The Pentagon Thread

[DulceDecorum]

And I had been wondering where you all were...

Dancing_Dave, welcome to the Democratic Underground.

I guess I could have simply tacked this post on to that thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=269&mesg_id=269
But then again, I have this habit of cutting out once we get within the vicinity of a hundred posts.

Some of you will remember this:
Post Your Pentagon Crash Questions Here: Part 9!!!! http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=5620&forum=DCForumID43&omm=0

Dave, and fellow humans, as you have just seen, there is a small but highly vocal of group here who can be extremely abusive to those who ask legitimate questions about the amazing events of September 11.
If you indicate that previously taken science classes indicate that things simply could NOT have taken place as we are officially told they did, then prepare be assailed by highly corrosive personal attacks. This lot CANNOT logically find their way out of a paper bag but they most certainly CAN and and WILL call you all sorts of names in the hope of causing you to cease posting the AWFUL TRUTH here and elsewhere.
BEWARE, but be not fainthearted, because those who want to know what really happened are welcome at the Democratic Underground.

Not sure what I mean about the personal attacks?
Watch this, dearie.

And now darlings,
perhaps the one of you who called me by name, or some other personage who has "spent never ending days countless weeks and months on the ground in trucks in barges and in the kills" can answer me this:

1. Did the windows, situated where the Boeing 767 allegedly crashed into the Pentagon wall, remain intact despite the impact?
Yes or no.
2. Did they continue to remain intact throughout the fires?
Yes or no.
3. Can any power on earth destroy these windows?
Yes or no.

I will give three thumbs up
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
to whoever answers these three questions and posts any reasonable argument supporting their viewpoint.
And here are a few hints to help you make up your mind.

The glass panel sections consisted of several glass panels bonded together with plastic interlayers similar to automotive windscreens. They differed in that they had a thickness of almost 40mm and weighed over 200kg each. The window frames were manufactured by Masonry Arts Inc to fit in with the existing architecture. Masonry Arts Inc were also responsible for the installation work.
The blast resistant windows were thought to be have been beneficial for a number of reasons. These included:
***The blast resistant windows are claimed to have supported the floors directly above the impact for an additional 30 minutes, providing vital time for thousands of employees to escape
***More lives were saved by virtue of the fact that the glass did not shatter into lethal shards.
***Workers lives were also preserved by the fact that the windows shielded them from the heat and fire from the blast.
***In fact some of the windows near the impact zone did not even break.
http://www.azom.com/news.asp?newsID=380
Picture of unbroken window
http://www.dupont.com/safetyglass/lgn/stories/2111.html

OK so far so good. The windows in the wall at the Pentagon where the plane (allegedly) crashed were (allegedly) virtually indestructible.
Agreed?
Tough windows. All those in favour say AYE.
The AYEs have it.

But then again.....

Army Col. Roy Wallace was in a C Ring "farm" on the second
floor just off Corridor 4. "We were on the phone doing a
conference call when we heard this loud explosion," said
Wallace, chief of the resources division at the DSCPER. "It
actually knocked us out of our seats."
The ceiling collapsed and windows along the outer wall blew
out toward the inside of the building. "THEY MUST HAVE BEEN BLAST WINDOWS BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T SPLINTER," he said. "THEY BLEW OUT LIKE A CAR WINDSHIELD WOULD."
http://www.dod.gov/news/Sep2001/n09132001_200109132.html

What! Where?
The windows blew out towards the inside of the building?
Oooooh.
Are you sure?
There are many posters here who were not there and they say different.
Who are we to believe?
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/terror/slides/wtc/pentagon.htm
This is what the BIG SCIENTISTS at Purdue say happened.
Bad plane.



But you notice that the BIG SCIENTISTS NEVER say one word about the amazing Penta-windows remaining intact.
Oooh, but DID the windows really remain intact?



We remember people like Lieutenant Colonel Ted Anderson, who carried two of the injured from the burning Pentagon, and re-entered through a BROKEN WINDOW to drag out two more, one whose clothes were on fire;
http://allen.senate.gov/PressOffice/09112002.htm

(Just for your information, I am going to be polite and refrain -for the present- from discussing this bit:
The Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, mentioned a woman who I think was Mrs. Kurtz at the Pentagon. Mrs. Louise Kurtz, although severely burned herself, valiantly tended to the needs of others around her.)

Oh dear, now that our heroes are all trapped inside the burning building, maybe those windows wern't that indestructible after all.
How are the firemen going to get themselves and their firehoses in?
http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/911/pages/firemen2.html

OK.
We will allow the windows to keep the plane out but we will be damned
(by our gullible readers)
if those same windows keep our heroes from getting out alive.
So lets re-write the scene.

Some of the 40mm thick, laminated glass, 200lb WINDOWS WERE ALREADY OPEN.
Rumsfeld (Joyce, the wife) also visited Dalisay Olaes, a victim being treated in the hospital intensive care unit. She escaped the building by following "my specialist." Spc. Michael Petrovich, she said, rescued her and led her to AN OPEN WINDOW. She and Army Lt. Col. Marilyn Wills, now in an adjacent ICU room, jumped to safety.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001/n09132001_200109133.html

No no no no no no.
Where is the ZING?
We need an ACTION MAN.
Something to hold the interest of the jaded American public who are going to give us all of their money so we can continue bringing them more exciting episodes of this,
the ultimate in reality show programming.
Let's focus on Army Specialist Michael Petrovich.

Twelve days after the Pentagon attack, Michael Petrovich, 32, is out of the hospital, his body healing well from first- and second-degree burns on his face and ears. But he finds it hard to get over his anger.
"I'm getting very argumentative with my wife, my friends, everyone-and that's not healthy," he said.
An Army specialist who lives at Fort Belvoir in suburban northern Virginia, Petrovich works in the Pentagon's office of personnel, which was particularly hard hit. He joined the chain of workers trying to escape through the suffocating smoke and approaching flames. The dead included his car-pool buddy.
"I'm angry at myself for not getting this guy out I drive to work with every day. I'm angry at him for not getting out. I'm angry at the terrorists, for sure. AND I'M ANGRY AT THE PEOPLE WHO DON'T FUND OUR INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY ENOUGH."
He reflected, "I'm very angry at a lot of people — and some of them for totally irrational reasons."
http://web.dailycamera.com/news/terror/sept01/24wcope.html
Which, considering the brilliance of the job theintelligence community has done concerning 9:11 and the Iraq war, is a most astute comment.
Or perhaps it's your medication talking.
http://www.chemicalmuscle.com/showthread/t-1096.html

Army Specialist Michael Petrovich, 32, THREW A COMPUTER THROUGH A WINDOW, :argh:
then jumped out behind it, officials said. He has second-degree burns.
http://www.courier-journal.com/localnews/2001/09/13attack/ke091301s70102.htm
http://cjonline.com/stories/091301/ter_pentagon.shtml
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_Terrorist_Attack/Survivors

Oh, COME ON!
That was too minimal.
Kick it up a notch.
BAM!

Betty Maxfield and several others are around largely due to the heroism of Spc. Michael Petrovich and a few other brave souls.
Petrovich had arrived at his desk in the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel office a little late that morning, when he overheard a radio report of the World Trade Center disaster.
He called a fellow soldier at NSA to tell him and then hung up the phone.
"The roof shook, the floor shook, the air rippled and I looked up and this orange flash shot up across my face and then went back the way it came," Petrovich said. "It was like this wave. Time kind of suspended itself. I got up and looked and saw my supervisor taking off. The power went out, smoke was coming in."
The husky Petrovich remembers thinking he wouldn't have to take his PT tests or pay any more bills before taking off his tie and acting.
"I told everyone to get down under the smoke and to follow me," he said. "We're crawling in circles. I'm getting panicky. I felt a door with the back of my hand. It blistered. I knew where I was then. We had to cross 300 FEET OF ROOM. It was a maze of rubble. Stuff was dripping from the ceiling. Sprinklers were working in the middle of the room."
Petrovich was running out of breath by the time he crossed the room only to find A WARPED BLAST PROOF WINDOW.
"I TOOK A LASER PRINTER AND STARTED BEATING ON THE WINDOW," Petrovich said. "Col. McNair's group came up and HE STARTED KICKING THE WINDOW. WE GOT IT OPEN A FOOT OR TWO. I dropped the printer on the FIRST FLOOR, they heard the printer crash. They yelled up to us. I started dropping people."
http://www.dcmilitary.com/army/pentagram/7_48/local_news/20605-1.html

Jeez, where the Boeing failed, these two hunks suceeded.
They must be so pumped up that they put Hanz and Franz to shame.
And there were STILL people on the FIRST FLOOR?

Petrovich had found A WINDOW TORN FROM ITS MOORINGS, and was trying to widen the gap between the frame and the building. Luckless, he jumped to the floor, grabbed a heavy computer printer, and tossed it at the glass. :argh: It bounced off, landing in Wills' lap. He retrieved it and threw it a second time. :argh: Again, it bounced.
We're not going to get out, Wills thought. We're going to die here. We've crawled clear across the room, through hell, and we're going to die anyway. She was a woman of strong Christian faith, but now felt anger well up, anger at God. You can't do this, she thought. No way. Come on.
McNair got to his feet and joined Petrovich on the sill, and together they kicked at the frame. Wills joined in, pushing. A gap of little more than a foot opened. Wills tapped Lois Stevens, who'd crossed the room holding onto her belt. You're first, she said.
``Stand up,'' Petrovich hollered. ``Sit on the ledge. Do it quickly.''
Stevens clambered onto the windowsill and dangled her legs outside. McNair and Petrovich held her hands as she slipped over the edge and through the opening. When she'd cleared the window frame, they let go. ``Next!'' Petrovich yelled.
http://www.hamptonroads.com/pilotonline/special/911/pentagon3.html

There, that's MUCH BETTER.
But it all seems too good to be true.
We need more drama, something to capture the reader's sympathy...

Her co-worker and friend Day Olaes, who also was waiting for Webb that morning, severely broke her leg when she jumped from a second floor window to escape the fire. Olaes walks with a limp now and takes sleeping pills to get through the night. She’s afraid to return to work at the Pentagon, so she works out of another Army office in Alexandria, Va.
http://www.govexec.com/features/0902/0902s1.htm

Yeah!! that's the ticket.
Move aside Barbara Cartland.
This is much better fiction than you ever wrote.

The hijackers had attached the razor blades to credit cards: they were ready to begin the hijack. No one can be certain what happened next. But from snatches of information and mobile phone calls from the passengers who were told to call their loved ones because they were about to die, investigators have pieced together some of what happened.
The passengers had probably just been served breakfast when the terrorists struck. Screaming and yelling, they bundled the air stewardesses to the back of the plane. Swiftly, they sliced their throats - their aim to lure Ogonowski from the controls. As the passengers screamed and pandemonium broke out, they herded them to the back of the plane.
<snip>
Others were luckier. Some, such as Michael Petrovich, 32, an Army specialist, reacted swiftly. He threw a computer out of the window, :argh: then jumped though. He suffered second-degree burns. PAUL GONZALES, 46, a budget analyst,
SMASHED A HOLE THROUGH THE WALL AND CRAWLED OUT. HE WAS PULLED TO SAFETY BY DONALD RUMSFELD who, although ordered by the secret service to leave the Pentagon, had refused.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/16/watt16.xml

And that was a bloody good read.
Especially the bit about Rummy personally dragging a subordinate to safety in open defiance of the Secret Service.
:toast:
Much better than this:

Army Specialist Michael Petrovich, 32, threw a computer through a window, :argh:
then jumped out behind it, officials said. He has second-degree burns.
Army Lt. Col. Marion Ward, 44, jumped from a second floor window after the plane hit, and suffered smoke inhalation and a sprained ankle. Retired Navy Cmdr. Paul Gonzalez, 46, a budget analyst, got out through the hole in the wall just before the area collapsed. He was in serious condition with burns and respiratory distress.
http://web.dailycamera.com/news/terror/sept01/13apent.html

Or this:

Army Specialist Michael Petrovich, 32, heaved a desktop computer through a window :argh:
and followed it to safety. Retired Navy Cmdr. Paul Gonzalez, 46, a budget analyst, climbed out through the hole created by the plane just in time to turn around and see the section collapse. http://www.unansweredquestions.org/timeline/2001/ap091601c.html


What's that?
How come the plane did not cork the hole?
What hole?



What's that?
Where was the plane then?



I have been asking that myself.
Wherdy go?

Lieutenant Colonel Ken Cox stared in disbelief as networks replayed the second plane crashing into the World Trade Center. Suddenly he heard a loud bang and felt the Pentagon quake. As others scrambled out of the building, Ken rushed toward the smoke.
Approaching what looked like the front tire of an airplane, AND SEEING PEOPLE DANGLING ABOVE HIM IN THE WRECKAGE, he grabbed five other men, and they crisscrossed arms, forming a human net for people on the third floor to jump to safety.
http://www.wwcmagazine.org/2001/novdec019.html

Let's take a ruler and go measure the spot where this supposedly happened amid the burning jet fuel and the scrunched up thousands of tons of debris of one great big 767 Boeing laden with passengers, hijackers, crew and cargo.
Show me where these people dangled above him within the wreckage.



And now, ladies and gentlemen, prepare to see the personal attacks fly.
Let's see just how many investigators choose to discuss the merits of laminated window glass as opposed to the numbers of trolls who would rather discuss the merits of my mother.
I, personally, am only interested in hearing about the windows of the Pentagon.
These are some of the questions I have been asking myself:

What does it take to break or damage a Penta-window?
How come the Boeing impact did not smash or blow out the windows?
How did the jet fuel get past the windows and into the building?
Where did the correct amount of oxygen to burn the jet fuel come from?
How did the firefighters manage to get their hoses into the building?
Why did Petrovich push the window OUTWARD when the blast had forced it INWARD?
And HOW, in the name of steroids, did Paul Gonzales smash a HOLE through the Penta-wall?

At 350 miles per hour, the Boeing 757 slammed into the first and second floors of the Pentagon's western face at a 45-degree angle between corridors 4 and 5. The plane blasted through rings E, D, and C, and parts of it were found between rings C and B. It damaged some 400 support columns, some severely and some with microfractures. The plane sliced through part of the building's recently renovated section, which was reinforced by floor-to-ceiling steel beams. Between the beams was a Kevlar-like mesh, similar to the material in bulletproof vests, designed to keep concrete from turning into shrapnel. Together, the reinforcement kept the upper floors from collapsing for about 35 minutes. The new blast-resistant windows did not shatter. The new sprinkler system kept the fire from spreading.
http://www.hjpa.org/morenews.html

And this is what the Pentagon looked like minutes after that Boeing crashed into it.
As you can see it did not have a hole anywhere.

http://bbs.globalfreepress.com/coppermine/logo.php?
picturename=albums/userpics/penta_lawn6.jpg

But that was before Paul Gonzales decided he was coming out so you better the party started.



Immediately after Paul Gonzales left the building, that entire section collapsed.
That Gonzales is one tough Kevlar-cutting hombre. :scared:

Now, it was a good thing that the infamous jet fuel didn't simply float on the water put out by the new sprinkler system and just keep on burning. I do not understand how these Penta-heroes managed to stay alive and well, between the flamable drywall and the flamable padded-carpeting cubicles for over half an hour, while the rest of us have only 180 seconds to leave the burning building or die within it.
It is a good thing too, that the sprinkler water didn't get into the electricals and fry everyone.

In the interests of keeping my fellow members of the Democratic Underground Alive, (and also their cute little children) here is a little information you really ought to know about surviving a fire.

http://www.whitehallfire.com/Fire_Prevention/this_is_fire.htm
THREE MINUTES
If you are in a building that's on fire, don't stop to call 911 or to rescue any property. Get out immediately! If you awake to a fire, you may have as little as THREE MINUTES TO ESCAPE. Remember that it may have taken a minute for smoke to activate your alarm and another minute for you to be awakened, leaving you ONLY ONE MINUTE TO ESCAPE FROM THE FLAMES. Speed is absolutely essential.
http://deploy.rollingstone.com/features/featuregen.asp?pid=1593
The fire scaled the wall behind the band, gained the ceiling, then spread across it. Initially, people remained calm, too calm. BLACK SMOKE QUICKLY FILLED THE BUILDING. IT TOOK ONLY THIRTY SECONDS. (IN) NINETY SECONDS, the Station lost power. The entire building went dark. Panic set in. "No exit signs were lit up," recalls Chris Travis, 37. "People started pushing and running."
http://deploy.rollingstone.com/features/featuregen.asp?pid=1593
WITHOUT ACCELERANTS, an OFM investigator started a fire on the main
floor. IN LESS THAN THREE MINUTES, the main floor was TOTALLY ENGULFED BY FIRE AND SMOKE.
http://www.newswire.ca/releases/March2002/19/c1814.html

This TRUE AND FACTUAL INFORMATION ABOUT REAL FIRES puts many of those stories into proper perspective.
Please recall that they are only talking about fires in which there is no liquid accelerant. Just the stuff you find in regular homes and offices.
Aircraft have a LOT of very highly flamable materials in them which is why most people never suvive a fire aboard a plane.

A record of air accidents showed that in fires, 80 per cent of the passengers who die, perish from smoke and toxic gas.
http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/mp30/smokehoods.html
It is NOT the impact that kills - it is the fumes.
And the people at the Pentagon were breathing in these toxic fumes - even more so since the plane supposedly exploded when its sausage skin peeled back like a banana and flowed between the colums like a fluid.
(I got that one from the BIG SCIENTISTS.)
http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html
And finally, speaking of the Boeing,
WHERDY GO?



Or
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/nationworld/sns-worldtrade-pentagoncrash-bal,0,5935583.photogallery?coll=orl-home-headlines&index=3

[LARED]

1. What is your point????

This picture of the so called amazing Pent-a-windows shows that the blast resistant windows were just that - blast resistant.



If you notice of the ten window that are visible, three are intact, four are basically destroyed, and three are partially damaged.

So, what exactly is your point?

[DulceDecorum]

2. Hallelujah

I posted at 12.19 GMT
and you chimed in at 12.37 GMT
Kudos Lared.
Now, why don't you work on getting yourself at least one thumb facing upward?

HINT:
There are some questions hidden there.
Can you answer any?
Ever?

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[DulceDecorum]

5. Personal attack, as usual

Acerbic,
did you even TRY to answer the questions?
Do you ever?

HINT:
1. Did the windows, situated where the Boeing 767 allegedly crashed into the Pentagon wall, remain intact despite the impact?
Yes or no.
2. Did they continue to remain intact throughout the fires?
Yes or no.
3. Can any power on earth destroy these windows?
Yes or no.

I will give three thumbs up
to whoever answers these three questions and posts any reasonable argument supporting their viewpoint.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[DulceDecorum]

8. So stay off "pointless" threads then.

:hi:

[acerbic]

9. So you were going on "asking questions" as if you were leading to some

...great revelation and when you got the answers you show ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. How convincing...

[DulceDecorum]

11. So, are we talking about the merits of laminated glass

or my attributes as a humane being?

Let's talk about glass.
More specifically, the glass that was in the windows of the Wedge that was supposedly impacted by a Boeing 767 on the moring of September 11.

[RH]

23. 767?

:eyes:

757

[LARED]

4. And an Amen to you brother

A response to my post in four minutes. I have no idea why I bring that up, other than it seems to be an important metric for the 9/11 conspiracy crowd. So in keeping with protocol, I thought I'd add an Amen to your Hallelujah.

I can only surmise the questions you are seeking answers to are these.

1. Did the windows, situated where the Boeing 767 allegedly crashed into the Pentagon wall, remain intact despite the impact? Yes or no.

This is an incoherent question. Please provide some specifics

2. Did they continue to remain intact throughout the fires? Yes or no.

As this is a follow up to question one, It will have to wait until some clarity is brought to question 1.

3. Can any power on earth destroy these windows? Yes or no.

Obviously yes, just look at the photos.

Do I get a at least one :thumbsup:

[DulceDecorum]

6. No

:thumbsdown:

[shatoga]

69. Rapid Response may be coincidence I hope/ but

some few posts at DU remind me that I still discuss this possibility freely elsewhere:

http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum6/HTML/001023.html

Far more at the link than is excerpted here:


>The Republican National Committee, with the technological expertise of The Bivings Group, has launched a new Internet program<
>the Bivings Group, a PR company contracted to Monsanto, has invented fake citizens to post messages on internet listservers.<

those windows at the Pentagon?

If an airplane had actually struck the Pentagon it might have resembled one or more of the controlled crashes done outside phoenix AZ.

What airplane?

[RH]

79. outside phoenix?

So they were crashing planes into a Pentagon like building outside phoenix AZ were they?

:shrug:

Must have missed that.

[DulceDecorum]

10. Let's analyse Lared's photo

Now the bottom of the building appears to have sustained far more damage than the top of the building.
We were told:
***The blast resistant windows are claimed to have supported the floors directly above the impact for an additional 30 minutes, providing vital time for thousands of employees to escape
http://www.azom.com/news.asp?newsID=380

How is this possible?
The two lower windows are completely shattered.
What is then supporting the floors directly above?

(And I am not even going to go explore the fact that if those employees did not get out within the first three minutes - and have normal human lungs and skin - then they are supposed to be taking a dirt nap and pushing up daisies.)

I will repeat the question for those of us who are not so swift in the reasoning department.
The official line is this:
***The blast resistant windows are claimed to have supported the floors directly above the impact for an additional 30 minutes, providing vital time for thousands of employees to escape
http://www.azom.com/news.asp?newsID=380

How did the lower floor with the broken-out windows manage to support the weight of the upper floors?

[acerbic]

12. Analysis? Much more like making deliberately disjointed arguments

and incoherent "questions" into some great mystery:

The official line is this:
***The blast resistant windows are claimed to have supported the floors directly above the impact for an additional 30 minutes, providing vital time for thousands of employees to escape
http://www.azom.com/news.asp?newsID=380

How did the lower floor with the broken-out windows manage to support the weight of the upper floors?

That "official line" seems to be only an admitted claim from some kind of glass manufacturer or their organization, but anyway, the way it logically reads is that the windows in the wall above the impact acted as load bearing parts of that wall helping to hold it intact.

Since there was no wall where the impact hole was, how could there have been any windows there supporting anything and how could that statement possibly have been about any other windows but those above the impact? Oh dang: you'll just use that as a new "argument" in your hurricane of illogic...

[LARED]

13. You can't be serious

You found an on-line industry trade newsletter that tells of the wonders of laminated glass and how it helped save lives in the Pentagon. The company that issues the newsletter just happens to the manufacturer of laminated glass products.

So you are trying to do exactly what with this piece of information?

What great insight has your fertile mind seen that has bypassed us mere mortals?

Let me guess. Companies try and market their products and sometimes embellish the facts. If that's it, I figured that out about 40 years ago. But thanks for the heads up nonetheless.

Or is that the specialty laminated glass helped provide some structural support that day, and you think that because it did not remain completely intact while it provided some support it points to a larger conspiracy than even you could imagine.

Please enlighten me.

[DulceDecorum]

14. Lared scores a point

acerbic wrote:
That "official line" seems to be only an admitted claim from some kind of glass manufacturer or their organization, but anyway, the way it logically reads is that the windows in the wall above the impact acted as load bearing parts of that wall helping to hold it intact.
Since there was no wall where the impact hole was, how could there have been any windows there supporting anything and how could that statement possibly have been about any other windows but those above the impact? Oh dang: you'll just use that as a new "argument" in your hurricane of illogic...

I understood the first paragraph but was blown away by the "hurricane of illogic" when it came to the second paragraph.

Lared says:
You found an on-line industry trade newsletter that tells of the wonders of laminated glass and how it helped save lives in the Pentagon. The company that issues the newsletter just happens to the manufacturer of laminated glass products.

The company that made the laminated glass windows at the Pentagon was being honored by the Protecting People First Foundation.

Laminated glass is formed by sandwiching a transparent plastic layer between two panes of glass. This product can resist substantial loads by insuring the glass panes act as a single unit during a blast.
http://www.protectingpeople.org/laminatedGlass1.shtml

Now, according the diagram on the Foundation's website, the windows consist of two layers of ordinary glass with a transparent plastic film of something called Saflex PVB sandwiched between them.
http://www.keepsafemax.com/about/specs.asp

Safety and security window film is A SINGLE OF MULTI-LAYERED POLYESTER FILM THAT TRANSFORMS ORDINARY WINDOW GLASS INTO A SHIELD against dangerous flying or falling shards of glass, that can result in death, serious injury and extensive property damage. THE THICKER MULTI-LAYERED LAMINATES OF CLEAR OR TINTED FILM USE AN ADHESIVE TO HOLD THE WINDOW GLASS TOGETHER, WHEN IT IS SHATTERED BY TERRORIST BOMBINGS , accidental explosions or by forces of nature, thereby greatly reducing the most widespread hazard associated with bomb blasts.
http://www.protectingpeople.org/safetyfilm1.shtml

Here is a spec sheet.
http://www.keepsafemax.com/about/specs.asp

That is one serious polyester film.
And those are amazing claims.
Who came up with this marvelous stuff?

In fiscal year 2001, ERDC focused research on the physics of blast/structure interaction and a physics-based computational model to simulate the interaction of blast waves with complex structures. This model allows engineers to accurately analyze a building's vulnerability to terrorist threats, and provide methods to retrofit buildings to defeat the threat.
<snip>
Earlier ERDC technology developed for building protection from terrorist attack saved numerous lives on Sept. 11 when the hijacked airliner, traveling at 530 miles per hour, struck the Pentagon. The plane hit a newly renovated section that had been retrofitted with blast-resistant technologies. These protective measures held up the third, fourth, and fifth floors for almost 30 minutes, allowing building occupants to flee. Windows that used ERDC protective measures did not blow out, preventing fire generated by the 36,000 pounds of jet fuel from entering offices, also saving numerous lives.
http://www.hq.usace.army.mil/cepa/pubs/oct02/story2.htm

But Lared also said:
Let me guess. Companies try and market their products and sometimes embellish the facts. If that's it, I figured that out about 40 years ago. But thanks for the heads up nonetheless.
Lared, I think you may be onto something.
:thumbsup:

The manufacturers and installers of the laminated glass and other safety features on the new Oklahoma City Federal Campus were recognized Thursday April 24, 2003 at a ceremony at the new federal facility by Oklahoma Governor Brad Henry and the Protecting People First Foundation.
The new Oklahoma City Federal Campus, nearing completion, will replace the Murrah Federal Building that was destroyed by a terrorist’s bomb on April 19, 1995. One of those killed was Baylee Almon who celebrated her first birthday the day before. Her mother, Aren Almon-Kok founded the Protecting People First Foundation to honor the memory of her daughter and to raise the awareness of the dangers of flying glass. Congressional reports have stated that many of the deaths and injuries in the Oklahoma City bombing were caused by flying glass. More importantly, that same report said lives could have been saved and injuries reduced if protective glazing were in place at the time of the bombing.
"I feel more than ever that progress is being made. Seeing this new building and the security measures taken to protect the people inside is something that I have been looking forward to for eight years," said Almon-Kok. "I can’t think of a better way to honor Baylee’s memory."
http://www.protectingpeople.org/news.shtml

Remember poor baby Baylee.
She seems to have acquired a great deal of interest.

Almon-Kok says Dunn claims he wants to protect and memorialize Baylee, a duty she considers her own. "I'm in charge of memorializing my daughter," she said.
Baylee was recognized worldwide after being photographed in firefighter Chris Fields' arms following the April 1995 bombing.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/GoodMorningAmerica/GMA020923OKC_Stalking.html

What a horrible bastard.
How can ANYONE
(not affiliated with Public Relations)
be that cruel?

Public Relations has always been a powerful tool in promoting and protecting an organization's image and reputation. In most cases, our expertise is called on to place our client on the front page and at the top of the evening news. Alternatively, for some clients, delivering excellent public relations may mean keeping that client out of the news. In public relations, it's attention to every detail that carries the day.
<snip>
PROTECTING PEOPLE FIRST FOUNDATION
CHALLENGE: Working for a client in the protective glazing industry, Cote & D'Ambrosio recognized as a serious problem the lack of awareness about protective glazing technologies. This product protects against flying glass hazards, most dangerous when caused by terrorist bombings or natural disasters.
SOLUTION: Cote & D'Ambrosio recognized the Oklahoma City bombing as a focal point in American history as well as a painful example of the deadly role played by flying glass. To help raise awareness of the deadly effects of flying glass and to promote greater preparedness for terrorist attacks, Cote & D'Ambrosio created the Protecting People First Foundation. The agency enlisted the support of Aren Almon-Kok, mother of Oklahoma City bombing victim Baylee Almon, one of 19 children killed in the attack. Knowing that the image of her daughter being carried from the Murrah Federal building will forever be associated with the Oklahoma City bombing, Almon-Kok joined the foundation as its national spokeswoman to ensure that some good comes out of her daughter's tragic death. With the support and direction of Cote & D'Ambrosio, Almon-Kok travels the country, meeting with elected officials, and building grass-roots awareness of flying glass hazards and the remedies available to protect the public from this danger. Through her work with the Foundation, Almon-Kok hopes to transform the image of her daughter from a symbol of the Oklahoma City bombing into a symbol of enhanced safety in America.
http://www.30brownst.com/publicrelationpgT.html

Oh dear.
Do you think that Cote & D'Ambrosio might be one of the companies that Lared was referring to when he said:
"Companies try and market their products and sometimes embellish the facts?"

Do you think somebody is trying to create a global demand for their product?
And wouldn't that be the single most daring piece of PR EVER?
Are you getting the impression that maybe that a thin film of polyvinyl butyral (PVB) might NOT be able to withstand the onslaught of a Boeing 767?

The destruction caused by the attack was immediate and catastrophic. The 270,000 pounds of metal and jet fuel hurling into the solid mass of the Pentagon is the equivalent in weight of as diesel train locomotive, except it is traveling at more than 400 miles per hour. More than 600,000 airframe bolts and rivets and 60 miles of wire were instantly transformed into white-hot shrapnel. The resulting impact, penetration, and burning fuel had catastrophic effects to the five floors and three rings in and around Pentagon Corridors 4 and 5.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing1/witness_kelley.htm

But that can't be correct.

Earlier ERDC technology developed for building protection from terrorist attack saved numerous lives on Sept. 11 when the hijacked airliner, traveling at 530 miles per hour, struck the Pentagon. The plane hit a newly renovated section that had been retrofitted with blast-resistant technologies. These protective measures held up the third, fourth, and fifth floors for almost 30 minutes, allowing building occupants to flee. Windows that used ERDC protective measures did not blow out, preventing fire generated by the 36,000 pounds of jet fuel from entering offices, also saving numerous lives.
http://www.hq.usace.army.mil/cepa/pubs/oct02/story2.htm

Hey, wait one stinking minute!
What do you mean the plane hit a newly renovated section that had been RETROFITTED with blast-resistant technologies?
Retrofitted?
Retrofitted?
What do you mean RETROFITTED?
That Wedge was NEW!!!

And what do you mean "Windows that used ERDC protective measures did not blow out?"
You mean only SOME of the windows had ERDC protective measures?
You mean that SOME of the windows DID NOT HAVE ERDC protective measures?
Is that why some of the windows are intact and others are broken?
And if the windows are RETROFITTED do they even have those floor-holding frames in the first place?

What's that?
You don't see any trace of a Boeing 767 in any of the photographs?
Well, my friend, SOMETHING happened to the Pentagon on the morning of September 11 2001.
Something smashed some of those windows.
Now, they tell me that Flight 77 is what crashed into the building.
You heard the man.

Earlier ERDC technology developed for building protection from terrorist attack saved numerous lives on Sept. 11 when the hijacked airliner, traveling at 530 miles per hour, struck the Pentagon. The plane hit a newly renovated section that had been retrofitted with blast-resistant technologies. These protective measures held up the third, fourth, and fifth floors for almost 30 minutes, allowing building occupants to flee. Windows that used ERDC protective measures did not blow out, preventing fire generated by the 36,000 pounds of jet fuel from entering offices, also saving numerous lives.
http://www.hq.usace.army.mil/cepa/pubs/oct02/story2.htm

They are talking about the jet fuel that was in the Boeing 767.

Fuel in one integral tank in each wing, and in centre tank, with total capacity of 63,216 litres (16,700 US gallons; 13,905 Imp gallons) in 200/300; 767-200ER and -300ER have additional 28,163 litres (7,440 US gallons; 6,195 Imp gallons) in second centre-section tank, raising total capacity to 91,379 litres (24,140 US gallons; 20,100 Imp gallons). Refuelling point in port outer wing.
http://www.janes.com/aerospace/civil/news/jawa/boeing_767.shtml

Surely you remember the jet fuel.

"Our focus was on modeling the impact effect of the liquid fuel in the tanks of the aircraft – the amount of energy transferred to the building's structural load-carrying system, which is mainly the reinforced concrete columns, and the condition of those columns after the impact," said Sami Kilic, a civil engineering research associate who specializes in earthquake engineering.
http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html

Q: How hot is the fire right now, and how hot was it at its worst? Do you have any figures on that?
Plaugher: It's a stubborn fire. And it's not hot, and we're not, you know, engaged in a fully, you know, roaring fire situation; it's just stubborn, very difficult to get to and very difficult to extinguish.
The jet fuel fire that I was talking about earlier -- it's one of those things when you're dealing with a flammable liquid, it's very -- you got to put a blanket of foam over the top of it to stop it from flaring up.
Q: Where is the jet fuel? Just --
Plaugher: We have what we believe is a puddle right there that the -- what we believe is to be the nose of the aircraft. So --
Q: Where is that? What ring is that, or corridor --
<snip>
Q: I see. Can you tell me where the fire is now?
Plaugher: As well as in the area right where the crash site was.
Q: (Off mike.)
Plaugher: Right.
Q: So those two areas of fire --
Plaugher: That's correct.
Q: -- are still burning.
Q: And sir, have you cut through the roof to prevent it from spreading to the unaffected part of the Pentagon?
Plaugher: We are doing that now.
(Chief Plaugher departs.)
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001/t09122001_t0912asd.html

But what does Fire Chief Plaugher mean when ha says that the fire was not hot?
Louise Kurtz seems to think it was.

Mike Kurtz didn't lose his wife of 31 years, but Louise Kurtz was burned over nearly 70 percent of her body, the worst of the Pentagon patients. September 11 had been her second day as an accountant, working one floor below Birdwell and Cheryle Sincock. She was standing at a fax machine three windows from where the plane hit. She never saw the plane, but she heard it and could smell the jet fuel. Suddenly, everything was dark, smoky, and quiet. She climbed out a window, not realizing her hair had been burned off. "I was baked from the heat," she says of the 1,470-degree temperatures.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/9_11/articles/911pentagon.htm

HEY!!
Wait a ding-dong minute!!!
Did that woman just say that she CLIMBED OUT A WINDOW?
A PENTAGON WINDOW??

And how HOT did she say it was?
One thousand, four hundred and seventy degrees?
Jeez, Louise.

How hot does the cremator get?
Although there are several manufacturers of cremation units, the optimum temperature range is 1400 degrees to 1800 degrees Fahrenheit.
http://www.icfa.org/cremation.htm

Aw shucks.
This whole Pentagon windows thing is so confusing that I think I am going to follow the example set by Army Specialist Michael Petrovich.
:argh:

[LARED]

15. Is there a point somewhere in all that cut and paste?

Really a few coherent sentences work great if you are trying to make a point.

So, what is your point?

[DulceDecorum]

18. Point is

Lared said:
"Companies try and market their products and sometimes embellish the facts."

True.

Laminated glass companies have used one widely publicized photo of what is supposedly one dead baby against the backdrop of two bombed buildings to market their product. However, we still do not know for sure, if those windows are any good.
And that is where the PR firm has failed.

This direct link between Oklahoma and 9:11 would not have come to light had it not been for the input of acerbic and Lared.
Each of you deserves at least one :thumbsup:

[LARED]

20. This direct link between Oklahoma and 9/11 ????????

Helloooooo out there. What direct link are you talking about?

Did you forget to type stuff betwwen the second and third paragraph that establishes this link? There seems to be a huge gap in logic between the two.

Mind you I would not be surprized in the least if there is a link between the two, but I can't follow what you are saying.

[DulceDecorum]

28. The missing link: Cote & D'Ambrosio

PROTECTING PEOPLE FIRST FOUNDATION

CHALLENGE: Working for a client in the protective glazing industry, Cote & D'Ambrosio recognized as a serious problem the lack of awareness about protective glazing technologies. This product protects against flying glass hazards, most dangerous when caused by terrorist bombings or natural disasters.

SOLUTION: Cote & D'Ambrosio recognized the Oklahoma City bombing as a focal point in American history as well as a painful example of the deadly role played by flying glass. To help raise awareness of the deadly effects of flying glass and to promote greater preparedness for terrorist attacks, Cote & D'Ambrosio created the Protecting People First Foundation. The agency enlisted the support of Aren Almon-Kok, mother of Oklahoma City bombing victim Baylee Almon, one of 19 children killed in the attack. Knowing that the image of her daughter being carried from the Murrah Federal building will forever be associated with the Oklahoma City bombing, Almon-Kok joined the foundation as its national spokeswoman to ensure that some good comes out of her daughter's tragic death. With the support and direction of Cote & D'Ambrosio, Almon-Kok travels the country, meeting with elected officials, and building grass-roots awareness of flying glass hazards and the remedies available to protect the public from this danger. Through her work with the Foundation, Almon-Kok hopes to transform the image of her daughter from a symbol of the Oklahoma City bombing into a symbol of enhanced safety in America.
http://www.30brownst.com/publicrelationpgT.html

Note:
Cote & D'Ambrosio set up the Foundation to further the interests of their client in the glass business.
Makes you wonder more and more about the authenticity of that Pulitzer picture, hmmm.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Chris Fields experienced the bomb in a way he'd like to forget, but the world won't let him. He is the Oklahoma City fireman whose image burned its way into international consciousness when an amateur photographer captured him cradling the lifeless body of little Bailey Almon, a picture that recently won the Pulitzer Prize. Fields is uncomfortable with his celebrity but says it has rekindled his Christian faith. Six months ago, he joined City Church.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/remember/oklahoma_4-18.html

The amateur photographer, Charles Porter IV, won a Pulitzer Prize.
And now both the mother, and the firefighter, are working for same PR firm?

Following the retrofit, volunteers and contributors will gather for a special ceremony featuring keynote speaker Chris Fields of the Protecting People First Foundation. Fields is an Oklahoma City firefighter and spokesperson for the Protecting People First Foundation. Fields worked with Aren Almon-Kok to launch the Protecting People First Foundation in memory of Almon-Kok's daughter, Baylee Almon, who was killed in the 1995 Oklahoma City terrorist attack. The Pulitzer Prize winning photograph of Chris Fields carrying Baylee Almon's lifeless body from the Murrah Federal building became the icon of the Oklahoma City bombing.
http://www1.ercgroup.com/newsroom.nsf/0/01AC4A308E3779EF86256C7200672DC6?OpenDocument

And here is a list of the other "disinterested" parties.
http://www.protectingpeople.org/memberprofiles.shtml

This story goes straight from the bombed out Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City to the September 11 Pentagon.
But life goes on.
http://www.ardmoreite.com/stories/033197/news/news03f.html
http://www.sptimes.com/News/061201/Worldandnation/Where_they_are_now_.shtml

[LARED]

31. Let me see if I understand

There is a organization created after the Oklahoma bombing that advocates the use of protective glass in buildings. They enlisted the use of people and images from the Murrah building attack in their quest to raise awareness about this technology in industry and government. I am assuming the same entities have some connection to the blast resistant glass used in the Pentagon (although I don't find that anywhere in your links, perhaps I just missed it). The logical conclusion is this was done in order to sell a useful product and make some money. (not a horrible idea). As a side note do you know that all schools in Israel have bullet proof glass installed for protection.

Am I correct so far?

Assuming I am

WHAT IN GODS GREEN EARTH DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH FLIGHT 77 CRASHING INTO THE PENTAGON or 9/11 in GENERAL???????

[DulceDecorum]

40. They prepared the Pentagon for a truck bomb blast.

The building-wide renovation project was a response to the Oklahoma City bombing and other anti-American terrorist bombings around the world. The goal was to harden the Pentagon against an external explosion, one that was envisioned most likely to be caused by a truck bomb. Elements of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers helped in studying the Pentagon and determining just what needed to be done, such as relocating the large Metro bus transfer station at least 280 feet from the building.
http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/supporting.asp?ID=353

The military chief never dreamed that a jet attack could occur at the Pentagon.
http://www.intellnet.org/news/2002/05/24/9488-1.html

Nobody ever thought that a plane might just happen to crash into a building.
http://www.boston.com/news/packages/sept11/anniversary/wire_stories/0903_plane_exercise.htm

No one ever thought that a plane might ever hit the Pentagon.
http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/Contingency_Planning.html

But they did think a truck bomb might be detonated at the Pentagon.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jul2003/n07252003_200307251.html

Nobody ever connected the dots because there never were any dots to connect.
http://www.oilempire.us/wargames.html

So they shored up the walls and windows to withstand a bomb blast and let it go at that.

“We came to the conclusion that the Pentagon was not designed from a security standpoint,” said Robert Williams, security director for the Department of Defense. Initially, it was designed as an office building, and at one point, its blueprints were available on the Internet, he said. In recent years, however, such sensitive information was removed from the Web.
“People do evil things to the Pentagon on occasion. They drive by and shoot into the Pentagon, and if you’re in the Pentagon, this is not fun,” he said. Williams’ office took action against drive-by shootings by putting thick laminated glass in the Pentagon’s windows.
When the Pentagon was built, the windows were set up in such a way that the glass was very heavy and crushed the brick down, he said. “So, we put steel runners on the side of each window. Floor to ceiling, bolted in,” he said.
“And when the building was hit on 9/11, held the building up and the windows didn’t break. Essentially, we were hit at our strongest point,” he said.
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/article.cfm?Id=860.

Masonry Arts designed the exterior windows and window frames to withstand a classified level of force from a blast, presumably from a bomb or small missile.
"The windows are totally custom designed to do two things: meet the blast-load requirements and maintain the historical integrity of the original windows," Hays says.
http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2001/07/16/focus12.html?jst=s_rs_hl

And they got their ideas from observing the damage done in the Oklahoma bombing.
Who could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile?
Condi certainly didn't.

And they are all jolly lucky that the Boeing didn't exert much more force than they had prepared for.

On a side note:
The schools in Israel have bullet-proof glass?
But how are the Palestinians getting guns or ammunition?
Who is creating the need for safety glass to protect the children?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2138155.stm

[LARED]

42. DD, Lets keep it simple

What is your point? Don't cut and paste a lot of cryptic notes with a bunch of links. Just clue-in the rest of us as to what conclusion you have drawn from this investigation you are doing.

[LARED]

62. What happened?

You endlessly post stuff that is supposed to be some lame version of the DD cyber Socratic Method, and when asked to get to your point, you forget how to hit the reply button.

[DulceDecorum]

88. Is engineering a science, Lared?

Because it seems that the scientists - most especially those US government scientists who have published reports on the events of September 11, are quite out of step with the rest of us.

So many scientific advances have beenmade that it is difficult for the layman understand what is happening around him. At times like these we turn to the experts. Tom Weller is such a man. He recieved the 1986 Hugo Award for his groundbreaking, informative and highly readable monograph, which is recomended reading for all serious students of the official version of the events of September 11, 2001.

What is Science?
Put most simply, science is a way of dealing with the world around us. It is a way of baffling the uninitiated with incomprehensible jargon. It is a way of obtaining fat government grants. It is a way of achieving mastery over the physical world by threatening it with destruction.
http://www.besse.at/sms/smsintro.html

Since I have yet to be recognized (in certain circles) as a bona fide scientist, I have yet to reach the same (lucrative) conclusions as these highly respected blowhards.

In fact, Lared, I haven't reached any real conclusions at all.

[LARED]

91. Very funny web page

You do think it's funny???? I hope


I haven't reached any real conclusions at all.

If you can't reach a conclusion (real or not) then stop pretending you have discovered something.

You can't have it both ways. You hint at some dark connections between the blast glass and the events of 9/11 and when when asked to tell what you think this all means you dummy up.

[RH]

24. How is this possible?

How did the lower floor with the broken-out windows manage to support the weight of the upper floors?

Perhaps because of the reinforced steel window frames?

:eyes:

from
http://www.bizjournals.com/birmingham/stories/2001/07/09/story1.html

"As part of the contract, Masonry Arts built and installed a mounting and reinforcement system for the exterior windows. That element alone encompassed 750,000 pounds of plates, tubes and angles and required some 30,000 holes to be drilled into the structure's floor slabs."

[DulceDecorum]

30. Hmmm

so it wasn't those fabulous glass windows themselves?
That's nice to know, because I have really been wondering about that.

You see, the windows are made of regular glass that has this thin polyester film sandwiched in between. Or maybe it's made of some polycarbonate with a thin film sandwiched in there. Anyhow, the film is pretty tough.
But it IS a film and once you get it sideways there really isn't very much to it. So I kinda wondered if the film would be able to support any great weight once it was lying sideways in the frame.
I know that the glass can't. That's why they have to make a nice weight-supporting frame. If you tried to get the window glass to help hold up the buildings, you could wind up in more trouble than the three little pigs.

I kinda wonder about Kevlar too. Once you get it sideways, it is any great help in structural matters?
And doesn't Kevlar kinda give out once it gets hot?
I dunno, that's why I am asking.
But it's nice to know that you think that it is the window FRAMES that held up the floors and allowed the people to escape.
Wow, what a world we live in.
We now have load-bearing windows-frames, but I guess that is the least they can do considering how much they cost.

[Bolo Boffin]

16. Tenth verse, same as the first

:nopity:

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

:bounce:

O8)

And just for good measure, a link to an actual 9/11 issue worth discussing:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/02/national/02SAUD.html?ex=1060833600&en=0c7db1282d0e4e7b&ei=5070

:loveya: :hi:

[Dancing_Dave]

17. How does that say what really happened?

The Saudi connections to alleged 9/11 hijakers are interesting, particularly if you factor in all the Bush family's connections to Saudi Arabia and the Bin Ladins. And the Bush family's long relation to the CIA, which had so much to do with creating "Al Qaeda". But we still don't have that much evidence of these people's involvement in what happened on 9/11. There hasn't even been good evidence presented that the alleged hijackers ever got on the planes. They aren't on the passenger lists or in the security camera pictures of passengers who boarded the plane. Their whole role could well have been as a scapegoat and invented enemy in what the MOSSAD calls a "false flag" operation. Their training at CIA related flight schools would have been insufficient to pull off the operation, especially considering what pathetically poor student pilots their flight instructors have testified they were.

And then we start getting to why we need a better account of WHAT REALLY PHYSICALLY HAPPENED ON 9/11. One thing that is becoming clearer in independent study to find the real EVENTS, is that Al Aqaeda suicide pilots or any other suicide pilots could not have possibly caused everything that happened to the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. And indeed, no suicide pilots at all would be needed to create exactly the spectacle we saw. Every investigation of 9/11 that supposed the official story of what happened on 9/11 has run up against a dead end. The many explosions throughout the World Trade Center have not been explained, and no criminal investigation of who put the bombs in there has been done. The damage to the Pentagon would be much more easily explained by a missle, and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld (who really is not that great at keeping a secret) even slipped up and mentioned the word "missle" as what was used to attack the Pentagon. It took an emotional lady reporter to get it out of him. Moreover, numerous eyewitnesses describe the sound, form and flight pattern in a way that would match a cruise missle better than a Boeing 757. And where did that Boeing go in the pictures? Where did it go in accounts of fireman at the site? Who would have really had access to the kind of inflamatory missle that could easily explain what we see? Just answer that one last question and you may be a lot closer to figuring out who had to be behind the events of 9/11/2001.

Or try another possible theory of what really happened to the Pentagon. What if something quite strange and unprecedented was done by hitechnology to that plane just instantaneously before it would have impacted the Pentagon whole. We could reconcile that with the damage to the Pentagon being entirely different than what's ever been seen when a plane just hit a building. But that will ultimately give you the same answer about who must be responsible, as a cruise missle programmed to hit the most recently reconstructed part of the Pentagon would give you. This isn't just the unexpected result of a suicide pilot flying a plane into the buiding. It's more of an inside job.

[RH]

22. They aren't on the passenger lists?

Sp where did this come from then?

Aboard American Airlines Flight 77, which took off from Washington Dulles Airport for Los Angeles and crashed into the Pentagon.

Alhamzi, Nawaq — Passenger No. 12
Al-Midhar, Khalid — Passenger No. 20, Seat 12B
Alhamzi, Salem — Passenger No. 13, Seat 5F
Moqed, Majed — Passenger No. 19, Seat 12A
Hanjour, Hani


Aboard United Airlines Flight 93, which departed Newark, N.J., for San Francisco and crashed outside of Shanksville, Pa.:

Alghamdi, Saeed — Passenger No. 2
Alhaznawi, Ahmed — Passenger No. 3
Alnami, Ahmed — Passenger No. 4
Jarrahi, Ziad — Passenger No. 26


Aboard American Airlines Flight 11, which crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center after taking off from Boston's Logan International Airport en route for Los Angeles:

Alshehri, Wail — Passenger No. 1, Seat 2A
Alshehri, Waleed — Passenger No. 2, Seat 2B
Alomari, Abdulaziz — Passenger No. 14, Seat 8G
Al Suqami, Satam — Passenger No. 20, Seat 10B
Atta, Mohamed — Seat 8D


Aboard United Airlines Flight 175, which left Boston for Los Angeles but crashed into the South Tower of the Word Trade Center:

Alghamdi, Ahmed — Passenger No. 2
Alghamdi, Hamza — Passenger No. 3
Al-Shehhi, Marwan — Passenger No. 4
Alshehri, Mohald — Passenger No. 5
Ahmed, Fayez — Passenger No. 6

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/WTC_MAIN010917.html

[DulceDecorum]

26. Some PR flack

The FBI gave us photos of the hijackers:

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is today releasing 19 photographs of individuals believed to be the hijackers of the four airliners that crashed on September 11, 2001, into the World Trade Center in New York, the Pentagon, and in Stony Creek Township, Pennsylvania. The FBI requests the public's assistance in obtaining more information about these individuals.
http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/092701hjpic.htm

who turned out to be still alive.

Another of the men named by the FBI as a hijacker in the suicide attacks on Washington and New York has turned up alive and well.
The identities of four of the 19 suspects accused of having carried out the attacks are now in doubt.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm
7 Of 19 FBI Identified Hijackers
Located Alive After WTC Attacks
http://www.rense.com/general20/alives.htm

Then the FBI gave us DNA samples

The FBI had collected the DNA from tiny traces of skin on the steering wheels of vehicles hired by the hijackers and from hair samples recovered from their hotel rooms.
Earlier this month, the FBI provided profiles of all 10 hijackers, including alleged ringleader Mohammad Atta, so their remains could be separated from those of victims. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2808599.stm

and managed to ID almost everyone at the Pentagon crash site,

All but four of those who worked in the Pentagon were identified, and AFIP identified all but one of the passengers on Flight 77.
http://www.af.mil/news/Nov2001/n20011130_1709.shtml
Investigators have identified remains of 184 people who were aboard American Airlines Flight 77 or inside the Pentagon, including those of the five hijackers, but they say it is impossible to match what is left with the five missing people.
The remains of the five hijackers have been identified through a process of exclusion, as they did not match DNA samples contributed by family members of all 183 victims who died at the site.
The hijackers' remains will be turned over to the FBI and held as evidence, FBI spokesman Chris Murray said. After the investigation is concluded, the State Department will decide what is to be done with the remains.
http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/pentagon-unidentified.htm

but their lab turned out to be faking reports.

The Justice Department's inspector general is investigating FBI lab technician Jacqueline Blake for allegedly failing to follow proper scientific procedure when analyzing DNA in at least 103 cases over the past few years, officials said.
The officials said they have found that the technician failed to compare the DNA evidence with control samples, a required step to ensure the accuracy of tests. Blake resigned from the FBI lab recently.
http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/5642874.htm

This explained a lot.

Many questions may linger about the loss of the space shuttle Columbia, but investigators can be certain of at least one thing -- the remains of Columbia's crew will be positively identified.
<snip>
In 2001, the World Trade Center investigation became the world's largest DNA identification program, with virtually every testable sample analyzed. The WTC samples were analyzed by a contractor, Myriad Genetics, a DNA sequencing firm in Salt Lake City. The Pentagon victims of 9/11 and the remains from United Flight 93 were analyzed by the military lab.
http://www.post-gazette.com/healthscience/20030206dnalongscip2.asp

Then it turned out that the US military had been training the very same Saudi pilots who they are now accusing.

Sept. 15 — U.S. military sources have given the FBI information that suggests five of the alleged hijackers of the planes that were used in Tuesday’s terror attacks received training at secure U.S. military installations in the 1990s.
<snip>
But there are slight discrepancies between the military training records and the official FBI list of suspected hijackers—either in the spellings of their names or with their birthdates. One military source said it is possible that the hijackers may have stolen the identities of the foreign nationals who studied at the U.S. installations.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/629529.asp

According to legend, Abraham Lincoln was fond of saying:
"If I told you that a dog's tail is a leg, how many legs does a dog have?"
People would invariably answer five.
Lincoln would respond that the answer is four:
"Calling a tail a leg does not make it so."

Calling a Saudi living man who trained at a US military base a dead hijacker does not make him so either. Especially when you keep blocking a proper investigation into the events of September 11, 2001.

[RH]

32. Wrong, wrong, and wrong again.

"Another of the men named by the FBI as a hijacker in the suicide attacks on Washington and New York has turned up alive and well."
is not correct. People with similar names have turned up. Not one of them has yet claimed to be the same person as any of those actually known to be using the name in the USA prior to 9/11/01.

The FBI lab was not "their lab". The U.S. Army's Central Identification Laboratory in Hawaii is another entity and a failure to respect procedures would hardly amount to "faking" in any case.

It apparently did not exactly turn out that the US military had been training the "very same" Saudi pilots, investigators merely discovered records of people with similar identities.


And then you're hurt when those whose time you waste are annoyed? This sort of irresponsibly careless crap we can do without. Not only does it seriously discredit others trying harder to make a better job of it, there would hardly seem to be any other purpose to it anyway.

If those who fail even to mind the difference between a B757 and a B767 would nevertheless reckon to be able to make a better job of running the FBI, their education would best be completed perhaps by applying for the post. In the mean time...

[DulceDecorum]

35. Lets take this from the top

"Not one of them has yet claimed to be the same person as any of those actually known to be using the name in the USA prior to 9/11/01."

Said Hussein Gharamallah al-Ghamdi has been in Tunis for nine months training with colleagues from state carrier Saudi Arabian Airlines, the London-based Asharq al-Awsat paper said.
It said he had seen his own photo on CNN after being fingered by the United States as a suspect in the September 11 attacks and contacted the embassy in Tunis.
US officials said he was believed to have hijacked United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania apparently before reaching its intended terror target in Washington.
The FBI said it had gotten his photo from a flight school where he supposedly trained in Florida.
http://www.freedomdomain.com/Templemount/9_18d.html

Said Hussein Gharamallah al-Ghamdi claims to be the same person that the FBI says hijacked the Pensylvania plane.

A man named by the US Department of Justice as a suicide hijacker of American Airlines flight 11 the first airliner to smash into the World Trade Centre is very much alive and living in Jeddah. Abdulrahman al-Omari, a pilot with Saudi Airlines, was astonished to find himself accused of hijacking as well as being dead and has visited the US consulate in Jeddah to demand an explanation.
None has so far been forthcoming. It is possible that the hijacker adopted Mr al-Omari's identity but, if he had been using the same false name while training as a pilot in the US, he would presumably have been uncovered.
http://www.milligazette.com/Archives/01102001/02.htm

Abdulrahman al-Omari wants the FBI to explain what they mean by saying that he hijacked Flight 11 and is dead.

Saudi Arabian pilot Waleed Al Shehri was one of five men that the FBI said had deliberately crashed American Airlines flight 11 into the World Trade Centre on 11 September.
His photograph was released, and has since appeared in newspapers and on television around the world.
Now he is protesting his innocence from Casablanca, Morocco.
He told journalists there that he had nothing to do with the attacks on New York and Washington, and had been in Morocco when they happened. He has contacted both the Saudi and American authorities, according to Saudi press reports.
He acknowledges that he attended flight training school at Dayton Beach in the United States, and is indeed the same Waleed Al Shehri to whom the FBI has been referring
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm

Waleed Al Shehri acknowledges that he attended flight training school at Dayton Beach in the United States, and is indeed the same Waleed Al Shehri to whom the FBI has been referring.

Mr Al-Shehri's case is not the first in which there has been apparent confusion as to the identities of the hijackers who commandeered the four planes on 11 September.
Mr Al-Shehri said he has now been interviews by the American authorities, who apologised for the misunderstanding.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1558669.stm

Officials refused to say how many hijackers may have used false identities, but officials of the Saudi Arabian government said Thursday that six of the men that the United States has named as hijackers killed in the attacks appear to be living in the Middle East.
Investigators believe that some of the 19 suspected hijackers may have stolen the identities of law-abiding Middle Easterners, further complicating the probe.
Confusion over the identities of some of the terrorists is one reason authorities have delayed putting out the photographs of the hijackers, as they had planned to do last week, Justice Department spokeswoman Mindy Tucker said.
The Saudi citizens who were mistakenly linked to last week's tragedy are horrified, said a diplomat at the Saudi Embassy here.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-092101probe.story

But the FBI put out the photographs anyway.
Can you say "FALL GUY?"

Do you now want to retract this statement?
"Not one of them has yet claimed to be the same person as any of those actually known to be using the name in the USA prior to 9/11/01."

Hey, we all make mistakes.
I just admitted one concerning the 767 and the 757. I promise not to jump all over you, like you did me.
"If those who fail even to mind the difference between a B757 and a B767 would nevertheless reckon to be able to make a better job of running the FBI, their education would best be completed perhaps by applying for the post. In the mean time..."

I did make a mistake, and I admitted it.
However, I would like to point out that the two planes are VERY similar.
You can train for either on the same equipment.

What must be kept in mind is that if a pilot is trained in either a 767 or a 757, he is equipped to fly both. Boeing specifically designed the cockpits of the two planes to be similar so airlines could reduce training costs.
There are about 50 outlets in the United States that have full-motion 767-757 simulators and several others in Europe. I tried calling a bunch of them and they say it is unlikely the terrorists filtered in because most only train airline pilots.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/columnists/sfl-kaye922,0,4132279.column
http://www.gecat.com/boeing_767.asp

Pilots qualified to fly the Boeing 767-200, 767-300, 757-200 and 757-300 are now qualified - with minimal instruction - to fly the Boeing 767-400ER. The Boeing 757 and 767 were the first, and still are, the only airplanes to share a common type rating. The common type rating is due, in part, to airplane systems that are designed such that a common set of flight crew operating procedures can be used.
Airlines that operate both the Boeing 757 and 767 have greater flexibility in assigning flight crews and adapting to changing markets. They also benefit from similar maintenance procedures, manuals and inspection requirements and reduced spares inventories. More than 26 airlines around the world operate both 757s and 767s.
http://www.aerotechnews.com/starc/2000/082200/767_400ER.html

However this error only butresses the assertion that a 767 NEVER entered the Pentagon and left no debris whatsoever on the incredible Penta-lawn.
As for the 757, the jury is unable to look at classified documents and so cannot really decide much of anything.

Now, as for running the FBI, I have no connections to the New England mob. So you know how that goes....
http://www.aim.org/publications/aim_report/2003/7.html
And I can hardly remember the last time I was seen in a dress and high heels.
Can I have Colleen Rowley stand in for me?
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020603/memo.html

"And then you're hurt when those whose time you waste are annoyed?"
Are you annoyed, sweet cheeks?

:spank:
'cause I am not hurt.....

"This sort of irresponsibly careless crap we can do without. Not only does it seriously discredit others trying harder to make a better job of it, there would hardly seem to be any other purpose to it anyway."

How does anything I do discredit anyone?
All I do is ask my fellow members of the Democratic Underground to help me out of the quagmire of confusion. And I tell them what has got me perplexed. Overall, they are a decent bunch, even if some of them are just as confused as me.
(I am still waiting to award the three thumbs up.)

Now, I could have sworn that the lab in question was owned and operated by the FBI. Wherever did I get that impression?
Ah yes, the Associated Press.

AP reported this month that FBI lab technician Jacquelyn Blake recently resigned while under investigation for failing to follow required scientific procedures while analyzing 103 DNA samples over the past couple of years, and a second lab employee was indicted for false testimony.
http://www.govtech.net/news/news.phtml?docid=2003.04.28-49015

Yes indeed, that was "false testimony" not "faking."

And these guys seem to be rather upset about the whole thing.
http://www.nacdl.org/MEDIA/fbilabreport/fbil1toc.htm

What's with the U.S. Army's Central Identification Laboratory in Hawaii?
The Dover mortuary also handled the bodies of seven astronauts killed in the 1986 explosion of the space shuttle Challenger and victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the Pentagon.
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/columbia_remains_030205.html

First, the search and recovery teams at the Pentagon must continue locating casualties. Being a crime scene, the FBI briefly examines remains for evidence, then releases the casualties to a graves registration team that will place the remains in a refrigerated truck bound for Fort Belvoir, just south of Washington, D.C. From there, remains are flown to Dover by CH-47 Chinook helicopters, usually about twice a day, depending on the pace of the search and recovery effort.
http://www.afsv.af.mil/NW/Mortuary1.htm
So THAT'S what gave me the idea that the FBI (and their infamous lab) might have a hand in this...

I will just have be more careful in future about checking my sources of information seeing as how some things here are so easily discredited.

[RH]

41. from the top

The possibility of stolen identities is not in dispute.

The fact remains that none of the people identified made any claim to have been in the USA immediately prior to 9/11.

The "Said Hussein Gharamallah al-Ghamdi" in Tunis was not the same person who booked in as passenger number 2 on Flight 93.

The "Abdulrahman al-Omari", a pilot with Saudi Airlines was not the "Abdulaziz Alomari" who reserved seat 2A on Flight 11.

The "Waleed Al Shehri", another Saudi Arabian pilot was not the same person said to have been in seat 2A on Flight 11.

Those persons have therefore to be accounted for. "Not one of them has yet claimed to be the same person as any of those actually known to be using the name in the USA prior to 9/11/01." stands good. An identity is not a person.

The Central Identification Laboratory were involved, persumably with the trickier stuff:
http://www.af.mil/news/Nov2001/n20011130_1709.shtml

The Government Technology' report mentions "a second lab employee was indicted for false testimony" but it gives no particulars. That may have been to do with a subsequent attempt to cover up. There is a big difference between cutting corners irresponsibly and the faking of evidence to affect third party defendants.

How does anything discredit anyone?

Did you really never notice that the main effect of the 'No Boeing' nonsense was to annoyingly insult the experience of on the scene witnesses who may otherwise have been helpfully inclined? How many ever involved themselves?

Steve Riskus began helpfully but has since seen fit to withdraw. A number of pro bono researchers who involved themselves last year have also since withdrawn in despair.

Not only has proof been shown, it is abundantly clear that further proof exists, in the hands of the FBI.

[DulceDecorum]

45. Yet and still

the US military managed to ID just about everyone on Flight 77.
In order to do this, they must have had DNA samples to compare with the remains.
Since the Saudi pilots DID train at US military installations they had to submit to blood and other samples which are retained in the military database maintained by the Department of Defense.

Since the DNA registry began in June 1992, DoD has collected blood specimens from more than 1.2 million service members. The majority of the collections occur when recruits arrive at induction centers.
http://www.pentagon.gov/news/Jul1998/n07131998_9807131.html

This is how the Dover mortuary technicians were able to positively ID all but five of the bodies on the flight which allegedly crashed into the Pentagon.
http://www.stripes.com/01/sep01/ed091401l.html

So, the Pentagon had DNA of the REAL Saudis pilots who enrolled at the US military bases for flight training.
http://www.madcowprod.com/index6.html
And the same Pentagon is claiming that it has POSITIVELY identified the corpses of the hijackers and confirmed their true identities.

State Department spokesman Frederick Jones said Friday he did not know if the department has contacted the Saudi Arabian government or the hijackers' families about DNA samples.
http://www.delawareonline.com/newsjournal/local/2001/12/15dafbstaffmakepr.html

Mind you, some of the ACTUAL "hijackers" are still walking around alive and well and rather pissed off actually. More so since the FBI does not seem to want to back down on its allegations even though the evidence (Saudi pilots who are STILL alive) does not back up the official FBI-fairytale.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1553754.stm

Now they DID also say this:
The remains of five people killed in the terrorist attack on the Pentagon were damaged beyond identification in the massive explosion and fire after a hijacked airliner crashed into the building's west side, officials said.
Investigators have identified remains of 184 people who were aboard American Airlines Flight 77 or inside the Pentagon, including those of the five hijackers, but they say it is impossible to match what is left with the five missing people.
"They exhausted all scientific leads," said Army Major James Cassella, a Pentagon spokesman. "When all was said and done, they weren't able to identify all of them."
http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/pentagon-unidentified.htm

As Arsenio Hall would say,
Hmmmmmmmmmm.

Better check your lab technicians dearie.
Something doesn't add up.

[RH]

47. Better check your facts dearie.

Which of the suspects said to be aboard Flight 77 "enrolled at the US military bases for flight training."?

:eyes:

No report that I ever saw said so.


Some of the ACTUAL "hijackers" are NOT still walking around alive and well. None of the said individuals were in the USA immediately prior to 9/11. None of the said individuals ever booked to be on Flight 77. The ACTUAL "hijackers" have yet to be positively accounted for.

There is apparently a second 'Salem Alhazmi' in Saudia Arabia but he had not left Saudi Arabia for two years. His passport had been stolen
by a pickpocket in Cairo three years before and would not therfore said the same person to have booked a Flight 77 ticket through Travelocity using a Linwood Plaza, Fort Lee, NJ address.

That 'Salem Alhamzi' has therfore to be accounted for.

It was also rumoured that another 'Khalid Almihdhar' is alive circulated but I have never yet seen anything to tell us exactly who or where he would be and those who suppose him to be alive never supposed him to have booked a ticket for Flight 77 via the American Airlines Web site, subsequently to pick up his ticket, cash paid, at Baltimore/Washington International Airport on September 5th.

That 'Khalid Almihdhar' has therfore to be accounted for.

Were any of the other three Flight 77 suspects ever said to be still alive?

:eyes:

No report that I ever saw said so.

[Dancing_Dave]

44. More evidence related to who was on the planes

There's a lot of good links to evedince and arguments about who got the planes at http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/investigation77.htm It's a very tangled issue, ("when we practice to deceive"ect.), but the FBI's list of alleged hijackers (along with their supposed seats) has never been supported by sufficient evidence, and it's clear that some of the identities were wrong. The FBI came out with the list very quickly after 9/11, and the U.S. media uncritically passed the misinfo along. Latter on, a bit of investigation did turn up in some newspapers, but at the time, the U.S. media just passed along the FBI's errors. After all kinds of problems came up with the list (none of them were on the security camera videos of all passengers that boarded the plane, some hijackers latter turned up elsewhere alive, etc.), the FBI did not bother to improve on it, they didn't release a new list with some better evidence and reasoning. It's very clear that some people high in the U.S. Government did not want the F.B.I. to do a real criminal investigation of 9/11....people with the authority to actually stop an FBI investigation, such as ATTORNEY GENERAL ASHCROFT.

[RH]

48. tangled.

The FBI issued a list of names known to be have been used, matched to photos to fit, as confirmed by witnesses who had previously seen the suspects e.g. at Gold's Gym in Greenbelt.

So what else then were they supposed to come up with?

"Wanted. Somebody. Name and description unknown"?

If identities were stolen, that operation would appear to have been sophisticated. It is not therfore so unreasonable to continue to issue the same names and descriptions, until any better identification comes to hand.

The tangle is mostly the doing of the ignorance of subsequent meddlers. No doubt there was a degree of official bungling; almost always there is, but that's still a long way from proving bad faith.

Or should one seriously prefer to impugn the entirety of a criminal investigation establishment in the hope of doing better with a haphazard assortment of internet gossip?

:kick:

[DulceDecorum]

54. Faith-based investigating?

Now I'm a believer
Not a trace
Of doubt in my mind
Now I'm a believer
Yeah, yeah, yeah
Yeah, yeah, yeah
I'm a believer
I'm a believer
I'm a believer
---the Monkees



I prefer to remain where I am:
even if it means being confused by facts.

[DulceDecorum]

19. THIS chapter, THIS verse

concerns the Pentagon and right now we are talking about the Pentagon windows.

As for your link, Saudi schmaudi.
If you want to know what role the Saudis have played in some of this, then you really need to go here
http://www.madcowprod.com/past.html

I suggest you begin with the article entitled:
Spooks and Saudis in Florida
http://www.madcowprod.com/index11a.html

I also suggest that you pay particular attention to their "assistants."

And now back to the Pentagon and its amazing windows.

[acerbic]

52. So, what about the Pentagon windows?

And now back to the Pentagon and its amazing windows.

How many hundreds of "posts" with 100 lines of irrelevant links and incoherent insinuations each might it take before you'd consider revealing what "point" you're trying to make about those windows?

[DulceDecorum]

55. A few more thousand

I am just exploring all the versions put out by the PR machine.
Maybe we will get lucky and find out whatreallyhappened.

Right now we have Cote & D'Ambrosio pinned in the corner.

It appears that they are the ones who have been putting out the idea that the Penta-windows were tough enough to withstand the onslaught of the Boeing.

[RH]

21. 767?

:eyes:

757

[DulceDecorum]

27. Oops

757
Point taken.

[RH]

25. stupid questions.

1. Did the windows, situated where the Boeing 767 allegedly crashed into the Pentagon wall, remain intact despite the impact?

No, not where the plane hit directly.



2. Did they continue to remain intact throughout the fires?

Some windows melted.



3. Can any power on earth destroy these windows?

Yes, obviously.



What does it take to break or damage a Penta-window?

A direct hit from a speeding B757 for instance.




How come the Boeing impact did not smash or blow out the windows?

It did. Some were completely missing, and the wall around them too.



How did the jet fuel get past the windows and into the building?

Same way the B757 did.



Where did the correct amount of oxygen to burn the jet fuel come from?

Air.



How did the firefighters manage to get their hoses into the building?

Through doors and windows. Many photos of the same are available.



Why did Petrovich push the window OUTWARD when the blast had forced it INWARD?

Who said the the blast had forced it INWARD?



Where was the plane then?

Inside the building, mostly.




And HOW, in the name of steroids, did Paul Gonzales smash a HOLE through the Penta-wall?
Sloppy reporting. According to another version:
"All I know is when I got toward the end, I found a hole,"
http://www.teenchallenge-ntx.org/911tribute.htm


Was there a point to this?

[DulceDecorum]

29. I was VERY disappointed

with that link.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A5516-2002Mar10¬Found=true

It didn't say a darn thing about how Rumsfeld supposedly dragged Gonzales to safety or about how the whole structure collapsed only seconds after that heroic act. This version just has a bunch of people sitting around on the floor and a lady dragging her purse out.
:boring:
But it was nice to see that the people trapped in the room remembered to pray. Donald Rumsfeld was also saying his prayers.

First, we currently believe and are certainly hopeful that the number of casualties being reported in the press is high. As you know from your own observation out there, the work is still going forward, and we won't know for some time precise numbers. But from everything that we currently know, the estimate that's been widely reported is considerably high, and we certainly pray that that's the case.
<snip>
Question: Mr. Secretary?
Rumsfeld: Yes, Bob?
Q: The causality figure you referred to I assume is the 800 number that was provided by the Arlington County Fire Department.
A: It is.
Q: And you say it's considerably high. We've heard from the military -
A: I said I hope and pray that it is.
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/01091308.htm

Looking at American casualties in Iraq these days, Rummy must be feeling that his prayers are being answered.

Got any more versions or accurate or sloppy reporting you'd like to share?

[westerby]

33. "Where was the plane then? Inside the building". Proof?

Can you substantiate this claim by providing, for example, a photo?
Or did the plane first smashed the outer wall, left an exit hole, but then disintegrates or whatsoever so that there is nothing left, besides one engine and very few other pieces?

[LARED]

34. Read these if you care to get informed

The Wheredy the Plane stuff has been throughly bebunked.

This is something like 18 months of debate. There really is no question as to did the plane hit the Pentagon that day. Of course some still cling on. It did

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=4566&forum=DCForumID43&omm=0

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=5067&forum=DCForumID43

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=5103&forum=DCForumID43&archive=yes

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=5290&forum=DCForumID43&omm=0

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=5368&forum=DCForumID43#127

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=5394&forum=DCForumID43&omm=0

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=5603&forum=DCForumID43&omm=1

http://www.democraticunderground.com/duforum/DCForumID43/5548.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/duforum/DCForumID43/5548.html

[DulceDecorum]

37. So WHERE is the plane then?

westerby wants PROOF.

[LARED]

38. What sort of PROOF would be to

your satisfaction?

You have seen photographic evidence, video evidence, first hand accounts, second hand accounts, flight data, official reports, unofficial reports, etc, ALL indicate that flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.

OTOH, every single material question raise about did flight 77 crash into the Pentagon or not by the 'official story' debunker has been throughly answered.

What is your criteria for proof?

[DulceDecorum]

39. westerby missed all that.

Give westerby a break and just show some proof.
westerby wants proof.
Got proof?

[LARED]

43. Why avoid my question?

What kind of prove would be satisfactory for you?

[westerby]

46. Specific question ("plane inside the building") -- specific answer, please

Thanks for the links.
I think I am quite informed, but, up to now, I did not see evidence that shows that the plane was inside the building.

I asked only for a proof for your claim that the plane was mostly inside the building. As you are certainly informed, I would be glad if you could summarize the proof for this claim in two or three sentences.
A link to about 400 posts referring to various details of the Pentagon incident is not an answer sufficient to the specific request that you substantiate your claim "the plane was inside the building" by a proof, or at least very precise indications. As to the standards of measuring evidence, I leave that up to you. Take the same standards as you would take when you ask people to provide evidence for their claim that the Boeing did not hit the building.

"ALL indicate that flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon". That was not my question. It was more narrow. You claimed the Boeing was mostly inside the building. Only for that claim I would like to see a proof.

Evidence should be more than merely saying "it entered the building, debris cannot be seen outside, so it must be inside". You must agree that the standards for defining evidence that set people who attack "conspiracy theories" is quite high, nearly impossible to meet by internet research. (Correct, if you take the word "evidence" literally). But then, the evidence for the claim that the plane was "mostly inside the building" must also be measured against that standard of evidence.

It is ok when you say there is no direct proof for that specific claim, but that it would be the only possible explanation when you accept that a Boeing must have hit the building.

[RH]

49. specific answer.

:eyes:

The incident was abundantly witnessed and thoroughly investigated.

To confirm any part of that, ask those thus involved, those who therefore own the proof.

[westerby]

50. Repeat: Claim should be proven. Really a basic request.

LARED made a claim.
So: LARED must be able to prove his claim.

RH: "The incident was abundantly witnessed and thoroughly investigated."
This sentence has no relevance to my question.

RH: "To confirm any part of that, ask those thus involved".

No, I ask the person who made the claim.

If someone makes a claim, he must be able to offer a proof, a source for that claim. What is here so difficult to understand?

That is a basic rule for every serious discussion.

Perhaps it is wise not to make claims that cannot be justified.

[RH]

51. Perhaps it is wiser not to be so stupid.

:eues:

That more basic rule for every serious discussion would be to be serious.

Lared's claims was that the Wheredy the Plane stuff has been throughly bebunked.

To prove the claim he cited nine links to DU discussions.

Beyond that he may perhaps have better things to do with his time.

[gandalf]

53. RH, do you want to be taken seriously?

Perhaps you did not read it, but lared wrote:

"Where was the plane then? Inside the building, mostly."

That IS a claim.
That should be proved.

9 links to 400 posts are no proof for that claim.

I take it that you cannot prove that claim.

[DulceDecorum]

56. gandalf

you get two thumbs up.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[RH]

57. No.

That was not what Lared wrote.

The incident was abundantly witnessed and thoroughly investigated.

To confirm any part of that, ask those who were there, those who saw for themselves.

[DulceDecorum]

58. The fact that you can't prove a negative

is an underlying principle of our system of jurisprudence -- which is one of the primary reasons why the burden of proof is on the accuser to prove that something was done, rather then on the accused to prove that something wasn't done.
http://www.democracyunbound.com/stratsec.html

Digression:
Stratesec also provides?provided? security for Boeing.

[RH]

59. ???

meaning what?

:shrug:

were you supposed to proving something or just being generally tedious?

[Abe Linkman]

60. Being too polite to tell you to stuff it?

Of all people, you ought to know about the impossibility of proving a negative. After all, you want us to believe that the FL 77 cell phone claims aren't a fairy tale, but no one here is convinced.

[Bolo Boffin]

63. Wait a minute. YOU'RE trying to prove the negative...

The word is the phone calls HAPPENED. Also, Flight 77 DID hit the Pentagon on 9/11/2001.

You're saying the phone calls DIDN'T happen. You're saying that Flight 77 DIDN'T hit the Pentagon (I think - that is what you're saying, right? There are varying permutations of what you think happened after you deny what actually did happen, and I don't know what you subscribe to). Those are the negative propositions. I mean, I believe one thing and you another, and that's all fine and well, but YOU are the one defending the negative proposition here. If you're so basically confused as to not understand that, you're not helping by throwing your two cents into the conversation.

[Dancing_Dave]

64. This has all already been worked out

For example: http://www.apfn.org/apfn/flight77.htm
Show me one other example where a plane ran into a building and it disappeard like that. Planes have hit buildings before, and they did not suddenly cease to exist.

[RH]

66. suddenly ceasing to exist

Have you really never yet seen any reports of the SANDIA experiment?

http://www.sandia.gov/media/NRgallery00-03.htm

[DulceDecorum]

104. David Copperfield did that

and it was ever so much more impressive than watching a damn pinata hit a wall at high speed.

[RH]

67. already been worked out

and tell me please,

how did the lamp poles get to be felled and sheared in two as if by a giant scythe, if they were not hit by the passing B757?

http://www.dragonslair.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/77/poles_.htm

[Bolo Boffin]

83. Do you believe this?

Your linked website has a page that says this:

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/not_crashed.htm

We now know Flight 77 was not crashed into the Pentagon.

An F-16 flew over the Boeing 757 for a while, and then the airliner was diverted with transponder off, flown by remote control to either crash site or a landing site known only to the 911 perpetrators. Passengers and crew may be alive or may have been alive as captives some days following September 11.

I know this is far-fetched. I know this is not what the families of the victims need to hear right now. But there is a possibility that kidnap victims are being held somewhere and my responsibility is to them if they exist (and I think they may.)

When I leered that Hillary Clinton's severest biographer critic, Barbara Olsen was on Flight 77 it became important to learn what business put her on Flight 77 to Los Angeles on September 11. From now on the passengers of flight 77 must be considered possible kidnap victims. The amorality and arrogance of the criminal elites responsible for the 911 frame-up make this a reasonable suspicion and avenue of investigation. But another theory that must be also be tested against the facts involves a willing cell-phone actress. Intelligent internet discussants of every political stripe are concluding that Flight 77 was not destroyed at the Pentagon. We must determine where the abductors took that plane.

I have long been convinced that Hillary Clinton was behind the Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman murders that created the distraction the night before the very day Hillary became the first First Lady to testify in a criminal investigation. I also know that she was involved in serious economic crime when she received criminal payment for corrupt services in the form of a million-to-one (i.e. impossible to come by honestly) illegally manipulated first-timer bonanza killing in the commodities futures speculation. Also, that she had one of the Secret Service men she detested, a man who might have heard too much, transferred to Okalahoma city -- to perish in the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building there, even as the drug-trade-dealing BATF chose to be away from the office that day. And there is the Vince Foster murder. If Mrs. Olsen is in the hands of Hillary Clinton and her associates now, I am sure she would much rather be in the Atlantic trench.

Ever wonder about all the unaccounted-for time that Bill Clinton (that closet Bush man and cfr stooge and hit man) spent in Harlem, New York prior to September 11.

It's time for the many who know about these crimes to come forward -- but come forward to the internet first -- it is the people, not the criminals who need to hear your story.

Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington

bolo sez: Do you honestly believe that Hillary Clinton had Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson murdered? Dick Eastman, the mind that constructed the website where it's "all worked out" believes this, and has probably emailed OJ to let him know who the real killer is. But OJ hasn't let the rest of us in on this info...probably because OJ knows that even he can't get away with this kind of crap.

Do you believe that Hillary Clinton is the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks? Do you really? Is there any more evidence needed that people who are advocating this crap about the Pentagon attacks don't actually have the best interests of the Democratic Party in mind?

Oh, yes. It's all worked out now. Thank you for that, Dancing_Dave.

[acerbic]

85. Thank you for the only actual revelation of an interesting new fact

...in this thread: exactly what kind of a kooky kritter Dickhead Yeastman is.

[Abe Linkman]

82. The "word" as you called it, isn't credible.

Fine; do YOU have any evidence you'd care to reveal about those alleged phone calls from Barbara Olson? As I'm positive you (of all people) WELL know, those claims have been thoroughly examined, from a number of perspectives (including common sense), and I've yet to see ONE person even make a case for "pro" side of those calls. The only thing I've heard are cheerleaders like yourself, and Mr. Harvey, who apparently is unaware of Ted Olson's background.

What is it that you want us to believe you don't know, that you're here to learn?

[Bolo Boffin]

84. Please see my post #82, Abe.

I've learned quite a lot being here at the 9/11 Forum, but Hillary Clinton being the mastermind behind the OJ Simpson murders and 9/11 takes the cake.

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/not_crashed.htm

Do you believe this?

[RH]

65. No.

What anybody wants to believe is of no matter to me for as long as the belief is stated as such. Due process and good faith are another matter.

And thinking logicially about it, with due respect to proving a negative, is it not quite simply that much more impossible to prove a negative (i.e. that a phone call did not happen) in the face of a version to the contrary from the Solicitor General himself?

[DulceDecorum]

89. Everyone knows that Ted Olson would NEVER EVER EVER tell a lie

No matter what.
http://www.democrats.com/preview.cfm?term=Ted%20Olson

But then again there are some people out there who do NOT seem to understand this. For example:

Professor A.K. Dewdney
http://www.physics911.org/911/index.php/articles/authors/12
Cell Phone Experiments in Airliners
http://www.physics911.org/911/index.php/articles/6

[Old and In the Way]

92. Witnesses provided definitive proof?

Seems I've heard a variety of witnesses with contradictory statements, so I'm not sure who is reliable.

I admit to being skeptical on the wole 9/11 issue and I've followed the discussions here and on other websites. Fact is, I still don't really know.

Honestly, looking at the exterior pics taken moments after the event, I'd challenge anyone to conclude that a 757 hit the Pentagon. The security camera photos are also totally inconclusive,IMHO.

Anablep has painstakingly laid out her case about the 757 with the light poles being knocked down...but they could easily have been detonated to provide more "evidence".

I just don't know. But what could conclusively put this debate to rest are pics of the plane inside the building...is that too much to ask? Surely, the whole plane didn't melt into one big aluminum puddle? There has to be seat frames, a good portion of the tail, a second engine, something really identifiable as 77 that could lay this discussion to rest....so why hasn't the government seen fit to release the indisputable evidence?

Another thing that bugs me....that neat 12' diameter hole in the "C" ring. What caused that? Shouldn't there be a corresponding 12' diameter fusilage sticking out of that hole? Or was that an engine that punched through it? And if it was an engine, where are the pics of the engine? I see a lot of metal scrap piled up in front of the hole, but it seems quite odd that a well formed 12' diameter hole was caused by a lot of amorphous pieces of hardware.

[RH]

93. Seriously?

There is much to be skeptical about but with all due respect to the thousands of people with their own personal experience of Pentagon, 2001 to judge from, the plain fact remains that every one of them would appear to presently be satisified that a B757 hit the building.
Otherwise, of course, would have heard all about it.
Now would not that tend to direct one's understanding towards a certain direction?

The notion that others' interpretion of photographs should somehow supercede the direct ears nose eyes and touch experience of those actually at the scene is one that to this day continues to astound me.

"...but they could easily have been detonated to provide more "evidence""?

Really? Seriously?

:freak:

I want to know how anybody would possibly, honestly come to such a conculsion.

Would the witnesses at the scene lie about it?
http://www.dragonslair.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/77/pole_reports.htm

Is that supposed to be the story? They're all government spooks, or out of their minds?

Or would a plane flying low enough to clip the aerial off a Jeep Cherokee be some sort of honestly mistaken mass halucination?

I live under a flight path. We get Concorde flying low overhead as it takes off. If only that could be written off as some sort of mistaken illusion!

Pics of identifiable plane parts inside and outside the building have appeared. There were also lots of pics of melted and shredded aluminum inside the building, e.g. on the FEMA web site. Aircraft do burn up:
http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/madras/photo.shtml

There is no reason to suppose that there were not parts of seat frames, a good portion of the tail and a second engine. There were dozens of accounts from people who said they saw recognisable parts of the plane. You also have to account for the stench of jet fuel that persisted for several days afterwards and the aluiminum confetti spread over a very wide area. If you distribute a mere one ounce of material per square yard, that adds up to around 90 tons per square mile!

Why hasn't the government seen fit to release the indisputable evidence?

Perhaps because, without a particular further investigative purpose in mind, that that would not be the usual practice in a criminal investigation.

The question also arise, released to who? Did you ever ask directly? What response did you get from the FBI? It would be interesting to see it.

Possessions were returned to relatives. Did you ask them? If no possessions had been returned I'd have expected to hear something about that.

The mortuary investigation positively identified 58 bodies.

So you then want to ipugn that on the strength of an interpretation of photographs kindly released by the defense dapartment as if to incriminate themselves to begin with?

Holes in buildings are often enough caused by the pressure of explosions. I don't understand the fuss about that. A thin wall would be blown out at a weak point just the same as a window would.

[Abe Linkman]

94. LSD

You obviously are not aware that the supposed eyewitnesses to the Pentagon incident all contradict each other, or tell made-up stories (Penny Elgar), implausible stories, or say they saw everything from a propeller-driven plane, to a small executive jet, to a missile. Nearly all of the media reports refer only to "the plane."

If you are aware of the unreliability of the eyewitness reports, then perhaps your medication needs to be adjusted. Perhaps you've been exposed to too much tension caused by all those loud jets flying over your chimney.

[RH]

96. Obviously are not aware

Oobviously not aware that the supposed eyewitnesses to the Pentagon?

Really?

Your ignorance, LSD, is more obviously as ill founded as is your pathetic abuse.

:puke:

I happen to have provided the first compendium of witness reports to be available, and still available by courtesy of Steve Riskus:
http://criticalthrash.com/terror/identification.html

I also provided several updates of it, e.g.
http://perso.club-internet.fr/mouv4x8/11Sept01/A0082_b_They%20saw%20the%20aircraft.htm

[Old and In the Way]

95. OK, RH, let's try this another way.

What if the government's case was that a small jet had hit the Pentagon...maybe a disgruntled pilot who hated Rumsfield.

The physical evidence (pics) that I have seen would corroborate that story.

Would you be arguing against the government's position if this had been the case made?

Regarding your comments, I have read contradictory statements, maybe you haven't.

And again, I ask you, if you had come accross the scene minutes after the event and you had yet to hear what happened...would you have concluded a 757 had crashed into the Pentagon?

I am not saying I believe or disbelieve...I am only saying I have not seen any irrefutable proof. I've seen parts of plane engines and a wheel, but nothing that I can say which points definitively to a 757 in the Pentagon.

About the possessions being returned....had not read that and it's pretty amazing that any possessions could be found if the entire plane was shredded and/or completely destroyed. How could anything have survived that inferno? Any hijacker passports found?


Have I asked for proof to be issued from the Pentagon? No...but do you think they'd release it on my request? Please explain again why they couldn't release more evidence to the public after 2 years? Is it in their interests to keep us guessing?
And your comments on the 12' diameter hole are a pretty weak explanation. Air pressure? Take a look at that hole again....that hole is too well formed, too symmetrical. Shouldn't there be a 12' diameter fusilage plugging it? At least a large 757 jet engine laying in the courtyard?

[RH]

97. OK, RH, let's try this another way.

If I had yet to hear what happened then I would not yet have come to any conclusion.

:shrug:

So what? That's not how it is.


The physical evidence (pics) that I have seen do not corroborate the small plane story. They show what a nonsense it is.

The width of the destruction to the ground floor wall was three times that of the imagined 'small plane'. The photos of a wheel match with photos of B757 wheels, but not with any 'small plane' wheel. The photo of the landing gear strut also matches one on a B757, but nothing on any 'small plane'

The pattern of the damage to the building also matches. Where does this "12' diameter hole" notion come from? A more accurate estimate would be 18 feet:
http://anderson.ath.cx:8000/911/pen06.html

Please measure also the distance between the corner of the low wall to the steam vault (where one engine hit) and the position of the mark where a flap track fairing scraped across the top of the electricity generator. Does it happen to fit exactly with the disposition of a B757?

How would a small plane even have touched the electricity generator, which was pushed backwards towards the building? Consider the distance between the center line of the plane's trajectory and the electricity generator. How does it compare to the wingspan of your 'small plane'?

Which is not even to mention the five fallen lamp poles. Measure the distance between them. There is no way that a "small plane" could cause that damage.

I don't know if any passports were found. I do know that a child's hand was found:
c.f. “I picked up a child's hand. That was it. Just a child's hand and that's when I got angry. To wonder why someone could do this. You can come after me. I'm a soldier. I have sworn to protect and defend, but that wasn't right,”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/11/earlyshow/main521568.shtml

The entire plane was not shredded and/or completely destroyed. There was enough left to positively identify 58 bodies. The positions where bodies were found were even reported on p. 21 of the ASCE Report.

So why then should they care if you're guessing?

Who are you anyway?

Nobody who matters to them is guessing. Nobody who was actually anywhere near to the event is guessing, and there was already more than enough ignorance in World to worry about for anybody foolish enough to do so.

[Abe Linkman]

98. RH: You need a job? I bet I know who would hire you.

You may be in England, but I bet you could get a job as "spokesperson" for one of the PR firms or other outfits whose "mission" is to sell (excuse me, "present") the official story.

Might check that out. Think of the millions of sheeple who need a shepherd to keep them comfortably numb, dumb, and supportive of the lies they've been told about 9/11.

I know you're just a truth seeker and that you don't have any agenda, so I'm just kidding about this, but I do think that your zealous devotion to a certain "interpretation" suggests a potential for that line of work.

[RH]

101. Interpretation?

So how, please, is it possible at all, for instance, to 'interpret' this unequivocal statement, in plain English:

Dear Sir rest assured it was a Boeing 757 that flew into the building that
day, I was on duty as a pentagon police sgt. I was refueling my vehicle at
the barraks k gas station that day adjacent to the aircrafts flight path.
It was close enough that i could see the windows had the shades pulled down,
it struck several light poles next to rt 27 and struck a trailer used to
store construction equipment for the renovation of the pentagon that was to
the right of the fueselage impact point.

(Sgnt. William Lagasse to '[e-mail]', June, 2003)

[Old and In the Way]

100. I wish I had a link to the picture....no way is it 18' diameter.

Well, what's the point anyway? You have all the answers, all I have are questions.

[RH]

102. The way is clear.

And the point would be not to make too much of a fool of yourself.

Scaled plans of the Pentagon are available e.g. from an appendix to the Arlington After Action Report. The spacing of the columns and the windows between them is nine and a half feet.

From that it is not too difficult to figure out the distance between columns 13 and 14 would be nearer to 18 feet than to 12 feet, or do you have a better method to suggest?

[RH]

103. oops

slip of the finger.

"columns 13 and 14" would be nearer to 18 feet

shpould read "columns 13 and 15 would be nearer to 18 feet"

[Old and In the Way]

107. At risk of being typecast a fool....

you haven't addressed by question about the hole diameter.

[RH]

108. Which question?

:shrug:

[LARED]

61. Re

did not see evidence that shows that the plane was inside the building.

Perhaps some of the photos in the links are no longer good, but there were dozens of photos that showed plane parts inside the Pentagon. If you review the links I posted I'm sure some of them are still there.

I asked only for a proof for your claim that the plane was mostly inside the building. As you are certainly informed, I would be glad if you could summarize the proof for this claim in two or three sentences.

I didn't say the plane was mostly in the building. But it doesn't matter if it was mostly, a lot, a little, a bunch or a smidgen. The proof is the photographic evidence, the bodies recovered from inside, the extent of damage inside, the eyewitnesses that saw the plane enter the building, the testimony of people in the recuse effort. There was also evidence of plane parts outside the building. So at the end of the day some of the plane wound up inside and some outside. Which is not surprising. If this evidence doesn't constitute proof for you, I cannot provide a satisfactory answer.

You must agree that the standards for defining evidence that set people who attack "conspiracy theories" is quite high, nearly impossible to meet by internet research.

Quite high is being kind. Most internet conspiracy theorists have a standard that is nothing short of a pathological condition. In short, no matter how much objective evidence is presented there is always some reason to reject it. After all their objective is to debunk a conspiracy. Which fortunately for them also provides an excuse why objective evidence can alway be found tainted, planted, really dis-info, etc, etc. It's a very neat buffer against reality.


But then, the evidence for the claim that the plane was "mostly inside the building" must also be measured against that standard of evidence.

Not really. Using the conspiracy theorist standard would mean that nothing could ever be proved.

[RH]

68. nothing could ever be proved

Exactly.

:toast:

Anybody who dares to get the better of them is inevitably to be branded as a paid disinformation spook.

Any evidence that does not fit the preconception is said to be faked, or else completely ignored.

For as long as they're willing to believe, and as if it were probable, that thousands, if not millions, of ordinary folk are perfectly willing to be deliberately involved in a mass murder cover up conspiracy almost anything is provable.

So there you have it, a ready made formula for anybody unable or unwiling to think straight to nevertheless be convinced of their own superior insight, regardless of anybody ele's direct personal experience of an event, for as long as the ambient paranoia is sufficent to fit.

:hurts:

You can't win.

How strange then to recall that when I first got into all this I'd expected that a mere gathering, impartially, of some extra information would be appreciated as such. I'd actually believed that they were honestly attempting to be objective.

What a horribly bitter disillusionment that was!

:puke:

[LARED]

70. You can't win.

True, but you can have a little fun. Thats not to say I don't take the 9/11 issues seriously, but few are interested in talking about real issues.

[Abe Linkman]

81. "Real issues"?

Such as?

Why Ted Olson would lie about alleged phone calls?

Why the Government would have anything to do with aiding and abetting terrorists?

Why the liberal media isn't pressing for an objective investigation?

Why more and more people suspect that the Bush Administration didn't just LIHOP? After all, there's no such thing as LIHOP; only MIHOP.

Who benefited from what happened, and why they might have had a motive to support what happened?

Are these some of the "real" issues you're interested in knowing about?

[westerby]

72. Very precise analysis

which carefully dissects the involved interests and is free from allegations (as proven by words like "paranoia").

I always appreciate extra information. But when I asked you to provide some you said "The incident was abundantly witnessed and thoroughly investigated". That is your extra information?
Kind of low standard for "extra".

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

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

[gandalf]

77. Why? It was only politely asked for a proof.

Why don't you stay polite?

[RH]

78. Why?

Polite?

As if it were polite to in effect accuse thousands of ordinary folk of being deliberately involved in a mass murder conspiracy?

What sort of game is this?

When did anybody around here last spare a 'thank you' when information was supplied?


I am worn out.

While receiving no consideration whatsoever to serve you I prefer to please myself.

Take it or leave it.

[westerby]

99. Wrong accusation

"As if it were polite to in effect accuse thousands of ordinary folk of being deliberately involved in a mass murder conspiracy?"

You got something wrong. I accused nobody. I asked for a proof.

[DulceDecorum]

90. Charlotte Beers had EXACTLY the same problem

when she tried to get those people to believe that the US only wants what is best for them and their children.

It is so very sad.
You can put lipstick on a pig but all you have is a pig with lipstick.

[Abe Linkman]

80. What is it that you don't know now, that you are here to learn?

If you aren't here to debunk the official conspiracy theory of what happened in NY, PA, and at the Pentagon, what is it that you are seeking? You've said many times that you already know enough facts, so what is it that you don't know? You even know that people here wonder what is motivating you to be here.

I don't think you're a disinformation agent, and I don't think there anyone else here is, either. Am I naive to believe that?

[RH]

87. Too much monkey business.

As it happened I began by doubting the 'Bin Laden did it' fairy tale, only to eventually find that it stood up better to examination than the alternative 'Bush did it' version, especially with 'No Boeing hit the Pentagon' thrown in for good measure. No sale.

I had also been appalled by the sloppyness of too much of the contemporaneous reporting. With regard to lamp poles no press or official version had previously managed, apparently, to count up to five! There had also never been any mention of a completely demolished tree that had stood in front of the Pentagon. Not the most singificant loss on the day perhaps, but surely worth a mention somewhere!

In the mean time therfore I have come to suspect that some people have been unwittingly set up as disinformation agents, fed confidentially with plausible but bogus 'information'.

The agenda of some of them persistently seems to amount to little more in practical terms than to distract, to waste as much of our time as possible, all too often as if for fear that other issues would instead be chased up. Once they've hijacked the agenda, for all intents and purposes they've then won the argument.

Who actually gave the Pentagon security camera images to the media last year and on what terms did they do so?

Pro bono or cash consideration? I am amazed that nobody has yet pursued that line of enquiry.

The trajectory of the B757 before it got to the vicinity of Arlington Village is anything but clear to me, and I've spent a long tme looking for that information. I am not yet convinced that the alleged B757 U turn dive over Washington is a fact.

Nor am I convinced that we've been told the whole story about the C130. Immediately after the event the authorities were strangely quiet about that. A witness who'd told the Washington Post found that they then failed to report the fact.

I doubt that the Pentagon was a pre intended target. Why does everybody go along so willingly with that 'official version'?

While doubting that none of the Olson phone calls took place, I would neverhteless doubt that the whole truth and nothing but the truth was reported as to what was said.

I suspect that the four disasters may have been staged on the back of some sort of dress rehearsal mock hijacking exercise. Possibly such an exercise was to test a 'home run' security system which was in turn hijacked by third party hackers; a good deal of the subsequent official behaviour would be explained by the hypothesis.

When there's a smell of cover up, nine times out of every ten its because there was first a cock up.

[westerby]

71. Sorry, wrong citation

"I didn't say the plane was mostly in the building"
Correct, it was RH who said that (#25). I am sorry that I wrongly attributed this quote to you.

So my request to offer a proof should have been addressed to RH and not to you.

"Quite high is being kind. Most internet conspiracy theorists have a standard that is nothing short of a pathological condition".
What I wanted so say was: The people who are convinced that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon set quite high standards for the evidence they ask from those who are not convinced and offer other ideas.

[acerbic]

73. "high standards for the evidence" blah...

The people who are convinced that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon set quite high standards for the evidence they ask from those who are not convinced and offer other ideas.

How about this standard: at least some freaking evidence, even a little bit, hmm?

Lots of people directly saw the plane hit or what was left of it and there are pictures and eyewitness accounts. Then comes somebody and just claims that it wasn't a plane, it was a cruise missile or Soviet Scalar Electromagnetic Wave Infrared Beam. Whom to believe and whom to ask for some further evidence? A tough question... :eyes:

[RH]

76. even a little bit, hmm?

Indeed.

:toast:

After nearly two full years the plain fact of the matter is that of the thousands of people who had the benefit of some personal experience of what happened at the Pentagon, not one of them has yet shown the slightest inclination to entertain the 'No Boeing' nonsense, let alone any ability or willingness to testify to endorse it.

Not one. Period.

On the contrary, their reaction is usually one of extreme annoyance to behold the insult.

So is it not then reasonable to wonder 'quid bono' from the nonsense?

Is not then more than a little odd that the force of the said circumstance perpetually appears to fail to make any impression at all upon so many of those who prefer to believe, for whatever reason or lack of reason, that they somehow know better?

:eyes:

[LARED]

74. The standard ??????

The standard placed on the conspiracy theorist by people that recognize that flt 77 did hit the Pentagon is actually quite low. See, there is almost never any evidence provided by the theorist. Just a bunch of unusual theories as to why the existing evidence is not suitable.

It's easy.

Look at an image of the Pentagon after flt 77 hits, see that the hole does not match your expectations, then dismiss all evidence that it really did hit and create a slogan ("wheredy go" or "Hunt the Boeing") kick in a splash of the BFEE was responsible for this mess and you have captured the minds of those unwilling or unable to exercise critical thought.

Sorry, but that how I see it.

[DulceDecorum]

36. Wherdy go?

I have been asking that question for a long long time.
Heck if I know the answer.

[QuietStorm]

86. DulceDecorum

:thumbsup:

this is another topic I can not go round and round on. It is the cornerstone of the BS the official line seems to want us to swallow.

I have some questions myself:

1- have you spent any time looking into the strange orginal statement made regarding that crash landing on runway 1-19 at Ronald Reagan airport? A number of articles at the time mentioned this crash but then it was quickly amended. It also shows up in the Arlingtion County's official documentation on ESM response. If you haven't read it you might want to get your hands on it. It documents a number of violation in very basic emergency medical and response procedure. Like the fact that NO triage tags were used, and because of the ommission of triage tags medicial record documentation came after the fact. Much accuracy was compromised. Are you aware of this? Also alternate staging areas were opened up off site by the FBI.

2- what do you make of the strange vehicular accident in the parking lot of Ronald Reagan airport which involved that diabetic the ran amok and seemed to have crashed into parked cars. Google on Captain Defina. See if those stories are still coming up. There was much confusion in the tower at Ronald Reagan Airport that day. It seemed they were expecting in another Boeing. In one of the Defina articles there is mention of a couple of agents in the Ronald Reagon tower.

3- what happened to that two plane theory. Are you familiar with it. If not I will run it down for you. it seems eyewitness described different planes on approach depending on their location of site. One was a boeing the other was a smaller plane. One on approach from behind the Pentagon that doubled back around and was seen flying over the pentagon and other approached from in front of the pentagon.

4-there is also the matter of the dashed lines regarding routing of flight 77 all other planes paths were depicted by a solid line in USA today, Newsweek, etc. It seems radar was so iffy on flight 77 and perhaps there was so much disparity in radar that these Journals did not feel confident enough to draw the flight path of flight 77 with a solid line. Why is that?

5 also there is the matter of the double approach. Some mainstream journals draw it from behind and swinging around to hit the pentagon. Others draw it from in front. And as I said depending on where the eyewits saw the plane there description of the plane varys.

NOW - I don't want to get yelled at, but I think it would be safe to say that the majority of those that are not plagued by the many flaws in the official line on Flight 77 are either in denial or perhaps they are not properly informed, or prefer disinformation over information.

and that is my two cents on the matter. Thanks for pulling all those links together. Originally I got very immersed in trying to answer some of these questions and even involved in one of the internet investigations on it. It began eating at me too much as did those hellbent on purporting government site damage assessments and what appeared to be disinformation. For my own well being I went on to other questions I had. However, I became so aggrevated by the blindness I witnessed I have yet to even look at the questions that plague the collapse of those towers in NY.

I would be curious to hear a response from you, especially on those early reports of a crash on runway 1-19. As I said that report even managed to remain in Arlington Counties original draft on EMS response to the event.

Another strange inclusion in the AAAR was this anonymous relay team that drove 30 hours straight from Texas with medical skin replacement. I found that interesting because skin replacement could have been retrieved from the Nations largest burn facility in I believe it is stanford connecticut. Why the long drive from texas? and why was the relay team anonymous?

If I continue writing here will come to mind more questions. So many questions. There are answers however, many refuse to see them, and much viable speculation continues to be discouraged.

[Dancing_Dave]

105. The issues that interest you are being discussed at pi911.com

But maybe you're already there under some other alias. ;)
http://www.911pi.com/

[DulceDecorum]

106. Please post on this new thread

The Pentagon Thread Part 2
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=708

since this one is getting so long to load.