And that's why it's so important to see ALL of the security camera evidence that is being suppressed.

[RH]

57. Suppressed?

Where is the evidence of this suppression?

Do you have a copy of an official refusal or any order to suppress?

Why does the eyewitness evidence SUCK? Is it just because it absolutely contradicts your position? I know of many of witness who went out of their way to be helpful.

[stickdog]

61. Everyone knows eyewitness evidence sucks. Ask any judge.

I'm not saying anything controversial. So please stop pretending otherwise. You do yourself no favors when you try to argue the inarguable.

Furthermore (unlike you, it appears) I'm simply looking for the TRUTH. We both happen to know that much better evidence exists. However, you're happy that we can't see it while I'm pissed off. What does that tell you about our respective agendas vis a vis the truth?

[geek tragedy]

74. Eyewitness evidence is used all the time in court.

And when you have a bunch of people all telling roughly the same story, the eyewitness testimony becomes much more credible. Especially when it corroborates the other evidence.

Flight 77 went off its flight path on a day where three other jets were hijacked and crashed on purpose.

A lot of people saw a big plane hit the Pentagon.

Pieces of a passenger airliner were found at the Pentagon.

The bodies of the passengers of Flight 77 were found at the Pentagon.

Case fucking closed. No jury or court in this country would find anything other than that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. No rational person disputes it to this day.

[el_gato]

24. Yeah, why has no footage ever been released?

The jury is still out on this one. It does seem awfully strange given the amount of constant surveillance in the area that no live footage has ever been released.

And if a big ass jetliner did hit the pentagon then why were there no marks showing where the wings would have impacted? The impact area was rather small comparatively speaking.

[Slit Skirt]

59. you know those are reasonable questions

and that's what we want to know.....someone to explain why the circumstantial evidence doesn't quite fit the official story....

[MrSammo1]

69. Firemen

Great photo of the firemen not doing their job. They must have been on a coffee break at the time.

I've seen more fire trucks at the local Subway's kitchen fire!

[impe]

75. Hahahahha

You've got that right. In one of the pictures at the top it looks like Rummy and his goon squad
are about to walk on some of that "plane" evidence.

[MrSammo1]

99. It's true!

About six months ago a Subway in Union NJ had a kitchen fire, there were 7 fire trucks there and a hook and ladder. But strangely only two and a half were at the Pentagon? For a fire that took 20 minutes to put out........but burned for seven days!

They must think we all drank the Kool-Aid, like the true believers in this forum?

[soundfury]

80. SO WHEREÕS THE PICTURE THAT SHOWS GROUND DAMAGE?

RH, donÕt tell me they're in the photos and then not post them up here.

I want pictures not diagrams.

Geek tragedy, you say the plane hit the ground between the grass and the building.

So there still must be a picture that shows the IMPACT to the ground.

Post it.

[geek tragedy]

83. Okay.

Does that look like damage to you?


Now can we agree that this particular issue has been resolved?

[soundfury]

90. In you picture, there is É

A small area of scorched earth with a fence still standing and a car half still intact.

I donÕt think thatÕs where the plane hit the ground.

Here is what real ground damage from an airplane crash looks like.

[geek tragedy]

91. You mean like this picture?

Please provide some scientific or other expertise-based analysis as to why this picture does not indicate a plane crash. Your personal conclusion is not evidence.

[MrSammo1]

100. No but?

It does clearly show that the upper windows weren't broken by a jet's vertical stabilizer!

[RH]

92. The damage is in the pictures already posted.

One end of the electricity generator is missing. The fence beside it also gave way. The steam vault wall is horizontally distorted with one corner of it broken off.

It is against the DU rules to steal bandwidth by posting images that are hosted on another website. Democratic Underground is a high-traffic website, so posting images from other sites may cause their server load to increase dramatically, and may it may cost the site owner money.

When people link to my site without asking first I am not at all happy, if only because I currently have no more web space to spare.

[geek tragedy]

93. Is there a way to link to pics directly

without using bandwidth?

[RH]

96. Not really.

Any image that gets onto your screen from the internet inevitably uses bandwidth and images in general, as compared to text, are a notoriously heavy proportion of the load. If an internet forum were to allow to upload to its own web space it would then be wide open to complaints of copyright abuse.

The other trouble with linking to a host site is the loss of control. The host may eventually use the very same address to house a different image, or he may just get rid of it, a circumstance from which misfortunate may arise.

There used to be some good pictures online, close up photos of the devastated electricity generator and the damaged fence in front of it. There were also some educative pictures of the damaged cable spools, but I've not recently managed to retrace my steps to find them, at least to link to the relevant pages. As the months go by some of the pages that used to be around are no longer active.

There were also some high resolution pics of the Pentagon lawn with small pieces of shiny metal visible. In the lower resolution images they're simply not to be seen because they're not big enough. If in dire need the photographers should still be around, somewhere.

[MercutioATC]

94. Actually, it's not "against the rules" to directly link,

it's just discouraged. Skinner's addressed the subject before.

[RH]

95. Yes it is.

Here's the rule:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html#copyright

[DulceDecorum]

98. And since when

do the rules count, RH?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/attacks.html
Since WHEN?

[carlvs]

101. Actually,

I think that the leeway given to those who attack the CTers gives this site a bit more credibility, because it indicates that the moderators also know BS when they see it... :7

[DulceDecorum]

111. The days of a thief

are forty.

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

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

[geek tragedy]

104. I've been called a Neocon and totalitarian by CT'ers for questioning

their accounts and their sourcs.

[MercutioATC]

106. You forgot "bushco supporter", "PR flack" and "shill".

...and I could go on...

[geek tragedy]

107. I was also called a Nazi, for objecting to someone's link to Nazi websites

CT logic--you gotta love it.

[demodewd]

122. Hey...CTer!!

I've never called you any such names and I am sure that the majority of people that hold positions contrary to yours haven't also. But you are a CTer yourself...and that is NOT namecalling. Your CT is just different than mine.

[demodewd]

121. OK.

OK. Teach. Should I raise my hand before I go to the bathroom?

[RH]

123. That would depend

on who owns the bathroom, and how full of shit you are.

[tngledwebb]

120. More flashes from the archives of oblivion

:kick:

[Abe Linkman]

124. Maybe that ASCE report explains the WHERDY GO questions, but ....

I don't think so. If it DID, then one of the customers here would be citing it, rather than remaining silent about the MUSH, the luggage, the body parts, the lack of 757 engines and all the rest.

"There wasn't a piece of the jet to be seen anywhere" Gen. Diehl

[RH]

125. Aircraft parts had indeed been diligently gathered

on the afternoon of 9/11.

Gen. Diehl had good reason to be proud of the job done.

There is really no need to be ignorant.

The fact is verifiable.

Anybody who was there will tell you so and what was seen.

[Abe Linkman]

126. Yes, we've all seen the photos & frankly, they have a very limited value

General Diehl had good reason to say: "There wasn't a piece of the jet to be seen anywhere".

Now, do you have any evidence or even news accounts of anyone at the Pentagon claiming to have seen a jet crash or a crashed jet?

Anybody who is as reasonable as you are, would certainly not be loathe to say exactly what they saw, but so far, YOU (and other OCT supporters)
have been unable to answer the most obvious WHERDY GO questions.

There is really no need to obfuscate any longer. The fact is verifiable.

Bring ME the dagger. I'll stab the cake. I'll slice the baloney. Else wherefore born.

[RH]

128. The accounts you refer to

were readily available early in 2002.

If only, just for once, to make a change, you were to bother to research the issue you'd also find no shortage of accounts of the clear up in the afternoon of 9/11.

[Abe Linkman]

129. In other words, what you are struggling to say is:

res ipsa loquitur

NO MUSH, NO 757 engines, NO luggage, NO body parts on the Pentalawn,
NO B757 crash at the Pentagon -- just as General Diehl said: "There wasn't a piece of the jet to be seen anywhere."

Wherdy Go?

[RH]

131. res ipsa loquitur

Exactly.

What I was struggling to say is that all too obviously you have no idea of what you are talking about. You were not there. You dont know what was or was not there. Your opinion on the matter is of no more use than a wet fart in a bucket.

What a complete waste of time.

[tngledwebb]

132. Where did you get your 'facts'?

News reports on TV or in print? Official reports or investigations?

[RH]

134. Web pages pages I published in 2002

provided a multitide of direct links or references, even to internet sources to provide further information about witnesses not directly relevant to 9/11/2001. Nothing was censored in that resect. I have also since commented previously on DU threads about some who responded to me directly by email. I do not though think it polite to say too much about personal correspondence. Some of them I know are especially averse to wasting time on CT people who all too obviously are not going to show respect in any case. In so far that people otherwise wish to express themselves in public there is nowadays hardly any shortage of opportunity to do.

Too bad then that you would seem to have preferred to take no notice. I most certainly have no intention now to go over any of it again just to make up for an unfortunate ignorance. There are too many other things to get on with.

A lot of good informatuon also arrived by the way from one particular person who used to post a lot to DU but has since dissasociated herself absolutely, sick to death of taking abuse in return for the work she put in. She had been in touch directly with ordinary people in Arlington and with some officers who were at the scene. Some photos were provided by a fire officer, information therfore that had not previously been online, albiet that some of it now is online. Before withdrawing she had intended to produce a CD ROM in order to provide everything that she'd collected so far.

If she now feels that it was all a waste of time, I can but agree. There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see.

[tngledwebb]

135. Yes, many remember seeing your site and hers.

But I wanted to know your PRIMARY sources of information. You read which newspapers or periodicals, watch what TV news, etc. In other words, in what way should anyone presume that you have a closer relationship with the 'truth', than anyone else on these forums? You can only be judged here by the tone and type of your posts and/or your links to other sources.

For example, are you personally acquainted with any 9/11 witnesses, onlookers, survivors, victims, military or media types? Have you asked for or received any unique information, through FOIA, or in any other fashion, re 9/11? If so, proof would be req'd, if not, it's level pegging, and your chronic dismissive 'CT' labeling and name calling speaks volumes about your 'character' and for your sake, should come to a speedy end.

Btw, the above applies to all OCT'ers as well as 9/11 skeptics.

[RH]

136. Where did I presume

to have a closer relationship with the truth?

Your undererstanding is disingenuously false. I never did anything other than to recommend to respect the opinions of those who did have a closer relationship with the truth, the people who were there to see for themselves.

Your personal approach is therefore absolutely impertinent. Their experience, hence their opinion in no way depends upon any relationship with me. So I am not going to be vain enough to be tempted to play that game, and in the mean time the sum total of their opinion is abundantly clear, is it not?

Those who were really keen enough to know the truth long since sought it for themselves from whatever primary source, but that's not what you are up to now, is it? You have no primary source to quote to support your fiction. You are rather on a fishing expedition for some shit with which to besmirchingly confuse the issue yet again.

[Abe Linkman]

137. Their responses ought to be very, very enlightening...

but in my opinion, they won't be. My prediction is that what we'll get is: NO response, evasions, suggestions that it's all been said before, the media doesn't lie, or the old standby: "why you hate America?".

[tngledwebb]

127. They gathered the parts they needed

in advance. Some were in storage, some they got from Rummy's chicken hawk war memorabilia collection.

Btw, since you keep mentioning it, but do you actually know anyone who was there? Or is that you 'only know what you read in the papers' as Will Rogers used to say?

[RH]

130. The veracity of news reports

is an issue as fatuous as your fiction about gathering parts in advance. It is easy enough instead to look up the addresses of people who were there. Talk for instance to Lagasse. He helped with the clear up of the aircraft debris that afternoon.

[tngledwebb]

133. Did you talk to Lagasse?

Or Rummy or Bush or Cheney or OBL, or anyone else that may have been involved? Or just read about it?

[RH]

138. Considerable correspondence from Lagasse

appeared in newsgroups and message boards because he had been in touch with somebody called Eastman.

What more would you want him to tell you?

Such people do turn up every now and then but they tend to go away again as soon as they realise that those who invited them would rather not listen, preferring to presume to tell them what happened.

[vincent_vega_lives]

139. Check this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x25278

I address this here.