Sunday, December 24, 2006

Blog Devoted to Debunking No Plane at the Pentagon

Unfortunately, like Russ Pickering (whose work gets cited), it's still essentially devoted to 9-11 Denial.

No matter what the Loose Change people say, we are not winning and the idiots are not helping.

A reasonable voice from the 9/11 Truth Movement brings you some insight on the state of the struggle. The "Truth" scene is currently dominated by ridiculous claims by ridiculous people whose goal seems to be providing not the most rational explanation but the one most opposite to the official story. No matter what the Loose Change people say, we are not winning and the idiots are not helping. Herein I will help break the spell of one of their key arguments - no Boeing jet hit the Pentagon on 9/11 - in hopes of getting some people off that train before it crashes for good.

55 Comments:

At 24 December, 2006 15:50, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pat,

When you say you are not winning, I think I know your meaning. You mean there is a lot of loud denier voices.... right.

I would suggest you redefine victory. You've already won. Declare victory and go home. If the current trajectory of US and world history continues, 9/11 Truth will be the small footnote that you think it should be. No major policy decisions or political power issues are being affected by the 9/11 Truth movement.

The status quo supports your conviction that there's no truth to alternative conspiracy ideas.

What change do you honestly expect to come from your "debunking"?

 
At 24 December, 2006 17:46, Blogger Sword of Truth said...

Bg, if you had carefully read Pats post, you would have noticed it was the twoofer who said "we are not winning and the idiots are not helping".

 
At 24 December, 2006 18:44, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for explaining, Sword.

 
At 24 December, 2006 18:57, Blogger Alex said...

BG raises a good point for once, though, even if he did do it through stupidity rather than intent. WE really CAN'T win the argument, any more than we could win an argument with a wall. If our ultimate goal is to educate everyone about what actually happened, we'll never succeed. So how we define victory in this case is pretty important. Ditto for the twoofers. If they define victory as "proving that 9/11 was an inside job", well, then it's simply not achievable. On the other hand, if they define victory as "getting free psychiatric care for US citizens", well, they're definitely making progress.

 
At 24 December, 2006 19:53, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Off Topic, but about 9/11... maybe:
Newsday.com: Weeks after shooting, DJ Blaze dies.

 
At 25 December, 2006 02:13, Blogger Sword of Truth said...

Hey Pat & James, you all might wanna take a look at this:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-intel25dec25,0,3149507.story?coll=la-home-headlines

The twoofers will cry "cover-up" and frankly, I don't blame 'em. When I first heard of Able Danger, my gut told me that for better or worse, it was going to lead somewhere. Maybe I'm wrong (something most twoofers will never say) and I'll be glad if I am. But I didn't expect the Able Danger story to end so quietly.

 
At 25 December, 2006 11:27, Blogger CHF said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 25 December, 2006 11:27, Blogger CHF said...

BG,

I debunk you clowns because I hate seeing good people being turned into clowns!

My uncle watched Loose Change and was spewing twoofer crap all over the place at the Christmas table. I was forced to humiliate him by tearing apart his claims one by one in front of the whole family.

So I prefer to attack the problem at its source.

 
At 25 December, 2006 12:41, Anonymous Anonymous said...

chf,

What a hard-headed, ungrateful, misled nephew you are!

 
At 25 December, 2006 13:54, Blogger CHF said...

He didn't fair any better in debate than you do, BG.

I asked him if he considered himself smarter than the world's engineers and demolition experts.

His "I'm just asking questions" fooled no one.

 
At 25 December, 2006 16:16, Blogger R.Lange said...

BG wrote: "What a hard-headed, ungrateful, misled nephew you are!"

Yes, because letting him shit all over dinner would have been the patriotic thing to do.

Why do you hate America, BG?

 
At 25 December, 2006 17:24, Anonymous Anonymous said...

don't you guys think it's strange that there's not one piece of available evidence to prove that a boeing 757 hit the Pentagon? there's no evidence to prove that the plane must have been a boeing 757 and couldn't have been any other plane. why can't we examine any of the wreckage? why are we only left with a few photos that cannot prove that those parts came from a 757 and not any other plane.

 
At 25 December, 2006 17:59, Blogger shawn said...

don't you guys think it's strange that there's not one piece of available evidence to prove that a boeing 757 hit the Pentagon?

It really is beautiful. You can tell you're talking to a moron just from one statement.

There's tons of evidence that Flight 77 (specifically) hit the Pentagon, and there's no evidence for any other object.

 
At 25 December, 2006 18:32, Anonymous Anonymous said...

truth911.net...

Another empty-headed ambulating turd...

not worth further comment.

 
At 25 December, 2006 18:43, Blogger CHF said...

don't you guys think it's strange that there's not one piece of available evidence to prove that a boeing 757 hit the Pentagon?

Like engines, landing gear, black box....?

there's no evidence to prove that the plane must have been a boeing 757 and couldn't have been any other plane.

Question: why WOULD it be any other plane??? Conspirators want to tell the public that flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Why the hell would they go through the trouble of a plane switch? What's the point?

why can't we examine any of the wreckage?

Same reason why I can't examine the evidence from a murder trial. Who the hell are you? You're just some clown on the internet. What exactly qualifies or entitles you or me to examine plane crash debris?

 
At 25 December, 2006 18:49, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...


don't you guys think it's strange that there's not one piece of available evidence to prove that a boeing 757 hit the Pentagon?


Wrong. There are large (1-2 feet) and small pieces of the plane that were collected after the crash. There is photographic evidence confirming this. If you have one piece of solid evidence to contradict this, now would be a good time to link to it.


there's no evidence to prove that the plane must have been a boeing 757 and couldn't have been any other plane.


Sure there is. the engine parts that were found at the pentagon were consistent with the engine parts found in the engine of a Boeing 757. If you have one piece of evidence to refute this, please link now.


why can't we examine any of the wreckage?


because you are not a member of the FBI team in charge of the investigation, same reason I cannot access the wreckage. If you have one piece of evidence that says that lay people have the right to first hand access to crime investigation evidence, please post it now.


why are we only left with a few photos that cannot prove that those parts came from a 757 and not any other plane.
ummm because, given you are a lay person, like myself, your resources are limited to the internet and the library, and anything obtainable by the FOIA.

Sorry, thats life...like it or....

TAM

 
At 25 December, 2006 19:27, Anonymous Anonymous said...

i know there's pictures of wreckage. i've seen the picture of the engine part and the other plane parts. what's strange, is that they didn't collect all the evidence from the plane and try and piece it together and make at least a few more pictures available. after TWA 800 crashed, they took the parts from the ocean and put it back together in a warehouse. the pictures of the plane in the warehouse are available for us to look at. all we have for "AA 77" is a few pictures from the day itself and the following few days. i'm not saying that I personally should be allowed to examine the evidence, but it should be available somewhere for independent scientists to examine. or at least have pictures of all the recovered plane parts. and though you claim that the parts are "consistent" with a 757, they would also be "consistent" with many other planes.

so my problem is that there is no detailed examination of the wreckage alongside the real parts of a boeing 757 to conclusively prove that it could not have been any other plane. this point you guys must concede too. There are many parts of an airplane that were photographed, but you cannot conclusively prove that they came from a boeing 757 rather than some other type of plane. you claim to match up the parts found with a 757, but you could do the same with many different kinds of planes. a detailed examination of the wreckage should easily prove which specific type of plane it came from, but this was not done. with all the debate this has caused, wouldn't it be simple to allow a public examination of the wreckage to compare it to the real parts of a 757?

and just to look at the engine in particular that was found. The engines of a Boeing 757 weigh 6 tons and are made of steel and titanium. the one engine that was found weighted what, a couple hundred pounds? what happened to the thousands of pounds of the engines? they got disintegrated and left a small engine, a small fraction of the size? the engines should have been found relatively in tact. and, the fact is, that the engine was found relatively in tact, just that the engine was way way too small to be from a boeing 757.

but my claim still stands, "there is no piece of available evidence to prove a 757 hit the Pentagon". There is some evidence that may be somewhat consistent with parts from a 757, yet there is nothing "available" that can "prove" it was a 757 rather than some other type of plane. They claim to have identified most of the bodies and the black boxes, but there is no way to verify this, we simply have to take the government's word for this.

you all seem to laugh at my claim that there is no available proof, but i implore you take another look. there is no video footage proving it was a 757, no wreckage that can prove it was a 757 rather than another plane. so what are we left with? a few pictures of plane parts that could have come from a lot of planes. until a close up examination and comparison is done, there is no proof those parts came from a 757. so i ask, is there a plane part that was discovered that must have from from specifically a boeing 757 and could not have been from another plane?

in my opinion, the physical evidence that was left behind, that we only have photographic evidence of, is far more consistent with a smaller aircraft. the engine that was found was tiny, and appears to come from a smaller aircraft. now if you want to claim that it was a boeing 757 engine that was mostly disintegrated and only left a very small fraction then you are free to believe that. but from looking at that engine, an objective observer would conclude that the engine came from a smaller plane. and though you claim that you've matched that part of the engine to a 757 engine, it matches up far better with an engine from a smaller aircraft.

 
At 25 December, 2006 20:46, Blogger CHF said...

what's strange, is that they didn't collect all the evidence from the plane and try and piece it together and make at least a few more pictures available.

Oh c'mon, you're not that fuckin' stupid, are you?

They put TWA 800 together in pieces in a warehouse because they were trying to figure out why it crashed! Remember how they didn't know if it was a bomb or technical problem? THAT is why they felt the need to put it all together.

Twoofers tend to overstate their own importance and you're no different. You seem to think that crash investigations are done in order to please you or me. In the real world, such investigations are done in order to LEARN what happened and improve saftely for the future.

In the case of Flight 77 we KNOW what happened. It hit the Pentagon!

Airphone calls + witnesses + wreckage + black boxes + DNA = another plane???

The only ones in the dark on this one are clowns like you.

though you claim that the parts are "consistent" with a 757, they would also be "consistent" with many other planes.

I asked you before and I'll asked it again: WHY SWITCH FLIGHT 77 WITH ANOTHER PLANE?

Explain to me why anyone would want to do what you claim was done.

 
At 25 December, 2006 20:46, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Planes are pieced together to determine the cause of the crash - no need to waste time doing that here.

"so my problem is that there is no detailed examination of the wreckage alongside the real parts of a boeing 757 to conclusively prove that it could not have been any other plane"

No douchebag - your problem is a bit more complex. You're an asshole.

 
At 25 December, 2006 22:54, Anonymous Anonymous said...

don't you guys think it's strange that there's not one piece of available evidence to prove that a boeing 757 hit the Pentagon? there's no evidence to prove that the plane must have been a boeing 757 and couldn't have been any other plane. why can't we examine any of the wreckage? why are we only left with a few photos that cannot prove that those parts came from a 757 and not any other plane.

You mean, "why do I say there is no evidence for a plane at the Pentagon even though there is heaps, and why do I also say that all the evidence is "planted", when there is no evidence of anything being planted?"

You guys ask: "where's the video of the plane?"
Well, where's the video footage of a missile?

How was the DNA evidence of passengers faked? Give evidence, and name names & organisations, and methodology.

 
At 26 December, 2006 04:18, Anonymous Anonymous said...

well... in those three responses, you guys have not been able to refute my claim that "there is no piece of available evidence to prove a 757 hit the Pentagon".

you ask me how they would fake the bodies? it's easy, all they do is say they identified the bodies. since there is no way to verify this, it's simple enough to make this claim. what evidence do you have that this was a legitimate investigation? none. because no one is able to verify their claim, again, we must simply take their word for it that they identified the bodies. AA 77 was the only flight not tracked on radar to the Pentagon. So there is no evidence that a 757 struck the pentagon. there's only evidence to show that a plane struck the pentagon.

you know, it's simple enough for the government to put to rest these conspiracy theories. all they would have to do, with respect to the WTC is let a group of independent scientists examine the steel from the WTC. Some of it is in a hanger at JFK airport i think, all they would have to do is let a group of scientists do some tests on it. that would prove once and for all if explosives were used.

the same thing with the pentagon. these conspiracy theories would go away if they would release all the video cameras that show the plane on its way to the Pentagon. And allow an open examination of the wreckage, the bodies, etc. Unless they threw all the wreckage in the garbage, all they have to do is allow an independent team of scientists to examine that engine with respect to a boeing 757. simple enough.

why is all this evidence a secret? why can't we examine the steel from the WTC? there's still tons of steel left over, just allow an open public examination by independent scientists, and it would show evidence of explosives if they were used.

Is this an accurate claim?: "there is no piece of available and verifiable evidence to prove a 757 hit the Pentagon". (yes/no)

if you answer "no", then please... what piece of available and verifiable evidence absolutely proves a boeing 757, rather than a smaller plane, hit the pentagon?

 
At 26 December, 2006 05:30, Blogger Stevew said...

Review the facts

Size of 757 matches the initial size of hole in the building - somewhere between 13 and 16 feet (757 is 13 feet wide/high)

Rims found in building match those of a 757

Small turbine engine outside is an APU

Same engine has been clearly stated to not match a Global Hawk engine

Blue seats from 757 laying on ground in photos

Part of "American" fuselage logo visible in more than 1 photo

Engine parts photographed inside match a Rolls-Royce RB211

Structural components photographed in wreckage match Boeing paint primer schemes

Large deisel generator in front of building hit by a large heavy object

Large deisel engine outside is spun towards the building - could not be result of bomb blast or missile explosion

Multiple eye witnesses say they saw an airliner

Multiple eye witnesses say they saw an airliner hit the Pentagon

60+ bodies, matching the passenger list and flight crew roster identified and returned to families from Pentagon wreckage

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1

http://debris.0catch.com/

There are a myrad of piks showing piks that match a 757 and were used at the Mouassi trial

 
At 26 December, 2006 05:39, Blogger shawn said...

in those three responses, you guys have not been able to refute my claim that "there is no piece of available evidence to prove a 757 hit the Pentagon".

Uh, yes they did.

 
At 26 December, 2006 06:10, Blogger Stevew said...

My point exactly Troy
The only time that the FAA will gather pieces of the plane is when the cause of the crash is in dought, otherwise they will not go to the expense of puting it back together. In the case ot the planes on 911, everyone in the world but the toofers know what caused the crashes so a reconstruction of the planes was not necessary, plus the fact that the planes were in such small pieces reconstruction would have been impossible. There have never been crashes like these and there are no benchmarks for these crashes.
Why would they do a reconstruction when there was not enough of the plane left to reconstruct it

 
At 26 December, 2006 06:33, Blogger CHF said...

well... in those three responses, you guys have not been able to refute my claim that "there is no piece of available evidence to prove a 757 hit the Pentagon".

Who the hell do you think you're fooling?

Black boxes, landing gear, engines.

Give it up, son.

 
At 26 December, 2006 08:01, Anonymous Anonymous said...

stevew... first of all, i'm saying a smaller plane hit the pentagon. many eyewitnesses describe a "mid-sized" plane. so i'm not saying it was a missile, or anything like that. i'm not saying it was necessarily a global hawk either. i don't know exactly what type of mid sized plane hit the pentagon, just that it wasn't a boeing 757.

the black boxes are neither available or verifiable. the engines and landing gear could have come from many different planes. it has not been proven that they MUST have come from a boeing 757 and could not have been from any other plane.

so you have provided evidence that is "consistent" with a 757, but this is not "proof" that it was a 757.

this evidence is also consistent with many other aircrafts. so you claim that you've "matched" the evidence with a 757, but you could "match" the evidence with other planes too. again, there is no proof it was a 757, simply evidence that you guys feel is somewhat consistent.

my claim has not been debunked:

"there is no piece of available and verifiable evidence to prove a 757 hit the Pentagon". (true/false)

if you answer "false", then please... what piece of available and verifiable evidence absolutely proves a boeing 757, rather than a smaller plane, hit the pentagon?

that engine and defuser case has been shown to be consistent with a part of a 757 engine, but it is not proof that it must have come from a 757. so what is your piece of evidence that is absolute proof? there is none. you simply site evidence that is somewhat consistent, rather than irrefutable proof.

unfortunately saying "Uh, yes they did." and "
Black boxes, landing gear, engines." doesn't prove a 757 hit the pentagon. it proves a plane hit the pentagon, that's it. there is not one single piece that is available and verifiable that is absolute proof a 757 hit the pentagon.

 
At 26 December, 2006 08:08, Blogger CHF said...

Truth....

WHY WHY WHY???

WHY was Flight 77 replaced with a smaller plane? Give me a half-decent reason as to why anyone would do that.

my claim has not been debunked: "there is no piece of available and verifiable evidence to prove a 757 hit the Pentagon". (true/false)

So you sidestep the blackbox and then claim there's no proof to disprove you. Brilliant.

Question: what piece of evidence WOULD convince you that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon?

Airphone calls, witnesses, bodies, landing gear, engines, black boxes....apparently none of this counts.

So what exactly does?

 
At 26 December, 2006 08:43, Anonymous Anonymous said...

chf... don't ask me why they switched the planes... but they did. hanjour couldn't have piloted the a boeing 757 in that manner. they wouldn't rely on some hijacker to be able to pilot such a large plane into such a specific target. keep in mind, the section that was hit is important. it was far easier to have a remote control smaller plane hit that section of the pentagon than a large boeing 757. but it's not my job to prove why they did it, i just look at the evidence we're given.

i don't side step the black box claim. all i'm saying is that this is not available or verifiable evidence. we just have to take the government's word for it that AA 77's black box was recovered. they could have made this up, and we have no way to prove whether it's legitimate or not.

"Airphone calls, witnesses, bodies, landing gear, engines, black boxes....apparently none of this counts."

well, we've proved that cell phone calls don't work, so they morphed that argument into airphone calls. but if the cell phone calls were faked, than the air phone calls likely were too. if you watch CBC's 5th anniversary 9/11 coverage, they looked at the conspiracy theory claims and said that they tested their cells phones above Washington. and couldn't get a signal. i've tested it myself, and i couldn't get a singal at 30,000 feet.

the witnesses describe a "mid-sized" plane. bodies were of the 125 people who worked in the pentagon, not passengers. landing gear and engines could have come from many different planes. and we have to take the government's word for it that the black boxes were found and were from AA 77.

so what would convince me? easy. allow an examination of the debris by independent scientists who could compare the parts found to a boeing 757. release all the video tapes that show the plane on its path to the pentagon. Why haven't they released the video tapes despite many requests under the freedom of information act? the identification of the bodies was done by the military, and no one can verify their results.

but my claim still stands, what proof is there? there is no absolute proof, just evidence that you claim is consistent. this is not proof.

 
At 26 December, 2006 09:03, Blogger CHF said...

chf... don't ask me why they switched the planes... but they did.

Hahahahahahaha! Dude, that's hilarious! You have no idea why your retarded scenario even makes sense but it's still true. Why? It just is.

i don't side step the black box claim. all i'm saying is that this is not available or verifiable evidence.

No, it's not available to YOU. And why the hell should it be? You're not a crash investigator; you're just another rebelious kid playing detective on the internet.

So who the hell cares if you, Dylan Avery or Alex Jones are not allowed to sift through crash wreckage?

 
At 26 December, 2006 09:04, Blogger CHF said...

allow an examination of the debris by independent scientists who could compare the parts found to a boeing 757.

Give me some names of qualified scientists or investigators who you would trust to look into Flight 77.

 
At 26 December, 2006 09:26, Anonymous Anonymous said...

way to take my quote out of context... i did give you a reason

"hanjour couldn't have piloted the a boeing 757 in that manner. they wouldn't rely on some hijacker to be able to pilot such a large plane into such a specific target. keep in mind, the section that was hit is important. it was far easier to have a remote control smaller plane hit that section of the pentagon than a large boeing 757. but it's not my job to prove why they did it, i just look at the evidence we're given."

and the evidence is not available to me or anyone. the only people allowed to see this evidence are people working for the government. therefore, we just have to take their word for it. no independent scientists can verify this information.

you want names of qualified scientists? what a stupid question. you're saying that if i could find a list of credible scientists to examine the evidence that it would be made available? that's just a retarded question... asking me for a "names of qualified scientists or investigators who you would trust to look into Flight 77." what are you trying to prove with this? all i want are scientists who are independent from the government. maybe some international experts. you really want me to find a list of people who would be qualified to examine the evidence? there are tons of people who would be qualified to perform this examination. all that i care is that they are able to do their investigation in an open and public manner, where all the material and evidence is made public. where the scientists have no connection to the U.S. Government or anyone that may have a conflict of interest.

you're asking me these retarded questions like asking for "names of qualified scientists or investigators who you would trust to look into Flight 77." because you have no proof that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. YOU DON'T HAVE ANY PROOF! plain and simple. you have evidence that you claim is consistent, but nothing that could be considered irrefutable proof.

 
At 26 December, 2006 09:40, Blogger Stevew said...

T911
Provide the witnessess and their testamony. We have provided well over 100 that back the official story. The only thing you provide is opinion and conjecture. All your claims you just posted have been totally debunked. I think there is something seriously wrong with you and most of the toofers. You are a master at how to say nothing in 5000 words.

How about a detailed explaination to back up your claims and back it up with real experts and scientific evidence that is equal to what has been put fourth by the real experts? No opinions. Anything smaller than a 757 would not have hit the light poles and generator

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8&eurl=

" The only time that the FAA will gather pieces of the plane is when the cause of the crash is in dought, otherwise they will not go to the expense of puting it back together". Was there something about this that you can't understand?

Pictures are available online. It was evidence in the Moussaoui trial (along with a few hundred other photos and documents which stand to refute the CTists of the world)
Why don't you:
Tell us about all your mechanical design experience
Tell us about all your mechanical design experience with Structrial Dynamics
Tell us about all your experience with aircraft investigators.
Which crashes did you investigate?
Tell us about all your mechanical design experience with airplanes.
Which ones have you worked on?
Tell us about all your experience with building design
Tell us about all your mechanical design experience with missles. which one have you designed?

If you can answer these simple questions, you can establish that you are a real expert and not just a typical big mouthed unqualified whak

 
At 26 December, 2006 10:42, Blogger FatOllie said...

you have no proof that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. YOU DON'T HAVE ANY PROOF! plain and simple. you have evidence that you claim is consistent, but nothing that could be considered irrefutable proof.

It comes down very much to what you consider "proof."

The kind of evidence that we have available about AA 77 hitting the Pentagon is exactly the type of evidence that we have available to prove almost anything. It is not irrefutable proof, because there is no such thing as irrefutable proof.

Government investigators who are qualified to make such claims, claim that the flight data recorders were found and examined and are from AA 77. Pathologists have examined the human remains and verify that they are those of the people known to be on AA 77. First responders have reported on the wreckage that they found including identifiable parts of the airplane and identifiable parts of the victims. Hundreds of people saw the airplane before and during the crash -- a few (maybe) have suggested it might have been a mid-sized (or smaller, I think) plane, but that's consistent with what you'd find if hundreds of people had witnessed any stunning event -- there are outliers. The photographs that we do have are all consistent with a 757.

What evidence is there that indicates it was not AA 77 that hit the Pentagon? None. No other planes were lost on September 11 and remain unaccounted for. We're not missing a whole bunch of people that boarded airplanes on that day and never got off. There are no airphone calls from somebody on another plane.

So, there is a bunch of direct evidence (black box, identifiable bodies, witness observations, wreckage, etc) that is consistent with AA 77 and some of which is inconsistent with any other plane. Then, there is a whole lot of circumstantial evidence like the fact that AA 77 is gone and no other plane is missing. There is absolutely NO direct evidence that it was not AA 77 that hit the Pentagon and absolutely NO circumstantial evidence that it was not AA 77 but was some other flying object.

The evidence that it was AA 77 that hit the Pentagon is extremely strong and completely un-contradicted. It amounts to about as much proof as there is proof of any other event in human history.

As for not providing you with the irrefutable proof that you demand, I don't blame them for ignoring you and those like you. To try to convince you would be a fool's game.

 
At 26 December, 2006 10:48, Blogger Stevew said...

Passenger and Crew Remains Recovered at Pentagon Crash Site
In addition to the numerous eyewitness accounts, the remains of the passengers and crew onboard American Airlines flight 77 were recovered from the Pentagon crash site. A team of more than 100 forensic specialists and others identified 184 of the 189 people who died in the Pentagon attack (125 from the Pentagon and 64 onboard American Airlines flight 77).
All but one of the passengers onboard American Airlines flight 77 was positively identified
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A61202-2001Nov20?language=printer
as a match with DNA samples provided by the families of the crash victims. These positive forensic identifications provide irrefutable proof that American Airlines flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon on September 11. In addition, rescue and recovery personnel at the Pentagon reported seeing the bodies of airline passengers. The September 14, 2001 edition of USA Today reported, "When [Army Sergeant Mark] Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped in their seats."

 
At 26 December, 2006 12:06, Blogger R.Lange said...

911truth.net wrote: "well... in those three responses, you guys have not been able to refute my claim that "there is no piece of available evidence to prove a 757 hit the Pentagon"."

Uhh... There's certainly something wrong in your head, kid. In your comment prior to this one, you actually admit that there is evidence of such. You said, and I quote, "i know there's pictures of wreckage. i've seen the picture of the engine part and the other plane parts."

Or do you think pictures of 757 parts are not evidence for a 757?

 
At 26 December, 2006 12:11, Blogger Stevew said...

A fact frequently cited as evidence that that the aircraft that attacked the Pentagon on 9/11/01 was not Flight 77, a Boeing 757, is that the aircraft tracked by air traffic controllers made a spectacular spiral dive, loosing 7000 feet and turning 270 degrees in about 2.5 minutes -- a maneuver alleged to be impossible for a 757. A September 12, 2001 CBS News report described the maneuver:

Radar shows that Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes.

Air traffic controller Danielle O'Brien told ABC News that the maneuver was not one expected of a jetliner:
http://911review.com/errors/wtc/forbes.html
The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air-traffic controllers, that that was a military plane.
However, the fact that the plane was being flown in a manner not typical for a jetliner does not mean it was not a jetliner. A 757 is capable of rather extreme maneuvers: It is capable of taking off on one engine, and can execute pitch accelerations of over 3.5 Gs (gravities) as demonstrated by the following incident report of an IcelandAir 757-200:

REPORT 7/2003 - Date: 22 January 2003
serious incident to icelandair BOEING 757-200 at oslo airport gardermoen norway 22 january 2002
http://911review.com/errors/wtc/basementbombs.html
...
1.1.14.5 At this time the First Officer called out PULL UP! - PULL UP!. The GPWS aural warnings of TERRAIN and then TOO LOW TERRAIN were activated. Both pilots were active at the control columns and a maximum up input was made. A split between left and right elevator was indicated at this time. It appears the split occurred due to both pilots being active at the controls. The pilots did not register the aural warnings. During the dive the airspeed increased to 251 kt and the lowest altitude in the recovery was 321 ft radio altitude with a peaked load factor of +3.59 gs.

How does this apply to the 2.5 minute 270-degree spiral turn? The G forces produced by such a turn can be calculated using the following formula.

RCF = 0.001118 * r * N^2
where
RCF = Relative Centrifugal Force (gravities)
r = rotation radius (meters)
N = rotation speed (revolutions per minute)
http://911review.com/disinfo/sites.html
If the plane were traveling at 400 miles per hour it would travel 16.666 miles, or 26,821 meters, in 2.5 minutes. Assuming it was traveling in a circular arc, it would trace out 3/4ths of a circle with a 35,761-meter circumference, giving a rotation radius of 5,691 meters and rotation speed of 0.3 rotations per minute. Plugging those values into the above equation, we obtain a centrifugal force of 0.5726 Gs -- hardly a problem for a 757 whose rated G limits are over two.

 
At 26 December, 2006 13:19, Blogger CHF said...

Truth,

you're a perfect example of why the Twoof movement is so irrelivant.

If independent scientists looked at the evidence and came back with a verdict you didn't like you would just dismiss them as well.

That's why I asked you for names of those you would trust. I'm sick of you clowns calling for new investigations in the vain hope that some qualified people will back uo your stupid theories. None have and none will!

 
At 26 December, 2006 13:22, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Or do you think pictures of 757 parts are not evidence for a 757?"

i've seen the pictures, i believe they are parts from an airplane, but not parts of a 757. since no open examination was ever done, you cannot prove those parts were from a 757.

and stop saying how they identified the bodies is proof that AA 77 hit the pentagon. there is no way to verify this. we just have to take the government's word for this. this evidence is not available or verifiable.

there is no proof unless you take the government's word for it.

and testimony of people working at the pentagon is not the most unbiased source. many of the bodies that witnesses saw could have been working at the pentagon.

and i have one question for you guys... what happened to the engines? they weigh 6 tons each, and are made of steel and titanium. the only engine parts found weigh maybe a few hundred pounds. what happened to the thousands of pounds of steel and titanium that make up the rest of the engines? apparently all the victims seemed to survive somewhat in tact, yet the 12 tonnes of steel and titanium got disintegrated into a few hundred pounds? those engines should have been found relatively in tact, yet less than 5% of the mass of the engines survive? what happened to the other 95% of the engines? they got disintegrated?

what really happened is that a smaller plane hit, and its engine survived relatively in tact, which is what you would expect. to think that 12 tonnes of steel and titanium got reduced to a few hundred pounds is crazy.

 
At 26 December, 2006 13:52, Blogger CHF said...

i've seen the pictures, i believe they are parts from an airplane, but not parts of a 757.

Please tell us all about your extensive experience as a crash investigator and the educational background you have that has given you such insight into aircraft parts and wreckage.

Face it, kid - you don't even have a motive for your bizarre plane-switch theory. Try arguing that in front of judge and you'd be laughed out of court.

 
At 26 December, 2006 14:02, Anonymous Anonymous said...

chf... of course i'm not a crash investigator expert. but you don't have to be an expert to be a rational thinker.

i noticed that you didn't answer my question about the engines? dodging my questions are we?

 
At 26 December, 2006 15:07, Blogger FatOllie said...

Why should the engines have been found "relatively" (whatever in Hell that means) intact? The engines were assembled from a bunch of smaller parts, you know. Why would you expect all those parts to remain assembled and "relatively" intact after striking a "relatively" immovabale object at 400 mph? (or whatever the speed was) I would expect the engines to break into pieces and I would expect those pieces to be "relatively" deformed as a result of the impact; deformed to such an extent that many (perhaps most) would not be easily identifiable in photos of the general scene. I would also expect that those pieces would be disbursed over a wide area. Energy is conserved, you know, and "relatively" little of the kinetic energy of the engines was soaked up by the building on impact.

So, it doesn't surprise me in the least that you don't find either "relatively" intact engines or neat little piles of engine parts in the photos. Indeed, if you did have one of those engines laying around "relatively" intact, I would suspect that it had been planted.

 
At 26 December, 2006 15:10, Blogger FatOllie said...

All these people "investigating" 911 while sitting on their asses watching words and images go by on computer monitors; doing "research" from their kitchen tables. What do they think they are, "forensic web surfers?"

 
At 26 December, 2006 15:12, Blogger Stevew said...

Good god man I got news for you pal. Do you have any idea what a tubro fan is? The engines weigh just a little over 7K#. The piks were from one of the compressor hubs with out the blades.

The engines were in thousands of pieces but some were large enough to be identified with ser. nos.
To say they disintegrated into a few hundred pounds is one of the dumbest things you have said in fact the whole statement borders on lunacy. No smaller plane hit the pent and I defy you to prove that, anything smaller than a 757 would not have hit the light poles and generator.

Please show us where anyone said that 12 tonnes of steel and titanium got reduced to a few hundred pounds. You said the engines were 12 tons or over 24000# when in fact the ones used on the 757 weigh in at a robust 7264#. You had better get your facts straight before you post more of your lies.

http://www.answers.com/topic/rolls-royce-rb211
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/Animation/turbtyp/etfr.html

The engines were out in the open and something in crashes people in the tail area do not suffer as much damage, you simply cannot use that as a comparison.

The passengers were on board if you chk with AA and if you can find reamins in the rubble of same then they were abord. In many disasters you will find pockets of safty areas for some reason. Most of the passengers were........... but a few remanied relativly intact
The plane parts that were found in the wreakage were that of a 757, saying they were not by you does not make it true. The landing gear was from a 757 as were the engine parts. There were body panels that had the AA LOGO on them

You only speculate that there were vids of the plane, you don't know there were any. Calls were not made at 30000'. You people just make these stupid claims that have no relivence to anything. Anyone could ask questions after looking at any pik of an aircraft crash, just because people can ask questions does not mean a thing. Most of the questions asked by the toofers have been answered in great detail but because the answers do not fit what the toofers believe, they are wrong. All have been debunked by experts over and over. Repeating them over and over and never looking at the real evidence does not make them true.

Again I ask you how about a detailed explaination to back up your claims and back it up with real experts and scientific evidence that is equal to what has been put fourth by the real experts? No opinions.

I would love to see the benchmarks for these crashes to use as a baseline.
I am sure glad you are not a crash investigator

 
At 26 December, 2006 15:22, Blogger FatOllie said...

So, an airplane tries to make an emergency landing by slamming into the Pentagon, a governemnt building, and what happens? The government sends out first responders. The FBI investigates. Government pathologists and technicians analyze the evidence and identify the remains. Government employees and government contractors clean up the mess and document it. Government employees find the black boxes and analyze the data.

What can someone conclude from this? Why, the fix is in, of course. They should have turned the whole investigation over to an independent agency, the Salvation Army, perhaps. After all, that's why we have the Salvation Army, isn't it? Surely, all these functions can't be government functions, can they?

And the real proof that it's an inside job -- irrefutable proof -- the government has not presented the evidince to truth911.org for examination. The indisputed trier of fact has not been presented with the evidence! Sneaky devils, those government employees.

 
At 26 December, 2006 15:30, Blogger Stevew said...

Ollie
I think this boy is totally batshit

 
At 26 December, 2006 15:46, Blogger FatOllie said...

Steve, Bermass displayed the same crazy attitude while he was getting his ass handed to him by Mark Roberts on that Hardfire show. Bermass claimed that the investigators needed to present their evidence to him before he would accept the fact that 93 had crashed in PA as described. I believe he was talking about the claim that most of the plane had been recovered and identified. Gotta show the pictures to Jason, otherwise the evidence doesn't exist.

 
At 26 December, 2006 15:54, Blogger Stevew said...

These idiots seem to think that there will be a lot of wreakage left after the plane hits the groun at 400+. The have no clue of the forces involved. I will continue to ask these 2 questions, if any of the toofers give, even a resonable answer, I will listen

"How about a detailed explaination to back up your claims and back it up with real experts and scientific evidence that is equal to what has been put fourth by the real experts? No opinions.
Show me the benchmarks for these crashes to use as a baseline."

Not once has one toofer ever answered this, they will not even acknowledge them.

 
At 26 December, 2006 17:46, Blogger Alex said...

For the record, the engines don't weigh 12 tonnes. This clown probably read "6 tonnes" and assumed it was per engine. In reality, both combined weigh about 14,000lbs which is about 6.3 tonnes.

I wrote a pretty detailed response addressing that and a couple other things he got wrong, but it seems to have gone missing somehow. Too bad. I'm not going to waste my time writing up yet another response to this gluebag.

 
At 26 December, 2006 20:12, Anonymous Anonymous said...

truth911.net said...

Of course you are right about the Pentagon crash.

These guys arguing against you couldn't see the truth if they had to find it to save the Mother's life.

 
At 27 December, 2006 05:13, Blogger Stevew said...

Alex
I made the same points, #7264 each and the only response from the whaks is the same mindless babble.

Do you think the whaks will give a detailed explaination to back up their claims and back it up with real experts and scientific evidence that is equal to what has been put fourth by the real experts?

I would like them to show me the benchmarks for these crashes to use as a baseline."

 
At 27 December, 2006 05:42, Blogger CHF said...

OK, BG

How about YOU explain why Flight 77 was replaced with another plane?

 
At 27 December, 2006 08:33, Anonymous Anonymous said...

CHF said...

OK, BG

How about YOU explain why Flight 77 was replaced with another plane?


My point is that the publicly available evidence doesn't substantively identify the wreckage as belonging to Flight 77.

I can make this claim holding open the idea that, if passengers remains did in fact exist at the Pentagon crash site, that:

a) These people could have been delivered to the Pentagon on another aircraft.

b) The evidence could have been planted.

c) or, more likely, the claims of DNA or other forensic IDing of the passengers (including the hijackers) are false.

As to why the actions were taken, such as

1) having a plane (which some air controllers spectulated was a military aircraft) approach the Pentagon,

2) having a "white mystery aircraft" (my description, my quotes), still unidentified, in the sky in the Wash, DC metro, identified and photographed around the time of the Pentagon event,

3) having explosions inside the Pentagon prior to the alleged Flight 77 impact,

I don't know why.

There are huge questions about what happened and why, which is why I would like a real investigation.

 
At 27 December, 2006 08:33, Anonymous Anonymous said...

CHF said...

OK, BG

How about YOU explain why Flight 77 was replaced with another plane?


My point is that the publicly available evidence doesn't substantively identify the wreckage as belonging to Flight 77.

I can make this claim holding open the idea that, if passengers remains did in fact exist at the Pentagon crash site, that:

a) These people could have been delivered to the Pentagon on another aircraft.

b) The evidence could have been planted.

c) or, more likely, the claims of DNA or other forensic IDing of the passengers (including the hijackers) are false.

As to why the actions were taken, such as

1) having a plane (which some air controllers spectulated was a military aircraft) approach the Pentagon,

2) having a "white mystery aircraft" (my description, my quotes), still unidentified, in the sky in the Wash, DC metro, identified and photographed around the time of the Pentagon event,

3) having explosions inside the Pentagon prior to the alleged Flight 77 impact,

I don't know why.

There are huge questions about what happened and why, which is why I would like a real investigation.

 
At 27 December, 2006 09:45, Blogger CHF said...

BG,

there is NO LOGICAL REASON for the wreckage at the Pentagon to be anything other than Flight 77.

In other words, you don't even have a motive for your stupid theory.

"Publicly available evidence" doesn't identify the wreckage as belonging to Flight 77? Here, again, we see how you overstate your own importance. Why would YOU, BG, be allowed to sift through crash wreckage? Get over yourself - no one gives a toss whether you or your fellow kooks are allowed to personally pass judgement on these things. There are experienced pros who do that. By all means get the required education and then you to may have a first hand look at burned human remains or black boxes.

There are huge questions about what happened and why, which is why I would like a real investigation.

Ah yes, the real investigation. Any closer to coming up with WHO should conduct it? Of course not. You'd reject in a heartbeat if it did't say the WTC was destroyed with a laser beam.

And you wonder why your movement is dead.

 
At 27 December, 2006 10:38, Blogger Stevew said...

BG This is just a C&P almost word for word that T911 posted and he was blown away. Why do you continue to post this nonsense and never back it up?
How about a detailed explaination to back up your claims and back it up with real experts and scientific evidence that is equal to what has been put fourth by the real experts? No opinions.

Show me the benchmarks for these crashes to use as a baseline.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home