In all this hoo-hah about the new Flt 77 Video, Lets not forget this...

[benburch]

A DUer SAW THE PLANE;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=942990&mesg_id=943241

[onehandle]

1. I don't trust witnesses.

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[LifeDuringWartime]

2. i dont doubt the witnesses

it would just be nice to see the rest of the video evidence, not that cheesy thing they put out today.

[sabbat hunter]

60. if a video came out today

confirming a plane, would you believe it was real or faked?

[petgoat]

91. No. Would you? nt

[gordianot]

3. Donald Rumsfeld has a piece of the plane in his office on display.

I am sure he would not lie.

[benburch]

5. That is a fallacious debating technique.

Known as "Hasty Generalization", and amounts to taking a sample of one and applying it to the whole group.

[CAG]

9. But, but, but, if Rumsfield believes something, it MUST be false....

Rumsfield once said the earth was round, so now I KNOW its flat. And to think I didn't believe all the nuts saying the moon landing was a hoax...silly me.

[mrgerbik]

82. stop it

I'm sorry but who here is discussing the moon landing, Aliens, UFO's or the Bermuda triangle? It's simple-minded and lazy to lump everyone who believes in an inside stratagem in regards to 9/11 with those who believe in things such as these. Please do yourself a favor and research more, form your own opinion, and come back to debate your stance. Quit trying to make all the good people of this board look like a hodgepodge of loonies.

[gordianot]

58. Sorry but you miss my point.

My thought is Rumsfeld and the Neo-Cons are assisting in perpetuating the Conspiracy theories. There are pictures of a turbine that may be the APU. Detailed records are kept on all aircraft components and are traceable by serial number. Considering that these parts are now part of a Federal investigation wouldn't it be feasible to lay to rest wild speculation that it was not the actual aircraft that hit the Pentagon?

Walter Cronkite once said that an outrageous conspiracy such as the Kennedy assassination was not in the realm of possibility because someone would talk. Any other possibility that an entire passenger list was killed is an outrage beyond the realm of credibility even for an administration that falsified justification for starting a war. Someone would talk.

Displaying wreckage in your office is callous, releasing blurred video's just perpetuates speculation. Rumsfeld is a known liar in an administration that operates on secrecy. Even his little piece of wreckage could assist in stopping wild theories. They choose to perpetuate fear and disbelief with arrogance.

I have learned not to trust the Bush junta on any level.

[zulchzulu]

43. Rumsfailed first reported about the missile that hit the Pentagon...

"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."
- D. Rumsfailed

[gordianot]

59. They do not want us to know the truth, it is their operating procedure.

What you get with a culture of secrecy.

[Karmakaze]

4. Not really...

"As we stood there a co-worker said, that plane is too low.... we ran to the windows as the plane hit the Pentagon across the river from us..."

See, that is why witness testimony is not very reliable. He said someone called out "that plane is too low" than as they ran to the windows the plane hit the building. So in effect, the witness didnt SEE the plane - he was told he saw the plane. What he saw was an explosion.

[benburch]

6. Feel free to interview the witness.

I feel no such need.

[petgoat]

93. Maybe you'd like to interview the families of the 9/11 passengers

And find out why so few of them accepted funds from the victims compensation fund.

(Or debunk the story that says they didn't) http://69.28.73.17/thornarticles/911passengerlist.html

Maybe you'd like to check the passenger lists and find out if it's true that of the
passengers and crew of Flight 11, 77, 175 & 93, only 22%, 22%, 28%, 13% respectively are in the
Social Security Death Index.

[CAG]

7. and the guy who SAW the plane was just a Cheney plant who knew

that a DUer was there. They installed the guy into that job months before knowing that they would be in that room together at that moment so that the guy could motion all of the others over to that window at that very second...yeah, yeah, it could happen...

[pocket]

10. DU is riddled with freepers

not accusing anybody, just saying

[CAG]

15. Geez, I'm being called out as a freeper because I don't believe a

freakin missile hit the pentagon and flight 77 wasn't diverted to the bermuda triangle where the passengers now live in Atlantis???

Give me a freakin break. I suppose you don't think John Wilkes Booth killed Lincoln cuz the govt is holding the video from us?

[MnFats]

42. i don't think 'riddled' is the right word. they're here, though..

...they lurk, enjoying themselves at first....then they overdose on reality and their heads explode....

[Karmakaze]

14. Strawman...

The OP said a DUer saw the plane. The DUers own words were that he saw the EXPLOSION and was TOLD it was a plane. In fact that is no more reliable than the "Pentagon Video" frames that have already been released because in that we see an explosion and are told it is a plane.

So this guy is no more a witness to the plane than you or I.

Can he describe the plane? What type etc? What altitude? What direction? Doesnt sound like it to me. So what he saw is no help for determining what happened.

There WERE witnesses to the plane, but as is typical of witness testimony even in ordinary crimes, they have described everything from small business jets to commercial airliners, which is where the problem comes in. If the witnesses DID see a small buiness jet crash into the Pentagon, then the official story is wrong.

That is why witness testimony is unreliable. If 5 different people see 5 different things, then who is correct? Which of course is why it is important that reliable video footage of the aircraft is released.

[Mr_Spock]

18. Did the missing AA flight hit the pentagon?

Just curious if you have an alternate story... and why?

[Karmakaze]

51. I have no idea...

Which is why I asked to see the videos that show the aircraft in flight approacing the Pentagon. No footage has ever been released that shows this - not even these two "new" videos that in fact show exactly what we have already seen from exactly the same angle, and are clearly only meant to be used to monitor the vehicles coming and going on that driveway, rather than the lawn itself.

I know that the photos I have seen of the damage caused seem inconsistent with the damage caused to the WTC buildings, when the steel girders were cleanly cut in the shape of the aircaft, including wings. I also know that the footage I have seen of the Pentagon impact seems to show that whatever hit it did so at a very low angle, if not touching the ground. Yet the pictures of the damage seem to indicate a direct hit on the wall itself, and with a far smaller hole than was the case with the WTC, while leaving very little in the way of debris lying around.

In other words, the best evidence that ANYTHING happened is what is on the videos that the Government still refuses to release, for example the hotel and service station videos, and the videos from the cameras at the Pentagon itself that were actually sited to cover the area of the impact.

People keep talking about the witnesses who saw an aircraft. That's fine, except their descriptions of the aircraft have ranged froma small business jet to a full size widebody airliner. How many of those descriptions are not coloured by what they were told they had seen? For example there are small jets with engines hanging under the wings that seen very briefly may look like an airliner.

I have never really been a believer of the missile theory. It seems that would be far more difficult to cover up in comparison with say a remotely piloted small business jet. Even if Flt 77 DID crash into the Pentagon, we need to see that - so that all this speculation as to what actually happened can be put to rest one way or another.

[TheWraith]

74. A quick answer

"I know that the photos I have seen of the damage caused seem inconsistent with the damage caused to the WTC buildings, when the steel girders were cleanly cut in the shape of the aircaft, including wings."

The walls of the Pentagon are heavily reenforced, with something like two feet of solid cement composite, an 18 inch thick kevlar webbing behind it, and a lot of steel to boot. It was specifically renovated, starting in '99 or so, to be able to withstand something like a truck bomb or a cruise missile.

[TheWraith]

24. There are lots more people who saw the damn plane.

A 160 foot long jetliner flying over the nation's capital leaves a lot of witnesses. I'm sure you can find some. Don't expect us to do your work for you. You're the one who's bucking all evidence and logic--you're the one who's required to prove your claims. While a few people may have misidentified the aircraft, a perponderance of the evidence indicates that a plane hit the Pentagon. And you know what? I've never heard the conspiracy theorists give a good explanation for WHY, if 9/11 were staged, anybody would have wanted to hit the Pentagon with a missile instead of a plane. The best they can offer is the lame defense that they're interested in questions, not answers. Obviously, because answers usually come out of piles of nasty facts.

[Karmakaze]

53. Get real...

"Don't expect us to do your work for you"? Is that a joke? It's not my work. I am not claiming that a 160ft airliner hit the Pentagon. If that is what YOU say happened, then by all means prove it. I simply want to see the evidence that the Government refuses to release.

Why will they not release the videos that show this airliner? The hotel and service station videos will do, but the cameras placed at the Pentagon to cover that area would also help - as opposed to the two cameras sited to cover only the driveway, but just happened to be pointing in the right direction to catch the explosion.

As for the missile theory, that is not even the most POPULAR theory. All the theories start from the premise that it was NOT a widebody airliner. Some speculated about a missile, but they were soon disproved. Others have speculated about small military or civillian jets converted into RPV's. So far these have NOT been disproved.

In fact the most common one I have seen is that the aircraft was an S-3 Viking, based on an identification of some parts filmed in the rubble. Is this a fact? I don't know. But I do know that the Government refuses to release the footage that will prove it one way or another.

I simply have to ask, why?

In any case, if you wish to denigrate "conspiracy theories" it actually helps to know WHAT THOSE THEORIES ARE. It is simple to pick the most unlikely theory and say that has been disproved. But will you accept the challenge to disprove that an S-3 Viking, converted into a remotely piloted drone was the aircraft that hit the Pentagon? Because as far as I have been able to determine, the only way to do that is to see the videos the government doesn't want you to see.

[alarimer]

54. So where the fuck is the plane and all its passengers?

No on has a good response to this. It didn't just vanish. And there is no proff that it ended up anywhere else. No one saw a fucking missile. That would be kind of hard to miss in DC I should think.

[Karmakaze]

55. Still with the missile?

I just said that not even the majority of the conspiracy theorists claim it was a missle. Can you try disproving the theory that it was a converted S-3 Viking?

As for what happened to the Flt 77 aircraft, for all I know there was no such aircraft. For all I know the passengers were loaded onto some other aircraft and disappeared, perhaps with big payouts in their pockets, perhaps with bullets in their heads. Or perhaps they got on their airliner, it was hijacked and crashed into the Pentagon.

It would be simple to prove the latter - simply release the videos that show it. Why are they such a national secret? We suppsodely already know what they show, so why can't we just see them?

[Karmakaze]

57. Here is an example of what the service station camera would show..

From the witnesses description, the aircraft flew over this service station to crash into the Pentagon in the background.

This video would without doubt show exactly what hit the Pentagon. So why can't we see it? The witness said he had not even seen it because the FBI had confiscated it within minutes of the crash. This video was included in the Judicial Watch FOIA request, so why hasn't it been released?

[sabbat hunter]

63. disproving theory

you cannot prove a negative.

[petgoat]

94. The Scholars for 9/11 Truth have demanded release of

suppressed evidence, including aircraft parts with their trackable serial numbers.

Sign the petition here: http://www.st911.org/

[sabbat hunter]

62. if those videos were released

and showed a plane, would you believe them or would you think they must be hoaxes and altered?

[TheWraith]

70. Funny, cause you guys always love to talk about a missile.

I suggest you consult with your fellows, because most of the tinfoilers I run into are still pushing the missile theory--treating it as fact even. In any event, you're trying to weasel out of the original point: YOU are the one attempting to prove that something other than the obvious happened, therefore YOU need to offer proof. A 160 foot airliner disappeared along with all its passengers. Radar tracking indicates it headed back to DC. Witnesses saw a plane matching that description strike the Pentagon. And some of the plane's passengers were identified among the bodies in the wreckage. So all in all, I'd say there's a convincing case that that's exactly what happened, even without the other alleged bits of tape. You want to see more tape, fine. I'll even agree. But lacking bits of tape which might not even exist, I still think there's little doubt about what happened.

I'm not obligated to disprove your theories, you're obligated to prove them. That's basic reasoning. I haven't disproved that the moon is made of cheese, but that doesn't mean that it's a valid alternative to the idea that it's made of rock.

[bj2110]

13. not too mention that it was "across the river"

[Old and In the Way]

8. Who sees what when an object is traveling 600 ft/sec at ground level?

Were these witnesses tracking the plane in over Reagan Airport? I really don't know what would imprint on the brain if an object covers 1800 ft in 3 seconds. And that's assuming the witness was tracking the object from a 1/2 mile away and not as it suddenly crossed the freeway.

[TheWraith]

17. A 160 foot long jetliner flying at rooftop altitude is rather conspicuous.

You'd see the sucker coming. And even if you only got a glimpse for one second, don't you think you could tell the difference between a jetliner and a missile?

[Old and In the Way]

38. I'm sure you could differentiate between a missle and a 757.

But could you differentiate between a 77 and, say, an A3 in 1-2 seconds of visual time?

Here's a personal example. Last weekend I was heading up my driveway with the wife. It's about 600' long and has light woods on both sides. It's a dirt road and we travel it at 15-20 mph. About 1/2 way up, a large, brown bird flew across the road, about 20-30' in front of us. We both saw it, maybe for 1 second and it was gone. I know it was a wild turkey...my wife swears it was an owl.

[savemefromdumbya]

77. when it lands on grass you get some skid marks

[Freedom_Aflaim]

11. Keep in mind about the Video footage

Its a low res, slow frame security cam. Pretty common stuff really for security cams. Even at the Pentagon they don't need Hidef video, they just need to identify an intruded is there, and then they dispatch a real live officer(s) quickly if need be. It wasnt there to capture video of incoming highspeed aircraft.

When you view the very beginning, theres a police car that passes in front of the camera. The car is moving very slowly, maybe 5 mph. You know its slow because it stopped and restarted at the security gate.

The car takes at best 10 frames. In fact the car jumps a foot or two between each frame.

Now compare that to a jet flying at 500mph...100x's the speed of the auto. It amazing that we got any piece of the aircraft on video at all...essentially it flew in between frames.

Now theres plenty of other evidence that proves (to me anyway) that it was indeed an aircraft that struck the Pentagon. Not the least of which was a coworker of mine who perished on that plane.

Now does the video PROVE that an aircraft hit the building? Nope. Does it prove that something else hit the building? Nope.

The proof that an aircraft hit the building lies in the abundance of other evidence. This video proves nothing, the least of which that a missile hit the building.

[CAG]

16. But thats part of the plot, you see, to set up the security video with low

resolution with slow frames. Every other security camera in the world has the quality of IMAX. ;-)

[petgoat]

95. But the service station camera and the Sheraton camera

are filming the plane from behind, which should make the image better.
The plane doesn't sweep across the field of view like it does in the
Pentagon video.

[pauldp]

12. Let's not forget there are many other questions about 911

that have nothing to do with building demolition or the Pentagon.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6757267008400743688

[TheWraith]

20. God, not another video...

I don't have the time or the inclination thoroughly examine this thing, but in my experience, these videos usually run extremely fast and loose with the facts, playing on emotional response, inference, and unsubstantiated claims rather than actual information.

[pauldp]

23. Not this one. It is well researched.

Mostly mainstream sources. Definitely worth a look.

[mrgerbik]

83. On a side note..

It's funny how we consider mainstream media is the ONLY reputable source of information. We will forgo our own eyes, senses and gut-instincts - only later to succumb to a polished and "proper" version of the facts. It goes a long way to show the dimensions of our ideals as people.

[frylock]

25. the same could be said of the official version..

...usually run extremely fast and loose with the facts, playing on emotional response, inference, and unsubstantiated claims rather than actual information.

[pauldp]

27. ain't that the truth. the official story is ALL about emotional response.

and we never saw the white paper on Bin Laden's guilt either. Then
of course there is the fake Bin Laden confession video.

[TheWraith]

29. Post proof.

Of course you know that Bin Laden's bragging video was fake--how? Were you on the soundstage when they filmed it? Do you have Bin Laden's daytimer? Or are you just making up assumptions to fit your theories?

[pauldp]

32. It was not Bin Laden. It was a bad double.

This thread pretty well blasts 911myths attempts to say otherwise.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=71483&mesg_id=71483

[TheWraith]

73. If by "blasts" you mean "tries and fails to discredit," yeah.

The entire informative content of that thread seems to be "Well, that looks a little different, and that looks a little different..." By those rules of evidence, I could prove the moon landings were faked. Subjective points of contention, found in poor quality video by people who want to see them, doesn't constitute evidence. Show me something solid.

I reiterate my challenge: Provide real evidence that the events of 9/11 are not self evident. No theories, no tenuous webs of implication and backreference, no logic loops and no smudgy photos claimed to be elves demolishing the Twin Towers. Surely, if your theories are as solid as you claim, and backed by as much proof as you say, then you should easily be able to point out something that will shut me up.

[pauldp]

80. look at the photo with the lines drawn on it

do they or do they not intersect the face in different places?
One intersects the cheek, one is below the cheek.
First year art student stuff here, but maybe you failed art?

[mrgerbik]

84. something??

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet%2B9/11

Thermite reaction?



Let's say DNA evidence is found at a crime scene and was 100% accurate as to identify the killer. Why would we need a messy, expensive investigation into the crime? Many people have been thrown in prison for years because of "powerful" evidence, only later to be found innocent. I for one would be extremely angry if I were accused and punished for something I didn't do.

Here 9/11 theories are just that: theories. Just as the official theory is a theory. We, for the most part, are here to simply try and fill in the holes that the official investigation has so blatantly created. I think events of that day just don't add up, so I find myself in forums like this, discussing ideas and fitting pieces together to try and make clear the events of that day.

[pauldp]

33. here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=71483&mesg_id=72029

[TheWraith]

72. A few highly subjective interpretations from ultra-fuzzy video?

That's a pretty poor opening position. You don't have anything better to offer?

[pauldp]

79. I'm sorry you can't see

what any first year art student can see. Let's move on shall we?
You can see my further explanation of the ISI connection in
my response to your post below.

[frylock]

34. Bin Laden tape 'not genuine'

Researchers in Switzerland have questioned the authenticity of the recent audio recording attributed to Osama Bin Laden.

A team from the Lausanne-based Dalle Molle Institute for Perceptual Artificial Intelligence, Idiap, said it was 95% certain the tape does not feature the voice of the al-Qaeda leader.

<snip>

The review of the tape was commissioned by France-2 television and its findings were presented by the institute's director, Professor Herve Bourlard.

Mr Bourlard said the institute had compared the voice on the tape with some 20 earlier recordings allegedly made by Bin Laden.

"It could be an impostor," said one of Mr Bourlard's colleagues at Idiap, Samy Bengio, quoted by the French news agency AFP.

He said the system they had used was difficult to tamper with - the al-Jazeera tape was sufficiently different from other Bin Laden recordings as to raise doubts.

<more>

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2526309.stm

[dysfunctional press]

56. that's not the "confession" tape.

that just refers to the most recent one.

[TheWraith]

28. Show me the holes.

If you want to talk about something more than inference and supposition, show me exactly the logical holes in the commonly understood events of that day. Please.

[pauldp]

31. Look at the video. Then we can talk.

about the ISI 911 connection among other things.

[TheWraith]

35. I don't have an hour and twelve minutes to waste.

I actually have work to do. If you're not willing to type up a simple list of, say, five bullet points which you find so damn unbelieveable about the common understanding of 9/11, I can come to only two conclusions. Either you're an obsessive compulsive arguer with nothing better to do than debate meaningless minutia, or else you can't come up with any compelling actual evidence that anything beyond the obvious explainable errors happened that day.

[pauldp]

36. Did you not see my post about Bin Laden above?

-There is evidence the ISI paid for 911 yet the 911 commission
said the financing for 911 was unimportant. I don't want to take up
any more of your precious time so you can start with two OK?

[frylock]

44. must have gone back to work..

nope... wait. Still here. Doesn't have 72 minutes to waste on a video, but can hang around here for an hour or two.

[TheWraith]

67. God forbid I should leave a browser window open without approval. NT.

[LiberalUprising]

81. I think think you must be posting at

the wrong website

You belong over there ------>

[TheWraith]

69. The International Statistical Institute paid for 9/11?

Care to try making a little more sense?

The reason the 9/11 Commission dismissed the funding aspect was to ignore the participation of our good friends the Saudis in funding and backing Islamic extremists in general, and Bin Laden's group in particular.

[pauldp]

78. The Pakistani Inter services Intelligence Agency.

I can see you know a lot about the subject, including the motives of the 911 commission.

The Times of India and the Wall Street Journal reported that General Ahmad of the ISI
paid Mohamed Atta $100,000 in the weeks leading up to 911. This was confirmed by
members of the FBI. Porter Goss was meeting with Ahmad on the morning of 911.

Daniel Pearl was following up on the story when he was kidnapped and killed
by Saeed Sheikh - who happened to be the guy who Ahmad told to wire the money to Atta.

Of course none of this will mean much to a kooky coincidence theorist.

http://www1.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/articleshow?catkey=-2128936835&art_id=1454238160&sType=1
www.cooperativeresearch.org.

[Opening_Day]

46. Yes isn't that interesting.

That the tin-foilers can't be bothered to post a list of their silly "truths" just endless links to the same nonsensical video.

[pauldp]

47. first of all I listed 2 items.

The fact that the Bin Laden confession tape appears to have a bad double of Osama in it as mentioned above,
and the fact that there is evidence the ISI paid for 911 as revealed in the WSJ and the Times of India.

Wraith responded to neither. If he can't respond to two items why should I list more?

Second of all, have you watched the "nonsensical video"?

[frylock]

37. let's start with the hijackers..

We are told they are devout Wahabist Muslims. However, eyewitness accounts have them frequenting strip clubs and casinos, drinking and gambling:

May-August 2001: Hijackers Take Practice Flights and Enjoy Las Vegas Diversions

A number of the hijackers make at least six trips to Las Vegas. It is probable they met here after doing practice runs on cross-country flights. At least Mohamed Atta, Marwan Alshehhi, Nawaf Alhazmi, Ziad Jarrah, Khalid Almihdhar and Hani Hanjour were involved. All of these “fundamentalist” Muslims drink alcohol, gamble, and frequent strip clubs. They even have strippers perform lap dances for them. (Newsweek, 11/15/2001; San Francisco Chronicle, 11/4/2001)

Before September 11, 2001: Hijackers Drink, Watch Strip Shows on Eve of Attacks

A number of the hijackers apparently drink alcohol heavily in bars and watch strip shows. On September 10, three of them spend $200 to $300 apiece on lap dances and drinks in the Pink Pony, a Daytona Beach, Florida strip club. While the hijackers had left Florida by this time, Mohamed Atta is reported to have visited the same strip club, and these men appear to have had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks. (Boston Herald, 11/10/2001) Marwan Alshehhi and Mohamed Atta are seen entering the Hollywood, Florida, sports bar Shuckums already drunk. They proceed to drink even more hard alcohol there (see September 7, 2001). Atta and Alshehhi are seen at Sunrise 251, a bar in Palm Beach, Florida. They spend $1,000 in 45 minutes on Krug and Perrier-Jouet champagne. Atta is with a tall busty brunette in her late twenties; Alshehhi is with a shortish blonde. Both women are known locally as regular companions of high-rollers. (Daily Mail, 10/16/2001) A stripper at the Olympic Garden Topless Cabaret in Las Vegas, Nevada, recalls Marwan Alshehhi being “cheap,” paying only $20 for a lap dance. (Cox News Service, 11/16/2001) Several hijackers reportedly patronize the Nardone’s Go-Go Bar in Elizabeth, New Jersey. They are even seen there on the weekend before 9/11. (Wall Street Journal, 11/16/2001; Boston Herald, 11/10/2001) Majed Moqed visits a porn shop and rents a porn video. The mayor of Paterson, New Jersey, says of the six hijackers who stayed there: “Nobody ever saw them at mosques, but they liked the go-go clubs.” (Newsweek, 11/15/2001) Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar often frequented Cheetah’s, a nude bar in San Diego. (Los Angeles Times, 10/1/2002) Hamza Alghamdi watched a porn video on September 10. (Wall Street Journal, 11/16/2001) University of Florida religion professor Richard Foltz states, “It is incomprehensible that a person could drink and go to a strip bar one night, then kill themselves the next day in the name of Islam ... People who would kill themselves for their faith would come from very strict Islamic ideology. Something here does not add up.” (South Florida Sun-Sentinel, 10/16/2001)

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=atta+strip+club&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=Go#events

[TheWraith]

68. Wow, religious extremists not following their own rules? Alert the media!!

It's my experience that the religious nutjobs usually believe that the rules don't apply to them, and when given an opportunity they do all the things that they preach against, but it's fine because they're God's people.

[Bad Penny]

50. kind of like bush when he makes a speech?

re: I don't have the time or the inclination thoroughly examine this thing, but in my experience, these videos usually run extremely fast and loose with the facts, playing on emotional response, inference, and unsubstantiated claims rather than actual information.

[Rainscents]

19. It seems that, no problem capturing planes hitting WTC, however,

I can't seems to find airplane from today's video release. It's same airplanes hit all three buildings! Give me a break... 757 did NOT hit the Pentagon!!!

[TheWraith]

21. Your message makes no sense.

What are you trying to say, other than to infer a conclusion from no facts?

[Rainscents]

22. What I'm saying... You can NOT miss 757 hitting the building!!!

WTC video clearly shows both buildings being hit by 757 aircraft (same one that hit the Pentagon) and video was captured and you can clearly see it is an airplanes hitting the WTC! These planes were also going 500mph!

[TheWraith]

26. Did you read the upthread note about security cameras?

Security cameras, unlike cameras intended for TV quality video, run on a lower frame rate, sometimes just a couple of frames per second. They're intended for monitoring, not for fluid video. It makes them cheaper and easier to archive the video. It does not, however, allow for proper playback of high-speed events.

[Rainscents]

30. Then, explain the size of hole??? Huh???

757

124 FT 10" Wide
155 FT 3" Long
44 FT 6" Hight

Seats 200-225 passengers.

Where is HUGE piece of aircraft parts, all those Seats should be scattered!!! Where is it???

[benburch]

39. Answered many times.

Short answer; How solid is a jetliner?

Answer; Not very. There are often crashes that leave very little that is recognizable.

[Rainscents]

41. Wing and Engine are very solid.

It seems that, they never found black box either. Black Box is made to stand all types of disasters! And BTW, I don't buy into your logic. I've seen too many footage and I stay with what I've said. You have yours and I have mine. I work with Aircraft for almost 20 years and I do know, what they are made of.

Ben, I respect most of post and agree with most of it, however, this one, I just don't buy into.

[benburch]

45. See, We can damn Bush without needing this not to have happened.

First, he failed to protect us, despite numerous, specific and urgent warnings.

Second, I think it likely this was a malign neglect with the expectation that terrorism would provide his "Reichstag Fire".

None of that requires anything other than Saudi Hijackers and 757s.

Also, I am in contact with a DC firefighter who worked that fire, and he says there were bits of airliner everywhere, and bits of bodies too. He was convinced.

[TheWraith]

71. Actually, they're not.

An airplane, by definition, has to be as light as is physically possible in order to fly. For that reason, and to save on fuel, commercial airliners are incredibly delicate when you get right down to it. A standard handgun bullet could punch clean through most parts of the thing. This is why there's so rarely anything left when an airplane crashes. The light construction just shreds itself.

And black boxes aren't immune to destruction--they're just a lot tougher than most other parts. If you wired one of those things up with a couple sticks of dynamite, chances are you'd never even find enough pieces to make a pie. 500+ MPH headlong crash into one of the strongest walls ever built? Yeah, that would probably do it.

[TheWraith]

40. Well, there's a giant hole in the building, filled with burning metal...

Most of the plane would have to have ended up in there, otherwise the damage wouldn't have penetrated so far into the building. As for the size of the hole...

There's this famous old video. You might be able to find it in Google Video somewhere--if not, they like showing it on those TV clip shows about crashes and explosions. It's of an F4 Phantom fighter jet, mounted to a railing, with special jetpacks strapped under the wings. What they did was they launched it straight at this giant concrete wall. This was supposed to be some kind of test of the construction of the wall--I think it was a design used for a nuclear power plant or something. The wall was so solid, and the jet was moving so fast, that when it impacted, it essentially went into the wall like they were both made of water, boom, and a big fireball.

Afterward, the wall was still standing, but with a small hole in it--smaller in appearence than you would have expected, but that was it. The plane had effectively disintegrated, some of it being vaporized in the fireball, some of it having punched through the wall, and some being reduced to tiny little pieces of shrapnel. When you hit something that hard, with something that fast, one of them gives, and usually it's the thing made of metal. Most of the debris from the plane would have punched through the wall right in the center of the plane's impact, where the mass was greatest. Pieces like the wings, the tailfin, etcetera would probably have either lost cohesion and been reduced to ribbons, or smashed back against the fuselage and been dragged inside behind it.

[DiehardLiberal]

48. I know someone who was on site...

at the Pentagon looking for the flight recorders. This person is a Democrat and told me that there were body parts, seats, etc. I have read Griffin's book and have many, many doubts about what happened on 9/11, but I trust the first-hand account of a colleague and friend. Just thought I'd add this info for whatever it's worth.

This takes nothing away from the fact that this adminstration has lied about so many important issues, it is impossible to know anything for certain any more.

[niyad]

49. welcome to DU--and thank you for your friend's observations. as you

pointed out though, this maladministration has lied so much--who knows. at this point, if they said the sun rose in the east, I would have to go out and verify it for myself.

[gordianot]

61. Yes, they thrive on secrecy and uncertainty. Truth is the enemy.

[DoYouEverWonder]

88. Of course there were body parts

Whether they were passengers or in the Pentagon would be impossible to tell.

[paparush]

52. He/She might have seen something flying, with wings, and a tail,

but it wasnt' a 757.

[benburch]

64. Nice to know there is still faith in the world.

Faith that maintains in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

[iconoclastNYC]

65. Wow that proves it!

All the other questions are rendered moot because one of DU's 80,000 members claims to have seen the plane!!!!

Ben Burch why are you so intent on stiring this pot? We get it. You buy the Bush governments official theory.

[benburch]

66. I "buy" nothing.

I know for fact that an airliner hit the Pentagon, that's all.

This was LIHOP. I've said so many times.

But all of the damage on that day was done by 757s.

[iconoclastNYC]

75. OK I get it now.

LIHOP is what you think is correct. So you have to spend your days antagonizing people who believe MIHOP.

Very mature.

edited to add: with very lame arguments. such as : "someone from DU saw the plane!"

[benburch]

76. What is lame about an eyewitness?

LAME is the insane arguments the CD and missile freaks come out with.

[LiberalUprising]

85. A better question would be

what's not lame about an eyewitness, eyewitnesses are NOT reliable, ask any judge or police officer.

Lame is your conclusion based on a eyewitness account.

[Sinti]

86. Sure does keep the talkers talking about things that make no dif

to Bushco, though. Hayden get a stroll into office, and special privilege to maintain his 4 stars, while serving as CIA chief, not under civilian leadership. Weird, camel's nose under the tent there, IMO.

[DoYouEverWonder]

87. I believe

that this DUer saw a plane. Was if Flight 77? There is not enough information to know. A few of us asked follow-up questions on that thread but never got a response.

[Bolo Boffin]

89. There is enough information to know.

Although on the actual day, Flight 77 disappeared from the ATC screens, review of all relevant radar data shows Flight 77 during every moment of its flight possible. It took off, turned around, and circled the Pentagon before disappearing.

That, combined with the overwhelming consensus of eyewitness testimony and the recovery of Flight 77's parts and passengers from the crash site, gives us more than enough information to know that the plane our DUer saw crash into the Pentagon was indeed Flight 77.

[DoYouEverWonder]

90. Please show me

a single airplane part that can be identified has part of Flight 77 and not some other plane or whatever?

Why wasn't enough of the plane ever recovered to try to reconstruct the plane like they do in every other crash?

BTW: Why did they only send two engines to fight the Pentagon fire. That seems a little light for a fire where there might be survivors? Why didn't they foam the building like they do airplanes. The equipment was right over the bridge at the airport.

[Bolo Boffin]

96. Why should I?

I've provided you with more than enough evidence to understand that Flight 77 did indeed hit the Pentagon. The radar evidence, the eyewitness accounts, and the debris and victims left at the site are sufficient beyond a reasonable doubt. You've seen the pictures, and you've seen the schematics that show they are part of a 757.

However, a stewardess that normally worked Flight 77 was available to help the recovery:

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/PAandAAF77.html

As it turned out, my friend had not been on Flight 77, having taken the day off work to care for her sick father, and to my relief she had survived. She had lost her entire regular crew, both pilots and all the attendants, including her best friend at work. She was immediately invited in to a series of briefings and grief counseling sessions by both the airline and the Pentagon. These briefings continue to this day. She also attended a long series of memorial events at the gravesites of her co-workers and friends following the event. Her own father died shortly after that in November. I attended his funeral service at National Cemetery and got to meet some of her American Airline co-workers.

When questions arose about Flight 77, I contacted her to raise the issues that concerned me and the speculations of others who denied the plane hit the Pentagon. She was adamant in saying it had, and told me she had been to the crash site and had seen parts of the plane. I asked her about the speculation that the plane would have made a larger hole due to the wingspan. She informed me that the fuel was stored in the wings and that they would have exploded and broken off, as the fuselage slammed through the building walls.

...At the end of her shift on Saturday morning, September 22nd, she was approached along with other attendants to visit the crash site. One declined, but she and two others took a van driven by the Salvation Army to the area. They were forced to wait almost 45 minutes at a safety fence around the area before being admitted into the area of destruction. As they waited, members of a psychological support group talked to them about their feelings. She will never forget what she saw there.

The area was covered with rescue equipment, fire trucks, small carts, and ambulances. They were still hoping to find survivors. Small jeeps with wagons attached were being used to transport workers and others at the site. One flight attendant was driving one of these around the site. Once inside the fence, she was unable to clearly discern where the original wall had been. There was just a gaping hole. She got off the van and walked inside the crash site. The other attendants broke down crying once they were inside. But my friend went in further than the others and kept her emotions in check as she has been trained to do and usually does in emergency situations.

She saw parts of the fuselage of an American Airlines plane, a Boeing 757 plane. She identified the charred wreckage in several ways. She recognized the polished aluminum outer shell, an unpainted silver color that is unique to American Airline planes, and the red and blue trim that is used to decorate the fuselage. She saw parts of the inside of the plane, which she easily identified since she flew and worked in them for years. Upholstery, drapes and carpeting she could identify by both color and design. The soft carpeting and padding of the inner walls had a cloud design and color she recognized from American Airline planes, though it has since been replaced. The blue coloring of drapes and carpet were also specific to the 757 or 767 larger planes, and were not used on the smaller planes. Seating upholstery also matched the AA 757 planes, including the blue color, tan squares and hints of white.

She saw other parts of the plane and engine parts at a distance but they were familiar to her. She did not see any galley supplies, which she would have recognized as well, nor any jump seats. All the parts were charred but colors were still visible. She also saw charred human bones but not any flesh or full body parts.

One area of fuselage had remaining window sections and the shape of the windows, curved squares not ovals, was also distinct to the 757's she had flown. She also saw parts with the A/A logo, including parts of the tail of the plane. Smaller A/A logos and "American" logos are also on the planes and she saw parts of those. One website shows pictures of wreckage inside the building, including sections of the fuselage with bright lime and yellow coloring, which is distinctive to Boeing parts. My friend confirmed this, having visited a Boeing plant where she saw the bright colors on the production line marking the inside of fuselage parts. She did not notice this coloring at the site, but the photos show it in some pieces of the plane.

She spent approximately 15 minutes in the crash area looking at parts of the wreckage, all of which she recognized as coming from a Boeing 757 American Airline plane, the same planes she flew regularly. She did not see any rubber, only metal pieces of fuselage, engine parts and sections of the inside of the plane.

This is beyond questioning. Hundreds of people saw that plane. The forensic evidence is overwhelming. Thousands of DC residents helped in the aftermath, providing support to the workers.

Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.

[petgoat]

92. relevant radar data shows Flight 77 during every moment

If the 9/11 Commission can be believed, it does.

Have you read Dr. Griffin's essay "The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie"?

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050523112738404

[Bolo Boffin]

97. Oh, did you not see the other thread?

The Washington Post article brought up by my debate opponent confirmed that Flight 77 was tracked by other radar systems even though it had been lost from the secondary "beacon-only" radar.

From beginning to end. The people got on, the plane took off, it's on the radar from beginning to end, the plane crashed, the bodies were recovered.

If you wish to confound the Bush Adminstration with truth (as they need to be), you need to stop advocating this foolishness.

[911wasaninsidejob]

98. Plane was an A3 drone

http://www.osamawasframed.com/pentagonvideos.html

Any questions?