It WAS Flight 77. Evidence in Moussaoui Trial

[medienanalyse]

Photos and survivors testimonies say

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060412-122122-2126r.htm

Yes it was Flight 77. Or does anybody dare to state that a cruise missile carried the scared bodies ? Crew and passengers riding on a missile or what ?

Again and again I pledge: let us begin now to determine the real important questions:
Who did it ?
Who opened the airspace for the terror ?
Who made the interceptors of Andrews AFB stand down?
What did Rumsfeld (not) do that morning ?
What is going to happen with the bodies of the alleged hijackers which are on ice since that day: they would be evidence if they were made evident. But they are not ...

Let us talk about PNAC and how to bring Bush on the elctric chair, which he adores so much. The President should preside.

[Make7]

1. With all due respect....

... I don't see how any of that proves anything regarding AA77.

The photos of the bodies shown could have been those of Pentagon workers that died that day.

Also, regarding the testimonies of the military officials, it states in the article that their offices were windowless - and there is no mention of them seeing anything identified as belonging to an aircraft of any kind.

- Make7

[medienanalyse]

2. The bodies were IDENTIFIED

and handed over to their families. All bodies: civilians working in PENREN, military, Crew and passengers. Except FIVE.

"The photos of the bodies shown could have been those of Pentagon workers that died that day."

So the sentence above is unsubstantiated. Remains of the aircraft ? I put together some photos (the FEMA provides even more)
http://www.medienanalyse-international.de/falschespuren3.html

- but you all believers will ignore them and ignore them and continue to ignore them. Same with the lamposts BEFORE the hole and the steel beams BEHIND the hole. Same as eye witnesses. Ignore them, go on and make it up to a new religion. Including the passengers as new martyres hanging around in an Arizona desert or wherever (Mars ?). Sacta simplicitas !

[greyl]

3. I'm afraid you took that post wrong.

What that post shows is that it's humanly possible to not misinterpret 'evidence' and reach unwarranted conclusions to support one's currently held point of view.
If the Times article provided the evidence that you claimed it did, why don't you go ahead and post a quote from that article? :)

[Make7]

4. I was referring to the article linked to in your original post.

As far as I can tell, it does not mention anything that could be considered evidence regarding Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. If I am mistaken, could you please just quote the passage in the article you believe is evidence of that fact.

Does it say in that article if the pictures of the bodies were of people from the plane? If not, the sentence that you quoted of mine was correct in its intention.

Again, regarding remains of the aircraft I was speaking of any information about parts that may have been seen by the military personnel mentioned in that article.

In fact, the only reporting about Flight 77 in the article was how the impact sounded to people that did not ever see it. Or any part of it.

The way your opening post was worded, I felt it implied that the AP article somehow proved that it was Flight 77. I merely responded to say that the article does not really seem to prove anything concerning Flight 77.

I think you might want to at least get to know me before labeling me as a "believer" and implying that I am ignoring facts that you had not even presented in the post that I replied to.

You should not be so quick to judge merely because I feel that the AP article that you linked to did not show that "it WAS Flight 77." Wouldn't it be easier for you to just show that it does?

Pro di immortales!

- Make7

[medienanalyse]

5. They provided the video showing flight 77 hitting the Pentagon

AND photos of the bodies of the PASSENGERS.

You need it in one sentence ? Okay - not in my first post. Take this instead:

"While the material was supposedly toned down in response to defense lawyers' complaints, it included videos of American Airlines Flight 77 hitting the building at 530 miles per hour and photos of charred bodies - one on a stretcher and another sitting upright in an office - of some of the 64 airline passengers and crew and 125 Pentagon workers who died that day."

http://www.knoxstudio.com/shns/story.cfm?pk=MOUSSAOUI-04-11-06&cat=WW

They showed the long missing footage. They are the masters of evidence, of time, of power - and those who doubted that it was Flight 77 only show that they tried to hit these masters at their strongest point.

Lost the game. Lost four years of "investigation". Lost credibility and energy.

For sure we will have to investigate a bit in the material when we first are able to see it - but as I already said: there are questions which are much more important
http://www.medienanalyse-international.de/rumsfeld.html

[seatnineb]

6. Good........once the Moussoui trial is over we might get to see that video

.....of flight 77 hittin' the Pentagon.

[KJF]

7. Not so fast...

... He'll probably appeal and the thing will drag on for years. I'll probably see me pension before I see that video.

Besides, for all we know, it's just the faked stills again.

[seatnineb]

8. Thanks for makin my point Kev..............

And that Ladies and Gentlemen is why we have the Moussoui case!

[medienanalyse]

9. Not so fast ? The video is only ONE evidence ....

... and the other is in the open since four years and gets constantly ignored.

I was asked to provide "a sentence" which clearly states that the footage includes photos of the bodies of PASSENGERS. I did so.

This gets ignored again:

"videos of American Airlines Flight 77 hitting the building .... photos of charred bodies - ....- of some of the 64 airline passengers and crew..."


and it is ignored "videos"

Plural. Not stills. Videos. Not one - more than one. I only quote. And see the eagerness to stick to the old belief ....

[KJF]

10. You must have confused me with someone else

I think the Pentagon was hit by a 757, probably American 77, but I would prefer to argue the case with evidence I can actually see and show to others.

[DemInDistress]

34. appeal what? his death sentence or life in prison? you tell me.

the guy already pled guilty this phase is about punishment and frankly king george the imbecile should be there with moussouai.hell bush had 52 warnings yet he lied to america on 911 saying," I don't know who crashed those jets" remember?

[medienanalyse]

36. one after the other

"the guy already pled guilty this phase is about punishment "

1. I know where the proceedings are and I do not care a lot. "this phase is about " is bureaucratic talk. History has shown so many times (witch processes, Hitler times, Stalin ...) that the indicted people lie when pleading guilty. There is a long range of causes.

2. About Bush:
Is lying a crime nowadays ? Politicians do it day by day.
Is ignorance to warnings a crime ? Maybe we can prove it is criminal ignorance.

3. Important is: WHY did he ignore the warnings ? Because he KNEW ? We must PROVE it and not speculate. No problem to start with allegations of smaller measures, as a starter.

[Make7]

11. See, that wasn't so difficult.

Why didn't you just post articles that reported on that evidence in your original post?

When you say: "It WAS Flight 77. Evidence in Moussaoui Trial. Photos and survivors testimonies say. Yes it was Flight 77." And then you link to an article that does not report on any relevant photos or testimonies relating to AA77, you should not be surprised by someone asking how that article is supposed to show that it was AA77.

Perhaps in the future you can just post the articles that actually support what it is that you are claiming. Merely a suggestion....

- Make7

[AlienSpaceBat]

12. Any mainstream sources confirm that ?

I've done a cursory search, and I can't find any other report confirming that Tuesday's evidence included video footage of the pentagon impact.

Are there any other sources ?

Its a pretty BIG revelation if its true, I would have expected to see it reported widely (?)

[Old and In the Way]

13. I don't understand......I thought the reason that were not releasing

the video to the public was so as not to contaminate the jury deliberations. So, if the videos were actually shown at the trial, there is no reason the public can't see it. It's part of the historical record.

[medienanalyse]

15. graphic photos

Reading some more articles about that trial I learned that the families of the victims allowed to show the photos in the trial - not in the public. Which I do understand and agree to.

A different question is the videos. What here in the discussion was said to be most impoertant is not so much important for the public:

Those who understand that the bodies which were identified are a clear evidence für the impact of Flight 77 do not need additional videos. Those who read what eye witnesses say do not need additional videos. Those who take into account the photos of parts of the machine do not need additional photos.

Since years they do not NEED these videos. Some sceptics believe that their belief is the linchpin of all investigations. Forget it.


I might add that it is not so much implausible to assume that in the Pentagon lots of people are working who know how to distinguish a plane. You must not be airforce personell to understand what the wreckage of a cockpit looks like. And since four years conspiracy nuts try to tell the public that all those people rescuing themselves and their comrades who have seen the wreckage or could possibly have seen it are lying or silent ?

Because Rumsfeld told them "Hey dont tell the public it was a cruise missile which rearly killed you !" ?
Or what ? These conspiracy nuts are not even answered by those who were involved and most of those people who really think about more than about the assumed width of a hole.

[Old and In the Way]

16. That's great that those at the scene know. The public doesn't.

The same case could have been made about 175 or even Pearl Harbor. Americans died, don't show the awful act for the sake of the familys. But this is the public record and I do not believe this government has the right to keep that information from the American people. Personally, I think it serves to keep the conspiracy theories going and they must see some value in that. OTOH, I and many others have not seen the conclusive proof that these videos would confirm.

We already know they lied to justify the causus belli to invade and occupy Iraq. 9/11 was the justification that allowed them to present the IWR in Congress. If they could lie about one set of facts that have contributed to the deaths of a 100,000, why should I trust them to believe everything happened on 9/11 just as they tell us it did? I don't think "trust us, the video's exist" is acceptable from these criminals.

[medienanalyse]

17. Here I just found some of the photos shown in Alexandria

Here 12 - not gtraphic - photos

http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,411269,00.html

which do not add anything new concerning the Pentagon, which I admit. I am not responsible for the selection ...

[KJF]

18. United 93's engine

Is the ninth photo in the series linked to by medienanalyse. I've never seen that one before. Presumably, this is the one that didn't end up in a pond.

Can anybody find a postable copy of this photo?

[Make7]

19. Here are some of those images from Der Spiegel

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,610456,00.jpg

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,610492,00.jpg

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,610462,00.jpg

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,610465,00.jpg

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,610468,00.jpg

- Make7

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[Make7]

23. I don't know.

Other than what can be deduced from the basic theory of how they work, I don't really know much about jet engines.

According to www.airdisaster.com, it's supposed to be a Pratt & Whitney PW2037. Considering the damage to the engine and also the location of it when that picture was taken, any comparisons may be rather difficult. I didn't find any really useful results with a quick Google image search.

Why did you pick KJF as your new username? Why not something like KevinFenton or K Fenton? Just curious...

- Make7

[KJF]

26. It was just a spur of the moment decision...

... there's no particular reason at all.

[Applan]

32. I would say it is very identifiable

The large casing with the triangular bosses on is a combustor case. Many of the fuel nozzles and manifold pieces are still there. If there are any engineers who work for Pratt and Whitney, they should easily be able to confirm whether or not this is a PW2037.

[Make7]

37. We were talking about parts in this picture from Flight 93:

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,610456,00.jpg

I think you are referring to this picture...



... posted by Kevin that he implied was supposed to be from AA77. Although I am not sure if that picture is actually one of the engines recovered at the Pentagon. The filename is CF6.jpg, which is a GE model number. But Flight 77 was reported to have Rolls Royce RB211-535E4B engines.

I don't know if the filename is simply incorrect or this picture was perhaps mistakenly identified as an engine that was found at the Pentagon. It kind of reminds me of some pictures I have seen of engines recovered from the WTC. Another thing which leads me to believe that might be the case is the fact that the plane that hit the north tower was supposed to have had GE CF6-80A2 engines.

- Make7

[KJF]

38. Oops, sorry

You're right. I checked and it is from the WTC. I got it from google images where the caption is "Pentagon Engine Section above". However, when I went to the article and found the picture, I found that caption is for the previous picture, not this one, which is from the WTC.

Sorry, guys.

[Make7]

39. That's okay. Thanks for the update. ( n/t )

[greyl]

20. the photo, slightly compressed:

[spooked911]

24. what video shows flight 77 hitting the Pentagon?

I'd love to see that video!

The only "video" I've seen is five frames with no clear plane in it.

Try again, MA

[medienanalyse]

25. Those who have got the order "keep them busy" ...

are nowadays so lame and plump just to post
"My neighbor sent me this link on the pentagon strike, only for discussing".

You, spooked, try it this way:
"I'd love to see that video!
The only "video" I've seen is ..."

YOU would like. YOU have seen.

I do not care a lot what YOU would like or what YOU have seen. I referred to an article, I quoted a sentence. I have not seen the material except the 12 photos published by the "Spiegel".

I am not responsible for YOUR education and knowledge, spooked.

I adressed the public here to motivate them to refrain from discussing colours, arguing pieces of material which they are not familiar with and to lament about these or those pixels which might suggest that this or that happened if under circumstances.

The families of the victims got the bodies of the crashsites back to bury them. These bodies were identified. Some of the photos were made partly public in Alexandria.

Cruise missiles do mot carry bodies. PERIOD.

It is over, spooked. Finished.

The real questions are coming up now. The "Who did it" instead of "What happened". The questions who opened the airspace for the terror. What did Rumsfeld and Bush do. What did Andrews AFB do.

These questions are not leading into the nowhere of technical details but into political dimensions. Which those try to avoid who spoil every discussion with one .jpg and a one link to a video and one pixel here and one pixel there.

[savemefromdumbya]

31. just like the photos of the aliens at Roswell??????

77 did not go anywhere near the Pentagon.

[savemefromdumbya]

30. do you believe everything people tell you?

[JackieO]

14. I'm so confused! Mission accomplished?

Were the jurors shown actual video of the pentagon attack?

Will it be made public?

[rman]

22. I understand de video and photos are not made public?

Until they are made public i remain sceptical of the OCT.

[Bushknew]

27. Great, when does the public get to see …

these videos, plural. Otherwise, it’s the same cock and bull story we’ve already heard.

What will their excuse be now? Why were they confiscated in the first place?

Let’s see them all, the gas station tape, the Hilton hotel tape and the freeway cameras
as well.

Then we’ll talk.

[Grateful for Hope]

28. I have been reading your posts

and, I have done a lot of thinking about what I see here in this forum and what I see elsewhere on the internet.

I think I now understand what you have been saying for quite some time.

My own thoughts:

People who participate in this forum and on other internet 9/11 blogs/forums believe that the official 9/11 story does not add up.

What I have seen of this forum is that it seems to be bogged down with questions (and resulting arguments) about plane/no plane, demolition/no demolition, missle/plane, and any number of discrepancies concerning the official story.

IMHO, I think that most of these arguments I see here do not matter, and, they are using a lot energy when the energy really needed is being spent elsewhere. Again, in IMHO, what DOES matter is the background behind the attacks. Say, those 19 Arabs were able to carry off 9/11, who was behind them? We all know that they did not operate financially and in all other ways on their own.

Do we believe that Osama was behing all of this? Please.

I say the answers do not lie in the logistics of the event itself, but, rather, the answers lie in doing more intensive historical research (i.e., 1993 WTC bombing, Oklahoma bombing, etc.).

Just my 0.2 cents.

[medienanalyse]

35. Nice try

>>>"IMHO, I think ... I see here ... Again, in IMHO, what DOES matter ... Say, those 19 Arabs were able to carry off 9/11, ...."<<<

Stick to your humble opinion and be happy with it. I do not need it.

I argue for FACTS and not for IMHO"s.

Fact is: there is no proof these 19 were ABLE to do it, no proof they did it, no proof they even were aboard the plane. Best: there is even no proof that some of the 19 are really existing persons.l

Who opened the air space for the terror ? The names are know: Marr, Arnold, Myers, Rumsfeld, Bush. And Cheney, Wolfowitz and some more.

IMHO not all CIA departments are very sophisticated ...

[Bushwick Bill]

29. Oil Empire says

"updated page: Pentagon Truth - 9/11 truth activists debunk Rumsfeld's "missile" hoax"
http://www.oilempire.us/index.html
http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon-truth.html

[DemInDistress]

33. where are those photo's? witness testimony also said, the smell

of cordite permeated the air.that story certainly doesn't prove flight 77 crashed into the pentagon.
not by my standards. nice try !!

[Jazz2006]

40. Your "standards" appear to include not having a clue about ....

the widely distributed photographs of the "punch out" hole in C ring and your insistence that said photos were of the entry hole of flight 77.... so it's difficult to take anything you say without a very, very large grain of salt, frankly.

Anyone can make a mistake. We all make mistakes.

Acknowledging a mistake is all it takes to redeem credibility.

But failing to acknowledge a mistake and instead trying to divert discussion by posting about farting, of all things, well, that just adds to your lack of credibility.

[AlienSpaceBat]

41. You do know what cordite is ?

If farting produces the smell of cordite where you live you are in terrible danger.

Could be another Al-Qaeda secret weapon not considered until now. 19 exploding hijackers with accomplices on the ground, lighting their own farts producing building collapsing detonations.

Sneaky bastards !! :nuke:

[medienanalyse]

42. the level of discussion sinks with the "smell" .. n/t