Photos from Moussaoui trial

[KJF]

Lots of new photos have been released during the trial, here is a selection.
Warning: some photos contain dead bodies and human remains:
All these photos and many more can be found here:
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/

Examples:
Khalid Al Mihdhar's first visa:


A red bandana recovered from the United 93 crash site:


Aseem Jarrah's business card:


Al Haznawi's visa:

Where did he leave on 1 June 2001 - can anybody read it? He didn't arrive in the US until 8 June.

Al Haznawi's medical examination record:

If "BD" means birth date, then how come the number is 6/18/78? Al Haznawi was born on 11 October 1980. Maybe that was the date of birth in his forged German passport.

A receipt for a hotel stay by Waleed Al Shehri:


A driving licence duplicate Jarrah didn't have according to the 9/11 Commission and his visa (although the 9/11 Commission doesn't think so):


"9/11 paymaster Mustafa Ahmed Al Hawsawi"


The base of the WTC, before it collapsed:


A dead body at the intersection of Albany and West, some way south of WTC 2:


A Florida driving license recovered at Shanksville:


Former Pentagon employee or passenger:


Former Pentagon employee or passenger:


Former Pentagon employee or passenger:


Piece of former Pentagon employee or passenger:


There are lots of other interesting photos there, plus some documents that could be worked through.

[Poll_Blind]

1. Damn that was hard to look at, but necessary. n/t

PB

[Ezlivin]

2. I'm ready for the videotapes and to see what was under the blue tarp

[Jazz2006]

3. That's a tent...

if you look at other Pentagon photos, they were used all over the grounds.

I'll try to post a photo.

[Old and In the Way]

5. Thanks for posting....I've never seen an explanation on that before.

[Jazz2006]

7. You're welcome. Glad to help.

Frankly, I'd be surprised if it had never been posted here before (since even I - who pays little attention to certain stuff - have knoown of and seen it a gazillion times in the past 5 years) but I'm happy to have been of service.

:)

But now that you mention it, perhaps I should post it on other threads. I'll have to think about that.

Cheers, Jazz.

[Ezlivin]

8. Yeah, I know

But who doesn't love a mystery?

And I still want to see those confiscated video tapes...

[seatnineb]

9. Those confiscated video tapes must hurt the perps so bad

........for them not to have been shown to the public so far!

[Bushknew]

11. During complete pandemonium, people injured and dying …

that day at the Pentagon.

Why were ALL of those tapes confiscated MINUTES after the explosion itself?

Weren’t there more important things to be done?

That pretty much says it all.

If that doesn’t prove MIHOP to people, then you’re in denial.

If you’re the person who doesn’t NEED to see the confiscated tapes to believe
a 757 crashed into the Pentagon, then your just clueless and hopeless.

Yeah, those video tapes hurt the perps bad.

[hack89]

12. How do you know that they were confiscated within minutes?

do you have a link?

[RedSock]

13. check the terror timeline

check "the terror timeline"

[hack89]

14. Do you have a link? nt

[Bushknew]

15. Here is a link.

Velasquez says the gas station’s security cameras are close enough to the Pentagon to have recorded the moment of impact. "I’ve never seen what the pictures looked like," he said. "The FBI was here within minutes and took the film

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/12/1211_wirepentagon.html

BTW, It took me 2 seconds to Google this information.

[hack89]

16. Well aren't you a smart boy - well done! nt

[Bushknew]

17. I recommend it ...

Next time you think someone is trying to BS you, I recommend using it. :-)

[hack89]

18. No - I believe that people should back up their claims

I didn't necessarily think he was bull shitting me but it was a new argument to me and I felt he needed to provide a link with his post instead of expecting me to research his claims. There is simply too much stuff that is posted here that is simply unsubstantiated opinion - I feel no obligation to accept anyone purely on their word, especially since any statement I make counter to the prevailing orthodoxy is vociferously met with demands of proof.

[Bushknew]

19. I apologize …

It is a new argument for you and I guess I’m just jaded.

I’ve been arguing this here since 2002.

It’s good to ask for proof.

[seatnineb]

38. Good work BushKnew........notice how hack89 is not interested in the fact

........that the tapes were confiscated at all.

These trolls are way too predictable!

[hack89]

39. Wouldn't you expect law enforcement to seal the crime scene..

and secure the evidence as quickly as possible? You use the word confiscated as if the FBI or any other law enforcement agency had no right to seize them as soon as they could. The tapes are evidence of a crime.

[Bushknew]

41. No, not after ….

minutes after the explosion.

How did the FBI know the attacks were over?

You’d think the first thing that law enforcement would do is secure the area from another
kind of attack, and that would take more than a couple of minutes for the area of the Pentagon.

[hack89]

42. Why should I believe the gas station attendant?

You have conclusively proven that the Pentagon crash witnesses are unreliable and their accounts must be ignored. Are you reconsidering the accuracy of eyewitness accounts at the Pentagon? Or are you indulging in a little CT selective "truth"?

[Bushknew]

45. I take back my apology as you …

have proven to be what your name says, a hack.

Your time and energy is better spent questioning the government instead of people
who seek an open government.

Read post 44

[hack89]

52. You are new here ...

as you obviously have missed all the previous discussions about the accuracy of the eyewitnesses. This is a dig at seatnineb's and other's previous statements. If he accepts the eye witness accounts of the airliner hitting the Pentagon I will accept this eye witness account of the attendant.

[seatnineb]

46. You do fuckin' talk shit!

I guess all these images are evidence of a crime......but that has not stopped them from bein' shoved down the public's throat.......





So what is the big deal with the gas station footage?

[hack89]

51. Nice hysterics ...

but you make no sense as usual. You really think that because the government didn't seize every single image and video tape of 911, the fact that they did seize the gas station tape is proof of a conspiracy? Give me a break!

A question for you - why could the plotters wire the WTC with hundreds of tons of explosives in absolutely secrecy yet not be able to disable a single security camera? Or produce a fake tape? Are you saying they only realized their mistake when the plane hit? It doesn't make a lot of sense.

[seatnineb]

58. And that was one piss poor rebuttal.............

But here are things I expect to see in the video.......

I expect the video to show me the plane lowering it's landing gear.......

In the words of Noel Sepulveda:
He was standing in the parking lot at the Pentagon when he noticed a jetliner lower its landing gear as if to make a landing
http://www.lulac.org/Issues/Resolve/2002/30%20Sepulveda.html

......Oh .....no I don't.......

In the words of Frank Probst:
He has lights off, wheels up, nose down," Probst recalled.

http://www.militarycity.com/sept11/fortress1.html

O.K........

I expect the video to show me the plane hitting the ground......

"The plane slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon. The impact was deafening. The fuselage hit the ground and blew up."
http://www.delawareonline.com/newsjournal/local/2001/09/12terrorspreadsto.html

.......Oh....no I don't.........

In the words of Steve Riskus:
"... I saw the plane hit the building. It did not hit the ground first...

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/pages-en/npp-lagas.html

Yeah.....best let that video sit in the vaults!

[Bushknew]

59. Excellent Post

Two of the links that you posted didn’t link up for me. Here they are:

http://www.lulac.org/advocacy/resolutions/2002/30.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20011122185232/http://www.delawareonline.com/newsjournal/local/2001/09/12terrorspreadsto.html

[hack89]

60. I see ...

yet you also know that the majority of the eyewitness accounts support the official account. The fact that you have to cherry pick the few accounts that deviate from the others in order to support your CT says it all to me.

[Bushknew]

61. Well, they all say that …

a 757 hit the Pentagon yet all of these eyewitnesses contradict each other.

Who is telling the truth? Let's see the tapes.

If you don’t need to see those video tapes, that’s fine but why do
people like you question and criticize those of us who do want to see them?

If there is nothing to hide, they should be released.

[seatnineb]

63. Well with lyin' witnesses like these it is not a surprise..............

One day lying fucks like Mike Walter say that he could not see the plane impact the Pentagon......

In the words of Mike Walter(9/12/01):
6.00am ET, Bryant Gumbel from CBS

Well, as I said, you know, there were trees obstructing my view, so I saw it as it went--and then the--then the trees, and then I saw the--the fireball and the smoke. Some people have said that the plane actually sent on its side and in that way. But I can't tell you, Bryant.


....and on other days he has an acute recollection of how fl77 impacted the Pentagon......

In the words of Mike Walter(unknown date):
The wings folded back and it was like watching someone slam an empty aluminum can into a wall. The jet folded up like an accordion. There was a huge fireball.
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/mike.html

So Hack89......you can take your lying witnesses........and shove em' up your ass!

[Jazz2006]

27. Agreed, Ezlivin.

I'd like to see the video tapes, too.

[Jazz2006]

4. Yes, there is some pretty gruesome stuff, but thank you for the link - it

has all kinds of interesting items.

[greyl]

6. Thanks. nt

[medienanalyse]

10. The "mystery" is NOT over now ...

Those who were only keen to play around 9/11 questions and who "love" pictures and videos may be silenced now a bit, these "Harry-Potter" "Man,Myth and Magic" people.

But: not only the videos are not yet public. It is so much more of evidence which was only sacked or destroyed by FBI. And never forget: even the most scarrd persons were identified and the bodies given back to their families.

Except those of the "hijackers". The bodies of the allged persons are still on ice - not identified, not given back to "their families" (who ever these allegedly are).

So the question remains: WHO DID IT ?

Why did AAL77 slam into that wedge which just had got steel beams, blast resistant windows and ESPECIALLY KEVLAR on the walls (cusing the impression of a too small hole ?

Who opened the airsoace for the terror ?

Why was ANdrews AFB inactive: no fighter jets in the air ? What did Rumsfeld do and what did he not do on 9/11 ?

Look for "rumsfeld" and "conduct" in google - you will notice that my article on this issue is well liked in the world so google favorites it. Proudly to serve Americans in getting rid of their criminals
Yours sincerely
medienanalyse

[DemInDistress]

20. flight 77 entrance to pentagon gmafb !!

Photograph of the Pentagon after Flight 77 crashed into the building Photograph of the Pentagon after Flight 77 crashed into the building.

give me a fucking break !! (gmafb)

[Jazz2006]

21. Er,

That isn't the entrance hole, DeminDistress.

[DemInDistress]

22. fart hole from all the hot air coming from 911 debunker's...lol

[Jazz2006]

23. That photo...

has been widely distributed, DeminDistress. It is not of the entry of Flight 77 as you claimed above.

[DemInDistress]

24. that was taken from the moussouai trial evidence package..

what did it say.Photograph of the Pentagon after Flight 77 crashed into the building. are you paid by the bush crime family? I'd like to know

[Jazz2006]

26. That photo, as noted above,

(or numerous other photos taken at the same angle and at the same place) has been widely distributed and it is NOT the entry hole from flight 77.

It is of what is commonly referred to as the "punch out" hole in the C Ring.

I'm shocked that you do not know this.

It has been posted on these very threads several times, and widely distributed on the internet.

[medienanalyse]

28. "I'm shocked that you do not know this." I am not shocked.

Here in DU I met so many people who ignore simple truth because they want to believe something. For instance those who cannot imagine that things CHANGE after the accident and who do not care for ALL materials involved.

Now they have seen that the look of a human being changed when getting a corpse. But they still expect the whole width and thrust and look of a plane when thrusted through a grid of steel beams and several walls and a damned hot explosion.

They do not care for material.

They ignore aluminium but prefer to speak about tons of weight. They ignore the soft outer wall glued together with a kevlar wallpaper and are unable to imagine the resistance of pure air in comparison with i.e. water or a wall of tiles. They just do not take all this into account. It is primitive childish belief in holes. Las Vegas magician shows impress these people. As a magician I would take not to get shot by them when I show the trick to saw a virgin in two parts - these people believe I would kill her. Because they have SEEN it.

[Jazz2006]

29. I'm still shocked that DemInDistress doesn't know that the photo ....

he or she is touting as the "entry hole" of flight 77 is not any such thing.

I'm not at all surprised by the blinkers and blinders that so many conspiracy theorists tend to wear, but this one is so blatantly ridiculous that it really did surprise me.

[Jazz2006]

30. But, for the record....

I'm sorry, but I couldn't really follow the bulk of your post #26 or the argument that you were trying to make therein.

[medienanalyse]

33. the bulk ?

there is no bulk and nothing is new and I repeat it since years here, in our book and on my website.

Again. We have on one side a plane with heavy weight but most of it is fuel, load, passengers and so on. It is made by aluminium and has speed, together with weight this adds up to thrust.

On the other hand there is a wall which was built in times of WWII. They needed the steel for the ships in that time. So they started in the beginning of the 90s to reinforce the old building in the PENREN programme. The wall was weak and is weak. The thrust of weight and speed penetrates a wall "nearly" as easyly as air or water. On the other hand: water can be as hard as pure concrete. Try to jump into a lake from 10 meters height and you will agree. Air is hard stuff too. A plane penetrates it all. "Hard" or "weak" is relative and so it is a function of the material which meets the other material, in structure and thrust and heat and this and that.

So if people are looking for the hole they must study ALL material involved. And the material INSIDE the pentagon was not the same as the wall. Kevlar wallpaper, steel beams and blast resistant windows have an effect on the aluminium plane which the wall at first had not. Can you follow me ? If not tell me why and where.


It has a cause that the U.S. government does not at all refer to the PENREN and to the special interior of this special wedge of the Pentagon building.

And miraculously the conspiracy nuts with their "physical" banalities meet the interest of the U.S. government not to talk about AAL77 slamming just into the wedge with the interior grid and with Kevlar wallpaper.

[DemInDistress]

49. that hole my friend is in the outer ring..the street side where

all saw it. its featured prominently at reopen911.org and is the basis of the theory that flight 77 fuselage
engines wings and tail all collapsed and 'SQUEEZED THROUGH THAT HOLE" a ridiculous theory and even more
"ludicrous" than the Official 911 Report.

where you from?
how high does the corn grow there?

thanks

[Jazz2006]

53. You are quite mistaken, DemInDistress.

That is not the entrance hole at all.

You are going to look rather ridiculous on that Bronx cable program if that is what you plan on arguing.

[Brundle_Fly]

54. inside it is my sleuthers.

[Jazz2006]

55. I don't understand your post, Brundle_Fly, but I will guess that you

agree that the photo is not of the "entry hole" as DemInDistress keeps insisting upon.

[mirandapriestly]

31. heh heh, and the rest of them

who mysteriously appear just as the Moussaoui trial gains momentum.

[Jazz2006]

34. I'm sorry, but I can't make any sense of your post...

please elucidate.

[Bushknew]

32. Another honest mistake? I am not surprised.

I just finished apologizing to another member for not knowing what * I *
thought everybody already knew or should know.

That photo that you posted is NOT of the entrance to pentagon.

It is the punch out hole in the C Ring. How a 757 can make such a hole is laughable.

I understand how you came to your conclusion DemInDistress.

The caption under the photo said:

"Photograph of the Pentagon after Flight 77 crashed into the building."

So I’m not surprised that you thought it was the entrance. There are massive
amounts of information about 911 and if your new to it and its arguments, honest
mistakes can be made.

It is interesting how people are willing to pick apart a small mistake but not
NEED to see the Pentagon video tapes. LOL.

[Jazz2006]

35. Was that last bit of your post directed to me?

If so, you misread and misconstrue what I actually said.

When DemInDistress first posted that photo with a post saying that it was the entry hole for flight 77, I politely responded saying that, no, it wasn't the entry hole.

He or she responded with a ridiculous post about farting.

I tried again to politely point out that the photo wasn't what she claimed it was.

He or she again went off on a tangent and refused to acknowledge the obvious.

I really am shocked that he or she doesn't have a clue about that photo that was so widely distributed, given his or her numerous posts on the subject on these very threads where the photographs have been posted repeatedly.

That said, I take your point that anyone can be mistaken. I have been mistaken and I am sure that everyone else here has been as well.

But I'm not sure what you mean about the last part of your post "it is is interesting how people are willing to pick apart a small mistake but not NEED to see the Pentagon video tapes. LOL"

If that was directed to me, you have clearly missed my other posts on this and other threads saying that I would very much like to see the videos.

[medienanalyse]

36. Bushknew - your statement is wrong

>>>"It is the punch out hole in the C Ring. How a 757 can make such a hole is laughable."<<<

You are obviously aware of the place of the hole. Good. And you are eager to be exact in describing the exact position. Good.

So when you are so eager and so exact - why do you dare to say "a 757 can make such a hole" to be the position of anybody here ?

I am one of those who always said: Bushknew, RumsfeldPNAC knew, they are liars and so on - but not in every minute and in every case. I say: it was a 757 being smashed into this special wedge of the Pentagon.

But the hole we are talking about is not a hole of the 757. The hole in the C-ring is a hole of a part of the wreckage of a 757 after an explosion of the plane, after being thrusted through about 6 walls before, after penetrating kevlar and a grid of steel beams and without the initial thrust. TRY TO GET IT INTO YOUR MIND !

What "is laughable" is your childish belief that an aluminium plane can be thrusted through walls and explosion and being shreddered by steel beams and afterwards look and behave like a plane looks like.

CHILDISH. LAUGHABLE..

[seatnineb]

37. It was the Pentagon renovation manager who said the nose made hole...

The nose of the plane just barely broke through the inside of the C ring, so it was extending into A-E Drive a little bit. So that's the extent of penetration of the aircraft.

www.patriotresource.com/wtc/federal/0915/DoD.html

Now that is laughable!

[medienanalyse]

40. Take your own nose into your fingers - is it a part of your body ?

What did I write:

>>"...a hole of a part of the wreckage of a 757 after an explosion of the plane, after being thrusted through about 6 walls before, after penetrating kevlar and a grid of steel beams and without the initial thrust. TRY TO GET IT INTO YOUR MIND !"<<<

For sure it was the nose and not the tail.

My sentences were directed against the opinion that the hole in the c-ring must somehow resemble the width and the thrust of a 757.

The very last rest of the nose was (my god, I create a "theory" !) not even able to dip a coffe pot. Because thrust ends.

BTW - if your nose runs into a fist of a boxer it does not look like your nose anymore ... Same with my valuable smelling organ.

[seatnineb]

47. Tell me something Medianalysis.........

You believe that a 757 or a plane of some denomination crashed into the Pentagon.

So who flew it?

And did they do it by remote control or in person?

Where did this plane take off from?

[medienanalyse]

57. no. you believe.

I only tell what is proved. It was AAL77 which crashed. All the answers you required are given by that. Except the one: who flew it ?
There is no proof at all that it was Hani Hanjour or any other arab. Not even if these people were on board is proven.

So we must speculate. There is proof that around all flights a C-130 was seen, in one case definitely a EC-130. There is proof that they have electronic equipment to do some interesting things. There is no proof of remote control (yet). What I understand perfectly well is that the FBI tried to hide every evidence. A snapshot of devices in the rubble would not be so nice for the Bushists.

But this part is speculation and not convincing. So I take the facts. PNAC. The open skies for the terror. Andrews AFB mot scrambling fighter jets. Rumsfeld and Bush sitting on their hands. There are facts enough.

[Bushknew]

44. Look I’ve …

argued this topic into the ground already.

All I’m interested in at this point is seeing all of those confiscated video tapes and
getting an explanation as to why we haven’t been able to see them all these years.

If you keep pouncing on Democrats who DO NEED to see those videos, you
have no credibility with me and others who believe in MIHOP.

BTW, I’m with you on asking questions about AFB, but we can walk and chew gum
at the same time.

The idea that asking for the confiscated Pentagon video tapes takes too much
time and energy from what we really should be doing is ridiculous.

Don’t we want an open government that is accountable to its citizens?
I think so and I wouldn’t characterize that as childish or laughable.

[rman]

43. Do you seriously think that's the entrance hole?

Photos of both the entrance and the exit hole have been posted on this forum many times.
They are distinctly different.





You're either confused or you're trying to be deceptive.

[Jazz2006]

56. Agreed. They are entirely different. I don't know whether DemInDistress

is merely confused or being deliberately deceptive, though.

He doesn't seem to want to answer.

[KJF]

25. Another look at the Moussaoui trial evidence

KSM's statement is worth reading:
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/pdf/DX-0941.pdf
However, he says Hani was in Afghanistan and Pakistan in September/October (before the Cole bombing on 12 October 2000) and received instruction on how to get a visa (amongst other things). However, this can't be true, because he received his new passport at the end of June and applied for his visa on 10 and 25 of September. He then apparently did nothing for 10 weeks in Saudi and/or the UAE (presumably), before re-entering the US on 8 December 2000. I guess KSM must be remembering things wrong and Hani must have been there in the May/June (the 9/11 CR says "spring", p. 226), not September/October, which would mean the sitings of him with plotters before this are incorrect. Or do you prefer an alternative?

As is Al Hawsawi's:
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/pdf/DX-0943.pdf
There's certainly a lot in their I didn't know before. However, there are similar problems with the timeline he gives - he must have the dates mixed up or something regarding the 4 hijackers he says he helped transit the UAE.

Documentation surviving the impact of United 93:



Cheque for USD 326 payable to Hamza Alghamdi from the Pelican Properties Escrow Account (he rented an apartment from them in Delray Beach (if memory serves), issued 2.5 weeks after he entered the US:

The driving licence number scrawled in the corner could well be for his licence (the expiry date would be his birthday). It was cashed later (after he got his driving licence), on 16 July:

I've no idea why they were paying him. Maybe he was getting his deposit back.

A duplicate of Jarrah's driving licence (what happened to the original?) and a copy of the visa and a page of his passport. The photocopy was made by Charles Lisa on or about June 22 (although Lisa originally claimed it was a German passport - another Florida landland also claimed Jarrah used a German passport for a rental - maybe he just meant visa, but that would mean Al Haznawi (also claimed to have a German passport) had a German visa too. According to Al Hawsawi, some of the hijackers also had other visas to European countries, obtained just for show). The stamps on the other page match his documented travel.

Compare it to the page found at Shanksville:

And his actual visa issued in Berlin. Click on the "Jarrah's student visa" link in spring 2000 here:
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/thepilot/timeline.html#
If you ask me, the document found in Shanksville can't be his visa (as the 9/11 Commission claims), because he's looking straight ahead, whereas in the two (matching) photos of his visa he's looking to his left. The Shanksville photo must be his passport.

Photo of where he lived with Al Haznawi:


A much better photo of Al Hawsawi:


Airline travel record for Fayez Banihammad on 25 June 2001:

Airline travel record for Saeed Alghamdi on 25 June 2001:

Airline travel record for Salem Al Hazmi on 29 June 2001:

Airline travel record for Abdulaziz Alomari on 29 June 2001:


There's loads of stuff about the money transfers, for example, cheque cashed by Alshehhi on June 23, 2000 and a photocopy of his passport:


SunTrust details for Atta:

It seems the account was opened on 7 July 2000.

ATM photos of Al Suqami and Waleed, to go with the one of Wail already released:



I've never seen this photo of Al Shehhi before:


Waleed Alshehri stayed at the Crystal Cay fŕom 26 July 2001 to 2 August 2001:


Car rental contract for Al Shehhi dated 25 November 2000:


Printout from the hospital for Al Haznawi:

The birthdate - 16/18/78 - is wrong, no idea why.

Al Haznawi's passport:

Check out the entry stamp: Bahrain International airport, June 2001, a week before he entered the US. I don't know why this photocopy was made, I suppose it must be either by the Landlord (who claimed to have a photocopy of his passport) or the hospital, but why then would they get his date of birth wrong?

Al Shehhi and Atta in Norman on 2-3 July, hotel details:


Atta was in Paterson, New Jersey on 2, 3 or 4 of July. He bought his plane ticket to Madrid there.

Copies of Nawaf Al Hazmi and Khalid Al Mihdhar's passports:


The copies were presumably made when they applied for driver's licences in April 2000.
The stamps on the departure records indicate they were admited as tourists, presumably on 14 January 2000 (six months before the date - 14 July 2000 - stamped on the departure record).

A page of Hani's bank statement for April, 2001, showing his card was used in Virginia:

The account is with Citibank in the UAE. Presumably, it was opened in autumn/winter 2000. AFAIK Atta's account with Citibank in the UAE was closed a year before the attacks.

Higher resolution images can be obtained at the website for all documents.
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/

[kerry_s]

48. Khalid Al Mihdhar's first visa

His photo looks like a poor joke...

[MrSammo1]

50. How stupid do they think we are?

[hack89]

62. Very ...

considering its been four years and you still have nothing except questions.

[Mr.USA]

64. Nothing ?

We have a MOUNTAIN of evidence.

What we don't have is a free media.

What we do have are people scared for their lives to come out and speak the truth.

What we don't have are elected representatives in congress or the senate doing their jobs.

What we do have are psyops working non-stop distributing propaganda on ALOT of web sites, one for such is DU.

and what do you mean by "you guys still have nothing" ?

[mirandapriestly]

65. Amazing, huh? welcome to DU if no one has said that yet.

Loved your post. there are people here working night and day to try to obfuscate that reality, though...

[Yatar]

66. Look at the picture of the guy with the exposed chest.

There's something interesting about the piece of metal that's to the left of his body.

[mirandapriestly]

67. I'm trying to figure out what their story is

They look like they were sitting in airplane seats, but they could have been sitting in the Pentagon working. It's hard to tell, but their clothes look like workman's clothes to me.
What do you think the metal is?

[KJF]

68. I can't say...

... I'm particular keen on looking at that photo, but I had a go, shrinking the window to get rid of the body. It looks like a burnt piece of metal. I don't see anything to definitely identify it as being from a plane, although it could be. Do you think it's from a plane because of the shape?

[Yatar]

69. No, I have no idea what it is

I just thought it looked interesting. It has what looks like a row of equidistant dots going up on the left vertically and another row going right horizontally. I was wondering if others noticed the same thing. They look like they could be rivets but there is no way to tell. If it was more hi-res there would be more detail, but I doubt there are better versions of this ghoulish picture around. If the bodies were planted (and they look a little fake), then probably this piece of metal was as well if it is indeed from a plane.

[Yatar]

70. Try increasing the contrast.

N/T

[KJF]

71. Higher resolution

An image with higher resolution can be found at the website:
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/
But I don't think I'll post it again.
I had a look at it. I can see the dots, but it seems to thick (several inches) to be from a plane. I really doubt they are faked.