They booked the wrong airline - CMA77 or RBB

[medienanalyse]

Cruise Missile Airlines or Royal Bunker Busters are not reliable and safe:

"When Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their seats."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/sept01/2001-09-14-pentagon-usat.htm

Our conspuracy nuts are not going to explain the bodies in the Pentagon rubble.
They are not going to explain, why light aluminium metall would not fold, bow and burn when thrusted with the power of 100 tons and the speed of 500 mph into a wall and shreddered by steel beams.

Our conspiracy theorists believe in "physical evidence" in a medieval way: "what I cannot see does not exist". Like i.e. air.

Conspiracy theorists do not care for physical evidence which they do not like. Like fotos of wheels or of baggage in the Pentagon rubble. They do not care for passengers who boarded AAL77 and ended in the Pentagon rubble. Or which are still "on ice" in the FBI vaults: 5 complete bodies of alleged hijackers - which should be easily identified by genetic samples. If they really were the hijackers.

They do not ask for the real evidence, for the existing evidence. They speculate about what could be seen on photos which they do not have. They do not care for the real evidence of jet fighters which were not scrambled. About a secretary of defense who did anything but not defend his country. You may google for "rumsfeld" and "conduct" - and take the first result for his conduct on 9/11. It would be sensational if Americans would know about the leading politicians. How they do their job.

But conspiracy theorists prefer to produce one video after the other about what they cannot see or understand. Every car crash shows bending and bowing of metall. Our conspiracy nuts cannot understand that AAL77 aluminiums did the same, that WTC-steel did the same. They argue like "Reagan was shot, the pope was shot, both stayed alive for another decade or more. So you cannot die by bullets". (Skyscraper one and Empire state building and scyscraper three burned and did not fall, so why the WTC towers.

[spooked911]

1. First of all, I think the story of the guy pulling out bodies strapped to

seats is disinfo. I don't believe it.

Second, you are lumping a lot of different issues together here, and not everyone thinks the same thing about 9/11.

Mostly for the pentagon, I have a lot of questions.

Like what happened to the huge tail of the plane? How come it left no mark on the wall? If the plane blew up on impact, how did it cause so much inner damage? How did the plane make such an incredible low approach (inches off the ground) going 500 mph, and not crash before hitting the wall? How did the engine of the plane (supposedly) hit the generator truck and not break off? If the plane was only inches off the ground, how did it pass over 6 foot high cable spools? And also, how did the fuselage of a Boeing 757 pass through this hole?




What are the odds that the fuelage would pass exactly through where two windows were?

See Killtown for more pics:
http://killtown.911review.org/flight77/building.html

[SittingBull]

2. Haha

you guys suffer under CoIntelpro disease.

What a pity, I like you both.

[philb]

35. That picture has too much spray obscurring the building to determine

much about what the entry hole looked like. There are others that are better.

But if a lot is known why has the Gov't covered up what is known from the public such as
the videos from Pentagon or gas station or hotel security cameras; and black box information;
and plane parts; and DNA information, etc. Who is the secrecy protecting?
http://www.flcv.com/coverup.html

The pictures available show the fireball outside and over the Pentagon like the plane exploded outside the building.
Yet hardly any major debris or remains were outside the building.

And the choice of the area hit that would cause the least damage and casulties is very strange for terrorists to choose-
especially given how difficult a maneuver it was to get to the area impacted.

The evidence of radioactive debris has also not been explained.

Neither has it been explained why the plane was not intercepted or shot down by anti-aircraft weapons at the capital comples, given
that the Pentagon had well over 30 minutes warning about the status of the plane and they knew a terrorist attack was underway since
the 2 WTC buildings had been hit.

[petgoat]

3. scorched bodies of several airline passengers

And usual, no pictures. No video of the plane flying in, no pictures
of luggage or bodies in seats. The wheel they picture is the wrong size.

[hack89]

4. Would you expect them to release pictures of bodies?

can you given any examples of the government doing this for other plane crashes?

[petgoat]

5. any examples of the government doing this for other plane crashes?

Other plane crashes were not used to justify a war that may last decades.

I am simply noting that there's a lot of covering up. No videos of the 757,
no pictures of the wreckage or the luggage. Why not?

[hack89]

6. If they are following the identical procedures for all other crashes..

how can it be covering up? I suspect that for every plane crash there are tons of evidence that are never seen in public.

[petgoat]

7. identical procedures for all other crashes.

You're still framing it unfairly. This was not "just another plane crash"
this was used as justification for a war we may have been warned may last
decades. As such, it deserved a higher standard of investigation and proof
that it did not get.

Besides, it wasn't an identical standard. NTSB was excluded from all the
investigations. Normally NTSB reconstructs all the wreckage in a warehouse.
Normally NTSB gets the black boxes. None of this stuff happened.

It was a complete coverup.

[hack89]

8. Who says it requires a higher standard..

I've got news for you - 99.99% of your fellow citizens have no problem accepting the official story. I think you forget just how unique your perspective is.

[petgoat]

10. 99.99% of your fellow citizens have no problem accepting the official stor

So what? Most of them don't even know what the official story is. At the time of the
elections 70% of Bush supporters believed Saddam had something to do with 9/11.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1022-01.htm

The average American carries $8500 in credit card debt.

http://ask.yahoo.com/20040209.html

The standard of prood that has been presented would not support a criminal conviction, and
yet the "bloody shirt" has been waved to justify two wars. I say a war requires a higher
standard.

[Ferry Fey]

15. Substantiate that claim, please

I've got news for you - 99.99% of your fellow citizens have no problem accepting the official story. I think you forget just how unique your perspective is.

Substantiate that claim, please.

[hack89]

17. I must admit I was a little over the top!

I can't be more than 98% at most.

[Ferry Fey]

20. Per cent, shmer cent...

If you won't say you're just making that up, I'll just have to say it for you.

[petgoat]

21. cbs poll of 4/04

On what Administration knew before 9/11:

Administration is hiding something ----- 66%
Administration is mostly lying ----- 10%
Administration is telling the truth ---- 21%

Administration did all it could to prevent 9/11:

Yes 32%
No 60%

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/09/opinion/polls/main611077.shtml


49% of NYC residents believe the Bush Administration knews about 9/11 in advance
and consciously failed to act. (Poll of 8/04)

http://www.zogby.com/search/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855

I would bet these numbers are worsening for Bush. Dr. Griffin and Nafeez Ahmed have
been on C-Span, DVD players and DSL internet access are making the Mckinney hearings
accessible to more people, and 9/11 skeptics are penetrating the anti-war movement.

[MrSammo1]

11. Just....

the jet.

[mirandapriestly]

9. I just don't understand posters who believe the official story

(and that is what it is - a story), and come to this forum and tell every one how wrong they are. These posters seem to do NOTHING ELSE on DU, I've done searches. There are a lot of things I don't believe, but I say "live and let live" unless the beliefs are interfering with my life somehow. I don't seek out people that I disagree with and argue with them. It makes me wonder the real reasons a lot of the posters are DU are here.

The info you posted is just as, if not more , unscientific as what you mention. You take the official word as the truth, that is what the difference is, I think.

[MrSammo1]

13. That's because most people

are hearsay believers. They don't need physical evidence to valid stories from people who they feel are the law.

83% believe in miracles.

[AlienSpaceBat]

37. I too wonder what brings them to this forum every day ...

We all know who we're talking about, I think.

I have a bunch of things which I totally disagree with different groups about.

A good example would be creationism / intelligent design. If I come across someone saying something I particularly object to, I might pass comment, or offer a rebuttal. However, I can't think of a worse self-created pastime than participating in ID fora every day, rebutting posts by people I hugely disagree with, and regard as massively misguided.

Why then do the official theory upholders feel the need to justify the government story over and over ? What's in it for them, who are they enlightening ? Most people get passionate and proactive about an issue they support, not one they want to contradict.

Just my $0.02 ...

[medienanalyse]

12. Belief and dibelief. It is a religion - without shame.

I would be ashamed to start arguing like

"I don´t believe it." or
"I think ..., I mean ..."

Especially when I would have constantly ignored
- the lampposts cut in front of the Pentagon
- the steel beams inside the Pentagon

both extending about as wide as the wings of the Boeing. I would ask: "How the hell can the wall LOOK beibg stabile und not so much hurt ? And so I would get information about the Kevlar on the panels. The proof for bigger damage is anyway the crash half an hour later. If the holes were so small as they seem to be why did the wedge fall down?

And so on. many things to think about in a different way. Like when you see a car crash Pgoto and discuss "How the hell could the guy survive that?" Vou would not make it a religion but you look for answers and explanations.

You do not ignore evidence like the photos of the baggage. They are existrent and published. The bodies are not and it is okay not to publish those.

Another aspect is:
"I am simply noting that there's a lot of covering up. No videos of the 757,no pictures of the wreckage or the luggage. Why not?"

They destroyed any evidence they could get. Generally. Not only the videos of the plane. I published a list of evidence they should have and which they do not provide. This list is nearly endless.

But the lack of evidence here and there does not allow to speculate. Take the evidence you have and use it. It is enough to grill Bush and Rumsfeld and Cheney.

The endless discusssions about "I see something nobody else has seen" and "Why does something not work/fall/disintegrate like I expect it to do?", this discussion is boring and only fun for the warmongers.

They do lie anyway as they want. You can never cope with a liar to counter every single lie he produces. Take the obvious simple ones and get them there with all power you have. Do not play their game. Conspiracy nuts do. They are NOT AT ALL supportive.

[MrSammo1]

14. You ignore

the missing vertical stabilizer mark. That's a hell of a big thing to ignore.

[LARED]

16. How do you know it's missing? n/t

[MrSammo1]

18. It's.........not.........

There!

[MercutioATC]

19. Actually....it.....IS......

"The height of the damage to the facade of the building was much less than the height of the aircraft’s tail. At approximately 45 ft, the tail height was nearly as tall as the first four floors of the building. Obvious visible damage extended only over the lowest two floors, to approximately 25 ft above grade."

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

It's not as high as the tail would have been, possibly indicating a structural failure of the tail section when the nose impacted, but the damage IS there.

Instead of relying on a smoke-obscured photograph, why not read the observations of civil engineers who actually VISITED the site?

[petgoat]

22. observations of civil engineers who actually VISITED

They had to suppose that the right wingtip was clipped off and the left wingtip was clipped
off because the marks on the building did not match a 757.

"there are no discrete marks on the building corresponding to the positions of the outer third of the
right wing."

"the evidence suggests that the tips of both wings did not make direct contact with the facade of the
building and that portions of the wings might have been separated from the fuselage before the aircraft
struck the building."

[MercutioATC]

23. It's actually a little more than a simple supposition...

"It is possible that less of the right wing than the left wing entered the building because the right wing struck the facade crossing the level of the second-floor slab. The strength of the second-floor slab in its own plane would have severed the right wing approximately at the location of the right engine. The left wing did not encounter a slab, so it penetrated more easily.

In any event, the evidence suggests that the tips of both wings did not make direct contact with the facade of the building and that portions of the wings might have been separated from the fuselage before the aircraft struck the building. This is consistent with eyewitness statements that the right wing struck a large generator before the aircraft struck the building and that the left engine struck a ground-level, external vent structure."

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

[petgoat]

24. Do these eyewitnesses have names? From an established

journalist I will accept anonymous sources if there's a good reason
for the anonymity. I have no reason to trust the engineer and
don't see a reason for anonymity.

[MrSammo1]

25. So......

why isn't the limestome facing damaged to the height of the vertical stabilizer?

[MercutioATC]

26. I don't know. Why is it damaged 25 feet up?

Perhaps there was a structural failure of the tail assembly when the nose impacted the building...but that's pure conjecture. There IS, however, damage where the tail would have impacted the facing to a height of 25 feet.

[medienanalyse]

27. I do not know why something does not happen. Logically. I can assume ...

and my assumption says:

since years the conspiracy theorists do not show a tiny little bit of interest in the structure of the Pentagon.
Why was the wedge in reconstruction? Why did it get the steel beams ? because of the poor construction of the walls.
With implications which for sure are not interesting for the "physical evidence" guys.

Never, not even once I have seen anybody of those idiots discuss what kevlar on the panels means. What does kevlar make on a human body? Now take it as wallpaper, fixed on the wall. This has consequences for the seemingly intact structure of a penetrated wall.

But go on to ignore evidence when it is much more hip to speculate and concur with witchcraft novels. Spread more and more and bigger photos with things not to be seen. What a shame for mankind that human beings spread pics and discuss what they do not see on them. Why not pics of the blue skies and asking where the rhinos are because YOU expect them to fly ?

[MercutioATC]

28. We seem to be having a language barrier issue again...

Frankly, I have no idea what you're trying to say about the damage to the limestone facing.

[medienanalyse]

30. frankly I must admit you are at least very polite

You might have said "Learn English".

But it is not the language.

I do not know how a wall of limestone reacts when it has a wallpaper made by kevlar. i have never heard of a case like that before.

But the Pentagon wedge took in the impact just there where kevlar constituted a kind of protection of the building. They would not have applied the material if it had no effect.
So it had an effect.
And we have the very rare situation of a plane ramming through it.

Two exceptional events at the same place. And on affects the other. And people notice unexpected results concerning the wall.

So my conclusion is: the unexpected structure of the damage - as it seemed to be - resulted from the two rare events.I pledge for a closer look on the wall INSIDE the Pentagon to understand the whole situation. Nobody else does. I do not care so much because it is not important to argue with the conspiracy people. But dont tell me about mysterys and cruise Missiles when you do not take all aspects into your account. This does not mean you, Mercutio.

[MercutioATC]

32. The kevlar was on the INSIDE face of the outer wall.

(kind of like wallpaper on the inside face of the outer wall to help absorb blast damage)


I looked into it once. I'll Google it again and try to get a link for you.

[medienanalyse]

34. Did I say any different ?

Yes inside.
Inside an at the outer wall.
I do not need any lionk, I have all ibnformation.

If you google look for PENREN
Pentagon renovation ptrogram.

With description of the windows, blast resistant, each half a ton of weight.
With kevlar and with steel beams.

Conspiracy idiots are not interested. They expect the wall to behave like a penetrated iron foil or like a heap of loose stones. And not like a super heavy cortain.

[MercutioATC]

36. That's certainly an issue.

It's one of the reasons why penetration comparisons between the WTC towers and the Pentagon don't work without factoring in the HUGE difference in structure.

[stickdog]

29. I agree that the focus of so many on the so-called "physical evidence"

serves only to confuse the issue as if physics is somehow going to come to rescue of proving what is fundamentally an egregious example of political criminality.

When it comes to the "physical evidence," the fact of the matter is that the onus is on our government to document this evidence and explain how and why it supports the official narrative they've concocted. And on this front, I think we can all agree that the government has failed miserably in almost every aspect. From my point of view, the most important meme we can spread about the so-called physical evidence is that it certainly doesn't answer any of the pertinent questions about what was allowed to happen that day under whose responsibility.

[medienanalyse]

31. Ask for "WHO" and not for "WHAT"

Who did it - not what happened.
For sure both questions and the answers are interwoven. But the conspiracy guys are missing the focus. And my understanding is, they miss the point intentionally.

So I assume intention too in this case:
"And on this front, I think we can all agree that the government has failed miserably in almost every aspect."

They did not fail. A good liar KNOWS that any word too much makes his story weak. The parts do not fit together any more, questions arise, the vulnerability rises extremely. So they stick to the story and DO NOT RELEASE EVIDENCE AT ALL. None. Even if it were supportive. Only when pushed hard the release a little bit, only emough to stabilize the situation. They are the masters of evidence, the masters of the situation.

This is what normal people describe as POWER.

Bush and the PNAC guys have it.

[stickdog]

33. Of course, Minuscule Evidence Released On Purpose

MEROP ;-)