Ed Schultz full of shit about Flight 77 and the Pentagon Crash

[zulchzulu]

I was listening to him today between Randi Rhodes when I heard him mention during a break that "a couple people emailed me saying that they saw the plane that crashed into the Pentagon while they were on the highway".

The mere fact that these people would (1) be listening to Ed Schultz and (2) would email him that they saw the plane as well as (3) actually survived seeing the plane as it crashed into the Pentagon that miraculously disappeared into the rubble is at best a challenge.

Why does Shultz even mention the mysterious crash and say that people verified that they saw the "plane" unless he's a plant...a shill..or else is too lazy to actually look into the matter?

The only question that needs to be answered is how a titanium body of an airplane that would melt at 1600 degrees somehow melted from rocket that burns at a maximum if 1000 degrees. Faith-based science is just that...bullshit!

[Flabbergasted]

1. Interesting....!

[hack89]

2. Are you saying that no one saw a plane?

Here are a bunch of witness statements:

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/F77penta03.html#p3

And you do realize, don't you, that 757s are made of aluminum alloys, not titanium? Titanium is used in the engines but not for the fuselage.

You are entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts.

[Flabbergasted]

3. So exactly what are you saying?

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[salvorhardin]

6. Looks like they found engine parts

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

[zulchzulu]

7. Yes...one engine...just like a cruise missile...

Again, no wing wreckage, no luggage, no body parts, no signs of a plane skidding into the building...no tail wings?

Also, why were the security cameras located at a hotel and a gas station confiscated? Why did the initial reports from Fox News wonder how the crash site showed no signs of a plane crash? Why did Rumsfeld refer to the accident initially as a missile attack?

I know. Shut up. Bury your head in the sand... I know the Stalinist drill I'm supposed to fall into...

[adarling]

8. hey, there are alot of us that are starting to see some interesting things

about this. I have been studying the pentagon crash and even the world trade center stuff and there is some interesting things going on. Like the explosions before the planes entered the towers or the fact that the point of entry makes it look like there are no wings.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[salvorhardin]

12. Yep.

But I don't link to Rense as a rule.

[zulchzulu]

15. Hmm...no luggage, no wings, no bodies...

I'm glad you're convinced it was a 747 or 757... the remnants on the site very much resembled a cruise missile or some military hybrid plane, There is absolutely NO evidence of a wingspan entering the building...which was reported by unknown sources that the plane skidded into the building...



Notice there is zero evidence of wings piercing the building at over 500mph.

Explain that one...

[Jazz2006]

23. That's not the entrance hole, zulch

And there are photographs of parts and bodies and such on another thread here, btw. Pretty gruesome, though.

Edited to add link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=82261&mesg_id=82261

[jwtravel]

27. Engine materials

Jet engines may have titanium in them, but the whole engine isn't made of titanium. I doubt that there was titanium in the turbine section or the combustor section. I know because I work with gas turbine engines and the hot sections (turbine and combustor) are made primarily with nickel and cobalt based alloys. The compressor sections I am familiar with are primarily aluminum. Bits and pieces would have survived, but only as bits and pieces.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[SaveElmer]

9. Sorry...a good friend of mine saw the plane....

Saw it flying extraordinarily low, which caught his notice of course, it disappeared from view for a couple of seconds, and then heard the explosion as it hit the Pentagon.

[zulchzulu]

14. Maybe he knows where the wreckage magically disappeared to as well

Since there was no real evidence of a 747 or 757 hitting the Pentagon, he might be able to enlighten us all where the wreckage magically went.

[SaveElmer]

16. Plenty of pictures of the wreckage....

As has been shown here on this thread...

Perhaps you could tell me where all the passengers on that flight have magically disappeared too...

Let me guess...they were in on the plot...

As were the dozens of eyewitnesses to the crash I suppose!

[killtown]

17. Show me ONE piece of debris at Pentagon that COULD NOT

have been planted.

[SaveElmer]

18. Ridiculuous...

Turning standards of evidence and proof on their head. You and others are making the extraordianry and frankly bizarre claims...you need to provide some credible evidence of your assertions. There are many pictures of wreckage, there are dozens of eyewitnesses, including one I personally know very well. We have the miraculuous disappearance of the passengers on that flight into thin air...


And all planned, manipulated, and kept secret by a government that can't chew gum and walk at the same time!

[dchill]

19. Do you honestly believe...

that this was "all planned, manipulated, and kept secret by a government that can't chew gum and walk at the same time?" You are beating the corpse of a long-dead and disgustingly abused horse of straw here.

From what I've seen, hardly any of it has been kept secret. Instead, as with everything else this administration does, they just deny everything, lie, and attempt to destroy the credibility of anyone who opposes them. Not to mention how much it helps them to have most of the national press "on the team" most of the time to minimize their lies and their crimes.

If you have not detected this pattern, then you are unqualified to judge whether ANYONE'S claims are "bizarre." And also, I'm gonna bet, without doing any research, that James Madison knew how to spell "separate."

[SaveElmer]

20. So you have no evidence...

To refute photographs of plane wreckage inside the pentagon. You have no explanation for the disappearance of the people actually on the flight. And you have no refutation for the dozens of eyewitnesses who saw the plane crash into the building.

[dchill]

21. Well, that's it then...

there are certainly no loose ends here. No questions to be asked. And certainly nothing to cover up. Where ARE those security camera tapes from the surrounding area? Oops, that's a question. Where are the bodies? Where are the rest of the plane parts? Where's the hole that could swallow all that? Why did "dozens of witnesses" see different sizes and types of aircraft crash into the building? I don't need to refute anything at this late date; it's all been refuted for years. All of these questions are still more valid than the answers that have been thus far given.

[SaveElmer]

22. Same argument we get from creationists...

Despite the overwhelming evidence, backed up by photo's of wreckage, by dozens of eyewitnesses, again, one of whom I know very well personally, by any lack of explanation of where the passengers are if they are not dead...you assume since not every last question has been answered to your complete satisfaction that a conspiracy must be involved.

The answers to your question are more easily answered by simple explanations than to look to some grand conspiracy, orchestrated by the government to cover up some crime whose purpose you can't define, involving at a minimum hundreds of members of the military, the passengers on the flight who presumably do not mind being kept from their families, or are being kept against their will someplace, the crew of that same flight, the hundreds of rescue workers who presumably stood by while the government planted plane wreckage in the Pentagon, and oh yes...the dozens of eyewitnesses who actually saw the plane fly into the Pentagon.

[DemInDistress]

24. how could I reach you..I'd like a few words words if you have time

I recently been invited to do an interview on a local bronx cable tv show to discuss my allegations 911 was an inside job.
can you PM me or send me an address and I will explain what I need? I did submit to this bronx station your 200 smoking gun points. I also like your website, very informative.

reach out to me please.

jimmy from the bronx DemInDistress

[global1]

10. This Whole Discussion On The Ed Schultz Program Started The Other...

day when Ed had a caller that was saying that 9/11 was planned by our government. The caller accused Ed's station owners as not to let Ed talk about this subject on his program. Ed kept on shouting the guy down - then finally dropped the call. It was clear that Ed disconnected the guy. Ed then went on to say that he lost the call. Blamed the telephone company or something like that. Ed's performance was so poor - he wouldn't have won an Academy Award. He told the guy to call back. It was clear that Ed didn't want this guy to expound on any of the questions that 9/11 conjures up.

Today I was listening while I was in the car coming home from a meeting. The caller got through again. He said he'd been trying to get through for the last two days and finally got on the air again. The caller offered to give $1000 to a charity if any of Ed's callers could provide a picture of the plane that went into the Pentagon. Ed kept on saying that - well where are the people - where's the plane. The guy said - look I'm not the planner of this operation - you'd have to ask the administration. He went on to point out other oddities of that day. Ed kept on saying that he saw all the CD's that are out there and he won't go there. He's not going to talk about 9/11 conspiracy theories on his program. The guy tried to make other points and all Ed kept on saying to the guy - quit filibustering. Actually it was Ed that was doing the filibustering. Finally Ed gave the guy 30 seconds and the guy kept on saying that the listeners should Google - Northwoods. He was able to provide very few details about Operation Northwoods before Ed cut him off again.

Anyway - that's what prompted people to e-mail Ed about seeing a plane hit the Pentagon.

It's interesting that most of the Left Wing/Progressive talk show hosts won't entertain the 9/11 LIHOP/MIHOP theory. I did hear Randi and Malloy talking around this subject and eluding to that fact that something was very fishy on 9/11 and the story we were told afterwards and the 9/11 Commission and their Report.

[Wexus]

13. He said he saw the 3 or 4 videos floating around.

But he doesn't say whether he watched them. You've got to be a pretty uninquisitive person to watch any of the video and at least be a little suspicious.

Why is it so hard to get people to sit through Loose Change?

[Old and In the Way]

25. If the planes traveling 450MPH at ground level....what's to see?

It's travel 1320 feet in 2 seconds. Maybe if they were awaiting 77's arrival, you'd get a glimpse of it...but would it register? And if you weren't looking at it (I'm sure most were glued to the radio or talking on the phone with other passengers about the WTC, or just focused on driving. So they might hear something, but by the time they orient themselves to the direction, it's in the building.

Now maybe it was closer to landing speed....that would certainly be possible to see. But it seems that the official story is that its traveling at 400-450MPH. So I can't figure how the event imprints on anyone's mind. Plane or missle.

[Jazz2006]

26. If the plane was travelling at that speed,

any video will not likely show anything more than a blur.

But I'd still like to see whatever video exists.

Those on the highway or elsewhere in nearby locations would be able to see the plane, even travelling at that speed, though. It's all about time and distance. Many witnesses probably misjudged or mis-described what they saw as a result of time and distance (and emotion and human frailty), but that doesn't mean they didn't see it.

[wildbilln864]

28. Nor...

does it mean they did! It's entirely possible that the witnesses are confusing what they saw with news clips or something enforced by the constant media blitz that followed. Some could be just lying(plants). Still why ignore those who saw something other than a 757? I've heard and saw a TV news report where a man specifically said he saw a chopper circle the building. He evidently was paying, at least some attention. I think he should have seen a passenger jet.
I don't really know what the real scenario was that day but I do believe that our government should have been aware of the day's impending events. Indeed I think they did know and were drooling at the prospect of finally getting to implement their PNAC agenda. And they may well have had a hand in it.
Why was Bush against investigating it?
To me, him sitting there reading "My pet Goat" at that school, and being told that our country is under attack and just continued to sit there with no look of surprise. Biting his lip. I've done that when I was wondering to myself whether or not the wife would find out that I spent too much money on
Why not release the videos of the plane hitting the pentagon? Surely by now, if they can make King Kong rampaging the streets of NY look real then they can fake that!
How does a 125" wingspan hitting a wall at near 500 mph not damage windows directly in front of the engines? Where's the imprint or hole from the impact?
Has it been refuted that the hole was only 16' where the plane did hit? And where?
It's amazing to me that suddenly on 911, the basic laws of physics did not apply! At Penn., at the pentagon, and at WTC 1 and 2.

[Jazz2006]

29. The overwhelming majority of...

allegedly first hand reports indicate a large jetliner.

I certainly agree with you that it is entirely possible that witnesses can be and are confused about what they see or what they think they see.

In fact, I would be astounded if all of the witnesses reported the same thing. It just doesn't happen that way in real life. Even on a much smaller scale than something like the events of September 11/01, eyewitnesses are very often wrong about what they thought they saw, not because they are being wilfully dishonest but because different people perceive things in different ways and because of their different locations, opportunities to observe, their personal psyches, their varying physiological and psychological reactions to unusual, stressful, or shocking events, etc.

I also agree with you that some of them could be out and out lying, perhaps for the notoriety, perhaps for other reasons. That also would be nothing new - millions of people claim to be have been at Woodstock, for example.

Mostly, though, I think that people are telling the truth as they perceive it, but they may have been looking at different things at different times and from different perspectives.

I don't suggest for a second that anyone ignore those who report seeing something other than a 767. I have also seen the reports of someone reporting that he saw a chopper circle the building. I suspect that he did see what he reports he saw. I suggest merely that people also consider the fact that different people in different locations are, by definition, bound to see different things. I would be highly suspicious if everyone reported the same thing, frankly.

I disagree with your assessment that the government - the disgustingly corrupt and horrific * government - was complicit in the events of Sept. 11/01, but reasonable people can disagree.

I think they are most definitely covering up all of their failures - communications, defence, security, building code violations, bribes, etc. but I do not think that they were complicit in the hijackings and attacks.

I agree that he looked like an idiot sitting there in the classroom after being told about the second plane hitting the WTC, but he looks like an idiot on any given day, so I don't see that as evidence of complicity.

I, too, would like to see the videos that were recording around the Pentagon. I suspect that they won't show much given the speed of the aircraft, but I would still like to see them. I do understand, sort of, why they may not be so willing to release them given that the Pentagon is a governmental and military hub rather than a public building like the WTC towers, etc., which they have no control over, but I still think that the "national security" excuse is silly and that they should just show them.

You asked, "Where's the imprint or hole from the impact?" That has been shown repeatedly on this very site. The damage does actually match up.

You asked, "Has it been refuted that the hole was only 16' where the plane did hit? And where?" Yes, the damage has been shown repeatedly on this very site.

You said, "It's amazing to me that suddenly on 911, the basic laws of physics did not apply! At Penn., at the pentagon, and at WTC 1 and 2." The laws of physics did apply. The exact circumstances of these incidents were certainly precedential (i.e. until that day, nobody had deliberately flown large jetliners into structures of similar construction) but most certainly, the laws of physics were not suspended.

[wildbilln864]

30. Yes, we disagree.....

but thank you for the response. I will continue to believe that certain individuals in our government had full knowledge of the pending events on 911. And there is reason to suspect that they made sure the so called terrorists were able to wreak havoc that day!
I don't want to believe it but I do and I will until they come clean or someone digs into it enough to reasonably answer all the major questions.
It's easy to deceive people these days especially when you control a large part of the MSM.

Did you watch LC the second edition? Those parts found at the pentagon are not from what they claim hit the pentagon.


www.madcowprod.com