Question to CTlers

[FannySS]

Hi CTlers,

I have a question to those of you who think a 757 did not hit the Pentagon.

Let´s have an "ex ante" view: the perpetrators are discussing how to attack the Pentagon.

Why should they consider to take something else than the 757?

Any idea?

Fanny

edit: to make the question more clear: Why should they consider to take something else than the 757, but tell afterwards, that it was a 757?

[damntexdem]

1. A 747 is bigger.

Of course, the 757 may have been more convenient.

By the way, this doesn't mean I'm one of the 'missle hit the Pentagon' true believers. I've just wondered why the hijackers didn't use at least one 747 -- that's what Clancy had hit the Capitol in his novel before 9/11.

[WoodrowFan]

2. a lot harder to hijack

747s have two decks, a LOT harder to control the passengers and crew.

Also consider, would it be harder to fly?

They're often used on international flights, would the security be tighter for an international flight and therefor be risker to try to hijack??

[TO Kid]

3. But fewer of them

The 757 and 767 have a common type rating so the hijackers only needed to use one simulator when training and there are lots of both these types in service. Also, as another poster here mentioned, the 747 is used mainly for overseas service while the 757 & 767 are commonplace for domestic flights.

[MrSammo1]

4. Missing

wing and vertical stabilizer marks are the tell. You can't cheat Newton's laws. No marks........no jet!

[FannySS]

5. You did not understand "ex ante" (nt)

[RH]

6. Marks were evident.

:eyes:

[tngledwebb]

7. Marks, yes, but of what ...

:shrug:?

We may never know.

But we ALL know what marks they were NOT , don't we?

[RH]

11. You have only to look.

The damage pattern exactly fits the sillhouete of a B757.

Across the top of the electricity generator you can even see where a flap track waing fairing scraped across the top of it.

Why else would a thirty ton vehicle move towards the building, with one end of it thus demolished if not because of the impact?

Do you have a better explanation for that?

None that I have yet seen.

[FannySS]

12. Generator

RH, I agree that the generator is another sign that it wasn´t a missile. One question:

Do you know what caused the scrach at the right off the door?
http://web.archive.org/web/20040214204701/

I cannot explain the cause of this scratch.

Fanny

[RH]

13. The visible dent at the top

would be from the flap track fairing impact, with the wing itself clearing the roof by just a few inches.

Is that what you mean?

The white patch would be firefighting foam.

[FannySS]

14. white patch

Arround the white patch there is a dent. And I still cannot understand, what caused this round dent on the right site of the generators door.

(I do not mean the scratch on the "roof" of the generator).

[tngledwebb]

21. Thanks for posting the picture.

Worth a thousand words.

[Abe Linkman]

23. Who told you that a missile hit the generator? n/t

n/t

[tngledwebb]

8. Well, the perps had planned it for years, with a lot of help and money.

Whatever explosives or missile they used was just sitting around the store room anyway. ( They always had a few extra for the SAM's on the roof.) So they only needed to crash one real plane in order to fool most of the radar and ATC that may have been watching, esp after the transponders were shut down. Plus even old Boeings cost money, and would give better value if recycled overseas for upcoming African ops-
Also, 757's, even when we shoot 'em down, don't exactly melt into thin air, thus the lack of bodies would especially apparent to any participating in the Pentagon exercises. Smoke, lots of smoke came in handy. And a good hard hit from the missile- straight through two rings.

But it had always been necessary to at least predicate real planes, primarily to convince the public that skyscrapers would actually collapse after plane crashes. ( The Nova documentary convinced the skeptical, for a little while anyway.)

And the big photogenic display in NYC for propaganda purposes was absolutely essential, and unimaginably successful.

[Abe Linkman]

9. What do you think the "cover story" would have been if it had failed?

"And the big photogenic display in NYC for propaganda purposes was absolutely essential, and unimaginably successful."

Surely, the perps had a cover story prepared, just in case the psy ops failed and the public saw how the trick was done. What do you think it might have been? I can imagine something as simple as: "Those cavemen almost succeeded in fooling us. Praise Jayzuss, our ever-alert carpet-owned librul media caught 'em in the act. Now, let's roll...on over to Afghannyland, Eyerackyland, Iranaland, Serialand, NorthKoldland,
and anywhere else that evildoers dwell...no matter HOW MUCH oil they have underneath their rugs."

[tngledwebb]

19. Had a long answer, but whatever their cover story...

They knew they had MSM complicity, and knew it would stick if MSM didn't show the actual WTC COLLAPSE photos over and over, just show the 'hits.'

And they wouldn't touch the Pentagon photos 'cept fot the ones the OCT'ers like to show- the smoky doctored ones. And they could pay f/t pros to plague the skeptics on the blogosphere.

And they have, as they are now doing with another big internet CT as seen upstairs.

[Abe Linkman]

22. Very good points. All of them. n/t

n/t

[NecessaryOnslaught]

24. welcome back Abe.

:hi:

[Abe Linkman]

26. Thanks. I never really died. I've been...

away, and I've been HERE all along, too. Watching, reading, laughing, and being amazed at how much fog has been lifted and how much effort is still be exerted to keep the truth hidden. Straight ahead.

[tngledwebb]

25. Thanks, you should have seen the long answer.

But others shouldn't. Welcome back.

[DulceDecorum]

10. WHY, in Gods name, would they attack the Pentagon?

What did they achieve by doing this?
And remember,
Bush himself was supposed to be landing on that same heliport
at noon that same day
AND
his schedule was readily available.

Why did they not simply wait a little bit?
And WHY did they not drop the plane into the center courtyard
which is inaccessible to fire engines?

These people wanted the US to react in a certain way.
The attacks were the trigger to something much much bigger.

FannySS,
have you any idea why
the 757 Penta-crash did not register AT ALL on any seismic records?
Most people seem to think that NOTHING SMACKED INTO THE GROUND.
Do you suppose that instead of studying under Lotfi Raissi,
Hani Hanjour was trained by Mohammed Ali
in the art of
floating like a butterfly and yet stinging like a bee?

[Sweet Pea]

16. BS Flag thrown

"And WHY did they not drop the plane into the center courtyard
which is inaccessible to fire engines?"

It IS? Bullsh*t. Page four of this PDF document: (http://www.army.mil/soldiers/oct2001/pdfs/attack2.pdf) has an image of not one but 2 full sized fire engine units in the center courtyard of the Pentagon. I just came up from the center courtyard and counted 32 vehicles there right now- everything from sedans to full sized trucks. Fire engines have no problems entering. Plus, this from a first-hand account of the scene:

"Passing through security, I entered the south entrance of the building. Smoke and black soot were everywhere, a cloud chocking
me as I passed through. I walked through the NATO corridor, the end of which I could not see through the smoke. But I was not
alone. Others were walking in alongside me, faces grim with determination. No one spoke, no one laughed. Only the echo of
footsteps on the ash-covered floors could be heard throughout. Passing through SECDEF corridor, the smoke cleared. I could see
through the windows into the inner courtyard, jokingly referred to as "Ground Zero." It was no longer a joke, but had become
reality. I stopped in my tracks and stared. Fire engines were in the courtyard. Smoke was still pouring off the roof, and fires
still burned on the opposite side. The grassy areas of the courtyard were being turned into makeshift morgues, body bags
covering the lawns under the trees laid out in rows like at the national cemetery not far away. They weren't full, but were
obviously ready for what the rescue crews would find in our building once the collapsed wreckage was cleared away."

http://teamhouse.tni.net/Freedom/accountofattack.html

I suppose he was lying, making up the image of "fire engines" in the courtyard when perhaps there weren't any there. And I suppose the image of the fire engines could have been photoshoppped. And that every other reference about fire engines being in the center courtyard of the Pentagon came from some Manchurian-candidate'd brainwashed government mouthpiece lackey. My experience, though, having worked here for the past 10 months and at various times over the last 5 years is that yes, fire engines can enter the center courtyard and do so for (obviously) real-world events or exercises. In addition, do you really think that there wouldn't be any fire-fighting capability in the courtyard? There are, as a matter of fact, numerous fire mains scattered around the perimeter as well as fire-main connections in

What else would a center court crash have done? Its the main smoking area for those of us who still partake, so I suppose a bunch of folks butt'n up would get mort'ed.

What else? Dominic's Hot Italian Sausage kiosk would be toast, I suppose, since it is the only vendor in the 5-acre spot.

And that is about it. No Super-Duper-Double-Secret-Squirrel counter-whatever elements in the courtyard - just a bunch of smokers and a Italian sausage kiosk.

"And WHY did they not drop the plane into the center courtyard
which is inaccessible to fire engines?"

With that logic WHY didn't they drop the plane into Crystal City or downtown Washington or Bethesda or Fairfax or Baltimore or Mount Vernon or the Capital or Potomac Mills Mall or some other place that could have guaranteed significant casualties?

They wanted to hit the Pentagon - the biggest and most visible image of the American military. That fact is as stark as can be.

[WoodrowFan]

17. welcome to the DU

welcome to the DU. :hi: Please don't let the tinfoil hat types freak you out, they're a loud minority here in DU-land. The other discussion groups here tend to be saner. (but avoid the I?P group unless you have a flame-retardant suit with at least an SF10 rating!!)

[tngledwebb]

18. Welcome. And please

don't let the numerous and similar-minded OCT types prevent you from quoting official reports as evidence, the skeptics scoff but Bush at least has picked up the challenge on terror- seen what he did to those 100,000 Iraqis and those jd terrorists at Gitmo? Even Kerry'd have trouble matching that record. Yes, too bad we lost due to morality issues, but moving on now, next time we'll do better.

Bit curious about which part of the official 9/11 story might still disturb your sleep? Anything at all? Or have your fears of terrorist attacks been ameliorated after four years of Homeland Security guided by the beefy paw of that intellectual giant Tom Ridge?

Personally I am less afraid than ever of OBL and his boys. Still wish Kerry had won though.You too?

[Sweet Pea]

27. I'm a Dean man myself!

Wish he had won the nomination - just hafta love the fire-plug persona of the guy. Kerry never turned me on, to be honest - not in the least.

What part of the "official" 9/11 story might still disturb my sleep? My tin-foil hat doesn't fit anymore. I saw television (live) images of the second aircraft flying into the WTC - not holograms or some other CT theorized things. I saw the fire-ball/smoke plume from the Pentagon immediately after the impact from my 10th floor perspective over in Crystal City, a mile away. 20 minutes later as I was driving towards the 14th street bridge to pick up my wife who was walking from the Reagan Building near the Mall I saw a billion minute sparkles in the sky - aluminum particles reflecting the sunlight. I drove past the Pentagon 5 minutes later on I-395, and we slowed down to look at the activity going on below us. As an (former) aviator I have seen crash sites where nothing bigger than a teacup (besides titanium fuel tanks or engine remnants or landing gear struts) remained. I do not find it hard to imagine that a pressurized aluminum tube with soft, pink bodies inside surrounded by jet-A fuel, when hitting a kevlar/steel reinforced concrete office building at 400 knots (or however fast the thing was going), disintegrates into near-total obliteration - with the exception of a few identifiable aircraft parts and nothing but remnants of bodies. I have full faith in the hundreds of witnesses who saw an *757*, in a slight descending flight path, between the Navy Annex and the buildings the other side of I-395 from the Annex, impact the Pentagon.

Setting whacked-out conspiracy theories aside, I have no problem reconciling what I have seen/what I saw and what is purported to have happened.

Sorry if you are looking for another conspiracy theorist.

[demodewd]

28. re: rebuttal to Sweet Pea

I saw television (live) images of the second aircraft flying into the WTC - not holograms or some other CT theorized things.

You saw a plane plow into a building going 550 mph. That gives evidence to nothing in itself.Slow it down frame by frame...what do you see?

saw a billion minute sparkles in the sky - aluminum particles reflecting the sunlight.

Aluminum particles from what plane...flight 77? How would you know from that that it was flight 77?

I do not find it hard to imagine that a pressurized aluminum tube with soft, pink bodies inside surrounded by jet-A fuel, when hitting a kevlar/steel reinforced concrete office building at 400 knots (or however fast the thing was going), disintegrates into near-total obliteration -

If true how do you explain the large hole penetrating into the A-C drive ,three rings away from the point of impact with little trace of smoke damage?

with the exception of a few identifiable aircraft parts and nothing but remnants of bodies.

Where are these "body parts"? According to you the plane disintegrates nearly completely upon impact (right?)but there are no reported body parts spewed over the Pentalawn area?

Sorry if you are looking for another conspiracy theorist.

You are a conspiracy theorist. Your conspiracy theory "reflects" the one dished out by our criminal government.

[vincent_vega_lives]

60. Explain to me

How "body parts spewed over the Pentalawn area" would happen? I have constantly seen it refered to as proof of a sinister plot but have yet to have seen a post explaining why this should have happened.

Anything that knows anything about inertia wouldnt see this as strange.

[tngledwebb]

31. Dean Jimmy, or Dean James or Dean Howard,

all ancient history now alas. But interesting that you are one of our few eyewitnesses to the Pentagon crash, and have relevant expertise as a former aviator. So how do you think it happened that the greatest military force in history failed so utterly and miserably on that particular day to protect innocent civilians, and especially inside the Pentagon, after what would appear to be a good half hour of advance warnings?
Wouldn't you like to see some heads roll, or at least a semblance of accountability, or are you satisfied with the BushCo appointed comittee's reports?

Btw, I also watched television throughout that day and after, and have friends and relatives who were also eyewitnesses, plus a few more distant acquaintances who almost lost their lives in the WTC. Small world, isn't it?

[Old and In the Way]

36. Question for you

Did the 9/11 Commission get to see the gas station tape that had a clear view to the Pentagon crash?

Why, after 3 years, won't they release it to the public? We've all seen 175, it's not like it would offend sensibilities (hell, we aren't particularly outraged with killing 100,000 Iraqi's, so a plane crash shouldn't shake us up). And the Pentagon did release those security cam frames which showed the crash, but not in any detail to really understand what it was. Seems that releasing the gas station tapes would clear up any question and put the CT case to rest permanently.

What would possibly be the motivation not to show irrefutable proof?

[RH]

39. No, the Pentagon did not

release those security cam frames.

That was not an official release.

I have not yet seen the source identified.

The material was presumably in the hands of the FBI, as seized evidence, not in the hands of the Pentagon in any case.

I dont see why releasing gas station tapes would clear up anything that is not already abundantly clear. There were hundreds of witnesses. What more do you expect to discover?

If you've not seen any tapes how do you possibly know what they would or would not clear up? Security cameras do not usually point at the sky.

[Old and In the Way]

41. Actually, they'd clear up quite a bit I think.

I've seen pics of the gas station and it would appear to have had a clear field to the Pentagon.

If this would provide irrefutable proof and stop the speculation, I'd think you too would want to see it released. Your work here would then be done.

[Abe Linkman]

43. Almost as good as having irrefutable proof...that the OCT is a fairy tale

"Your work here would then be done."

[jimfromthebronx10469]

62. i disagree sweet pea..

having viewed the time lapse photo's released by the FBI/pentagon it shows an object,then fireball,my question to you is,keep in mind just 100 or so yards from the pentagon crash site is a 7/11 which had its surveillance camera's pointing directly at the pentagon.minutes after the crash the FBI showed up at the 7/11 confiscating the video-tape.question,why doesn't bush allow the public to see exactly what happened on sept.11.....:smoke: :tinfoilhat:

[Abe Linkman]

63. And, did you notice how casually that account ignored certain things....

like the huge jet engines a B757 has? You believe THOSE turned into part of that confetti "sweet"? mentioned is his melodramatic account of his alleged activities on 9/11?

His Conspiracy Theory has to be very malleable, and you won't likely ever get a straightforward explanation of the alleged plane crash at the Pentagon. Was it level, nose up, nose down, 10 feet off the ground? What? The reason their Conspiracy Theory changes is because no matter which version they give, it can't possibly be supported by all of the available evidence. Stick around. You'll see what I'm talking about.
In one version, at least ONE of the engines would have become dislocated from the aircraft and would have been seen in the photos taken just a couple minutes after the alleged crash. None of the Official Conspiracy versions can hold up, because all of the Official Conspiracy versions are a lie.

[MercutioATC]

65. I thought the pictures taken right after the crash showed "planted" debris

Abe...

First you say that pictures taken right after the crash don't represent the real story because they include "planted" debris.

Then you say that pictures taken right after the crash are accurate, because they don't show an engine.


Which is it?

[Abe Linkman]

72. Pictures don't show 757 engine & therefore FL 77 wasn't there.

Why are you trying to change the issue, M-ATC?

[MercutioATC]

87. So a crash didn't happen if no wings or engines were left intact?

Sweet Pea was good enough to post these links before. I don't see wings or engines. Did these crashes never happen?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=25569#27013

[Abe Linkman]

91. If no wings or 757 engines were found at the Pentagon, no FL 77 crash.

Ghost wings and ghost 757 engines don't count.

Rumsfeld said that a missile struck the building. And, if FL 77 had left Dulles with missiles under its wings, don't you think lots of people would have seen them?

Besides, there was no such flight 77 from Dulles even scheduled for 9/11.

[MercutioATC]

92. I take it that you disbelieve the crashes in Sweet Pea's links too, then.

No wings...no engines...no crash, right?

So tell me, what ARE those pictures of?

[MercutioATC]

64. A question, Jim...

How do you know that the 7/11 cameras were pointed directly at the Pentagon or that, at that distance, they would have shown anything pertinent?

If I were attacking the "security camera" angle, I'd question what was on the Pentagon cameras before I went nuts about a gas station security cam hundreds of yards away that may or may not have been pointed at the Pentagon.

[jimfromthebronx10469]

66. merc..

the fact that the fbi confiscated that video-tape from the 7/11 speaks volumns.the point, being a clip of that video depicting the actual low level commercial jet crashing into the pentagon would help douse these conspiracy theories.when the pentagon released those 5 time-lapse photo's with the wrong date no less i couldnt determine what crashed into the pentagon.the 7/11 operator claimed that particular camera pointed towards the pentagon..
merc..thanks for the feedback i'm new in this underground:toast: :think:

[MercutioATC]

67. Welcome, Jim!

I, too, would like to see all of the evidence.

My point was that the FBI confiscated tapes from all of the security cameras in the area. This gas station was one of many.

In addition, I'd assume that an outdoor security camera fould be pointed at (and focused on) the pumps. I'd also assume that it was not of the highest quality.

It might very well have shown what hit the Pentagon. However, it might very well not have. The confiscation issue isn't really an issue at all...a lot of tapes were confiscated and not released.

[Abe Linkman]

74. Right. Sure, M-atc. Evidence isn't important if it might expose truth.

Suppress evidence? Corrupt cops do that all the time. Why do you think it's a good idea to suppress evidence that is certain to be relevant?

[MercutioATC]

76. I didn't say it was a "good idea". In fact, I said I'd like to see it too

However, I think the Pentagon cameras have a very good chance of having recorded what really happened while the "pump cam" from a long way away way very well not have.

I just don't understand why there's such an outcry to see the tape from this one specific camera. Wouldn't it make more sense to want tapes from cameras at the scene?

[tngledwebb]

68. There are likely to have been a dozen security cameras

on the Pentagon that would have picked up the 'Boeing'. There were probably dozens more, at least, near the P-gon, and those tapes, if not destoyed or confiscated, would be be revelatory. Where are they? Question for Merc- how many security cams are there are in Cleveland airport vicinity, or inside the building. Take a guess..

[MercutioATC]

70. Exactly. Why obscess about one from a gas station?

I've never denied that the truth is most likely on one of those security tapes. However, none of them have been released. Unfortunately, this is SOP for government investigations.

I don't think that the fact that the tapes haven't been released has anything to do with what they showed. I'm sure there are tapes that showed absolutely nothing and they haven't been released either. None of the tapes are being released. Period.

If I WERE to fucus on tapes that probably showed something, I'd bet on the Pentagon security cameras before a "pump cam" at a gas station hundreds of yards away.

I have no idea how many security cameras are at Hopkins. I don't even know how many are at MY facility.

[Abe Linkman]

75. There are likely to be people who try & justify suppressing evidence, too.

Some of them might even claim they are here for the same reason you and I are: to learn what really happened on 9/11. But, when those same people try to justify keeping evidence suppressed, it certainly raises questions about their real agenda. No matter how curious their line of work and location of WHERE they claim they work.

[MercutioATC]

79. Like I've offered before, Abe...I'll prove my employment

if you'll prove yours (of course, a stated profession would help, too).

Want proof? Just ask.

[Abe Linkman]

81. Asking.

But, no vague dancing, merc. If it isn't verifiable, it isn't true.

[MercutioATC]

85. Ask away.

Tell me how you'd like me to prove it and I'll endeavor to do so.

You're reciprocating, right?

[LARED]

88. You're reciprocating, right?

Dawg, I'd pay to see that happen.

Merry Christmas

[MercutioATC]

90. Merry Christmas, LARED.

:hi:

I'm willing if he is. I'll try to provide whatever proof he asks for (hell, I'll try to work out a tour if he wants to stop by).

In return, all I want is for him to furnish the same proof of his occupation and qualifications that he asks me for. I won't even make up any questions of my own.


We'll see what happens.

[Abe Linkman]

73. The cameras wouldn't have been confiscated if they didn't show anything.

That's the only logical explanation, M-ATC. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

[MercutioATC]

78. So the FBI watched the tapes before they confiscated them?

That's just silly, Abe.

The FBI confiscated tapes from security cameras in the area to see what they showed. I doubt they sat in a mini-mart and watched tapes before they decided what to do with them.

[Abe Linkman]

82. They won't release the tapes, because FL 77 didn't crash, silly.

And, you know it. What's really silly is someone who is pretending to be an objective seeker of the truth about what really happened, yet acts more like a Truth Suppressor.

[MercutioATC]

84. Whatever makes you happy, Abe.

I've explained my position on this.

Speaking of being "objective"...at least I don't just discard evidence that doesn't fit my beliefs by claiming it's "planted".

Let's see...

The DNA was "planted"

The debris at the Pentagon was "planted"

The black boxes were "planted"

...have I missed anything?

[Abe Linkman]

94. It doesn't make ME happy to know that 9/11 was a self-attack.

Are you one of those people who is ignorant of the truth about Pearl Harbor? The difference between P.H. and 9/11 is that P.H. was more LIHOP than MIHOP. The U.S. lured Japan into striking us by implementing the blockades which had the effect of strangling its economy. On December 6,1941, FDR was shown a 12 page transcript of an intercepted, "purple code" message from Imperial Japan to its Ambassador in Washington. The message included the phrase "East wind, with rain". The Australian Intelligence department had already tried in vain to alert top Washington officials of Japanese warships steaming East towards Hawaii some days earlier. When FDR finished reading the intercepted message which directed the Japanese Ambassador to advise the U.S. Gov't that Japan was immediately breaking diplomatic relations with the U.S., FDR looked up and said: "This means war." But, FDR did NOT alert military commanders in Hawaii of what he (FDR) knew would be an attack on P.H. very, very soon. Top U.S. Military officials remained in the White House that night awaiting news of the impending attack on P.H. that would give the U.S. the excuse it needed to go to war.

The excuse that FDR gave for not alerting the military in Hawaii is that he "thought the intercepted message" was part of a GOP trick to ruin him politically. In other words, he claimed he didn't believe the transcript was genuine.

The excuse that the top Military brass gave for not alerting Hawaii commanders of the impending attack was "concern that they wouldn't pay any attention to it anyhow, because there had been so many prior conflicting predictions about an impending attack on Pearl Harbor".

Nothing changes. ALL Governments lie. And they're all run by human beings, who are fully capable of treachery, butchery, and savagery.

Ironic, isn't it, that Poppy Bush spent the night of 9/10 in the White House...just like those Generals spent the night before P.H. was attacked, in the White House.

It doesn't make ME happy that our Gov't wasn't smart enough and honorable enough to figure out a way to avoid the "necessity" of having to cook-up such a deadly self-attack as 9/11. The cost has and will continue to be extraordinary, in every way.

[MercutioATC]

95. A lot of people aren't happy "knowing" there's a literal Hell, either.

It's their CHOICE to believe in one, however, so I think they're kind of getting what they deserve.

That said, my understanding of the events leading up to Pearl Harbor are slightly different, but I'll freely admit that I'm not an expert.

[Abe Linkman]

98. Well, I'd be interested in knowing both your knowledge of the facts...

and your "understanding" of the events leading up to the attack on Pearl Harbor, and how that situation differs from 9/11.

Hurry up, and tell us.

[MercutioATC]

99. Pearl Harbor? As I said, not much.

I do understand, however, that FDR initially believed that the Philipines had been attacked when he first heard the report.

HawkerHurricane is a much better resource than I.

[Abe Linkman]

101. "not much" is very much...accurate. Remember what that other Abe said:

"It is better to remain silent and thought a fool, than to speak up and remove all doubt." (Abe L., from Springfield)

[MercutioATC]

103. Sort of like you trying to comment on ATC issues?

...or other subjects outside your scope of experience...

:eyes:

[Abe Linkman]

104. Right. That's why I don't comment on ATC "issues".

n/t

[MercutioATC]

105. Did you read the body of my post?

"...or other subjects outside your scope of experience..."

'nuff said.

[Abe Linkman]

107. Scope of experience may help inform knowledge & opinion.

What is the point you are trying to make?

[MercutioATC]

108. My point is that you've posted ZERO qualifications on this board

while spouting theories at a dizzying rate (all the while attempting to convince people of your reasoning skills).

Yet, you're quick to attack somebody else when they freely admit that a given subject is outside their knowlege base.


It's occurred to me that I've NEVER seen you admit that a given subject was beyond you. I simply find that interesting...

[Abe Linkman]

113. That's nothing. You've said you're in ATC, but you either don't know...

what you're talking about half the time, or just think you do. Either way, none of it is anything but illogical, contradictory theories and half-truths that don't add up to even a reasonable case for the validity of the Conspiracy Theory you are here to sell.

[MercutioATC]

116. I've offered to prove that I'm an ATC, Abe...

wanna take me up on my offer?

[Abe Linkman]

119. You do have my deepest sympathy, but that has nothing to do with what...

I said. You are using dishonest persuasion.
You are saying:

* "I'm a former cop but now I'm an ATC."

Therefore,

* "I've published my qualifications for all the world to see" (including, presumably your fellow employees)

Therefore,

* "My messages are based on knowledge and aren't just opinions, because I've offered to prove that I'm an ATC."

Right.

Your knowledge of ATC matters isn't the issue. But, the fact that you may know something about ATC matters doesn't mean that you know what you're talking about the rest of the time...and 99% of what you post is about things other than ATC. Your opinions are no more worthy of being taken seriously than anyone elses when it comes to non-ATC matter.

[MercutioATC]

121. No, the issue is that you've publicly challenged my qualifications

as an ATC on numerous occasions.

Either you actually doubt that I'm an ATC or you're making claims for the sole purpose of attempting to discredit my posts.

Either way, I've offered to resolve the situation...

You are free to ask for any "proof" you feel necessary. If it's feasible, I'll accomodate (I'll even take you on a tour of my facility).

In return, you'll afford me the same curteousy. I'll be permitted to ask you for the same proof you request of me to positively identify YOUR technical expertise. I won't ask any questions of my own, only the ones you ask of me.


Are you going to change the subject or agree to resolve this situation once and for all? I have nothing to hide...

[Abe Linkman]

123. I don't dispute your ATC job title, just your silly Conspiracy Theories.

There may or may not be any relationship between the two. (I think it's fairly common knowledge that a lot of ATCs are a bit peculiar...and I'll leave it at that)

[MercutioATC]

125. Untrue. You've repeatedly questioned whether or not I am an ATC

or some sort of "paid disinfo agent".

I can provide links if you'd like.


What's the problem, Abe? I'm offering to resolve the matter.

Perhaps it's easier to make uninformed attacks than know the truth?

[Abe Linkman]

127. Fine, an ATC. THAT'S your defense for promoting silly Conspiracies?

As has been noted, there are a lot of folks who think ATCs are a little bit peculiar...so, maybe that DOES explain things.

[MercutioATC]

130. Do you personally KNOW any ATCs?

Most people don't. There's not that many of us.

The psychological profile the FAA looks for tends to be weighted toward assertiveness and problem-solving, so we're not always the easiest people to get along with, but I don't know of many people who would describe us as "peculiar".

Since we're addressing occupation in relation to 9/11 beliefs, I have a question for you. Why is it that people with first-hand experience in 9/11-related fields overwhelmingly believe that the government's story is much more plausible than any of the existing conspiracy theories? Why is it that the most vocal proponents of conspiracy theories (even the so-called "experts") have little or no experience or understanding of aviation or engineering (or other 9/11-related fields)?


I know what my take is on this issue...I'm interested in hearing yours.

[tngledwebb]

132. Well said.

Ironic how your points seem to have flown right by, or over, the head of a f/t air traffic controller.

[DulceDecorum]

29. BS being flushed down the loo.

Take a look at this
and then explain to us all
EXACTLY how an airport firefighting fire truck
with its extra height,
and extra width,
and extra length,
and extra weight,
can get INTO the center courtyard.

(David Copperfield said not call him.)



1976 Oshkosh A/S 32 P-4 Aircraft Crash Fire Truck
Length: 30 ft. 6 in.
Width: 8 ft. 11 1/2 in.
Height: 10 ft. 10 in.
Weight: 31,000 lbs. empty; 46,000 lbs. loaded
http://www.aeromuseum.org/Exhibits/Crash&FireTrucks/oshkosh.html

The one day event will be held on Tuesday, June 8, 1999, outside in the Pentagon Courtyard. ...... Access is through the Pentagon corridor 1&2 tunnel off of south parking. Vehicle height cannot exceed 10'2". (The Dockmasters/DPS office will determine based on the requirement needs and security related issues what equipment will have access through corridors 1&2 and the South Loading Dock .) Trucks higher than 10'2" must use the south loading dock and offload material for movement into the courtyard.
http://www.fbodaily.com/cbd/archive/1999/04(April)/19-Apr-1999/75sol001.htm
Read that again.
CLOSELY.
TRUCKS HIGHER THAN 10'2"
must use the south loading dock
AND OFFLOAD MATERIAL FOR MOVEMENT INTO THE COURTYARD.

1976 Oshkosh A/S 32 P-4 Aircraft Crash Fire Truck
Length: 30 ft. 6 in.
Width: 8 ft. 11 1/2 in.
Height: 10 ft. 10 in.
Weight: 31,000 lbs. empty; 46,000 lbs. loaded
http://www.aeromuseum.org/Exhibits/Crash&FireTrucks/oshkosh.html
HEIGHT: 10 feet 10 INCHES
This one particular truck is 8 INCHES TOO TALL TO ENTER.
WANNA SEE IT OFFLOAD ITS MATERIAL??

This morning, at 0545, in the same uniform I had worn when we were attacked, I headed across the street to my office. Parts of the building were still burning, smoke billowing upward in the pre-dawn hour.
<snip>
Passing through SECDEF corridor, the smoke cleared. I could see through the windows into the inner courtyard, jokingly referred to as "Ground Zero." It was no longer a joke, but had become reality. I stopped in my tracks and stared. Fire engines were in the courtyard. Smoke was still pouring off the roof, and fires still burned on the opposite side.
http://teamhouse.tni.net/Freedom/accountofattack.html
Ooooh,
why did this JAG officer
STOP IN HIS TRACKS AND STARE???
Had he seen something that surprised him?
Hmmm?
Inquiring minds want to know.

No matter,
whatever he saw,
he saw at 5am and the building caught fire almost 20 hours earlier.

According to the FAA
and ALL local fire departments,
you have LESS THAN THREE MINUTES to evacuate from a burning building.
Any later than that,
and you run the risk of being overcome by smoke and heat and
You will probably die.
This is why fire trucks travel so fast.

The Pentagon was hit shortly before 10 am.

The Pentagon called ServiceMaster Clean at 11:30 a.m. on the 11th. The ServiceMaster Recovery Management staff, dedicated to catastrophic disaster mitigation and restoration, was on the move by noon, and was at the Pentagon on September 12th. At 8:30 a.m. that day, a crew of 50 ServiceMaster Clean technicians mustered in the Pentagon's western parking lot. Supplies and people from ServiceMaster Clean local offices were mobilizing up and down the East Coast and as far away as Michigan.
http://www.servicemasterclean.com/pentagon/

So the janitors
were tripping over the firefighters
shortly after the JAG officer showed up in his crusty uniform.

Naturally,
the other servicemen present were greatly concerned
-- about their looks.


http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/911/pages/barbers.html

We, on the other hand,
are much more interested in knowing why
Hani didn't plonk that thing in
where it would do the most damage.

[Sweet Pea]

32. Oh....I'm sorry....

You must have missed the photograph of fire trucks in the courtyard of the Pentagon.

Let me post that link again...

http://www.army.mil/soldiers/oct2001/pdfs/attack2.pdf

Scroll down a bit...you can't miss them. They are the big red and white trucks with fire hoses coming out of them and big ladders on the back. I'm assuming you can read the captions with out any problems, but to make sure:

"Hoses snake from fire trucks parked in the Pentagon's central courtyard. Fire crews from the greater Washington, D.C., area helped battle the blaze."

[demodewd]

33. gaping hole

What's with that big gaping hole into the A-E drive? Care to clarify?

[Old and In the Way]

35. Seems like a fusilage or an engine should be plugging that hole.

Whatever the mass was that made that hole, it does seem to be in the picture.

[demodewd]

40. what..

What picture?

[Old and In the Way]

42. See post 32

page 6 of 9 in the linked .pdf file.

[demodewd]

44. That gaping hole

That gaping hole was not made by that puny pile of debris. Do you concur?

[Old and In the Way]

45. It was made by something with serious mass.

Should be a one of the turbine enginess filling that hole, I'd think.

[demodewd]

46. eric bart

I like this guy's ideas but I'm always willing to listen to other arguments.
http://eric-bart.net/iwpb/

[BlueDog2u]

55. I agree, this is much more credible than most sites

But here is my question: if you have a hijacked airplane which can be used as a weapon, what is the motive to substitute that weapon for another weapon? Doesn't simple expediency suggest that the simplest way to effect PNAC was simply to make use of the existing assets? Why go the elaborate plot of substituting a missile or a missile-airplane for the existing hijacked 757? Sorry, but it just doesn't make much sense to me. Creates too many messy problems for the conspirators.

[tngledwebb]

57. Higjacked planes are NOT good weapons,

presuming there were 'highjacked' planes. The existing, cheapest, most foolproof 'asset' was a small missle or similar explosive device.
The 'messy' problems come when leaving too much incriminating evidence- that's why the 3 WTC buildings were turned to dust, and hauled away asap. Covering the Pentagon inconsistencies, hiding all evidence, etc was much simpler because they DID NOT use a Boeing.

At least until the public gets a good look at all the photographic evidence we have seen here. Thanks to MSM complicity that has yet to happen. But it will, one day.

[LARED]

58. that's why the 3 WTC buildings were turned to dust,

What is that supposed to mean?

Did someone wave a magic wand first or was it a supersecret covert energy weapon?

[tngledwebb]

141. Controlled demolition, if you like, resulting

in a lot of dust. CD was used there and at the P-gon to hide what should be called a lack of evidence, a serious shortage of real Boeings for example, and real passengers. There may have been other reasons for the CD, insurance dividends, horrific propoganda imagery, etc. But the perps first and foremost had to hide the suspicious lack of evidence.

[Abe Linkman]

143. Bingo! n/t

n/t

[tngledwebb]

144. But what improvising was required?

Did the evildoers really think it all the way through and did it all go like clockwork?

Yes, they knew they had MSM compliance, but, based on their overall job performance since then, they must have had a few big fuck-ups that day, besides the ones we know about.

[RH]

47. To move an object

the need is for force, rather than mass.

c.f. Newton's Second Law of Motion.

http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/newtlaws/u2l3a.html

[Sweet Pea]

48. Fire trucks in the Pentagon Courtyard

Just saw one (Arlington Fire Engine 105) drive thru the accessway into the courtyard for something going on this morning (15 Dec). Full sized truck. I have a pic of it so as soon as I break the code on posting images I'll do that for you.

So, quite obviously Arlington Fire Department has specialized engines that can enter the Pentagon courtyard without any problems now. As the article I refered to a few weeks ago when I posted in this thread states, however, on 9/11 certain fire-fighting elements of existing engines had to be cut off so they could indeed make it through the accessway.

They did do that, however, and had full fire engine capability in the courtyard that morning in addition to the regular fire-fighting abilities of in-ground and building-mounted fire mains.

[Abe Linkman]

49. Fascinating

Simply amazing. Thanks for bringing this very important, little-known and even less understood insider information to our attention.
Certainly helps put things into perspective. Maybe helps explain why Hani realized it would be futile to try and aim for Center Court. Sometimes those hard-to-hit shots just aren't worth the risk of potential trouble.

[Sweet Pea]

51. Yeah...

well...

1) It was stated here that fire engines could not get into the pentagon center courtyard and and because of that crashing the aircraft there would have resulted in more casualties and damage. I felt it was imnportant to again emphasize that a) fire engines CAN and DID enter the Pentagon's center courtyard and do so routinely and b) crashing an airliner into the center courtyard may or may not result in more casualties and damage, but no more so than crashing an airliner into any other part of the building (aside from teh recently renovated side it did hit).

2) I am surprised you commented on this thread because after all, since there were no 52-foot "wing pieces" outside the building, the crash never happened, hence the folly of caring about fire engines in the courtyard.

[DulceDecorum]

52. Munchkin fire trucks?

http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Oct1997/971022-D-9880W-048.html

CLARKE: Then the Arlington County fire chief, Ed Plaugher, which is P-L-A-U-G-H-E-R.
PLAUGHER: Good morning.
As you can see for yourselves, we are still engaged in a very stubborn fire fight with parts of the building. We have recently requested some additional specialized apparatus that will gain entry into the center courtyard of the Pentagon, and we're bringing additional specialized individuals very highly trained in this type of fire fighting.
http://www.patriotresource.com/wtc/federal/0912/DoD.html

HOW do fire trucks ROUTINELY get into the center courtyard?

I tried to get him to sit, but just as he was lowering himself to a bench, three Pentagon security officers, who had walkie-talkies, began to shout.
"There’s another hijacked plane inbound! It’s headed this way and we have five minutes to impact!"
The mood in the yard had been intense but purposeful. Now it turned to panic.
No one knew where to go. Where was safety?
The three most-wounded were lifted onto orange utility trucks and driven back into the building, away from the fire. Medics ran alongside, worked grimly to hold pressure bandages in place as the carts careened for THE GROUND-LEVEL TUNNELS THAT MARK EACH CORNER OF THE COURTYARD.
Everyone else headed for the walls as the security screamed out a count-down of the estimated time to impact.
<snip>
All through that morning, volunteers trickled back into the courtyard until there were more than 100 people. A two-star general officer, a surgeon, arranged triage teams.
If victims aren’t breathing well, don’t bother to insert plastic tubes down their throat, or intubate, the surgeon the told the "red," or critical, team.
"The smoke will have swollen their breathing passages shut. Go straight for a tracheotomy," he said. "But don’t cut into anyone’s throat unless you know what you’re doing."
No one laughed, because he wasn’t joking.
Then we waited.
The smoke got worse and the crowd began coughing, but no one left. Two men took an ax to the soda machines in the snack bars, and the cold drinks were passed, with firefighters getting priority. The used cans and bottles were filled with a hose and refilled again and again by self-appointed teams.
Still we waited. Not a single person had emerged since the initial trickle of victims.
Finally, at 3 p.m., firefighters declared the center courtyard as the morgue, and the volunteers were sent out to the main medical staging area, where the plane had crashed.
http://www.stripes.com/01/sep01/ed091301l.html

MORGUE would be correct.

[MercutioATC]

50. To post pics:

You'll need to have it hosted someplace and link to it...then post the link.

[DulceDecorum]

53. RE: Fire trucks in the Pentagon Courtyard

August 2, 2001
ARLINGTON, Virginia (CNN) -- A two-alarm fire at the Pentagon Thursday caused hundreds of employees to evacuate as smoke billowed through one of the huge building's five sections.
There were no reports of injuries, and the fire appeared to be under control soon after it broke out.
<snip>
The fire was in a sparsely populated area of the building. It burned adjacent to the area containing the United States military joint chiefs of staff work space, but did not affect it.
Some 24,000 people work in the Pentagon, which has 17.5 miles of hallways.
Though fires are not uncommon in the massive building, this one was larger than usual
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/08/02/pentagon.fire/

Being a volunteer firefighter with Greenbelt's Volunteer Fire Department and Rescue Squad for almost 6 years, I reported to my station. As units from DC were enroute to the Pentagon, the DC Fire Chief called back all DC fire personnel. The Chief also requested mutual aid from Prince George's and Montgomery Counties Fire Departments to fill in at stations in the Nation's Capital that were sent to the Pentagon. Shortly after 11:00 am, engines 3 from Greenbelt, Morningside, Kentland, and Branchville and a truck 4 from Cottage City were transferred into the District. Greenbelt's Chief, Assistant Chief, six other personnel, and I filled in at DC Engine 8 (1520 C Street) in southeast DC.
<snip>
Because the access tunnel leading underneath the Pentagon to the inside courtyard was only 10-foot 2-inch high, many of the towers and ladder trucks that were to go to the courtyard to put water on the roof were too tall to fit through the tunnel. Therefore, some of these apparatus had their roofs cut off so that they would fit through the tunnel. While the first and second alarms were attacking the fire from the exterior of the outer ring, at 1:25 pm, the third alarm units proceeded through the tunnel into the inner courtyard. The idea was to attack the fire from inside the Pentagon, pushing it from the unburned areas back into the burnt areas.
http://wrench.ssl.umd.edu/pentagon.html

Resources were set up outside the Pentagon, as well as inside its courtyard.
Ten engine companies entered through an underground tunnel; however, the ladder trucks were too tall to fit through the 9-feet tall tunnel, Everett said.
A 1950 ladder truck small enough to enter was eventually found in Maryland about 1 1/2 hours away.
"Imagine if you had to find a particular size fire truck, where would you find it," Everett said. "It's not something you look up on a resource chart. Your picking up the phone calling hundreds of fire stations."
http://www.darnews.com/articles/2003/09/11/news/news2.txt

Sweet Pea says:
So, quite obviously Arlington Fire Department has specialized engines that can enter the Pentagon courtyard without any problems now.

[tngledwebb]

54. At least the people at the Pentagon know the 4 (or 5) P's:

Pre-planning Prevents Piss-poor Performance.

On another aspect of that: timing is everything, so why was it that the discrete 'events' of 9/11 needed to be spread so far apart?

For example- didn't the evildoers think it might look bad/worse that our military allowed an as yet un-evacuated Pentagon to be 'attacked' so late in the day? It may be that the 'event' was intended to happen much earlier, but because of the nature of the exercise it may have come off up to an hour later than scheduled. SNAFU/FUBAR etc, it was the Pentagon after all.

But the overall the staggered/stretched timetable of 9/11 must have been integral to the mission. Why and how? Was it to help MSM manage the live camera links, the replays, the highlights? To keep the US or world's MSM and the American publics attention focused on their TV sets and/or one aspect at a time? Was it required for plane/passenger-switching scenario?

[Sweet Pea]

56. But...

you said...the Pentagon courtyard...

"...is inaccessible to fire engines..."

Is it? or isn't it?

Can you make up your mind? Either fire engines CAN enter the central courtyard...

or they CAN'T.

We await your FINAL answer.

[DulceDecorum]

61. The Penta-fire was a JET FUEL FIRE

Now,
find me an AIRPORT FIRE FIGHTING VEHICLE
that can enter the center courtyard.

Emergency One, Inc of Ocala, Florida, has supplied a Titan 4x4 aircraft rescue and fire fighting (ARFF) vehicle to replace the one that was severely damaged when terrorists crashed an airliner into the Pentagon September 11.
http://trailer-bodybuilders.com/news/trucks_damaged_pen... /

This pdf has the specs for that particular AIRPORT FIRE FIGHTING VEHICLE.
Please note that the height given is 143 inches which translates into 11 feet and 11 inches.
http://www.e-one.com/pdf/QS-t4x4.pdf

The height of the tunnel precludes such a vehicle from entering into the center courtyard of the Pentagon.

As for the regular firefighting vehicles,
one article I posted says:

Resources were set up outside the Pentagon, as well as inside its courtyard.
Ten engine companies entered through an underground tunnel; however, the ladder trucks were too tall to fit through the 9-feet tall tunnel, Everett said.
A 1950 ladder truck small enough to enter was eventually found in Maryland about 1 1/2 hours away.
<snip>
With 150 to 200 fire truck on the scenes, tracking and management of personnel became a huge problem, he said.
http://www.darnews.com/articles/2003/09/11/news/news2.t...

In fighting fire, time is of the essence.
By the time that truck was located and present,
there was practically no need for it.
The other 200 or so trucks and their assorted personnel should have taken care of the situation.
And they did.
With plain WATER.

How is it,
that WATER put out a "jet fuel" fire?
JET FUEL FLOATS ON WATER.

SAFETY DATA SHEET
Jet-A1
1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE SUBSTANCE/PREPARATION AND OF THE COMPANY/UNDERTAKING
Identification of substance/preparation:
Aviation Kerosine
Alternative names: Jet A, Jet A-1, AVTUR, JP5, JP8.
Application
Jet fuel, do not use for other purposes
For specific application advice see appropriate
<snip>
15. REGULATORY INFORMATION
Safety (S) phrases:
S24 Avoid contact with skin
S23 Do not breathe vapour
S43 - In case of fire use foam or dry powder. Never use water jets
Safety (S) phrases:
S24 Avoid contact with skin
S23 Do not breathe vapour
S43 - In case of fire use foam or dry powder. Never use water jets
http://www.bp.co.za/opencms/opencms/portal/Products/Avi...
NEVER USE WATER JETS.

"I think the only think that protected us was a miracle," he said. "As we were there, we were watching metal desks and metal file cabinets melt and (the molten metal) run down the side.
"The water on the floor was converted to steam."
On the first floor, firefighters found "maze like" conditions and "utter destruction" with ceiling tiles and electrical and heating and cooling systems displaced, Everett said.
After dragging 900 to 1,000 feet of hose through that maze, firefighters had little water pressure to put out the fire, Everett said.
Firefighters also faced "extremely dark" conditions and high water.
"We could see the light of the fire way down there, but we had no light," Everett explained. "We had hand lights and had to depend on one another greatly."
Everett said they "put so much water" into the building that it was 18 inches deep and running out the doors.
http://www.darnews.com/articles/2003/09/11/news/news2.t...

They should all be dead.
Unless......

Once entry was made into the E ring, "I looked into the hallway where the plane entered the building and expected to see this huge damage," Everett explained.
Instead, Everett saw one of the support walls.
Based on that view, Everett said, the believed the "plane never proceeded into through the building (and that) it stopped in the building.
"Up until a day and a half later that was my assessment that the plane never left the E ring because my picture was skewed."
http://www.darnews.com/articles/2003/09/11/news/news2.t...

THE PLANE NEVER PROCEEDED INTO THE BUILDING.
That means that there WAS NO JET FUEL.
That means that PLAIN WATER was able to put out the blaze.
And we know for a fact that
PLAIN WATER is what was used to fight the Penta-fire.

The impact and explosion that occurred when terrorists crashed a hijacked airliner into the side of the building devastated a significant area on five floors of the world renowned US military headquarters. However, water damage--resulting from fire hoses, automatically activated sprinklers systems, and shattered water lines-- affected nearly 2.5 million square feet of space adjacent to the crash area that otherwise would have been left intact!
"Millions of gallons of water flowed throughout the building after the attack," said Joe Kelley, Munters district manager in the Washington DC area. In some places water was 18 inches deep on the floors."
http://www.munters.co.kr/mcs/pentagon/pentagon.html

But the fact still remains that we are told that the fire was caused by the jet fuel in the plane.
And the fact still also remains that ARFF vehicles cannot access the center courtyard of the Pentagon.
At least, none that I have seen so far.

Sweet Pea,
do you know of any aircraft rescue and fire fighting vehicles
that are under 10 feet 2 inches?

[LARED]

89. The Pentagon fire STARTED as a jet fuel fire....

The combustible stuff in the building continued the fire

[DulceDecorum]

93. And WHERE was the jet fuel?

The Penta-jetfuel that does not float on water.
Where was it, LARED?
Where?

LARED says:
The combustible stuff in the building continued the fire

WHAT combustibles LARED?


A reference dictionary and stand appear relatively undisturbed amid office wreckage following the Sep. 11 terrorist attack in which a hijacked commercial airliner was crashed into the Pentagon.



A Marine flag appears relatively undisturbed amid office wreckage following the deadly Sep. 11 terrorist attack in which a hijacked commercial airliner was crashed into the Pentagon.



View of a damaged office inside the Pentagon caused by a hijacked commercial jet that crashed into the Pentagon on Sep. 11.

Since WHEN
have Penta-flags and Penta-office furniture been counted as combustible?
With or without the presence of Penta-jetfuel?

[LARED]

109. Where was the jet fuel?????

I'm pretty sure it's stored in the fuel tanks in the jets.

What do you think?

[DulceDecorum]

140. What happened to the fuel in the Penta-plane?

Did it undergo Rapture?

LARED says:
I'm pretty sure it's stored in the fuel tanks in the jets.

LARED,
where, on the plane,
are the fuel tanks located?

[Sweet Pea]

142. Is this a......

trick question?

"....where, on the plane, are the fuel tanks located?"

[MercutioATC]

145. The fuel tanks are on a 757 are in tanks on the inner third of each wing.

The majority of it entered the Pentagon unburned. A smaller portion was ignited upon impact.


Does that answer your question?

[Sweet Pea]

146. I believe....

there are also tanks in the fuselage, but the wing tanks would account for the initial fireball. The center fuselage tanks would account for the internal fires as the body of the aircraft broke up inside the building.

edited for spelling

[Abe Linkman]

148. Do you have any evidence that the majority of "it" (whatever that is ...

supposed to mean) entered the Pentagon unburned, and that a "smaller portion was ignited upon impact"?

What you posted is a response, but as an answer, it sounds like something that Mr. Rumsfeld might say.

[vincent_vega_lives]

59. Wing Damage

That article has good pics of the wing damage. NamelyRescue-and-Recovery efforts... and Stacks of 6 inch by 6 inch timbers support a section of the Pentagon's outer wall...

I have been derided for pointing this out in the past.

[tngledwebb]

69. Because 'official reports' are NOT credible.

Why? 9/11 skeptics believe this is an inside job. Not a 'little' inside job, like Watergate Plumbers say, a BIG inside job, planned for years with extensive official and MSM complicity. So it follows ALL official reports would be, at least initially, highly suspect. Now, after watching the 'hearings' and reading the final report of the 9/11 Omission, that initial suspicion becomes a certainty. And that goes for all the other reports the OCT'ers cite as 'evidence'. All skeptics can do is read 'em and weep. OCT'ers have yet to understand that simple fact- which is why THEIR credibilty is also compromised, despite their soi-disant 'professional' expertise.

Leaving aside how anyone on the DU could trust this Admin to tell the the truth about anything, after the past four years. But any example of such a miraculous occurrence would be especially welcome this festive season.

[MercutioATC]

71. So you're going to claim that all official evidence is "planted", right?

The Pentagon is a military building. Of COURSE the government is going to do the investigation and cleanup. To its credit, the government commissioned a panel of civilian experts to assess the damage and to make recommendations.

My point is that a good portion of the evidence in the Pentagon crash is, by necessity, going to come from the government. Discarding it ALL just because you think "this is an inside job" is ridiculous.

[Abe Linkman]

77. Another ridiculous example of how far some OCTers will go to avoid...

dealing with rational, logical questions which bring into doubt the Fairy Tale being pedaled by people whose own veracity (and agenda) might well be questioned.

[MercutioATC]

80. Did you not say that you distrusted all evidence the gov't has presented?

If there are parts of the explanation with which you agree, I apologize...I must have missed them.

[Abe Linkman]

83. If you could prove the Gov't is telling the truth, you would.

But, you know the Gov't is not telling the truth, so the real question is why YOU support the OCT.

[MercutioATC]

86. I can.

DNA, black boxes, debris, expert opinion, eyewitnesses...

That's why I believe the planes really crashed into the buildings. Nothing else makes any sense given the evidence.

[Abe Linkman]

96. YOU are easily amused...and easy to convince, aren't you? By the Gov't.

Tell us about how you KNOW "the planes really crashed in the buildings" because Ted Olson said his wife called him from FL 77.

Is being so easily convinced by unproven claims of a corrupt Administration why you're no longer a cop? The only thing cops are ever convinced of is that everyone who isn't a cop is probably a criminal.

Yet, YOU are easily convinced by a fallacious and frankly almost child-like logic. "Mommy, I KNOW Santa Claus is real. I saw him and even sat on his lap."

[MercutioATC]

97. No, but you seem to have an affinity for CTs, proof be damned.

Do I "KNOW"? No, I wasn't there. The evidence, however, doesn't allow another possibility in my opinion. It certainly doesn't support any of the conspiracy theories that I've seen here.

Abe, I'm no longer working for Sheriff's offices because ATC pays a whole hell of a lot better. I'd agree with your general assessment of cops to a point, but that's another discussion.

[Abe Linkman]

100. If you weren't there, then your story IS a conspiracy.

Evidence isn't necessarily proof. In the case of the Pentagon, what would be evidentiary PROOF doesn't exist. You are either intentionally or ignorantly trying to make a case based only on things that don't prove anything, by themselves. Your "evidence" is worthless, because of any number of reasons. Take just one thing that you call evidence which proves a B757 crashed at the Pentagon: DNA. It could have been planted, is just one of many reasons why it isn't proof of anything.

The best available evidence of a plane attack doesn't show a plane large enough to have been a 757, but it does show what appears to be a missile fired at the building. Was the Pentagon hit by a missile? Rumsfeld said it was. Was the missile that hit the Pentagon fired from the image of a small jet as in the released Pentagon images? Was the missile fired from a truck in the wooded area nearby the Pentagon?

Objective people can't possibly overlook the many, many suspicious things that are inconsistent with your Conspiracy theory. When the party that controls the best evidence refuses to release that evidence, only a fool would not agree that is itself strong evidence of guilt.

Anyone who dismisses any of the above with off-hand remarks like you make, is vulnerable to a charge of bias...or worse. And, such a person
doesn't have the credibility to be given the benefit of the doubt. That means your argument has to be much more persuasive than it has been so far, if you expect it to be taken seriously.

[MercutioATC]

102. Not being there makes my story a THEORY, not a "conspiracy".

Consult Webster if you doubt me.

My theory and yours obviously differ. I think most people would agree that the vast majority of the available evidence supports my theory and directly opposes yours.

Personally, I don't care whom I "convince". That's not my goal.

[Abe Linkman]

106. MOST PEOPLE HERE agree your Conspiracy Theory is hogwash.

Even the people in the public at large, who have been educated (even a little bit beyond the propaganda put out by the Gov't, Disinfo Agents, and their sycophants in the Corporate Media)...agree that the Conspiracy Theory YOU claim to support is total hogwash, a Fairy Tale, total lie.

[MercutioATC]

110. You should get out once in a while, Abe.

The average person does NOT believe in anything resembling MIHOP.

Yes, we all distrust the government in varying degrees, but most people do not believe that Bush had an active hand in the events of 9/11...especially those who have direct experience with aviation.

[Abe Linkman]

111. Fruit-loop conspiracists take advantage of the average person, that's true

"However, it should be noted that one of the curious characteristics of conspiracy theorists is that they effortlessly change their so called evidence in response to each aspect which is debunked. As soon as one delusion is unmasked, they simply invent another to replace it, and deny that the first ever existed. Eventually, when they have turned full circle through this endlessly changing fantasy fog , they then re-invent the original delusion and deny that you ever debunked it, thus beginning the circle once more. This technique is known as "the fruit loop" and saves the conspiracy theorist from ever having to see any of their ideas through to their (ill)logical conclusions."

Knowledgeable people know that your conspiracy theories are plain nutty.
The public can be easily fooled into believing all kinds of crazy things. Look at the totally siill nonsense posted here by people who try to sound sincere as they jump back and forth ducking the reality of the complete lie they call the Official Version. If they aren't being paid to do this, they have to be seriously ill. The "average" person is plenty smart enough to see how insulting it is to be lectured by liars promoting the impossible, once they become educated and exposed to more than the total propaganda promoted by the Gov't, its Disinfo agents, and the totally corrupted Corporate Media.

Not even ONE "average" person I've talked to who knows a few facts that the Corporate Media won't touch (or lies about, if it does) believes the stupid Fairy Tales being promoted by a few parties here at DU. It's very unfortunate that the rules forbid unfettered free speech, but
the Fairy Tale Conspiracy promoters know full well EXACTLY what I'm implying, and so do the truth seekers here, and I don't believe ANY of the Truth Seekers believe your "theory". Why would they? They're too knowledgeable, too smart, and they know how to THINK critically and use logic in reasoning.

[MercutioATC]

112. Interesting quote, Abe...

"As soon as one delusion is unmasked, they simply invent another to replace it, and deny that the first ever existed."


Sorta like claiming "no wings, no 757" and then, shown pictures of plane crashes with no visible wings, changing it to "no engines, no 757" without ever addressing the wings issue?

[Abe Linkman]

114. Do you understand how stupid that statement is? Maybe you don't.

You are saying:

* You've seen photos of plane crashes with no visible wings.

Therefore

* Even though no wings or wing debris, or 757 engines were found, and even though none are in photos taken just minutes after the alleged attack at the Pentagon, a B757 had to have crashed there because you have seen photos of other plane crashes with no visible wings. (of course, in your fruit-loop theory, you omit any mention of the ALSO missing B757 engines)

Do you honestly not understand why that reasoning makes no sense?

[MercutioATC]

115. That wasn't what I said at all.

I said that I thought your quote was particulary interesting for the very reason I stated.

Focus, Abe. Focus.

[Abe Linkman]

117. You're either flip-flopping again or NOT denying your logic makes no sense

It certainly is what you've said here, and more than once. So, has your fellow fruit-loop theorist. If I were paying someone to come on here, I'd expect better than all this crazy garbage being posted day after day. Isn't it embarassing?

[MercutioATC]

118. Your accusation simply makes no sense.

Is it the lack of wings or the lack of engines that has your proverbial panties in a bunch? First, it was the wings. Provided numerous pictures of plane crashes where no wings survived, you switched to engines.

Which is it, Abe?

[Abe Linkman]

120. Because some plane crash photos don't show wings, that doesn't...

mean that a B757 crashed at the Pentagon. Using your logic, NO plane crashe photos should show wings or engines. The fact is, if a 757 had crashed at the Pentagon, wings or large parts of wings would he in the photos taken shortly after the alleged crash. NO wings or wing debris is in the photos.

The fact is also that if a 757 had crashed at the Pentagon, two 757 engines would have been found. At least ONE of them would have been on the OUTside of the building. NO 757 engine was found outside of the building and no 757 engine is seen in any of the photos taken minutes after the plane crashed.

THAT is powerful, circumstantial evidentiary proof that NO 757 crashed at the Pentagon.

[MercutioATC]

122. I never said it did. You claim that the lack of wings (or is it engines?)

PROVE that a 757 didn't crash into the Pentagon.

What makes you so certain that 757 wings (or engines) would have been found intact at the Pentagon if AAL77 was involved? You've repeated made those claims...how are you reaching this conclusion?

[Abe Linkman]

124. Good, because no wings & no 757 engines mean no 757 crash.

They would have been found at the Pentagon if a 757 had crashed there.

[MercutioATC]

126. I see we're back to "wings"...how do you explain the lack of wings

in the links that Sweet Pea posted? Were those not pictures of plane crashes?

Or is it your statement that only SOME crashes leave intact wings behind and you're knowlegable enough to determine which should and which shouldn't?

[Abe Linkman]

128. No 757 wings and No 757 engines = No 757 crash. What's so hard...

to understand?

[MercutioATC]

129. No wings + no engines = no crash? No way.

There are plane crashes where wings and engines are not discovered intact (you were provided with links to pictures by Sweet Pea).

Again, you're trying to use a falsehood to defend a point that's indefensible. I'll ask again...what specifics of the Pentagon crash make it different from crashes where wings and engines have not been discovered intact? If you can't prove that this crash was fundamentally different in a way that would have made it impossible for that debris NOT to be left, you really have no point at all (regardless of how many times you post it).

[Sweet Pea]

133. As the ATC has pointed out,...

with that sort of logic there have been hundreds of "non-crashes" throughout history.

"I can't be overdrawn! I still have checks left!"

"No wings and no engines at WTC = No Crash!"

:crazy:

[Abe Linkman]

134. The alleged ATC uses faulty logic to reach a false conclusion.

The fact that some other crash left little identifiable aircraft debris has nothing to do with the alleged crash of FL 77. If there was any proof that FL 77 had crashed, THEN it would be logical to speculate why
there no credible evidence of the big B757 was found at the Pentagon.

[Sweet Pea]

135. Merely applying your logic

I mean after all, if there were no wings outside of the Pentagon or no engines in recognizable condition inside or outside the Pentagon, Flight 77 never crashed at the Pentagon!

What an elegant and unassailable thread of logic!

Let's see what ELSE we can apply it to!

Swissair Flight 111 SUPPOSEDLY crashed off Nova Scotia in Sept of 98.

The FACTS and LOGIC belie that, however!

This looks NOTHING like the engine of a MD-11!



It SHOULD look like THIS:



No wing pieces from Swissair 111 were found on the surface of the water!

THIS is an airplane? Gimme a freakin' break!



I'm sure the families of those who died in the SUPPOSED Swissair crash off Peggy's Cove will be relieved to know that since no wing pieces were found floating on the surface and no recognizable engine parts were discovered that their loved ones never really died because the crash never happened.

As can be said for likely hundreds of other crashes throughout air travel history.

Rejoice! Think of all the happy families we've just made by letting them know because no wing pieces were found at the crash site and no recognizable engines parts were discovered, their loved ones didn't die!!!!!!

edited for image

[Abe Linkman]

137. If that's the best you can do, then don't apply for a job @ Rendon Group.

Or Hill & Knowlton. Maybe somewhere in the Gov't, since negligent thinking isn't a disgrace. Think of the fun you'll have riding on a Gov't-issued Spinning Wheel.

[MercutioATC]

136. I'm back to "alleged" now? I thought we cleared this up, Abe.

Regardless, I'm not making the claim that debris from other crashes proves anything about AAL77 EXCEPT:

You make the claim that if there are no wings and engines visible that a 757 did not crash. You've been shown plenty of other verified crashes where wings and engines were not visible. That leaves us with two possibilities:

1) You've chosen to take a logically indefensible stand, or:

2) You believe the crash of a 757 at the Pentagon would have had fundamental differences from the crashes that you've been shown.

Which is it?

You can simply use a #1 or #2 in your reply if you'd like.

[Abe Linkman]

138. Are you deliberately using faulty logic?

It sure seems like you are. Now, what could be a possible reason why somone would do a thing like that? Especially, a SINCERE, OBJECTIVE...
I can't believe I typed those two words. THAT'S faulty logic, too.

[MercutioATC]

139. The logic of my last post was faulty in what way (specifically)?

You're the one who made the claim that if there were no wings and no engines that no 757 crashed. You were then presented pictures of plane crashes in which no wings or engines were visible in the debris.

All I'm asking is how you account for this discrepency. Are the pictures fake or is the Pentagon crash somehow different from the crashes in the pictures in a way that would necessitate wings and engines being visible in the debris? If you're claiming the latter, in what way was it different?

Is that question straightforward enough for you?

[impe]

15. Because

the "perps" that hit the pentagon were not the same "perps" that
hit N.Y.

[tngledwebb]

20. Ctl ers, is it CT l or L, and means what?

Clarify?

[tngledwebb]

30. On further reflection-

here's a scenario: perps used a small private plane packed with explosives for Pentagon attack, and maybe the same for NYC attacks. ( Unless perps knew that only highjacked Boeings flown from Boston would be big enough to bring down skyscrapers? And how could they know THAT when the US military couldn't even IMAGINE planes as bombs? Them cave-boys must have been highly evolved cave-boys.) But then perps saying a big jet hit the Pentagon becomes even more troubling. Is that your point, or do you seek some Occam's razor answer? If so, remember: that razor cuts both ways.

[RH]

34. razor cut

Here's a scenario: Flight 77 hit the Pentagon

[DulceDecorum]

37. RH, please identify Flight 77.

Are you referring to that fly
that was born to be alive
that we see in the Bacardi commercials?
Or are you talking about something else.

[RH]

38. Flight 77

is the identification.

:eyes:

[rman]

131. Flying a large plane inches from the ground is very tricky

For terrorists to hijack a passenger plane is one thing, for them to obtain a missile or global hawk is rather unlikely.

Only a hijacked plane would fit the official explanation that terrorists did it. That's why they told us it was a plane.

[mikelewis]

147. Whether 77 hit the pentagon is irrelevant, the fact is something hit it...

Let's get real for a second. Whether or not 77 hit the pentagon or not is irrelevant. The question should be, where the fuck was our air defenses?

Washinton D.C. was and is the most heavily guarded place on the planet. They have constant radar and satalite coverage. They have a squadron of the most sophisticated attack planes ever known to man. They are aware of what is going on around them. The fact that anything, be it 77 or a rocket or a Global Hawk, could have slipped by unnoticed after 2 other planes had smashed into the WTC complex is simply fucking preposterous. To waste time arguing over what hit it serves no purpose.

We cannot convince the average American that a plane did not hit the pentagon. Most people believe that they seen it on TV. They have images of planes and buildings etched into thier psyche. They hold onto this as a fundamental belief. To present this as our evidence is self-defeating.