Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn't Impact the Pentagon on 9/11

[mrmonarch]

Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn't Impact the Pentagon on 9/11
- and Neither Did a Boeing 757
By Joe Quinn

After the release of the QFG Pentagon Strike Flash Animation on August 23rd, 2004, a veritable onslaught of new articles were published that sought to dismiss the "no plane at the Pentagon" theory. One such article, that is frequently referenced by certain '9/11 researchers' was authored by a member of the forum at the "Above Top Secret" (ATS) website. Interestingly, the article was written just a few weeks after the release of the Pentagon Strike Flash animation, which by then, was winging its way around the world and into the inboxes of millions of ordinary citizens. Perhaps you were one of them...

http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/Above_Top_Secret_article.htm

Followup on response from ATS, and investigation about just who they are:
http://laura-knight-jadczyk.blogspot.com/2006/01/is-above-top-secret-forum-cointelpro.html
http://laura-knight-jadczyk.blogspot.com/2006/01/cointelpro-updates-above-top-secret.html

[zanne]

1. How do you explain what happened to all the "passengers"?

I haven't really looked into this no-757 claim, but I have to wonder about what happened to the passengers who were supposedly on a 757 that hit the Pentagon?

[Ian David]

3. He should call their families & tell them they were in on the conspiraracy

I'm sure they'll be glad to hear from him.

[DoYouEverWonder]

4. How many of those families even got remains

I've never even heard of one body from the plane being recovered. Supposedly they all turned into bits and pieces. Four crashes in one day and no recognizable humans recovered from any one of them. Not even in an open field in PA?

[Th1onein]

28. BUT THEY RECOVERD A PASSPORT AT WTC!

This absolutely amazes me, at the gullibility of the American public! Here, we have concrete pulverized into powder, BUT one of the hijacker's PASSPORTS was recovered!

Such bullshit!

[TheWraith]

106. Things don't always work according to your version of reality.

It absolutely amazes me that so many people will believe in outlandish theories based on nothing more than a fact-esqe framework completely unsupported by observation.

Frankly, I don't know if the passport surviving is true or not. Maybe it did, maybe it's an urban legend that tinfoilers have siezed on because it suits their views. But the reality is that it's not nearly as unlikely as you give it credit for. Thousands of pieces of paper were ejected from the buildings when the planes impacted. These papers survived in the same way that a bomb's components survive when the bomb goes off. It's not inconceivable that a passport could be blown out of the area by the shockwave.

Concrete, on the other hand, gets pulverized rather easily when a megaton of steel and more concrete falls on top of it. And even then only a small fraction of the concrete was actually pulverized. They wouldn't have spent a year or so cleaning up the scene if every bit of concrete was instantly turned to dust.

To answer the previous person's question, many remains were recovered, and many families received remains. A considerable number of the bodies were damaged or dismembered due to the cause of death. Another large number are too damaged to identify accurately, and so are still unknown.

[DoYouEverWonder]

110. First, it was the M$M that reported that the passport had been found

within a day or two of the event. Highly unlikely to find such a thing after the plane went into the building and then the building came down upon everything and then covered everything in dust. This story isn't internet lore, it was repeated multiply times in the M$M during the days after the attack.

Second, yes many families received remains and some even receive whole bodies, just that none of the bodies belonged to anyone on any of the planes. In regards to remains, how the hell is someone going to know whether or not some piece of bone is really Uncle Joe's leg?

[savemefromdumbya]

155. Remains

no they weren't, not at the Pentagon

[MercutioATC]

170. Yes, they were:

"Investigators have identified remains of 184 people who were aboard American Airlines Flight 77 or inside the Pentagon..."

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/pentagon-unidentified.htm

[killtown]

173. You really believe 63 passenger's bodies were recovered?

or are you just stating the official claim?

[MercutioATC]

174. Whole bodies? No. Pieces used for identification? Yes.

I don't see why this would be difficult to believe.

[killtown]

175. Because officials claim intact bodies:

► Pentagon searchers encounter grisly scenes

When Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their seats. The stench of charred flesh overwhelmed him.

The remains were being carried by helicopter to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware to be identified." -USA Today (09/13/01)

And the official map out where the found the BODIES (including the hijackers):



"the remains of a few individuals (the hijacking suspects), who most likely were near the front of the aircraft, were found relatively close to the aircraft’s point of impact with the building. "

But don't get me wrong, I don't believe the passengers were recovered there, whole are not (see 63 versus 11). It is yet another in a long string of lies about 9/11.

[MercutioATC]

176. Not to get overly grisly, but charred torsos qualify as "bodies".

That aside, I think you might be making the same basic mistake as many others. The majority of the damage to the Pentagon wasn't caused by the explosion. It was caused by the mass of the plane and fuel traveling through the building at high speed. Once you realize this, it's not hard to see that the actual explosion wasn't of such an extreme degree that it wouldn't leave body parts intact enough for DNA identification.

[killtown]

177. So the plane travels through in a "liquid state"

and melts from the fire afterwards, yet 63 intacted passengers were recovered. Hmmmm.

[MercutioATC]

183. Happens all of the time.

Look at any fully involved house fire with fatalities.

[killtown]

190. Did any of these fatalities in these fully involved house fires

travel into the house in a "liquid state" at 530 mph?

[MercutioATC]

193. Speed doesn't render remains unidentifiable by DNA testing.

I think you're also going too far with the "liquid state" issue. According to the ASCE engineers, the majority of the damage to the Pentagon was caused by a mix consisting of the fuel on the plane and pieces of the plane that were forced through the breach by the impact. That mass, moving at hundreds of miles per hour, caused most of the damage before the fuel ignited inside the building.

[killtown]

194. And the passengers would have been shredded

just like the rest of the plane supposedly was and their remaining body parts would have easily burned up too along with the rest of the plane which people keep claiming.

Sorry, but them be able to recover the passengers is an absurd notion especially when you look at the inside Pentagon photos which show no plane, no luggage, no bodies, no nothing.

[MercutioATC]

206. How far into the cleanup were those pictures taken?

The inside pics I've seen have been from the shoring up/cleaning out phase. I haven't seen any taken immediately after the fires were put out.

[MrSammo1]

209. So why accept

the photos as evidence?

[MercutioATC]

211. I don't accept the photos as evidence of human remains,

I accept them as evidence of a 757 crash (the pics of the fuselage piece on the lawn and the pic of the exit hole, especially...they were taken shortly after the crash when scores of people were milling around and it would have been impossible to plant those pieces with so many people looking).

[killtown]

226. Who says those pieces were planted before???

[killtown]

225. On Sept 13

plenty were taken all around the inside. Check FEMA's site.

[Wiggles85]

214. The plane didn't actually liquify.

The debris acted like a liquid on impact. A mass of independant solid parts will act like liquid when moving at high speed.

[MercutioATC]

218. Especially when mixed with tons of unburned fuel...

Exactly right, and it was this fast-moving mass that caused the majority og the damage to the Pentagon...not some explosion.

[killtown]

227. You did notice the quotes I used around "liquefied state" right?

Funny officials said they retrieved 63 passenger bodies if the plane "liquefied"!

[savemefromdumbya]

179. go ahead believe it

[MercutioATC]

181. Thanks for the permission. I intend to.

[MakeItSo]

219. Don't blame the public: over half of New Yorkers say there is a cover-up

That's according to a legitimate Zogby poll from 2004. It's the corporate media whores and the military-industrial fascists you should be blaming.

[killtown]

84. How do you figure all the families had to be in on it?

The gov't tells them they found their relatives remains at the Pentagon. Why wouldn't the families believe them? You think those families are really going to ask the gov't to prove that they found their loved one's remains their? It's not rocket science.

[wakeme2008]

5. Right the passengers are the problem

I agree it does not look like a 757 hit the building but where is Ted Olsen's wife amoung others .....

[mrmonarch]

9. Not so

The passengers are not a problem at all. It is quite simple really. If the 757 didn't hit Pentagon, then something else did. If something else hit the Pentagon that, more or less, implicates a much bigger conspiracy (and note that the official version is a HUGE conspiracy theory, so don't try that "oh not another conspiracy theory" nonsense) where the government is involved. If the government is involved, then they would have no trouble taking Flight 77 and land it on a nice little air base somewhere and kill and bury the passengers.

So, regardless of whether Flight 77 hit the Pentagon or not the passengers are most certainly dead. Gone. Vanished. Never ever to be seen again. They just didn't die from smashing into a building in a plane.

As I said, it is all quite simple. It is only when you get into the mental loop of "no plane must mean plane and passengers is still around" that you get into trouble.

Now, before y'all burst into yet another "oh not another conspiracy theory" frenzy, please will you just read the article first. Apart from being plain common sense, it'd make things so much easier for all of us if everyone discussed the same thing and not some make-believe article of what you think it might say based on just looking at the article title.

Thanks.

[bronco2121]

19. a flying pig

>If the 757 didn't hit Pentagon, then something else did.

i've been looking into flight 77 for a long time, and the more i research - the more i understand that it was in fact: a flying pig that hit the pentagon. it's been hard for me to introduce this concept to my family and friends. they think my ideas are a bit outlandish - but THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND!!! the hole - it was so small... only a flying pig could make such a hole. granted, it had to be one fat mother Fn pig - but that doesn't change the facts.

one day, you will all think like i do.

b.

[mrmonarch]

22. pigs can fly!?

b, I hope you understand the consequences of what you are saying!? Now, apart from mentioning the obvious (that a 757 didn't hit Pentagon), this means that PIGS CAN NOW FLY!!! This will have a significant impact beyond human comprehension, since it will mean that every single person that has ever uttered the phrase ".. when pigs fly" will now have to actually DO it! Oh the chaos that will ensue as people start doing the most bizarre and strange things! I can sense an upsurge for the ratings of Americas Funniest Videos coming... you just wait and see...

[Make7]

63. Pink Floyd + LSD = Pigs on the Wing ( n/t )

[savemefromdumbya]

156. From the 9/11 commission report

what were the airforce chasing - what was the phantom jet and why were they 100 miles out over the Atlantic?

[killtown]

85. Does it really matter?

I think all that matters in that the plane is not there. When that is realized, then the passenger having to be somewhere else becomes self-evident.

[Make7]

103. "Barbara Olson arrested in Europe."

Didn't you hear?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=56001&mesg_id=56001

This is the 'smoking gun'.

:eyes: Make7

[oblivious]

108. Here's some more dead passengers who are still kicking.

These official conspiracy theorists are always good for a laugh aren't they.

Sunday, 23 September, 2001, 12:30 GMT 13:30 UK
Hijack 'suspects' alive and well
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm

FBI Chief Raises New Doubts Over Hijackers' Identities
September 21, 2001
Investigation: FBI chief raises questions on how much is known about the suspects. Some names used also belong to Saudi citizens who are alive.

...Officials refused to say how many hijackers may have used false identities, but officials of the Saudi Arabian government said Thursday that six of the men that the United States has named as hijackers killed in the attacks appear to be living in the Middle East.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-092101probe.story

[KatieW]

6. I'm with you zanne, where are those passengers then?

Where are those passengers from the plane that hit the Pentagon suppose to be if no plane was involved? Where they all shipped off to some remote island never to be heard from again? I have yet to hear an explanation about the passengers from those who believe no plane was involved. I guess those that believe no plane was involved think Ted Olsen is hiding his wife Barbara somewhere.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[mrmonarch]

8. How do you explain what happened to all the "passengers"?

They're dead. Of course. Read the article.

[savemefromdumbya]

157. How do you know that the plane actually took off

none of the records on 9/11 were accurate

[deacon2]

38. Where are the passengers? Where are the "disappeared" prisoners?..

Which secret prison are they in? I've been following this most interesting discussion on many sites and I'm still not sure what to believe, except this: This lying, deceitful and lawless administration has proved well beyond doubt now that it is capable of ANYTHING. And that would include creating a "Pearl Harbor" scenario - as Wolfowitz called it in 1997 at the PNAC site - to invade Iraq and other Middle East sovereign nations for oil. That would make this Pentagon "issue" just a small piece in an enormous act of treason involving God knows how many of these sons of bitches.

Will we ever know?

[killtown]

82. They are M.I.A.

That's what it is called when passengers are MISSING.

[Ian David]

2. That is absolutely idiotic. And it belongs in the 9-11 forum anyway.

I'm not saying that you are stupid, just that your idea is beyond imbecilic and makes the rest of us look stupid by association.

This tripe belongs here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=125
in The Konspiracy Korner.

[mrmonarch]

10. Wow!

My oh my, you are a fast reader! It took me quite some time to read it, and quite a lot of thinking before I could understand all the intricacies of the lies in the ATS article, but you are really something else. Most impressive! How did you manage to read it so fast!?

Or, did you perhaps not read it before you answered?

[Ian David]

12. And did you get an engineering degree this morning? n/t

[mrmonarch]

13. Re: And did you get an engineering degree this morning? n/t

Thanks for your reply. It explains a lot!

[zanne]

14. I'm not saying there wasn't a conspiracy.....

I started having doubts about 9/11 when I saw how convenient it was for the administration and how it neatly removed all the obstacles in its' way to absolute power. I just have problems with this one aspect of it. The Pentagon just doesn't fit into the puzzle.

[Ian David]

16. You don't need a degree in bilogy to know Faeries don't exist. n/t

[petgoat]

57. Faeries don't exist

How do you know? How would you go about proving it?

[MrSammo1]

30. engineering degree?

Does a person need a engineering degree to understand that steel box columns are stronger than the limestone facing on the Pentagon?

==============================================================
Sheeple Science Lesson # 1
A jet will fold it's wings and vertical stabilizer when it strikes a brick wall with a limestone facing,
but not when it strikes a steel wall.
==============================================================

[teach1st]

11. I have no opinion either way...

...but lots of interest.

I read the article. I admit that thinking that something besides a 757 hit the Pentagon is hard, because it would mean Flight 77 went somewhere else.

But putting that aside for now, what specific points in the article are stupid and imbecilic?

[teach1st]

15. How do those who think Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon...

...explain the radar record?

[RC]

17. How do you explain the lack of a 757 at the Pentagon?

[bronco2121]

23. pig

>How do you explain the lack of a 757 at the Pentagon?

i think we established that it was a flying pig, not a 757 that hit the pentagon. sandy williamsononian, a 9/11 pentagon eyewitness, officially stated: "It smelled like breakfast everywhere. We thought it was just the Sheraton buffet gone bad, but now that I think of it... it could have been that large pink pig we saw fly by just before we felt the shockwave."

the evidence is mounting.

b.

[mrmonarch]

24. Make up yer mind

b, so you've changed your mind then? Judging by your website (http://www.flight77.info/), it seems like you do indeed believe the official story, even though you yourself note how strange it is. To remind you of your own words, here's what you write on your website:
"although this <=picture of plane smashing into Pentagon> is an accurate depiction of the of the impact and subsequent damage prior to the structural collapse - i'm still holding onto the belief that YES, this is what happened. i don't know how - but somehow the wingtips & tail fin did no damage to the facade. and somehow the engines didn't touch the grass... somehow."

You should be happy then to find a solution to that strangeness. If the article is correct, then there is a perfectly logical explanation for the problems you outline on the website. And it doesn't involve flying pigs! Hooray!

[bronco2121]

71. perfectly logical...

yes, i've considered all angles. i DO put my money on a 757, but that doesn't mean i believe the official story - far from it. otherwise i wouldn't spend my time and money on the lawsuit. my best guess is that we are indeed dealing with a 757, but that it was disguised in elaborate fashion to resemble a pink flying pig.

the reason we see no evidence of seats or human remains is that 1) the seats were removed to allow greater cargo capacity for about 175 - 200 live pigs. 2) the passengers were lead from the jetway into specially modified vehicle with the ability to bore into the earth (ie a mole machine). the intended passengers of flight 77 are currently traveling on a seven year mission to the planet's core. by the time they surface in china (some time in the year 2117, as the powers-that-be predicted: no one will really care anymore. and the droids will be in the hands of the empire...

the whole thing is incredibly diabolical. we're dealing with powers beyond anyone's imagination. proceed with caution, because the rabbit hole goes so deep as to extend to the very surface of the planet we call, EARTH!

i have secret files to support all my claims.

.b

[MercutioATC]

27. How do YOU explain the 757 parts found at the Pentagon?

If no 757 hit the Pentagon, where did those 757 parts come from?

[MrSammo1]

31. In what way............

Do the photos suggest that they came from the Pentagon?

[MercutioATC]

32. Well, one of those 757 pieces is sitting on the Pentagon LAWN...

...others were documented to have been recovered there.

[IChing]

42. show me the747 pieces in a photo please

show me the engine photo
I'm willing to listen

[MercutioATC]

43. That'll be difficult. It was a 757...

If you want pics of fuselage bits, landing gear, wheels, etc., there are tons of websites that show them (not to mention the eyewitness accounts of an American Airlines jet at low altitude headed directly at the Pentagon).

If it wasn't a 757, it did a good job impersonating one.

[IChing]

46. ok show me those pictures first

Cause maybe you have something I haven't seen before
since you know something about where to find them on the internet.

[petgoat]

59. I could go out to a junkyard and get Jaguar parts and put them

in my bedroom, but it wouldn't prove a Jaguar crashed into my bedroom.

[MercutioATC]

126. Try it in an open space with scores of witnesses.

Could you move a Jaguar hood onto your front lawn unnoticed by a few dozen people who were watching your house from the sidewalk?

[Make7]

47. Picture pages...

And here are a couple photos of the fuselage part on the lawn:





These photos are not at all difficult to find.

-Make7

[IChing]

48. Thanks I've seen those before but you know what you did you

got me looking which made me find even better sites on this matter including beyond top secret which was anti, then more sites that are pro.

The question is still open to me on what happened
thanks again.

[MercutioATC]

49. Thanks...I was still getting the links together when you posted this.

You saved me the work.

:)

[Make7]

61. I'm quick on the draw tonight. ( n/t )

[IChing]

50. I think it was this plane

because of this engine.


The photographs show a part of a turbofan jet engine and were taken by Jocelyn Augustino, a photographer for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), at the Pentagon crash site on September 13, 2001. The round piece appears to be less than 3 feet in diameter and is propped up against what appears to be part of the engine housing and thick pieces of insulating material. Is it from a Global Hawk Allison Tturbofan engine ?

thanks I wouldn't have found this until you said to search on the internet

[Make7]

62. There seems to be some degree of difficulty in identifying jet engines...

...from pictures of their parts. I emailed Pratt & Whitney about a year and a half ago requesting help in identifying the engines from the WTC from the available pictures and they responded by asking for more information. (i.e. visible part numbers.) So perhaps it requires a good deal of specialized knowledge to correctly identify the make and model of a jet engine from a couple of pictures of parts from wreckage. (Although it is probably significantly easier to rule out possibilities.)

IChing wrote:

thanks I wouldn't have found this until you said to search on the internet

^{LOL! Do I detect a note of} :sarcasm:^?

-Make7

[vincent_vega_lives]

212. Wrong Part

It's not the fan, its' the compressor disk from a RB-211.

[Wiggles85]

215. Actually

It's an auxillary power unit.

[MrSammo1]

53. Do you know..........

When and who released those photos?

Why wasn't any of this shown on national TV?

[IChing]

56. Check out this site: which I found interesting

http://membres.lycos.fr/applemacintosh2/Pentagon2.htm

about a global hawk
with pictures

and this one:

http://membres.lycos.fr/applemacintosh/pentagon.htm

I found these when I was looking for fotos of the plane in this same thread

[MrSammo1]

67. Check your........

inbox

[IChing]

69. thanks MrSammo1 hadn't read that yet.

I am making a computer folder for this stuff now.

[MrSammo1]

66. The rivet holes........

are too small and close together to be from a 757.

Do you believe in miracles?

[killtown]

87. There is disagreement that those parts are 757 parts.

Also, all those parts could have been planted. Show me ONE "plane part" at the Pentagon that could not have been planted.

[MercutioATC]

127. The one on the front lawn could NOT have been planted.

How would you propose planting a piece of aluminum of that size on a large grassy field that dozens of people are watching with none of them noticing?

As far as the contention that they weren't 757 parts, I'm not privy to the lab tests on them. They sure LOOK like 757 parts, though (which would make sense, since a 757 hit the Pentagon).

[killtown]

132. Who says they planted it after the crash?

Why couldn't they have planted it BEFORE the crash?

A question about that piece of debris, why is it so clean? No burn or scrape marks on it! And how did it get way over here:



when that piece supposedly came from the front of the plane that supposedly went INSIDE the building and then vanished? Just notice how that bigger piece of debris is all the way out there by it's little lonesome.

[mrmonarch]

18. How do those who think Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon...

Fred, if you read the linked article you would know the answer to that.

[teach1st]

21. I read most of the article - missed the radar part..

..I seacherd for radar in the article before posting.

I also Googled and found that some say that Flight 77 disappeared from radar briefly around 9:05 that morning.

[Ben Ceremos]

20. No radar record of a 757

hitting the Pentagon is possible. The suppose craft was reported as flying just over the highway, ergo below radar detection capability. I realize this is all too much for the incredulous types; but a true sceptic knows that the parts of the Pentagon/9-11 story are sufficiently inconsistent and illogical to cause doubt to be justified as far as the official version goes. The improbability increases as you consider that the human remains of at least some of the passengers from at least some of the 9-11 flights would have to have been recovered. To date this has not been the case.
Americans will never know the truth unless they start to be more curious and sceptical about the official version...but that puts their entire way of life at risk, so it's not likely. Living the bright, shiny lie of Bush's Amerikkka...?

[Make7]

25. DeoxyriboNucleic Acid

Ben Ceremos wrote:

The improbability increases as you consider that the human remains of at least some of the passengers from at least some of the 9-11 flights would have to have been recovered. To date this has not been the case.

Really?

November 30, 2001

What some experts have called "the most comprehensive forensic investigation in U.S. history" ended Nov. 16 with the identification of 184 of the 189 who died in the terrorist attack on the Pentagon...

... Of the 189 killed, 125 worked at the Pentagon and 64 were passengers on American Airlines Flight 77...

http://www.dcmilitary.com/army/stripe/6_48/national_news/12279-1.html

September 11, 2002

The 1,401 people identified include 45 of those aboard the hijacked planes - 33 from Flight 11, which struck the north tower, and 12 from Flight 175, which hit the south tower.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/local/story/17949p-17009c.html

-Make7

[mrmonarch]

26. Identification

Yes, this is probably obvious, but it should be no problem at all identifying the passengers on Flight 77 since - if the linked article is correct - the plane landed in a normal way and the passengers were then taken care of. Or cared for by the undertaker. Depending on whether their death or the landing came first. Either way, identification is easy. Trivial, even.

So, it is then ironic to see how they can lie AND at the same time not lie (the bodies were, after all, identified). Someone must have had a good laugh writing that forensic report.

[Make7]

44. This should be obvious as well.

Ben Ceremos said that human remains of the passengers of the hijacked flights on 911 have not yet been found. In response, I posted articles stating that passengers on those flights have been identified from their remains.

Whatever you choose to believe as far as the time and/or location of death does nothing to debunk the passenger identifications reported in the articles that I posted.

Since I directly quoted the part of Ben Ceremos' post that I was responding to, I thought the intention of my post would also be obvious.

I doubt very much that the people involved in writing the forensic report derived any joy whatsoever in their task.

-Make7

[MrSammo1]

55. Nobody would ever lie for money......

That's unheard of!

http://www.public-action.com/911/boneguys.html

==============================================================
Sheeple Science Lesson # 1
A jet will fold it's wings and vertical stabilizer when it strikes a brick
wall with a limestone facing, but not when it strikes a steel wall.
==============================================================

[killtown]

83. Who is telling us they found Flt 77 passengers remains?

Oh that's right, our government.

[Make7]

86. Did you post just to ask yourself a question and then answer it?

Apparently you did. Me too.

:) Make7

[killtown]

89. Just showing how gullible 9/11 official story believers are

"oh, our gov't said it, so it must be true!"

No wonder our gov't gets away with what it does. Go see my Smoking Guns page, you're gonna have a harder time dismisses all the evidence now.

[Make7]

93. Well, this may be beyond obvious, but...

... since I was responding to a post that stated that there have not been any remains recovered yet from any of the passengers on the hijacked flights on 911, I posted information about the identification of the remains of passengers on some of those flights.

People participating in the investigation and actually making the identifications work for the government. Therefore the results were provided by the government (Remember? The ones conducting the investigation.) and also reported by the press.

You can choose to believe the information, or not.

So, tell me - where should one get the information about the identification of victims?

-Make7

[killtown]

96. Would you believe the same gov't officials

that you thought were involved with orchestrating 9/11?

[Make7]

102. Would you believe the government officials...

... that you thought were not involved in orchestrating or covering up 9/11?

- Make7

[killtown]

133. A little more than the ones that were.

[savemefromdumbya]

158. Sorry to disappoint you but an enormous plane did not fly over the highway

[MercutioATC]

171. That's not what eyewitnesses stated:

"As I approached the Pentagon, which was still not quite in view, listening on the radio to the first reports about the World Trade Center disaster in New York, a jetliner, apparently at full throttle and not more than a couple of hundred yards above the ground, screamed overhead. ... Seconds before the Pentagon came into view a huge black cloud of smoke rose above the road ahead. I came around the bend and there was the Pentagon billowing smoke, flames and debris, blackened on one side and with a gaping hole where the airplane had hit it."
- "Eyewitness at the Pentagon." Human Events, 17 Sep 2001


"Omar Campo, a Salvadorean, was cutting the grass on the other side of the road when the plane flew over his head. 'It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane,' Mr Campo said. 'I was cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact. The whole ground shook and the whole area was full of fire. I could never imagine I would see anything like that here.'"
- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001


"Afework Hagos, a computer programmer, was on his way to work but stuck in a traffic jam near the Pentagon when the plane flew over. 'There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. Everybody was running away in different directions. It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts on the way in.'"
- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001


"Northern Virginia resident John O'Keefe was one of the commuters who witnessed the attack on the Pentagon. 'I was going up 395, up Washington Blvd., listening to the the news, to WTOP, and from my left side-I don't know whether I saw or heard it first- I saw a silver plane I immediately recognized it as an American Airlines jet,' said the 25-year-old O'Keefe, managing editor of Influence, an American Lawyer Media publication about lobbying. 'It came swooping in over the highway, over my left shoulder, straight across where my car was heading. I'd just heard them saying on the radio that National Airport was closing, and I thought, "That's not going to make it to National Airport." And then I realized where I was, and that it was going to hit the Pentagon. There was a burst of orange flame that shot out that I could see through the highway overpass. Then it was just black. Just black, thick smoke.'"
- "Terrorist 'Situation'." American Lawyer Media, 11 Sep 2001.


http://www.wtc-terrorattack.com/pentagon_eyewitness_accounts.htm

[savemefromdumbya]

178. Sorry this eyewitness thing is nonsense

but a large plane didn't hit the Pentagon - sorry to disappoint

[MercutioATC]

180. On what do you base that?

How are the eyewitness reports "nonsense" simply because they don't fit your CT?

[savemefromdumbya]

182. people have been told to shut up about this

[MercutioATC]

184. What?

What are you talking about?

[dailykoff]

185. "Lab Director Fired for Questioning Official 9/11 Story"

"This story just does not add up," Ryan wrote in his e-mail to Frank Gayle, deputy chief of the institute's metallurgy division. "If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers."

http://www.wanttoknow.info/911kevinrryanfired

And then there was John O'Neill. I think you get the idea.

[AZCat]

186. Should he have been fired?

I tend to think not (I'd rather have stronger whistleblower protections even if the whistleblower is ultimately wrong), but Ryan's opinion is worth no more than that of any other layperson's on this issue regardless of his firing.

[MercutioATC]

187. Ryan wasn't a Pentagon witness...what does this have to do with the topic?

We were discussing whether eyewitnesses at the Pentagon saw a commercial jet. What does an opinion on melted metal at the WTC Towers have to do with that?

[killtown]

191. Some Pentagon witnesses saw a smaller plane

and one that sounded and behaved like a missile. One witnesses claimed to have seen the plane, but then revealed that at the time they just saw an object fly by they couldn't recognize. One witness claimed to have seen "faces in the windows" of a jet that was supposedly traveling 530 mph. One said he saw the wings and tail, but no engines. One said the nose "curled up" at impact. One said the plane "cartwheeled" into the building. One said the tail was "sticking out" of the building. One said a helicopter crashed.

See what I'm getting at?

[MercutioATC]

192. The overwhelming majority of eyewitnesses saw a commercial jet.

The reliability of eyewitnesses is always questionable, but if you're going to use them as part of the equation they definitely add weight to the contention that it was a commercial jet.

[killtown]

195. Can you please show me one pic

that confirms what the "overwhelming majority of eyewitnesses" saw fly into the Pentagon?

[MercutioATC]

196. A picture of eyewitness statements?

That'd be difficult. If you figure out a way to take a picture of statements, let me know, though.

[hack89]

197. If a photo is the only standard of proof you accept..

is it safe to assume you have photographic evidence to back up your every assertion? If not, why the double standard?

[killtown]

201. Don't get all excited guys

we have a discrepancy with witness reports and physical evidence. All I asked for was a photo of this "plane" they all saw crashing into one of the most secure buildings in the world. Don't tell me none of Pentagon's multiple security cameras couldn't capture an identifiable 757 crashing into it and when are we going to see the 84 videos the FBI confiscated nearby?

[MercutioATC]

204. I agree, I'd like to see the videos, but there WAS evidence of a plane

crash. Eyewitness reports aside, there was debris recovered nad there IS a plausible explanation of how the damage is consistent with a 757 crash (ane ASCE report).

There's also the little matter of the DNA recovered at the Pentagon...

[killtown]

228. Most, if not all, of that plane debris is not from a 757

and ALL of it was plantable evidence.

DNA? Who said passenger DNA was recovered at the Pentagon again???

[dailykoff]

198. Ryan was an object lesson,

one of many. Effective, too.

[LARED]

199. An object lesson

Yes, I agree, One should never give opinions about stuff you have no clue about. Especially if you do it in a way that gives people the impression you are making these statements on behalf of your employee.

Yes, an excellent object lesson.

[dailykoff]

207. God forbid somebody should actually do their job

instead of covering for the government.

[AZCat]

208. Except that it wasn't his job.

He had nothing to do with the WTC investigation. He wasn't even in the department at UL that was participating in the WTC investigation.

[dailykoff]

210. It never is, is it?

Which explains how a) they pulled it off and b) how they keep publishing idiotic propaganda to cover it up.

[AZCat]

216. I don't understand your post.

Why does this explain anything?

[dailykoff]

217. "Not my job"

is how intelligent people (like the bureaucrats, engineers and scientists working for the NIST and other agencies) let themselves off the hook.

[AZCat]

222. But this wasn't his job.

It is the job of all of us to keep an eye on our government, and Ryan certainly has the right (some would say the obligation) to speak out when in doubt about the actions of those in power.

But his opinion of the issue at hand should not carry more weight than that of a layperson because it is not within his area of expertise, nor was he working on the particular project at the UL related to the NIST investigation.

[dailykoff]

223. Circular logic.

You're saying that the only people authorized to analyze the evidence are the people authorized to analyze the evidence.

The problem is that they're lying, as Ryan figured out.

[AZCat]

224. No, that is not what I am saying.

Anyone can analyze the evidence (regardless of knowledge or access) but Ryan has no special knowledge that makes his testimony matter more than any layperson.

If Ryan was either part of the ACTUAL investigation or happened to have some expertise in any of the relevant areas, then his testimony would matter more than that of a layperson.

[petgoat]

58. the radar record?

Look into Ptech software company, and the testimony of Indira Singh, an
expert in enterprise architecture.

The radar record is not to be trusted.

[DoYouEverWonder]

94. What radar record?

The one put out by the government? Oh yeah, now the government wouldn't put out a map with fake flight paths now would they?

[WoodrowFan]

33. I guess my friend that saw it is lying to me

I guess my friend that saw it hit is lying to me. No wait, that's not right, it's YOU that not telling me the truth because you were suckered in my a lying website. Please take this BS elsewhere, we have enough of this on the DU already....


bye bye.

[mrmonarch]

34. How To Spot COINTELPRO Agents

Not sure how to respond to that, since you are not using any arguments that could be discussed.

So instead I'll give y'all a link that I think may be useful in relation to these kinds of discussions on the topic of "How To Spot COINTELPRO Agents". Very handy to have in mind, especially when utilizing forums such as these which are sure to be full of COINTELPRO agents (and wannabees of the same kind), always ready to rip an interesting discussion to shreds, and gettin' paid for it too! Now, there's a title to be proud of on a business card: "Professional Discussion Thresher". The link is as follows:
http://laura-knight-jadczyk.blogspot.com/2006/01/how-to-spot-cointelpro-agents.html

Enjoy!

[LARED]

35. Herein lies the dilemma

There is no argument to be discussed.

A stranger walks up to you and says. "Mr, I'm telling you tomorrow the sun is not going to rise." You think to yourself. well that's a little strange and drop it from your thoughts. The next morning (bright and sunny) you run into the guy that told the the sun will not rise today and tell him he was wrong, and he starts to demand that you form an argument that the sun rose to prove him wrong.

So what do you do? Have a little fun and play along, or try an help the guy out?

[teryang]

36. Here's the forensic answer

We know that eyewitness testimony is among the most unreliable evidence in court.

Your example confuses the issue because an observation regularly made and scientificly certaint is contraposed against a ridiculous contention. That isn't the case here.

There is quite of bit of circumstantial evidence that contradicts the official version with its inconsistencies. But the kicker is that the government has videotape evidence concerning what happened and won't disclose it. Why? The witholding of such evidence in a legal proceeding is unlawful because it invalidates all fact finding by the forum.

[LARED]

37. Perhaps I was not clear

My post was in regards to whether or not flt 77 hit the pentagon, not the "Official Story" in it entirety. If there is material circumstantial evidence that something other than flt 77 hit the Pentagon please show it to me. No one has been able to do that in over four years.

I would like to see the government release those tapes as well, but until that happens I'm not buying any tinfoil beanies. You do realize the minute those tapes are released there will be dozens of "goggle experts" telling us they are fake.

[WoodrowFan]

39. any any proof that you show them

and any proof that you show them that the sun rose will be denounced as part of the "coverup". Nice little self-contained mindset they have going isn't it??

[RC]

41. The evidence IS there, but you refuse to see it.

For instance a 757 has two 6 ton engines. Only part of one engine was found and that engine was too small to be from the 757. Find the picture of that engine part. Does that look like it is from an engine 5 feet across? No luggage, no tail assembly. For a 85 to 100 ton plane, precious little was found. Before the collapse, even the entrance hole was too small and that had no plane parts in it. The next ring had ALL of the supports intact. No plane there either.

[Make7]

45. Two different engine parts shown in photographs available on the internet.

This page has information on jet engines you might find useful.
This drawing is a generic schematic of a turbofan engine.

I'll limit myself to that for now.

-Make7

[MercutioATC]

51. It was NOT "too small"...

What was shown in the picture we're all talking about was the same size as the high-pressure rotor from a 757 engine.

The "next ring" did NOT have all of it's supports intact....and the hole was NOT too small for a 757:

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


Before making conclusions, it's a good idea to get FACTS, not just read some layperson's uninformed conclusions off of a CT website...

[RC]

64. The 757 has fan jets. What high pressure rotor?

The first Picture are parts from a military air craft. The second is so closely cropped it could have been taken in your local junk yard.

[Make7]

65. Turbofans and rotors. N1 and N2.

Most of today's turbine engines are dual-rotor engines, meaning there are two distinct sets of rotating components. The rear compressor, or high-pressure compressor, is connected by a hollow shaft to a high-pressure turbine. This is the high rotor. The rotors are sometimes called spools, such as the "high spool." In this text, we will use the term rotor. The high rotor is often referred to as N2 for short.

The front compressor, or low-pressure compressor, is in front of the high-pressure compressor. The turbine that drives the low-pressure compressor is behind the turbine that drives the high-pressure compressor. The low-pressure compressor is connected to the low-pressure turbine by a shaft that goes through the hollow shaft of the high rotor. The low-pressure rotor is called N1 for short.

....


A turbofan engine is simply a turbine engine where the first stage compressor rotor is larger in diameter than the rest of the engine. This larger stage is called the fan. The air that passes through the fan near its inner diameter also passes through the remaining compressor stages in the core of the engine and is further compressed and processed through the engine cycle. The air that passes through the outer diameter of the fan rotor does not pass through the core of the engine, but instead passes along the outside of the engine. This air is called bypass air, and the ratio of bypass air to core air is called the bypass ratio.

Schematic

The air accelerated by the fan in a turbofan engine contributes significantly to the thrust produced by the engine, particularly at low forward speeds and low altitudes. In large engines, such as the engines that power the B747, B757, B767, A300, A310, etc., as much as three-quarters of the thrust delivered by the engine is developed by the fan.

http://fromtheflightdeck.com/Stories/turbofan

RC wrote:

The first Picture are parts from a military air craft.

Perhaps you could walk us through the identification process that would substantiate your statement. Or at least provide some kind of source for that information. Or even just a picture. Kind of like this one of a ?pic">RB211-535E4.

-Make7

[vincent_vega_lives]

213. Can you elaborate on this?

For instance a 757 has two 6 ton engines. I'll buy that.

Only part of one engine was found and that engine was too small to be from the 757. Source please? Where have you seen documentation that only a single engine was found? The engine parts I have seen fit the RB-211 engine, used in a 757.

Does that look like it is from an engine 5 feet across?

The RB-211 engine is almost 8 feet across. Some observers have claimed that these engine parts are too small to have come from a 757. The confusion is because the RB-211 engine configuration is dominated by the large turbofan at the front of the engine, which is what people expect a 757 engine should look like. However, because the RB-211 is a "high bypass" engine, the high-pressure compressor, combustion chamber and turbine are all much smaller than the turbofan.

No luggage, no tail assembly. For a 85 to 100 ton plane, precious little was found. Source please? I don't think the forensic investigation has ever been released to the public.

Before the collapse, even the entrance hole was too small and that had no plane parts in it. If you look at the pre and post collapse pics the hole is a perfect fit to a 757. How else would you explain the outer facade being undercut to a width of 80'if not from the part of the wing wing laden with fuel. The collapsed region is exactly the width of a 757 from engine to engine. Coincidence?

The next ring had ALL of the supports intact. No plane there either.Source please? There was "no plane" anywhere, just pieces of plane on the lawn, and in the Pentagon.

But I have been repeating myself again and again.

[petgoat]

60. The failure to release the securicam tapes is

circumstantial evidence that the Gov't is covering something up.

What could they be covering up except the fact that what hit the
Pentagon is not flight 77?

[bronco2121]

72. not evidence cuz...

they got an excuse for not releasing the actual impact footage: ... their case is pretty strong that they want to use the virgin images to shock the zacarias moussaoui jury into delivering a death sentence - that's their deal. they go so far as to elaborate on the reason why in 12 pages here: http://flight77.info/govtreply/

i don't agree with their reasoning but in the wonderland that is post-911, this kinda stuff flies. eventually they'll release the images because eventually the moussaoui jury will get their digs.

i'm afraid the whole pentagon thing is really a waste of time to consider and argue about. WTC7 is fare more interesting.

b.

[mrmonarch]

81. What a contradiction!

bronco, what an interesting contradiction you are. On the one hand you say "I'm afraid the whole pentagon thing is really a waste of time to consider and argue about" and yet YOU yourself have a whole website called flight77.info devoted to it. Either it IS useful to talk about what happened at Pentagon or it isn't. You can't have the cake and eat it. Which is it gonna be?

If you really really believe your own words, take down that website. I dare you.

[bronco2121]

92. it's a process...

the intent of the FOIA requests and following lawsuit(s) (the web site is just a medium) is to bring an end to the debate about what hit the pentagon. it's not really important WHAT hit the pentagon - there's a govt conspiracy because hanjour didn't have the skills to fly flight 77's trajectory. to argue about what thing hit the pentagon is a waste of attention. unless you're personally and actively doing something to help reaveal what really happend, you're just 'stroking 911'. like i wrote before, that's good in some respect (because it gets people's attention) - but ultimately it hurts the cause because the argument is like a virus that continually needs to be squashed and squashed and squashed.

i could be out doing something to help the 911 truth movement, instead i'm here trying to SQUASH!!! again this argument.

i know you're not going to let it die - so please don't think i'm trying to change your mind or win the argument. when (if) you see the images of the plane and you say, 'well who is this 'bronco' character anyway? we all know the hole was too small for a 757. the actual photographic proof isn't evidence of anything...' then, i'll get mad.

squash, again

b.

[teryang]

68. You're as clear as mud.

You know nothing about evidence. You totally missed the significance of what I said. (on purpose no doubt). Your dismissive name calling is typical of what comes out of the government.

[LARED]

70. What the hell are you talking about?

I called no one names!!!!


edit: I almost forgot. Where is your evidence that something other than flt 77 hit the Pentagon?

[libertypirate]

76. You know what he is talking about!!!! You do it to everyone who posts here

[LARED]

77. What exactly is "it" (n/t)

[killtown]

88. What about evidence Flight 77 didn't hit there?

Would that be enough, or do you need evidence as to what really did hit there and what color it was and what where the names of the people in the factory who worked on it in the assembly line and what their favorite foods are?

[hack89]

91. I will settle for eye witness accounts..

that talk about missiles or global hawks or small fighters or etc etc per the CT of the day. The CT world can't even agree on what happened - since each theory is backed by "evidence" and "proof" what are we to make of it? Someone has to be wrong! Perhaps you and your CT brethern should put your own house in order and settle on one theory - it shouldn't be too hard with all the evidence you say you have.

[oblivious]

107. "The CT world can't even agree on what happened" - What a statement!

The CT world does not have access to the information to prove anything. It can only disprove the official story by using the contradictory information the authorities have provided.

The CT world is full of fakes. How could you possibly expect the serious researchers to agree with the fakes!

We could say the same thing about the authorities - that they can't even agree on what happened. A number of the hijackers may or may not have been trained by the US military. Many of the alleged hijackers may or may not have been on the planes says the FBI. Their passports may or may not have been stolen. Several of them may or may not still be alive. The ISI man that was meeting all the key members of govt the week of the attacks may or may not have been the money man. According to the head of the FBI there is no real paper trail linking al-qaeda to the 911 attacks.

By the way how many people have been convicted for participating in the 911 attack?

What a ridiculous statement!

[hack89]

119. Nice hysterics, but...

the preponderance of the evidence still points toward a 757 hitting the Pentagon - you can nitpick the official story all you want but there is still a huge amount of evidence, forensic studies and eye witness accounts that the CT world has not addressed.

You are one of the few honest posters on this forum if you believe that there is no evidence of a small plane/global hawk/missile hitting the pentagon. However, there are many here that have trumpeted "smoking gun" evidence that proves that one of these things really hit the Pentagon.

[oblivious]

122. I have my doubts about Pentagon CT. But total agreement is impossible.

My main doubts concern the official hijackers CT. The offical story is so full of holes I doubt even you believe it.

[hack89]

124. No one here has presented a alternative theory that is any more..

plausible. If you believe in CT than you have to accept a problem that is twice as implasuible as the official story - not only did they have to carry out the attacks, they also had to cover them up. OBL did not have to worry about a cover up - a cover up of considerable magnitude. I also have serious doubts about Bush being able to carry out such a complex operation yet four years after the fact there is nothing of import to point out - no names, no evidence, no whistle blowers, nothing - just endless questions with no answers. Either Bush has pulled off the perfect cover up or there was nothing there to start with.

[oblivious]

125. No whistleblowers? That's news to me.

I wonder how many there would be if they weren't threatened with being fired and/or imprisoned.

Sibel Edmonds and 9/11 coverup
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=27243

[hack89]

129. Sibel Edmonds does not support CT as you know it.

According to this: http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/18828res20050126.html

she is fighting to reveal corruption and incompetence in the FBI over how it handled pre-911 intelligence and how it subsequently covered it up. This is exactly what myself, LARED and others on this board feel are the real crimes of 911 and, if investigated, would put government officials in jail. Nowhere has she ever supported such CTs as: demolition of the WTC, global hawk/missile/remote control attack on the Pentagon and all the other fanciful CTs we see here.

Where are the whistle blowers alleging MIHOP? There are none. Where are all the whistle blowers in the FBI or NIST disclosing the cover up? There are none. If all the leakers at the CIA and NSA who have been making live miserable for Bush lately weren't intimidated by firing and/or jail why would the 911 whistle blowers be any different? As clearly shown by the NSA and CIA leakers, they don't even have to come forward publically like Sibel Edmonds - they can leak anonymously to the press.

[oblivious]

162. I don't know why you would say that. You can't possibly know.

All she's said is that she's trying to stay away from the CTs and instead deal only with what she has direct knowledge of.

2nd CALLER: Question re 9/11 stand down of the air defense system

SE: I don't have direct knowledge of it. And I have been trying to stay within what exactly I know--the exact truth--not the conspiracy theories--no exaggerations--everything that I know, that I came across that is well documented where I can say, "Pull out this document; pull out this evidence. Make this document public; make that document public."

However, I have been working with other people who have been trying to address other aspects of this issue.

http://baltimorechronicle.com/050704SibelEdmonds.shtml

I personally don't care much about theories about demolition of the WTC, missiles hitting the Pentagon, and so on. It's interesting, and I'm glad that people are investigating it, but beside the main points:
- Who really did it?
- Who was involved in the massive coverup leading up to, and subsequent to, the attack?
- Who stopped FBI agents from doing their job?

And that's where Sibel Edmonds and the other whistle-blowers come in. Individually, they can't prove anything, but collectively they could. There's clearly a pattern whereby whenever agents get too close to the truth they were told to leave it alone.

Sibel Edmonds:
During my work there I came across some very significant issues that I started reporting in December of 2001 to the mid-level management within the FBI. They said to basically leave it alone, because if they were to get into those issues it would end up being a can of worms. And after I didn't see any response from this mid-level bureaucratic management I took it to higher levels all the way up to Dale Watson and Director Mueller. And, again, I was asked not to take this any further and just let it be. And if I didn't do that they would retaliate against me.

...there are certain instances where the Bureau is being asked by the State Department not to pursue certain investigations or certain people or certain targets of an investigation--simply citing "diplomatic relations." And what happens is, instead of targeting those people who are directly related to these illegal terrorist activities, they just let them walk free.

I have seen several, several top targets for these investigations of these terrorist activities that were allowed to leave the country--I'm not talking about weeks, I'm talking about months after 9/11.

JH: And there were four major FBI investigations, not counting yours, that were squelched in Phoenix, Minneapolis, Chicago and New York.

SE: Correct.

JH: And yours was even outside of that.

SE: Correct.

JH: So, obviously, we have mid-level FBI people who have been told something. It was the mid-level FBI people who knew enough to squelch many of these investigations before they went further. So how did they know to do that? Can all of them have been incompetent?

SE: No. Absolutely not.

...If they were to do real investigations we would see several significant high level criminal prosecutions in this country. And that is something that they are not going to let out. And, believe me; they will do everything to cover this up

...SE: when this issue gets to be, under real terms, investigated, you will be seeing certain people that we know from this country standing trial; and they will be prosecuted criminally.

..SE: Look, Jim, they had those four pieces you mentioned, and far more than that, believe me, far more than that. And that has not been made public. And for them to say that we did not have any specific information is just outrageous. Because what were they waiting for? An affidavit signed by bin Laden?


http://baltimorechronicle.com/050704SibelEdmonds.shtml

Coleen Rowley:
Associated Press, 25 May 2002
An FBI whistle-blower contends that the bureau's headquarters removed important information from a search warrant application whose rejection kept the government from learning more about terrorism suspect Zacarias Moussaoui before Sept. 11.

Coleen Rowley wrote in a memo earlier this week that agents in Minneapolis became so frustrated by roadblocks erected by supervisors in Washington they began to joke that FBI headquarters was becoming an "unwitting accomplice" to Osama bin Laden's efforts to attack the United States, said government officials who have seen the memo.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/LUM205A.html

FBI Special Agent Robert Wright, Jr.
... "Vulgar Betrayal" was the first operation that culminated with the use of civil forfeiture laws to seize the U.S. assets of terrorist groups. The confiscated funds were directly linked to Saudi Arabian businessman Yassin Kadi, also known as Yassin al-Qadi, who has since been identified as one of the "chief money launderers" for Osama bin Laden.

Investigators believe he provided as much as $3 billion to the al Qaeda terrorist network before Wright's investigation closed his operations.

Wright says that FBI management "intentionally and repeatedly thwarted and obstructed" his attempts to expand the investigation to arrest other terrorists and seize their assets.
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/WTC_whistleblower3.htm

There is a pattern here.

[hack89]

164. This is where I agree with you - there is a cover up..

a cover up of FBI and CIA incompetence prior to 911 that prevent the attacks from happening. In my opinion all the CTs do is muddy the water so the Bush administration goes unpunished.

[oblivious]

169. It wasn't incompetence.

[hack89]

172. All you need to do is prove it and I am with you. nt

[killtown]

134. You'll settle for witnesses who describe missiles & fighters?

Ok...

Richard Benedetto, USA TODAY reporter - It sounded like an artillery shell.

Michael DiPaula, 41, project coordinator Pentagon Renovation Team - It sounded like a missile.

D. S. Khavkin - it appeared to be a small commercial aircraft

Lincoln Liebner, Army Captain - I don’t believe the Secretary was confident that, in fact, a civilian airliner had hit the building. I think they still speculated about a bomb, a cruise missile, a small aircraft.

Steve Patterson, 43, graphics artist - He said the plane, which sounded like the high-pitched squeal of a fighter jet...which appeared to hold about eight to 12 people.

Lon Rains, Editor at Space News - I was convinced it was a missile. It came in so fast it sounded nothing like an airplane.

Tom Seibert, 33, a network engineer at the Pentagon - We heard what sounded like a missile.

Joel Sucherman, USA Today Editor - I did not see the engines, I saw the body and the tail.

Referrenced with links here.

And here is a smoking gun even up to your standards:

"KING: Michael, the Pentagon was kind of lucky in a sense, wasn't it?
FLOCCO: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
KING: The side they hit wasn't that populated and it didn't make a direct, full -- like top of the Pentagon hit, right?
FLOCCO: Correct. Also, the other contributing factors -- fewer engines -- was the fact that it hit initially on the newly renovated section that had (UNINTELLIGIBLE) wire inside of -- able to withstand more of an impact." -CNN (9/08/02)

Ok, I guess you'll be switching to our side now!

[hack89]

135. If someone said it sounded "like a freight train"..

would you be looking for train parts?

Are you saying that a small plane, missile, and a fighter jet hit the Pentagon simultaneously? Or that most of the witnesses you list were confused? Are they all right?

Look, the vast majority of witnesses saw a 757 - even you can't deny that simple fact. Now lets look at the dilemma you are in - if eye witness accounts in general are inaccurate than what you posted is irrelevant. If eyewitness accounts in general are accurate, than going with the majority of witnesses lead one to believe that a 757 hit the Pentagon.

Now of course I can predict your response - those that support your CT are accurate, those that support the official account are inaccurate.

[killtown]

138. Ha! I KNEW you'd dismiss what you even asked for!

It's obvious no evidence is ever going to be good enough for you! You even totally skipped over the Pentagon smoking gun I presented you! LoL!!!


So you say the "vast majority" saw a 757. About how many people do you estimate saw this "757"? Dozens, hundreds, thousands, millions?

[hack89]

139. The link doesn't work,,,

and the text makes no sense (at least as far as a smoking gun is concerned.)
Can you describe this smoking gun?

Look at your eyewitness statements: Four of them didn't even see anything at all - they describe sounds. One is relaying the confusion at the Pentagon and how Rumsfeld wasn't initially sure what caused the explosion. The two that mention airplanes at all do not describe fighter planes - they clearly describe commuter jets which at a distance is a reasonable misidentification of an airliner.

No one saw a missile or fighter jet - your post simply reinforces that point.

[killtown]

140. Simple english for you...

KING: Michael, the Pentagon was kind of lucky in a sense, wasn't it?

FLOCCO: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

KING: The side they hit wasn't that populated and it didn't make a direct, full -- like top of the Pentagon hit, right?

FLOCCO: Correct. Also, the other contributing factors -- fewer engines -- was the fact that it hit initially on the newly renovated section that had (UNINTELLIGIBLE) wire inside of -- able to withstand more of an impact.

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/08/lklw.00.html

Ok, see they are talking about the Pentagon was lucky because it didn't receive as much damage as it could have if the "plane" crash anywhere else. Mr. Flocco said there were "other contributing factors" as to why the "plane" didn't cause more damage. One of these contributing factors was because the "plane" that crashed into the Pentagon had "fewer engines" compared to the other hijacked planes on 9/11. See the other hijacked planes on 9/11 were Boeing 767's and 757. Both planes have two engines underneath it's wings. Since the "plane" that hit the Pentagon had "fewer engines" than the others, that means the Pentagon plane only had one, thus not being a 757. See? Simple!

[hack89]

141. This is a smoking gun??

One mans opinion about how many engines with absolutely no proof or evidence whatsoever? Because Mr Flocco said so it must be true? Give me a break - what a pathetic effort on your part!

What would Mr Flocco have to say about this:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html

[Name removed]

145. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

146. Deleted message

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

[hack89]

148. self deleted

[killtown]

149. A man who was involved with the Pentagon reconstruction

I'd say he had more of the inside scoop than we do!

Imagine my "shock and dismay" that you dismiss this smoking gun outright.

What would he have to say about ATS's lame debunking attempt? Well since they have evidence of only ONE engine at the Pentagon, I'd say that SUPPORTS Mr. Flocco's "fewer engines" comment quite nicely!

[Make7]

150. One engines.

I don't believe Mr. Flocco saw the plane that struck the Pentagon on September 11th, and it doesn't look like he starting working on the Pentagon reconstruction until January 2002. What specialized information do you believe that he has to make this a "smoking gun" even up to hack89's standards?

As far as I can tell, the two words spoken by Mr. Flocco - "fewer engines" - were not in a context to allow us to know what he was using for comparison. You claim he means it had fewer engines than the other planes hijacked that day. Can you produce some source to show that your interpretation is something other than just your own viewpoint?

- Make7

[killtown]

151. One witness who saw the aircraft said this:

Joel Sucherman, USA Today Editor - "I did not see the engines, I saw the body and the tail."

Saw the body and the tail, but none of the two huge engines underneath? Interesting. Aircraft such as a Global Hawk have "fewer engines" than 767/757 and their "fewer engines" are internal, so that could explain why Mr. Sucherman "did not see the engines."

What difference does it make that Mr. Flocco didn't see the aircraft and started working in Jan '02? Anytime he started working there, he obviously would be chit-chatting with others and someone could have told him one of the reasons the damage at the Pentagon wasn't as bad as it could have been.

His "fewer engines" comment is in total context. Not sure why you guys can't see that? Oh I know why, that would PROVE your official story wrong!

[Make7]

152. I was discussing Mr. Flocco and his experiences.

So you believe this specific knowledge of his concerning the number of engines could have come from "chit-chatting" with other construction workers during the rebuilding in 2002? Were the workers receiving daily briefings on the status of the investigation? How exactly would they come by the knowledge of the number of engines?

You really don't understand why we don't think that knowledge possibly acquired by "chit-chatting" with construction workers does not constitute a "smoking gun"?

In this exchange, where is he comparing the "fewer engines" to the other planes hijacked that day?

KING: Michael, the Pentagon was kind of lucky in a sense, wasn't it?

FLOCCO: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

KING: The side they hit wasn't that populated and it didn't make a direct, full -- like top of the Pentagon hit, right?

FLOCCO: Correct. Also, the other contributing factors -- fewer engines -- was the fact that it hit initially on the newly renovated section that had (UNINTELLIGIBLE) wire inside of -- able to withstand more of an impact.

Plus, some of the columns and the windows had previously been reinforced for the first phase of the renovation. It was a five-phase renovation program. The first phase had just been completed only a week before. And where the plane hit was under restructured, reinforced part of it. So initially, it hit a very solid part and then, glanced off of that and went into the old section that had just been evacuated for phase two renovation. Had it hit anywhere else, it could have been catastrophic.

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/08/lklw.00.html

Fewer engines than what? How do you know he is talking about the other hijacked planes?

Also, I believe the word engines is the plural form of engine. Meaning more than one.

I simply think you interpreting those two words the way you want to see them.

- Make7

[killtown]

153. So what do you believe he was referring to

when mentioning "fewer engines" as another contributing factor as to why the Pentagon wasn't as damaged as it could have been?

[Make7]

154. I don't think there is any context to know what he is referring to.

You are the one that claims he was speaking of the other hijacked planes on 911. Are you unable to give some reason why you believe that?

You said, "His 'fewer engines' comment is in total context." Okay, then please explain the context.

- Make7

[killtown]

159. I already did

learn how to read.

Now, what other possible context could he be referring "fewer engines" too?

[Make7]

161. con·text

con·text

1 : the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/context

I already read your interpretation of what he meant, but it is not based on what was said during the interview. (Or as some might refer to it, the context.)

I don't know what he is referring to, neither do you. There is nothing in what he said that allows someone to know what he is talking about without making assumptions. Which is exactly what you are doing.

Even if your interpretation is correct (which I do not believe to be the case), Mr. Flocco does not appear to be in a position to know for certain how many engines there were.

- Make7

[killtown]

163. For the last time

they are talking about 9/11 and the Pentagon damage. A man working there to rebuild explains the "contributing factors" as to why there was less damage. The man mentions "fewer engines." Since a plane supposedly caused the damage there as with the WTC, what else could he be referring to other than the plane's engines and the amount the one that crashed into the Pentagon?

It's not a mystery. It's not rocket science. You just dismiss it because it proves your "Arabs did it theory" wrong and you can't stand that.

[Make7]

165. "Fewer engines" than what?

KING: Michael, the Pentagon was kind of lucky in a sense, wasn't it?

FLOCCO: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

KING: The side they hit wasn't that populated and it didn't make a direct, full -- like top of the Pentagon hit, right?

FLOCCO: Correct. Also, the other contributing factors -- fewer engines -- was the fact that it hit initially on the newly renovated section that had (UNINTELLIGIBLE) wire inside of -- able to withstand more of an impact.

Plus, some of the columns and the windows had previously been reinforced for the first phase of the renovation. It was a five-phase renovation program. The first phase had just been completed only a week before. And where the plane hit was under restructured, reinforced part of it. So initially, it hit a very solid part and then, glanced off of that and went into the old section that had just been evacuated for phase two renovation. Had it hit anywhere else, it could have been catastrophic.

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/08/lklw.00.html

What exactly does Mr. Flocco say that allows you to know that his "fewer engines" comment is comparing the number of engines on the plane that struck the Pentagon to the number of engines on the other hijacked aircraft that day? The plane had fewer engines than a 747. And a DC-10. A L1011. A C-130. A B-52. etc....

I do not see anything that would indicate that he is comparing it to the other hijacked aircraft - you are simply assuming that is the comparison he is making.

I dismiss it as a "smoking gun" because it is based on your assumption of what "fewer engines" is being compared to, and also your assumption that he would be in a position to actually know the number of engines on the plane that struck the Pentagon with any certainty.

This is not rocket science - if you want to claim something as a "smoking gun", it has to be based on what was actually said, not your interpretation of what the real meaning was.

- Make7

[killtown]

166. Than the other 9/11 planes

as I said, it's not rocket science.

[Make7]

167. But Mr. Flocco does not say that. ( n/t )

[killtown]

168. What else could he possibly be comparing it to?

All 9/11 planes had the same amount of engines except for the one that hit the Pentagon which had "fewer engines." Why is that so hard for you to grasp? It's not rocket science, really.

[Make7]

188. Two words?

So is it your belief that Mr. Flocco, who lost his only son on September 11th at the Pentagon, went to work reconstructing the building in January 2002 where, by "chit-chatting with others" at the job-site, "someone could have told him" how many engines were on the plane that struck the Pentagon?

And do you also believe that in all the media attention Mr. Flocco has received since 9/11, this "fewer engines" comment is the only thing that he has said about the obvious lie and cover-up of the murder of his only son which is proven by this information regarding the number of engines?

Two words? That's it?

- Make7

[killtown]

189. So are you saying

that Mr. Flocco would have "ran to the press" to reveal this conspiracy if he realized what he was told?


ps - when are you going to give me your speculation of why he mentioned "fewer engines"? Why you dodging that question?

[Make7]

200. No, I am wondering why he would only say something on one occasion.

If he knew the plane that hit the Pentagon had "fewer engines" than the one the official story says hit it, why did he only utter those two words when he had multiple opportunities to reveal that the government is covering for the people who murdered his only son.

killtown wrote:

when are you going to give me your speculation of why he mentioned "fewer engines"? Why you dodging that question?

I guess this is the problem in a nutshell. This "smoking gun" is based on your speculation of what was meant by those two words. I have said multiple times that there is not enough information in what Mr. Flocco said to make a conclusive determination of what was meant by "fewer engines".

Now you want me to speculate about what he meant. That's the problem - it should be absolutely clear what Mr. Flocco meant, just based on what he has said, in order for you to claim this as a "smoking gun". It should not be based on speculation - this is simply your own interpretation of what he meant by those two words.

- Make7

[killtown]

202. Still dodging my question

:shrug:

[Make7]

203. Look, I know you want to believe this is a "smoking gun",...

...but you have not been able to show any factual basis on which to reach a conclusion that this proves anything at all. You have interpreted Mr. Flocco's "fewer engines" comment to mean that he was comparing it to the other hijacked aircraft on 9/11, and you have speculated that he could have come by the knowledge of the number of engines when he worked on the reconstruction in 2002. But the fact of the matter is that there is nothing in what Mr. Flocco has said to prove either of those speculations to be correct. You are simply deciding that this is a "smoking gun" based on what you assume he meant, not based on what he has actually said.

I fail to see how myself engaging in the sort of speculation that you claim as "smoking gun" evidence is needed for you to substantiate your claim that these two words uttered by Mr. Flocco are evidence that the plane that struck the Pentagon had only one engines.

But if I had to venture a guess, I'd say he was comparing it to something that had a greater number of engines than the number of engines he believes were on the plane that struck the Pentagon.

- Make7

[killtown]

229. You can try to dismiss it all you want

but anybody with 3rd grader's knowledge and above can see that there is only ONE logical explanation as to what he meant by "fewer engines". Not sure why you can't see that. Can see why you refuse to see it!

I'd say he was comparing it to something that had a greater number of engines than the number of engines he believes were on the plane that struck the Pentagon.

Um, hello??? That's exactly what I've been trying to tell you all along!!! Glad you finally see it my way! :applause:

[Make7]

231. What we have here is a failure to communicate.

Perhaps you can only see "ONE logical explanation" because you are trying to interpret those two words as proof that AA77 didn't hit the Pentagon.

The simple fact is that this is not proof - as you have claimed - because you can show no factual basis for reaching your conclusion. This "smoking gun" is nothing more than your assumption of what was meant by Mr. Flocco's answer in that interview.

I think part of the miscommunication might be caused by your difficulties in comprehending the English language. For example:

killtown wrote:

I'd say he was comparing it to something that had a greater number of engines than the number of engines he believes were on the plane that struck the Pentagon.

Um, hello??? That's exactly what I've been trying to tell you all along!!! Glad you finally see it my way! :applause:

That is a completely inaccurate interpretation of what I wrote. (And possibly also what you have written yourself.)

Let me rephrase that statement to see if it helps:

He was comparing the number of engines on the plane that struck the Pentagon to a plane that had a greater number of engines than the Pentagon plane.

There are many planes that have more engines than a 757. I even listed a few in a previous post.

What you have been saying all along is that Mr. Flocco meant that the plane that hit the Pentagon had only one engines, because he was comparing it to the number of engines on the other hijacked planes that day. For you to conclude that what I had written is exactly what you have been saying all along shows a severe lack of understanding on your part. My statement is very much different from what you have been saying.

While I'm at it, I think I will post one more example (Post#205 and Post#230):

 MercutioATC (1000+ posts)

Tue Jan-24-06 02:54 PM 
Response to Reply #202 

 205. He used the word "engines". That implies more than one engine.

The Global Hawk has one engine.

A 757 has two engines.

A 767 also has two engines.

If he was comparing the plane he saw to the other 9/11 planes why would he say "fewer engines"? There are no "engines" that are "fewer" than two.

 

 killtown (374 posts)

Fri Jan-27-06 04:02 PM 
Response to Reply #205 

 230. Go back and read more carefully buddy.

You are making an :kick: of yourself.

Questioning the 9/11 attacks and more...

 

Did Mr. Flocco not say "fewer engines"?

What was the meaning of your response to MercutioATC? It seems to have completely missed the point of his post.

- Make7

[MercutioATC]

205. He used the word "engines". That implies more than one engine.

The Global Hawk has one engine.

A 757 has two engines.

A 767 also has two engines.

If he was comparing the plane he saw to the other 9/11 planes why would he say "fewer engines"? There are no "engines" that are "fewer" than two.

[killtown]

230. Go back and read more carefully buddy.

You are making an :kick: of yourself.

[bronco2121]

74. the sun

the sun never rises or sets. the earth rotates and it's your perspective that causes the illusion of the sun rising or setting.

it's a lot like 911... or is it?

b.

[LARED]

75. In light of this news

I can only suggest we do away with the common vernacular of sunrise and sunset and replace them with "morning perspective of relative rotation" and "evening perspective of relative rotation"

What do you think?


As to if it's a lot like 9/11? Yes one's perspective does allow for one thing to be viewed differently from another. But as far as flt 77 goes the perspective that it hit the pentagon is one that is correct and the perspective that it did not hit is a fantasy.

[libertypirate]

78. How do you explain the first pictures on TV?

The ones where the roof wasn't collapsed. The ones that only show an undamaged lawn, and an entry hole the size of the exit hole on the other side of the rings.

The roof collapse was the next day when I woke up.

[Make7]

79. Actually, the collapse was less than an hour after impact.

libertypirate wrote:

The roof collapse was the next day when I woke up.

These are the times according to Paul Thompson's timeline:

• 9:37 a.m.: Flight 77 Crashes into Reinforced Section of the Pentagon


• 10:15 a.m.: Pentagon Section Collapses

"..the next day.." implies something very different.

-Make7

[Kevin Fenton]

90. Lawn

With reference to the fact the official account says the Pentagon lawn was not damaged, why do you think the lawn should have been damaged by American 77?

[bronco2121]

116. ground effects

good link on ground effects: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0130.shtml

a real mystery is how did the plane get so low?

b.

[hack89]

118. Ground effect is primarily an issue,,

when the plane is configured to land with low speed, flaps down and a nose up attitude - everything that flt77 was not. Even then planes manage to land all the time (they crash all the time too) - ground effect is recognized and flown through by pilots every day.

[IChing]

52. Thanks for the link, bookmarked it I also like this line

COINTELPRO agents -

either conscious or dupes of those who are.
The objective seems to be to attack and “neutralize”
those who are seeking the answers.

Those who are sincere, who do bona fide research
and seek to explicate the truth,
are infiltrated,
attacked,
and marginalized
according

to standard
COINTELPRO procedures.

[bronco2121]

73. COINTELPRO

please stop asking questions about the pentagon on 911. there's REALLY nothing more to see there. it's a dead end. it's always been a dead end. i think the only thing the pentagon crash is good for is to warm people ot the idea that 911 was an inside job. they hear and read that no plane hit the pentagon and they go, OH MY GOD!!! for about a month or two. then they begin to realize that they're drinking some kind of bad kool aid - but by that time, they've already been introduced to the real stuff - like WTC 7. so it's good on one hand, but don't linger in the land of that suggests holy cows and flying pigs hit the pentagon.

b.

[mrmonarch]

80. COINTELPRO indeed

"please stop asking questions about the pentagon on 911. there's REALLY nothing more to see there. it's a dead end. it's always been a dead end."

Now, there's a new approach. "Stop asking questions". If it wasn't such an absolutely mindbogglingly frightening idea it would be a most hilarious suggestion. But judging from the response of ATS and friends on this whole matter it is precisely the reverse that should be done. As the saying goes, "thou protest too much".

[MakeItSo]

221. I agree with you , WTC 7 is where they f-d it up

There is no such thing as a perfect crime.

[Name removed]

220. Deleted message

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

[MrSammo1]

54. Could be......

most people like to fit in. Obviously no jet hit the pentagon.....therefore your friend falls into that category.


===============================================================
The power to respond to reason and truth exists in all of us. But so, unfortunately does the tendency to respond to unreason and falsehood - particularly in those cases where falsehood evokes some enjoyable emotion, or where the appeal to unreason strikes some answering chord in the primitive, subhuman depths of our being. - John Dewey
===============================================================

[reprehensor]

40. Autopsy: No Arabs On Flight 77

http://www.sierratimes.com/03/07/02/article_tro.htm

[DoYouEverWonder]

95. So where did Flight 77 go?

Maybe onto this runway at Reagan airport that was in the flight path of 77 has it flew 'over' the Pentagon.


There were also a lot of reports by eyewitnesses of something 'crashing' into the lagoon behind the Pentagon, which is between the building and this runway.

[bronco2121]

98. maybeeeeee

it crashed into the pentagon... because why not? you got a 757 and you want to hit the pentagon. why not hit it with the plane you got? why a missile or a different plane that any tourist could have clicked a snap shot of? the only significant thing about the pentagon is that it was/is the military target that it is. who cares WHAT you hit it with? you got the plane, why complicate it? are they trying to preserve 757s? maybe the powers that be needed another 757 for some reason. it's not a bad plane, and i guess i can see the logic there - they wanted to keep the 757 for poker nights over the atlantic. now it's all making sense.

b.

[mrmonarch]

100. Of big and small bullets

I see you're still at it, bronco. Still have that fligh77.info website up. And yet you say "stop asking questions". Sheesh, what a hypocrite you are.

But to answer your question as to why not use the 757 to crash into Pentagon, it is not so strange. See, a 757 is a big bullet. It is hard to make precision strikes with it. If you want it to appear that there's been a "terrorist" attack, without actually doing some serious damage, using a 757 on the Pentagon is a very bad idea. Using a cruise missile, however, is a very good idea since it's been specifically designed to allow the user to target a specific place on a building. It is, so to speak, more user friendly.

So as long as you can cover up the major size discrepancy between the two, you're good to go! Wohoo!! And oh how they failed miserably at that one. Which is why, probably, that they need fine citizens like yourself out in the "community" trying to debunk everyone that points out the problems with the fairy tales of a 757 hitting the Pentagon. Telling them to "stop asking questions" and "squashing" the arguments, in your own words.

All the while using FOIA as a way to "get the real deal". Oh what a frickin' waste of time that is.
You say that there's a government conspiracy, and then you expect the government to give you information about it. Smells like a red herring to me.

[IChing]

101. To penetrate 4 seperate reinforced building structures

Aluminum is a powerful metal.

[bronco2121]

104. wtf

>See, a 757 is a big bullet. It is hard to make precision strikes with it.

this is your argument: that they went through all the trouble to get flight 77 but didn't use it because it was just too hard (too big, W) to crash into the pentagon - so instead they launched a missile at it (OMG).

how frequently do cruise missiles miss their targets? it's over 10%. how frequently do 757s hit their targets (runways) 99.999%.

but the hole - it was soooooo small. such a tiny little hole. oh my... missiles flying pigs pods holograms aliens, oh my.

i say stop asking questions because you prove that dumb questions actually DO exist. please stop.

b.

[bronco2121]

105. btw

>All the while using FOIA as a way to "get the real deal". Oh what a frickin' waste of time that is.

so, mrmonarch, what are YOU actively doing to help shed light on what happened on 911? asking dumb questions from your computer doesn't count. you say i'm wasting my time - what does that say about you: someone who does absolutely nothing?

that's why i call you a 911 stroker - you come to places like this when you're not looking at porn online, and think you're somehow a participant helping to shed light on 911. so that's why i'm saying - just stop, or at least DO something.

b.

[MrSammo1]

109. you got a 757 and you want to hit the pentagon

What if you don't have enough jets to pull off your plan?

If they did have enough jets........we'd see evidence of the jets.

You should be asking what alternate story the neocon sold to congress?


==============================================================
Sheeple Science Lesson # 2
An object falls faster or at the same speed through steel and concrete as it does through air!
==============================================================

[LARED]

111. I love your Sheeple "science lessons"

An object falls faster or at the same speed through steel and concrete as it does through air!


Can you provide any scientific based evidence this phenomenon actually happened, ever?


Sheeple motto => Follow the Asshole in front of you

[Name removed]

113. Deleted message

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

[bronco2121]

112. enough jets

it's possible but i wouldn't bet on it. but then again, i'm a gambler.

b.

[MrSammo1]

114. Then....

why not show the crashed jets?





===============================================================
The lottery is an added tax on the mathematically impaired.
===============================================================

[bronco2121]

115. cooperation

>why not show the crashed jets?

because it would set a precedence of openness, i suspect. and the govt considers itself too transparent already.

so if there are missing jets - they don't have to show you anyway.

there really is a world of stuff that can still be uncovered by more FOIA requests... how about starting one to ask for any pictures of the debris of flight 77? they MUST have photos of the debris (unless it was a UFO, then you have to ask for pictures of the UFO)... and at first they'll respond and object saying it's all exempt from disclosure because 'pentbom' (9/11) is still an open investigation. so you have to argue in a lawsuit saying that simply showing us the pictures of the crashed plane(s) is not going to cause harm to their investigation... then they object further in 15 pages about how you're unamerican for demanding for such things from them; god's gift to the people - and how you're standing between them and the terrorists. so be prepared to spend about $5-10k and about 2 years on this little hobby to help bring light to 9/11... but it will be worth it, because you'll begin to feel like you're really involved, and you would be.

otherwise, expect never to see anything that's not already in public domain. the REAL 9/11 investigation is up to us - you and i and all the peeps reading this.

further, the reason no one is officially asking for the pictures of the crashed planes is a matter of putting your money (and time) where your mouth is... it's all well and good to say, SHOW US THE CRASHED PLANES!!! but in reality, we don't believe *enough* that something is fishy with the debris - otherwise, there'd already be a bunch of FOIAs and some lawsuits already in action. respectfully, i say: put up or shut up.

b

[mrmonarch]

117. How To Spot COINTELPRO Agents

Bronco sez:

there really is a world of stuff that can still be uncovered by more FOIA requests... how about starting one to ask for any pictures of the debris of flight 77?

Bronco sez:

so you have to argue in a lawsuit saying that simply showing us the pictures of the crashed plane(s) is not going to cause harm to their investigation... then they object further in 15 pages about how you're unamerican for demanding for such things from them; god's gift to the people - and how you're standing between them and the terrorists. so be prepared to spend about $5-10k and about 2 years on this little hobby to help bring light to 9/11... but it will be worth it, because you'll begin to feel like you're really involved, and you would be.

From How to Spot COINTELPRO Agents

1) The message doesn't get out.
2) A lot of time is wasted
3) The activist is frustrated and discouraged
4) Nothing good is accomplished.

Bronco sez:

so, mrmonarch, what are YOU actively doing to help shed light on what happened on 911? asking dumb questions from your computer doesn't count. you say i'm wasting my time - what does that say about you: someone who does absolutely nothing? that's why i call you a 911 stroker - you come to places like this when you're not looking at porn online, and think you're somehow a participant helping to shed light on 911. so that's why i'm saying - just stop, or at least DO something.

Bronco sez:

to argue about what thing hit the pentagon is a waste of attention. unless you're personally and actively doing something to help reaveal what really happend, you're just 'stroking 911'. like i wrote before, that's good in some respect (because it gets people's attention) - but ultimately it hurts the cause because the argument is like a virus that continually needs to be squashed and squashed and squashed.

How to spot COINTELPRO agents:

It is the agent's job to keep the activist from quitting such a group, thus keeping him/her under control. In some situations, to get control, the agent will tell the activist: "You're dividing the movement."

How to spot COINTELPRO agents:

Some agents take on a pushy, arrogant, or defensive manner:
1) To disrupt the agenda
2) To side-track the discussion
3) To interrupt repeatedly
4) To feign ignorance
5) To make an unfounded accusation against a person.
Calling someone a racist, for example. This tactic is used to discredit a person in the eyes of all other group members.

How to spot COINTELPRO agents:

Saboteurs
Some saboteurs pretend to be activists. She or he will ....
1) Write encyclopedic flyers (in the present day, websites (mrmonarch: such as www.flight77.info))
2) Print flyers in English only.
3) Have demonstrations in places where no one cares.
4) Solicit funding from rich people instead of grass roots support
5) Display banners with too many words that are confusing.
6) Confuse issues.
7) Make the wrong demands.
8) Compromise the goal.
9) Have endless discussions that waste everyone's time. The agent may accompany the endless discussions with drinking, pot smoking or other amusement to slow down the activist's work.

How to spot COINTELPRO agents:

Informants
1) Want everyone to sign up and sing in and sign everything.
2) Ask a lot of questions (gathering data).
3) Want to know what events the activist is planning to attend.
4) Attempt to make the activist defend him or herself to identify his or her beliefs, goals, and level of committment.

And so on.

[bronco2121]

120. you forgot 7b

you forgot:

7b) labels those in the REALLY REAL movement, 'kookoo for cocoa puffs'.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=kookoo+for+cocoa+puffs


b.

[hack89]

121. If I was Carl Rove, and wanted to discredit the 911 movement..

I would invent a guy like you. The moment rationality enters the picture, Bush is dead meat.

[bronco2121]

123. btw

mrmonarch,

you seem very proud of yourself as an activist. i take it that your action as an activist is to spot COINTELPRO agents - that's your 'activism'. although you are not active in normal way, your movement is essentially self-defined - so you can proclaim yourself an 'activist' or anything you want... let's call you: COINTELPRO agent spotter.

so you wake up in the morning, and your task is to make a bunch of unsupported and bizarre claims about this or that - and anyone who calls your BS is a COINTELPRO agent. ah ha! you found one, mrmonarch. you got me! i'm a COINTELPRO agent working against your movement. here i am.

i'd be afraid if i were you - because there are a great number of us COINTELPRO agents out here who love nothing better than calling you on your childish claims that do, in fact, divide the 9/11 truth movement.

i ask you, who would ever suggest that a cruise missile is more accurate and reliable than a professionally piloted 757? a child, or a very ignorant adult, or someone who is kookoo for cocoa puffs, or someone who likes to spread BS for whatever reason. which one are you?

b.

[mrmonarch]

128. Get a real job!

Actually, my "activism" has more to do with helping (serious) researchers such as Joe, who wrote the referenced article (remember that one?). Teasing COINTELPRO agents has nothing to do with activism per se, so it's just mostly for fun and the educational value.

Anyway, you're just miffed because you're gonna be reassigned or whatever. Probably gonna look bad in your resumé too. So dude, get a real job. You're just not cut out for this "manipulation" thing.

But, in case you do choose to stay with your current employer, here's an advice: when they gave you the "playbook" of "suggested strategies" and whatnot, you weren't supposed to, like, use 'em all and certainly not as literally as you have been doing. They were supposed to be more like "inspiration" that you could use, otherwise you become way way way too obvious about who and what you are (like you've shown so amusingly in this thread). So, go get another account and be a little more subtle. Don't play all the tricks in the book, at least not all in the same thread at the same time.

Best of luck!

[bronco2121]

130. new DU name

it's about time for you (again) to get a new DU name, as you've trashed "mrmonarch".

to make your next ID last longer next time, don't quote other people so much. also, stay away from the term, "COINTELPRO" (in caps) because it makes it too easy to spot you.

good luck in your next disinformation campaign. this one kinda lacked creativity and was in no way subtle, BTW.

cheers!
b

[bronco2121]

131. no hard feelings...

mrmonarch... all is good. i do respect your perspective and i don't really really disagree with it - as none of us really can truly know what to believe relative to 9/11. i know i've been talking smack to you, but please don't take it personally. it's all well and good. i hope there's no real hard feelings... and if there are, i've been too dogmatic, to which i apologize.

happy new year.

b.

[savemefromdumbya]

160. It didn't crash into the lagoon

somthing did completely fly over the Pentagon and something blew a hole in the wall.

[mrmonarch]

97. AboveTopSecret.com and COINTELPRO

For followups on this story-in-progress, see the following links:
http://laura-knight-jadczyk.blogspot.com/2006/01/is-above-top-secret-forum-cointelpro.html
http://laura-knight-jadczyk.blogspot.com/2006/01/cointelpro-updates-above-top-secret.html
http://laura-knight-jadczyk.blogspot.com/2006/01/abovetopsecretcom-cointelpro-update_10.html
http://laura-knight-jadczyk.blogspot.com/2006/01/abovetopsecretcom-cointelpro-update-2.html
http://laura-knight-jadczyk.blogspot.com/2006/01/more-inside-scoops-on.html

Very educational.

[bronco2121]

99. yes...

>Very educational.

except for the fact that it's not.

[mrmonarch]

136. Arrrrrgh... I was wrong!! PLEASE READ!

DAMNIT, it appears that everything I said was wrong. I mean, just read this:
Top Secret! Clear Evidence that Flight 77 Hit The Pentagon on 9/11

There, all is now explained. Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, damnit. Sheeesh, do I feel dumb or whatever...

(note to the non-observant reader: not)

[hack89]

137. I don't understand...

how this differs in any respect from "normal" 911 CT "research".

[bronco2121]

142. it's not that...

it's not that we think you're dumb or silly, but please stop acting that way.

try reading this: http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html

b.

[mrmonarch]

143. Peak Oil, Ruppert, and the 9-11 Truth Movement

Ruppert and Hopsicker Co-Opting the 9-11 Truth Movement

Or

Exposing the Big Con – Lies and Disinformation At The End Of Civilisation As We Know It

[MrSammo1]

144. odd......

they make no comment about the all important missing vertical stabilizer mark.

Are you sure you don't believe in miracles?

[killtown]

147. I wish oilempire would spend as much time debunking

the official 9/11 theory then they do trying do debunk other 9/11 researchers. Kind of makes you wonder what their real angle is?