See other 9/11 Articles
Title: The 9/11 conspiracy plots thicken
Source:
Seattle Times
URL Source: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ht ... /2003250424_911conspire09.html
Published: Sep 09, 2006
Author: Michael Powell, wapo
Post Date: 2010-07-19 22:23:35 by Dakmar
Keywords: None
Views: 20200
Comments: 989
They are politically diverse and include academics, ex-officials and Web surfers. All share a belief that the Bush administration played a role in the 9/11 attacks. Their numbers seem to speak to Americans' innate distrust of their government. The Washington Post NEW YORK — He felt no shiver of doubt in those first terrible hours. He watched the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and assumed al-Qaida had wreaked terrible vengeance. He listened to anchors and military experts and assumed the facts of Sept. 11, 2001, were as stated on the screen. It was a year before David Ray Griffin, an eminent liberal theologian and philosopher, began his stroll down the path of disbelief. He wondered why Bush listened to a child's story while the nation was attacked and how Osama bin Laden, America's Public Enemy No. 1, escaped in the mountains of Tora Bora. He wondered why 110-story towers crashed and military jets failed to intercept even one airliner. He read the 9/11 Commission report with a swell of anger. Contradictions were ignored and no military or civilian official was reprimanded, much less cashiered. "To me, the report read as a cartoon," Griffin said. "It's a much greater stretch to accept the official conspiracy story than to consider the alternatives." Such as? "There was massive complicity in this attack by U.S. government operatives." If that feels like a skip off the cliff of established reality, more Americans are in free fall than you might guess. There are few more startling measures of American distrust of leaders than the extent of belief that the Bush administration had a hand in the attacks of Sept. 11 to spark an invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. 36 percent suspicious A recent Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll of 1,010 Americans found that 36 percent suspect the U.S. government promoted the attacks or intentionally sat on its hands. Sixteen percent believe explosives brought down the towers. Twelve percent believe a cruise missile hit the Pentagon. Distrust percolates more strongly near Ground Zero. A Zogby International poll of New York City residents two years ago found 49.3 percent believed the government "consciously failed to act." Establishment assessments of the believers tend toward the psychotherapeutic. Many academics, politicians and thinkers left, right and center say the conspiracy theories are a case of one plus one equals five. It's a piling up of improbabilities. Thomas Eager, a professor of materials science at MIT, has studied the collapse of the twin towers. "At first, I thought it was amazing that the buildings would come down in their own footprints," Eager says. "Then I realized that it wasn't that amazing — it's the only way a building that weighs a million tons and is 95 percent air can come down." But the chatter out there is loud enough for the National Institute of Standards and Technology to post a Web "fact sheet" poking holes in the conspiracy theories and defending its report on the towers. Motley crew The loose agglomeration known as the "9/11 Truth Movement" has stopped looking for truth from the government. A cacophonous and free-range a bunch of conspiracists, they produce hip-hop inflected documentaries and scholarly conferences. The Web is their mother lode. Every citizen is a researcher. Did you see that the CIA met with bin Laden in a hospital room in Dubai? Check out this Pakistani site; there are really weird doings in Baluchistan ... Peter Knight, senior lecturer in American studies at the University of Manchester and editor of the 2002 book "Conspiracy Nation: The Politics of Paranoia in Postwar America," called the movement "a strange beast, an amalgam of elements. You've got the anti-Bush, anti-Iraq war crowd — you know, if they lied about the war, maybe they lied about 9/11. Another part is people merely interested in the anomalies, with no preconceived political agenda. "Then you have the more traditional right-wing conspiracy part of the continuum that believes a vast cabal has taken over the United States, the mega-conspiracy of the right's new world order. To them, all of these things are connected. Each group inserts 9/11 into its pre-existing conspiracy model." The academic wing is led by Griffin, who founded the Center for a Postmodern World at Claremont University; James Fetzer, a tenured philosopher at the University of Minnesota; and Daniel Orr, retired chairman of the economics department at the University of Illinois. Professor suspended The movement's de facto minister of engineering is Steven Jones, a tenured physics professor at Brigham Young University who has studied vectors and velocities and tested explosives and concluded that the collapse of the twin towers is best explained as controlled demolition, sped by a thousand pounds of high-grade thermite. Jones has been placed on paid leave while the Mormon-church-owned school investigates his claims, it was announced Friday. The physicist published his views two weeks ago in the book "9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out." Former Reagan aide Barbara Honegger is a senior military-affairs journalist at the Naval Postgraduate School in California. She's convinced, based on her freelance research, that a bomb went off about six minutes before an airplane hit the Pentagon — or didn't hit it, as some believe the case may be. Then there's Morgan O. Reynolds, appointed by George W. Bush as chief economist at the Labor Department. He left in 2002 and doesn't think much of his former boss. "Who did it? Elements of our government and M-16 and the Mossad. The government's case is a laugh-out-loud proposition. They used patsies and lies and subterfuge and there's no way that Bush and Cheney could have invaded Iraq without the help of 9/11," Reynolds asserts. They are cantankerous and sometimes distrust each other — who knows where the double agents lurk? But unreasonable questions resonate with the reasonable. Colleen Kelly's brother, a salesman, had breakfast at the Windows on the World restaurant on Sept. 11. After he died she founded September Eleventh Families for Peaceful Tomorrows to oppose the Iraq war. She lives in the Bronx and gives a gingerly embrace to the conspiracy crowd. "Sometimes I listen to them and I think that's sooooo outlandish and bizarre," she says. "But that day had such disastrous geopolitical consequences. If David Ray Griffin asks uncomfortable questions and points out painful discrepancies, good for him." Griffin's book, "The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11," sold more than 100,000 copies and became a movement founding stone. Last year he traveled through New England, giving speeches. One evening in West Hartford, Conn., 400 mostly middle-aged and upper-middle-class doctors and lawyers, teachers and social workers sat waiting. Griffin took the podium and laid down his ideas with calm and cool. He concluded: "It is already possible to know beyond a reasonable doubt one very important thing: The destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by domestic terrorists. The welfare of our republic and perhaps even the survival of our civilization depend on getting the truth about 9/11 exposed." The audience rose and applauded for more than a minute. No patience Chip Berlet, senior analyst at Political Research Associates, a Boston-based left-leaning think tank, is no fan of the 9/11 Commission. He believes a serious investigation should have led to indictments and the firing of incompetent generals and civilian officials. But he has no patience with the conspiracy theorists. "They don't do their homework; it's a kind of charlatanism," says Berlet. "They say there's no debris on the lawn in front of the Pentagon, but they base their analysis on a photo on the Internet. That's like analyzing an impressionist painting by looking at a postcard. "I love 'The X-Files' but I don't base my research on it. My vision of hell is having to review these [conspiracy] books over and over again." In the days after Sept. 11, experts claimed temperatures reached 2,000 degrees on the upper floors. Others claimed steel melted. Nope. What happened, says Eager, the MIT materials-science professor, is that jet fuel sloshed around and beams got rubbery. "It's not too much to think that you could have some regions at 900 degrees and others at 1,200 degrees, and that will distort the beams." The truth movement doesn't really care for Eager. A Web site casts a fisheye of suspicion at the professor and his colleagues. "Did the MIT have prior knowledge?" notes one chat room. "This is for sure another speculative topic ... " Professsor Jones' suspension was reported Friday by The Associated Press. Peter Knight was quoted by McClatchy Newspapers.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 542.
#14. To: Dakmar (#0)
Are you in teenage-wasteland?
P.S. Your thread was closed before I posted a response to this: That isn't the author of the article of this thread. "we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET buckeroo posted on 2010-07-23 21:14:55 ET [Locked] Trace Private Reply Reply: I know Loizeaux wasn't the author of the article. He was part of AGA's list (#9) that you quoted in a post to him (#1137 You To: AGAviator #1096) . The title of the thread was mentioned in my post to you to bring the topic back to the subject of CD and Loizeaux's statement about it at #9 in AGA's list, the premise of which was already debunked with an alert to that fact at Post #982 and again at Post #1109. Just wanted to clarify that for you. ______________________ Replying to AGAviator @ Post #857 of the 9/11 demolition theory challenged: What satelite phones with noise filters? I don't understand your next question about sotto voce. There were places in the alleged phone call recordings without anyone speaking and no engine-noise heard. And the Right Here link you posted to me is the very same NTSB pdf footnote link I posted to you from your Wikipedia page reference for Flight 77 that had nothing in it at all about 40 hours and 11 flights prior to 9/11 on the FDR.
It brings to tears to my eyes since several REAL attempts to persuade and convince a pile of rabble rousers, HELL bent on pushing a conspiracy agenda killed the thread. That thread could have gone stellar here at 4um bringing the truth about some of the silly conspiracy plots. I shall renew the effort, too.
P.S. Your thread was closed before I posted a response to this It brings to tears to my eyes Yes buckie, you cried like a little girl when nobody wanted to buy the BS you were selling, and instead, people posted facts and evidence which tore your little fairie tale to shreads.
Oh, did the widdle buckywoo cwy? Maybe he should go running home to his mama and tell her the big kids on the internet are beating the crap out of him for lying.
when he wakes up in the morning he uses the quarter found in his teeth as proof some one loves him.
Good one.
Good one. How does this comment rate on your vulgarity scale?
For general antagonistic attitude and creating dissent without contributing to the discussions on this site, your account has been closed. I've reviewed your past remarks, and you have ridiculed, defamed, and made rude remarks. Although I think you are intelligent, and capable of good research you are not using those skills in a way that promotes our Constitutional Republic, and in fact is more in line with harming same. I wish you well - but not on this website. Goldi-Lox posted on 2009-11-15 21:12:12 ET And your first post at LP.... You practice, promote and tolerate the rawest racial vilification of these people. Objet posted enough of your stomach-turners to make THAT point... You fling around vile personal attacks -- e.g., personally charging ME with "hating Jews" and hating YOU because you are a Jew... But then, in addition to your down-and-dirty resort to smears of anti-semitism, you also adopt the weepy-therapeutic-narcissistic vaporing of the Left -- namely: you were oh-so-offended and hurt and "personally attacked" by posts like mine that talk about Palestinian ambulances and medics have the hell shot out of them (and killed -- and beaten and tortured in alarming numbers -- by IDF war criminals... You prance and preen as a Joan of Arc seeking "truth" and combating "haters"...instead, you are a blatant censor and a vile racist (gotta look out for them "P's", remember) who cheerfully admits she censors. THEN you had the nerve to blast away all day yesterday about how these unnamed troglodyte "haters" on the other side -- presumably those who might post something critical of Israel and of your hero, Ariel Sharo Same ol' stuff, different site, eh Jaunty? AGAviator posted on 2002-08-26 16:52:15 ET There is no question that you have capability and know your stuff.... but will anyone research your posts? Will anyone care to realize that on LP you were tried and convicted of objective opinions based on both MadDog and yukon with hostess, there. You are an outstanding poster, AG... I don't give a damn what the others say about ya.
You are an outstanding poster, AG... I don't give a damn what the others say about ya. Sheesh, buck, have you no shame? Can't you post this sychophant butt kissing on the PM? You two look like idiots fawning over one another ad nauseum. Not that I care, but, egads, try to muster up an iota of dignity. And the answer is: NO, NOBODY WILL CARE, NOBODY WILL RESEARCH THE POSTS.......only you buck--you are the wind beneath AG's wings.
You two look like idiots fawning over one another ad nauseum. Not that I care, but, egads, try to muster up an iota of dignity Continuing your obsessive, vulgar, and pathological attacks after being asked by the forum manager in Post #187 40 minutes ago to give it a rest, I see.
That right there is funny. Butt kissing, brown nosing--I call it like I see it. No attack, just the facts and you two were just whining for facts. I think even you know that it's true. Take it to PM. Christine is going to tire quickly of your pings. This isn't a sand box. Grow up.
Seems like it hasn't dawned on you that Christine is the one who locked down the other thread because she thought it unproductive, and who asked everybody in Post #187 to give it a rest. Your reply: "I'm not vulgar. No, not me. Calling someone a brown nose is not vulgar when I do it. I'm just calling like it see it." Looks like you're due for some ***edification.***
We all know why the other post was locked down. Only you and Buckie dream that it was on the verge of "stellar" when the lot of us accepted it needed to be flushed. Giving it a rest doesn't mean pinging her to every post YOU DEEM not up to forum decorum. Nobody asked you to be the self proclaimed site monitor. You were simply asked to take your butt kissing and brown nosing to PM. You sure aren't qualified to give edification to a piss ant, let along any posters here at 4um.
And you were told to "please" stop the vulgar remarks, which you naturally are incapable of doing because you have nothing of content to communicate and you can't bear the thought of not saying anything at all.
Brown nosing and butt kissing are the appropriate verbs to describe the verbal exchanges between you and buck. That right there is a fact. It should also be taken to PM. Aren't you going to ping Christine to buck's response about butt licking that didn't describe any content at all. Come on, now, if you are going to be the self proclaimed site monitor, you best turn buckie in for his vulgar remark. Or shall you carry on with more hypocricy?
As you yourself say, he's responding to a "butt kissing" remark by you. If it's vulgar it's because you made it so originally. Hey buck, on Post #198 I said I would no longer reply in kind to the provocations by the usual subjects, and see how quickly they run out of gas by being unable to cite data and facts. Care to give it a try?
Butt licking doesn't describe the content of the posts between the two of you.....butt kissing does. We all know what the terms brown noser and butt kisser mean, so don't play stupid. I didn't make if vulgar, it is what it is. I do not, and will not, deflect from my remarks. You are attempting to make an issue out of a non issue because you want to be self proclaimed site monitor. Another epic failure on your part. Like I said, when you and buck want to brown nose and butt kiss, do it on PM. And if you are going to respond to folks noting your butt kissing and brown nosing, don't bring butt licking into the exchange......or anus as you like to do.
I'm not the one who decided to lock down the other thread, and I had nothing to do with the locking down. You're the one sniveling about my post to you, and you'll lose if either the high road or the low road is taken. All I'm doing is pointing out that none of you can live by the standards you demand of your detractors. And none of you can go for any length of time citing facts and keeping away from the vulgar and off-topic. Like now.
I'm not sniveling, I merely voted your post most vulgar as you were hypocritically pointing out the how vulgar other posts are. Your vulgar posts had a big part in shutting down that thread. It's extremely dishonest to deny that FACT. Man up and accept your responsibility. Sheesh, you've been playing the victim card ad nauseum, moaning, bitching, complaining and sniveling about others doing WHAT YOU DO. I don't play the victim card and you've never stepped foot on the high road. Enough with your lies.
Lying seems to be part of the "debunker" mentality. Their patron un-saint "The Less Than Amazing Randi" and the Septical Inquirer crowd have been caught more than once. Their mindset also seems to be "The Champions of Official Orthodoxy" whatever the current official orthodoxy is. The debunkers have made more twists and turns than a corkscrew. Every time the "received" wisdom from the Holy Establishment changes their opinion immediately changes with it - "and that's the way it's been forever".I have little patience for them because "the lights are on but there is nobody home". They do not think they regurgitate. And because it is either a fixation or something that they are, in some cases, paid to believe the likelihood of their ever waking up is vanishingly small. Still they are useful for one thing and that is making us think and to refine our understanding of the facts. We do have a couple of advantages over them though. The truth is the basic fundamental isness and is the reality and because of that their lies have to constantly be repeated over and over and over to keep them in place whereas the truth just is. The other advantage we have is that we can be wrong a thousand times and still be right as it only takes "1" incontrovertable fact to show that what they are pushing is a lie whereas they cannot admit error even once or else their entire edifice of lies crumbles.
LIE Original_Intent posted on 2010-07-23 16:49:06 ET REALITY: 14 CFR 61.133 - Commercial pilot privileges and limitations CHAPTER I - FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SUBCHAPTER D - AIRMEN PART 61 - CERTIFICATION: PILOTS, FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, AND GROUND INSTRUCTORS subpart f - COMMERCIAL PILOTS 61.133 - Commercial pilot privileges and limitations. (a) Privileges(1) General. A person who holds a commercial pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft (i) Carrying persons or property for compensation or hire, provided the person is qualified in accordance with this part and with the applicable parts of this chapter that apply to the operation; and (ii) For compensation or hire, provided the person is qualified in accordance with this part and with the applicable parts of this chapter that apply to the operation.
Careful there - you might throw your elbow out patting yourself on the back. Once again you demonstrate your willingness to twist and distort the data to suit your distorted misrepresentations. A Commercial Pilot's Certificate DOES NOT convey at certification the ability or right to Pilot a multi-pilot Airliner. While it does convey the right to be a co-pilot on most major airlines an Airline Transport Pilot License is the norm AND IS REQUIRED to sit as Pilot and Captain. It is a considerably higher rating and requires a minimum of 1,500 hours of flight time logged on flights of greater than 50 NM and has a night flying and instrument requirement as well. A Commercial Pilots Certificate, while conveying the ability to fly for pay on a LIMITED level, DOES NOT CONVEY A LICENSCE TO FLY AN AIRLINER and as such is A LEARNER'S PERMIT to learn to fly one and to accumulate the hours necessary to qualify for an Airline Transport Pilot License which is what is required to set in the Pilot Seat of a multi-pilot Airliner. Your attempt to misrepresent Hanjour's qualifications to inflate them beyond their level is simply an attempt to confuse and to obscure the fact that by all accounts Hanjour was an INCOMPETENT. From your own link: Hanjour met none of the requirements for an Airline Transport Pilot's License and given his poor command of English it is doubtful that he truly met the requirements for the Commercial Pilot's Certificate. Further we know from every reliable witness testimony from his schools and instructors, including his attempt to rent a single engine Cessna for which he was turned down THREE TIMES, that Hanjour WAS INCOMPETENT as a pilot. We also know that he HAD NEVER sat behind the stick on a Jet Aircraft OF ANY KIND. The largest aircraft he is ever known to have flown is a Piper Apache Twin Engine Propeller Driven 4 seater. Your attempts to misrepresent Hanjour's Licensing and Qualifications amount to nothing more than an attempt to inflate and overstate his abilities and qualifications as a pilot. The bottom line is that Hanjour had never under any circumstances flown a jet aircraft whether single or multi-engine, was not qualified or licensed to fly a Jetliner, and by all evidences from witness testimony of his instructors likely should never have been given a Commercial rating in the first place as he was incompetent as a pilot and his command of English was insufficient to meet the criteria stipulated for the rating.
(b) Limitations. A commercial pilot's license is not a learner's permit. A commercial pilot license does authorize a pilot to be a pilot in command for a sinble aircraft engine - remember saying he couldn't even fly a single engine airplnane, huh? - and a co pilot on a multi pilot aircraft. Once again, contrary to your claims, you are WRONG, and once again you try to move the goalposts after your statement is debunked. Additional type certifications can and are completed on ground school, simulators and other methods than getting direct instruction from a right seater.
(b) Limitations. A commercial pilot's license is not a learner's permit. A commercial pilot license does authorize a pilot to be a pilot in command for a sinble aircraft engine - remember saying he couldn't even fly a single engine airplnane, huh? - and a co pilot on a multi pilot aircraft. Once again, contrary to your claims, you are WRONG, and once again you try to move the goalposts after your statement is debunked. Additional type certifications can and are completed on ground school, simulators and other methods than getting direct instruction from a right seater. How charming. Caught in your disinformational inflation of Hanjour's/Hanjoor's abilities and qualifications as a pilot you are now trying to wiggle out of the trap of your own devising. As far as flying a Jet Airliner a Commercial Pilot's Certificate IS a Learner's Permit. It does not convey a license to fly a multi-engine Jumbo Jet using a Pilot and Co-Pilot. The most it conveys, and only if someone is willing to hire him for it (HA!) is to sit in the Co-Pilot's seat. And the evidence and record of testimony is quite clear - HE WAS TURNED DOWN THREE TIMES on the rental of a single engine Cessna 172 because in the opinion of the instructor checking him out he was not capable enough to fly it alone. Twist and turn as you might that is documented in testimony. As for any other certifications there is nothing in evidence showing that he had any. I presume you have something which documents any other certifications (saving a single engine VFR license which he had to have prior to the botched Commercial Certification)? I didn't think so. We have been over and over and over this territory. Hanjoor/Hanjour has been repeatedly characterized in testimony, and in interviews, as INCOMPETENT as a pilot, your cavils and quibbles and diversions do not change that FACT.
Wrong as usual. A "Learners Permit" is an off-the-wall goofball term you have just invented to try to avoid being wrong on claiming that Hanjour was not a pilot. There is no such term in aviation as a "Learners Permit." The correct license for a "Learner's Permit" is called a "Student Pilot" which Hanjour was clearly not at the time. He was authorized as a pilot in command in a Single Engine Aircraft, and a Co- Pilot in Multi Engine Aircraft. The fact that he may have been required to take additional type class training, such as operating landing gear or operating a seaplane for Single Engine, or being type certified for Multi Engine, does not take away from his pilot status. You are debunked and pwned.
Still engaging in evading the point I see. I am not going to mince details and join you in hair-splitting. Hanjour/Hanjoor was by all credible evidence INCOMPETENT as a pilot, who spoke broken English (thus making his Commercial Certificate, to say the least, questionable). Why don't you argue the point with the author of this article: Al-Qaeda's Top Gun ... - after all he only included fifty-some odd foot notes. I am sure you can find a few microscopic points to distort and quibble over.
You're the one who keeps shifting the goalposts and making up goofball definitions. Hanjour was a marginal pilot. But he was a licensed pilot. His reviewers at the private flight school correctly saw his marginality and refused to put their own aircraft on the line renting to him. Good for them. However they explicitly and clearly say he was capable of taking over a hijacked plane and crashing it. That is the only "qualification" that is relevant for Hanjour. He did not need to speak English, he did not need to take off, and he did not need to land.
He did not need to speak English, Yes he did, in order to successfully complete the FAA exam, and to understand and speak with air traffic controllers over the radio. It is an FAA requirement that a pilot speak, understand, read, and write English. That's what makes it suspicious that he somehow obtained both a private pilot's license and commercial license with his extremely poor language skills, especially since he lacked the skills and abilities required to actually fly an airplane. he did not need to take off He needed to be able to do that in order to obtain any sort of pilot's license. That he couldn't yet somehow got his license, raises serious questions as to the abilities of pilots flying the skies of America to this day. That, or it indicates he had some "help" getting those credentials from high level officials. , and he did not need to land. He ALSO would have needed to be able to land in order to obtain the FAA certifications that he possessed, yet he COULDN'T land a Cessna properly. HOWEVER, and this is a BIG HOWEVER, whoever flew the alleged Flight 77 into the Pentagon DID virtually land the aircraft, as the aircraft had somehow descended to 20 feet off the ground at 530 mph over the Pentagon lawn, and hit the wall with the aircraft level, all without even touching the lawn.
You are presuming he did not regress from 1999. The fact is, immediately after receiving his certificate in 1999, he sought work at Saudi Arabian Airlines. Only when he could not get hired did he start hanging around jihadis and losing interest in maintaining his conventional piloting skills. The plane hit the Pentagon with the starboard wing striking the 2nd floor and the port wing almost hitting the ground. The hit was neither straight on, nor level. It was a barely controlled attempt to hit any part of a huge building he could.
A) If the nose had been up, he would have climbed over the Pentagon. None of those things happened, no matter how much you try to spin it. Additionally, it was close to impossibile to get the aircraft down to that altitude at that speed, where even professional pilots would have been unable to do it and not have climbed over the Pentagon or hit the lawn. The aircraft was under incredible control to be able to perform as it did. In fact, the author of the article I just posted above, Nila Sagadevan, who is an aeronautical engineer and a qualified pilot of heavy aircraft, has issued a challenge to any pilot in the world to fly a large heavy aircraft with low wing loading (such as a Boeing 757) below 60 feet at a speed of 400 mph in a flat trajectory for over a mile, which is what Hani Hanjour (Hanjoor) is alleged to have accomplished, even though he was unable to fly a Cessna 172.
"Looking at the face of the building, it can be seen that this damage perfectly matches the remaining nearby damage, which stretches for several meters and is compatible with the hypothesis of an impact of the right wing of an aircraft of the same size as a Boeing 757/200."
Uh huh. Where are the engines and wings then? That looks much more like missile blast damage than it does an aircraft crash.
Scattered all over the crash site, as one would expect. 911 Debunked - Pentagon Flight 77 Photo Evidence
Where's all the fire damage from the jet fuel in the front of the Pentagon? Oh that's right, there wasn't much fire there, so the fuel must have magically disappeared.
Yup, no fires and no fire engines either. That's the ticket
Where's the fire damage in the EARLIER pictures you posted, such as this one?
Fires appear not to have consistently reached that high. Not really relevant. Something made a big gash in the exterior, and it couldn't have been a missile.
Not relevant? The fire is INSIDE the building, not the OUTSIDE, which would be the case if thousands of gallons of jet fuel splashed all over the outside wall, which it WOULD have done if the wing of a 757 hit it.
The 757 engines are suspended from pylons several feet below the wings. The wings getting ground up hitting the wall, does not equal jet engines and fuselage not making holes in the wall lower down on 1st floor. A fuselage and jet engines going into the building over 400 mph creates a substantial vacuum behind them, which pulled the fuel fireball into the backdraft and into the building. And none of these objections furthers the cause of "therefore we must conclude a missile or means unknown caused the impact - not a 757 which was reported missing and had scores of passangers who died at the crash scene, and were identified by forensic DNA."
Where did the wing and its engine pass through in the image below? That blue section certainly won't fit a wing, and since the FUEL is stored IN the wing, if the wing had disintegrated outside the building, the FUEL would ALSO be outside the building. There IS no wing damage visible, so you truly ARE grasping at straws here, and actually confirm that a 757 DID NOT hit the Pentagon on 9/11/2001.
Numerous 757 parts including landing gear, parts of APU's, fuselage aluminum in the AA paint scheme, jet engine parts, and landing wheel pieces were found both inside and outside the building, frequently scorched, and broken into pieces. Including, ahem, the charred cockpit voice recorder and flight instrument recorder cited by you know whoooo. Crashes involving 450 mph aircraft crashing into buildings don't happen that frequently, and nattering over minutiae of how something ended up where it did, when it was propelled by huge impact, fuel explosion, and kinetic energy forces, does not in any way lead to the conclusion "Therefore it had to have been a missile."
Oh some sort of aircraft struck the Pentagon, and some debris was "found" inside the Pentagon (who knows what sort of "construction" was really going on, I mean, they could have been placing those parts in there at that time). BUT, there is NO wing damage visible where the wing is alleged to have entered the Pentagon, and there is NO fuel fire where the wing is claimed to have impacted, so there COULD NOT HAVE BEEN A WING from a 757 that hit that building.
Ruh roh! Look at who's coming down squarely on the side of the "Official Gubmint Theory" Why none other than 911 Research itself! HAHAHAHA! 911 Research.com: The Pentagon Attack, What the Physical Evidence Shows by Jim Hoffman psychology In this essay I look exclusively at the physical evidence of the Pentagon attack -- post-crash photographs and verifiable information about the building, the Boeing 757-200 aircraft, and the physics of aircraft crashes based on case studies. In some cases I mention elements of eyewitness accounts, but only to frame my analysis of what the photographs show about the crash. I show that the physical evidence is consistent with the crash of a 757, noting flaws in popular arguments to the contrary. The many eyewitness accounts of the Pentagon attack constitute a rich body of evidence that strongly supports the conclusion that the attack plane was either a Boeing 757 or a very similar aircraft. The physical and eyewitness evidence are thus mutually corroborating, a fact that is obscured by common errors in evaluating the physical evidence. Many researchers have dismissed the body of eyewitness evidence out of hand, primarily for two reasons: Allegations that the body of witness evidence as a whole is plagued by bias, contamination, and unreliability (addressed here) have been widely promoted and have not been effectively countered, apparently because the ponderous volume of the witness reports discourages analysis. Assertions that physical evidence trumps witness evidence in any crime investigation have fostered a reflexive disdain for witness evidence while lending a false sense of infallibility to arguments based on photographs. Factors such as these have contributed to the creation of a false dialectic, which has eyewitness evidence supporting the Boeing theory and physical evidence supporting the no-Boeing theory. By focusing on the physical evidence here, I hope to sidestep that dialectic and clarify what conclusions the physical evidence actually supports. The Pentagon No- 757- Crash Theory: Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics by Jim Hoffman Many researchers have ignored or dismissed this eyewitness evidence in favor of a seemingly overwhelming physical evidence case that no 757 crashed at the Pentagon, based on photographs of the crash site. As I show below, however, each of the pieces of evidence adduced in favor of the no-757-crash theory can be reconciled with the crash of a 757. The controversy over this issue has eclipsed the many documented facts linking the 9/11/01 attacks to insiders. Defenders of the official story have seized on this issue as representative of the gullibility and incompetence of 9/11 "conspiracy theorists"
People such as you have planted those sorts of stories across the web, fooling otherwise rational people into believing such crap. In order to cover the very obvious fact that NO WING FROM A 757 HIT THE PENTAGON, since there was NO FUEL FIRE WHERE THE WING SHOULD HAVE HIT THE WALL, and there is NO HOLE FOR THE WING TO HAVE PENETRATED THE WALL, you folks have played the part of "concerned researchers" literally IGNORING ALL THE EVIDENCE, and claiming that those who see the obvious are DISINFO AGENTS. How ingenious of you, it's rather sad that people actually fall for it. The fact is, Hanjour would NOT and COULD NOT have had even the REMOTEST chance of flying that alleged 757 the way it was flown that day, and the damage to the Pentagon doesn't match that of a Boeing 757. You can't change those facts, all you have is spin.
You can't change those facts, all you have is spin. Once again you make assertions with no proof or rebuttals of your own. Denying existing facts is not sufficient for evidential conclusions. You must supply your own independent verifiable facts to withstand equal or greater scrutiny.
Once again you make assertions with no proof or rebuttals of your own. Hanjour's instructors have stated that he was an extremely poor pilot, that he lacked the basic skills required to pilot an aircraft, in fact, one said "he could not fly at all". I'll take their observations over your unfounded allegations any day of the week. Denying existing facts is not sufficient for evidential conclusions. Yet that is the crux of your argument. You deny existing facts, ignore highly credible eyewitness testimony, and then insist that proves you're right. You must supply your own independent verifiable facts to withstand equal or greater scrutiny. Besides your unfounded asssertions, what sort of "verifiable facts" have YOU presented? All evidence related to Hanjour's abilites indicates he could NOT have piloted a 757 at all, never mind manuevering it as the alleged Flight 77 was observed to have manuevered the morning of 9/11. Hell, you won't even acknowledge the OFFICIAL account of how that jet was flown, since it shoots your "he was a bad pilot yet managed to pull it off" story right out of the water. The lack of jet fuel in the vicinty where the left wing should have struck the Pentagon wall indicates it was NOT a 757 that hit the building. Yet you INSIST it was, because you say so. Sorry, but I never did believe in faerie tales, not even when I was a kid.
The principal person who refused to rent to Hanjour said although he was a crummy pilot as far as takeoffs, landings, and English was concerned, there was no question Hanjour could have piloted a hijacked plane, and crashed it into the target. As I repeatedly note, he didn't even do that too well, but he did manage to salvage something out of a botched attempt to hit the north facing offices. 103 eyewitnesses are not unfounded allegations. 103 eyewitnesses are credible eyewitness testimony. So are 2 police officers. It is not uncommon to have variations in eyewitness accounts. That is where forensic analysis and careful reconstruction of statements comes in. The supposed "fighter pilot turn" of the 757 did not even generate 1 G of extra gravitational pull on the cockpit. Boeing aircraft have been observed to have withstood 3.9 G's in turbulence with zero structural damage. To pass a private pilot test a student pilot must do a banked 60 degree turn rolling out within + or - 200 feet of altitude the turn started. A 60 degree banked turn generates total 2 G's of force right there. So everybody who has any kind of license has demonstrated on a check ride he or she can control an aircraft generating 2 G of force, and the 757 descending turn did not even generate that much force. The claims of "fighter pilot maneuvers" are from people who are not thinking critically. As one of my ground school instructors said, even though airline pilots are expected to fly their aircraft so they don't spill passenger drinks, the aircraft themselves are engineered to withstand far more abrupt maneuvers. As I have already said, in a 450 MPH crash of a 200,000 pound aircraft there are lots of unprecedented forces of momentum, kinetic energy, and fuel explosions at work, and to simply deny that something could have happened without knowledge and reconstruction of all factors at work is not appropriate methodology.
To pass a private pilot test a student pilot must do a banked 60 degree turn rolling out within + or - 200 feet of altitude the turn started. A 60 degree banked turn generates total 2 G's of force right there. So everybody who has any kind of license has demonstrated on a check ride he or she can control an aircraft generating 2 G of force, and the 757 descending turn did not even generate that much force. I can't resist. That is such a classic Strawman Argument combined with a Red Herring that it's like swinging on a hanging Curve Ball. The turn as a point of fact generated about .52 G's. That the Boeing 757 can has withstood up to 3.9 G's in an emergency maneuver is irrelevant and is a Red Herring which diverts from the point at play. The question is not whether the plane could withstand a 7,000 foot spiraling descent, in 2.5 minutes, it is that is a maneuver which is beyond, well beyond, the known competencies of that known incompetent pilot Hani Hanjour. What a pilot has to do to pass a test in a light propeller driven plane is irrelevant to what that same incompetent could do flying a Jumbo Jet, which he had never flown before and in fact said pilot, Hani Hanjour/Hanjoor, had NEVER flown ANY Jet Aircraft of ANY kind, at ANY time. Your argument is the classic Strawman Argument. Not bad. Two paragraphs, two fallacies. I didn't bother to analyze the rest of your "argument" as two fallacies, upon which the entire argument hangs, is enough to consign it most appropriately to the shitter, and then flushed with extreme prejudice.
Which is riduculously low and not even beyond the realm of student pilot competency. Fighter planes routinely pull turns of 8 or 9 G's. Private pilots must complete a 2 G turn within 200 feet to even get a Single Engine certificate. Utter nonsense. The point is attempted to be made that this simple 1/2 G turn is somehow a maneuver that pushes the aircraft and its pilot to performance edges a marginal pilot is incapable of achieving. Utterly false. So a pilot pulling 1/2 G when he needs to do a 2G turn to even get a license is supposed to be "high performance," and a plane pulling 1/2 G's when it can withstand 3.9 G's is also supposed to be "high performance?" And these 2 facts are supposed to be "irrelevant?" How about quitting while you're behind, and stop trying to push the threshhold for inane remarks. Yes it is. No it isn't. You yourself say it was only 1/2 G. You probably get more G's riding in an elevator. BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
You are still engaging in dishonest dissembling and are now are trying to cover your piss poor logic and being called on your logical fallacies. The point of course is that Hanjour/Hanjour was incompetent as a pilot, had NEVER under ANY circumstances, at ANY time, or ANY place EVER flown a Jet Aircraft of ANY kind. In fact every instructor who knew him who has commented or testified has stated that he was incompetent as a pilot and I defy you to find and cite ANY exception to that. Go blow smoke up someone elses ass. FLUSSSSSSSSSSSH!
Wrong. The point is you said Hanjor did not ever have a license, and when clouted on that, you then went on to falsely call a Commercial Pilot Certificate a "Learning Permit" when in fact the closest thing to a "Learning Permit" is a Student Pilot Certificate. That is not what the FAA said on April 15, 1999. Commercial Pilot Type Certification can be done on simulators. Hanjour had access to, and did log hours, on simulators. Debunked again. Violating your own self-propagandized rules again, phony windbag. Twenty Five Rules to Suppress Truth 5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach.... 6. Hit and Run.
He failed the simulator training, skipping class most of time, doing poorly while there. Debunked.
What did he ***fail*** and where is your proof? You don't "fail" any instructions until you get tested. You still get to log the hours. Takeoffs? Didn't need to do them anyway. Landings? Didn't need to do them anyway. English? Didn't need it anyway. Couldn't enter the hours spent on simulator into logbook? Wrong. Debunked.
What did he ***fail*** and where is your proof? You don't "fail" any instructions until you get tested. You still get to log the hours. Takeoffs? Didn't need to do them anyway. Landings? Didn't need to do them anyway. English? Didn't need it anyway. Couldn't enter the hours spent on simulator into logbook? Wrong. Every Instructor he had who has spoken has said he was incompetent and could barely fly a single engine propeller driven plane - without exception. What schlimiel. So, are you going to endlessly treat us with more of your logic chopping and logical fallacies? Can you roll over too?
Of course.
Of course. But can he roll over, fetch, and is he "paper trained"?
#544. To: Original_Intent (#542)
I'm guessing my cat is better trained.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#16. To: buckeroo, AGAviator (#14)
(Edited)
The title of this topic is: 9/11 demolition theory challenged. The info accesible through Post #982 refutes claims like Mark Loizeaux's
#19. To: GreyLmist, christine (#16)
P.S. Your thread was closed before I posted a response to this
#29. To: buckeroo, GreyLmist (#19)
#32. To: FormerLurker (#29)
Yes buckie, you cried like a little girl when nobody wanted to buy the BS you were selling, and instead, people posted facts and evidence which tore your little fairie tale to shreads.
#163. To: James Deffenbach (#32)
#166. To: IRTorqued (#163)
when he wakes up in the morning he uses the quarter found in his teeth as proof some one loves him.
#175. To: christine, buckeroo (#166)
when he wakes up in the morning he uses the quarter found in his teeth as proof some one loves him.
#200. To: AGAviator (#175)
#494. To: AGAviator, LP Banning notice. (#480)
#265. To: JauntyBeesting (#246)
#203. To: buckeroo, AGAviator (#200)
There is no question that you have capability and know your stuff.... but will anyone research your posts? Will anyone care to realize that on LP you were tried and convicted of objective opinions based on both MadDog and yukon with hostess, there.
#205. To: abraxas, christine, buckeroo (#203)
(Edited)
Can't you post this sychophant butt kissing on the PM?
#207. To: AGAviator, buckeroo (#205)
obsessive, vulgar, and pathological attacks
#210. To: abraxas, buckeroo (#207)
(Edited)
Christine is going to tire quickly of your pings. This isn't a sand box. Grow up
#213. To: AGAviator, buckeroo (#210)
#216. To: abraxas, buckeroo (#213)
You were simply asked to take your butt kissing and brown nosing to PM
#219. To: AGAviator, buckeroo (#216)
#226. To: abraxas, buckeroo (#219)
Aren't you going to ping Christine to buck's response about butt licking that didn't describe any content at all
[quote] And, I am discussed as butt-kissing your ass by recognizing a damned good poster? [/quote]
Any other attempts to deflect from your own remarks which initiate these exchanges?
#230. To: AGAviator (#226)
#235. To: abraxas, buckeroo (#230)
(Edited)
I didn't make if vulgar, it is what it is. I do not, and will not, deflect from my remarks. You are attempting to make an issue out of a non issue because you want to be self proclaimed site monitor.
#236. To: AGAviator (#235)
I had nothing to do with the locking down. You're the one sniveling about my post to you, and you'll lose if either the high road or the low road is taken.
#238. To: abraxas (#236)
#245. To: Original_Intent, buckeroo (#238)
Lying seems to be part of the "debunker" mentality
You, and AGGravator, have been misrepresenting Hanjour's LEARNER'S PERMIT as a license to BE a commercial pilot, when all it did was give him a license to LEARN to be a commercial pilot UNDER SUPERVISION.
TITLE 14 - AERONAUTICS AND SPACE
#270. To: AGAviator, FormerLurker, wudidiz, critter, HOUNDDAWG, farmfriend, christine, all (#245)
(b) Limitations. (1) A person who applies for a commercial pilot certificate with an airplane category or powered-lift category rating and does not hold an instrument rating in the same category and class will be issued a commercial pilot certificate that contains the limitation, The carriage of passengers for hire in (airplanes) (powered-lifts) on cross-country flights in excess of 50 nautical miles or at night is prohibited. The limitation may be removed when the person satisfactorily accomplishes the requirements listed in 61.65 of this part for an instrument rating in the same category and class of aircraft listed on the person's commercial pilot certificate.
#284. To: Original_Intent, buckeroo (#270)
From your own link:
#295. To: AGAviator, FormerLurker, christine, wudidiz, abraxas, Critter, IRTorqued, all (#284)
From your own link:
#299. To: Original_Intent, buckeroo (#295)
(Edited)
As far as flying a Jet Airliner a Commercial Pilot's Certificate IS a Learner's Permit. It does not convey a license to fly a multi-engine Jumbo Jet using a Pilot and Co-Pilot.
#301. To: AGAviator, FormerLurker, wudidiz, critter, HOUNDDAWG, farmfriend, christine, all (#299)
#306. To: Original_Intent, buckeroo (#301)
(Edited)
I am sure you can find a few microscopic points to distort and quibble over
#326. To: AGAviator, Original_Intent, buckeroo, RickyJ, All (#306)
#329. To: FormerLurker (#326)
(Edited)
HOWEVER, and this is a BIG HOWEVER, whoever flew the alleged Flight 77 into the Pentagon DID virtually land the aircraft, as the aircraft had somehow descended to 20 feet off the ground at 530 mph over the Pentagon lawn, and hit the wall with the aircraft level, all without even touching the lawn.
#338. To: AGAviator (#329)
The plane hit the Pentagon with the starboard wing striking the 2nd floor and the port wing almost hitting the ground. The hit was neither straight on, nor level. It was a barely controlled attempt to hit any part of a huge building he could.
B) If the nose had been down, he would have created a crater at the wall, and not penetrated.
C) If the wings weren't level, they would have hit the ground, ripping off the lower wing, leaving a huge gash in the lawn, and would have caused the plane to twist and spin, with the nose hitting the ground and the plane hitting the wall sideways.
#350. To: FormerLurker (#338)
#355. To: AGAviator (#350)
Incompatible With Missile
#360. To: FormerLurker (#355)
(Edited)
Uh huh. Where are the engines and wings then?
#366. To: AGAviator (#360)
#370. To: FormerLurker (#366)
(Edited)
Where's all the fire damage from the jet fuel in the front of the Pentagon? Oh that's right, there wasn't much fire there, so the fuel must have magically disappeared.
#373. To: AGAviator (#370)
#379. To: FormerLurker, buckeroo (#373)
Where's the fire damage in the EARLIER pictures
#386. To: AGAviator, buckeroo, Original_Intent, ALL (#379)
Fires appear not to have consistently reached that high. Not really relevant. Something made a big gash in the exterior, and it couldn't have been a missile.
#389. To: FormerLurker (#386)
The fire is INSIDE the building, not the OUTSIDE, which would be the case if thousands of gallons of jet fuel splashed all over the outside wall, which it WOULD have done if the wing of a 757 hit it.
#393. To: AGAviator, Original_Intent, James Deffenbach, ALL (#389)
A fuselage and jet engines going into the building over 400 mph creates a substantial vacuum behind them,
#397. To: FormerLurker (#393)
(Edited)
Actually confirm that a 757 DID NOT hit the Pentagon on 9/11/2001.
#399. To: AGAviator (#397)
#401. To: FormerLurker, buckeroo, turtle (#399)
(Edited)
Oh some sort of aircraft struck the Pentagon, and some debris was "found" inside the Pentagon
In late 2004 I wrote The Pentagon No-757-Crash Theory: Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics . In it, I examined the no-Boeing theory from several perspectives including analysis of its:
That essay presents a cumulative argument against the no-Boeing theory using each of these perspectives. Critics of this essay failed to acknowledge this and instead zeroed in on one point or another to highlight it as if the entire case against the no-Boeing theory hinged on that point. For example, several critics have misstated my position as relying exclusively on the accounts of eyewitnesses, ignoring my detailed examination of the 'physical evidence case' for the no-Boeing theory.
history
evidentiary support
propaganda
misinformation The idea that no 757 crashed at the Pentagon is easily the most controversial and divisive issue among researchers of the 9/11/01 attacks. Effectively promoted since early 2002, this idea has enjoyed an increasing acceptance in the 9/11 Truth Movement, despite its blatant incompatibility with the extensive body of eyewitness evidence that a 757-like twin-engine jetliner flew into the Pentagon and exploded.
Think I'll roll me a fattie and watch this one from the sidelines, LOL.
#405. To: AGAviator, buckeroo, turtle, Original_Intent, bush_is_a_moonie, ALL (#401)
The Pentagon No- 757- Crash Theory: Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics by Jim Hoffman
#433. To: FormerLurker, Bush_Is_A_Moonie, buckeroo, turtle (#405)
The fact is, Hanjour would NOT and COULD NOT have had even the REMOTEST chance of flying that alleged 757 the way it was flown that day, and the damage to the Pentagon doesn't match that of a Boeing 757.
#436. To: AGAviator (#433)
(Edited)
#453. To: FormerLurker (#436)
(Edited)
Once again you make assertions with no proof or rebuttals of your own.
Hanjour's instructors have stated that he was an extremely poor pilot, that he lacked the basic skills required to pilot an aircraft, in fact, one said "he could not fly at all".
I'll take their observations over your unfounded allegations any day of the week.
Denying existing facts is not sufficient for evidential conclusions.
Yet that is the crux of your argument. You deny existing facts, ignore highly credible eyewitness testimony, and then insist that proves you're right.
Besides your unfounded asssertions, what sort of "verifiable facts" have YOU presented?
All evidence related to Hanjour's abilites indicates he could NOT have piloted a 757 at all, never mind manuevering it as the alleged Flight 77 was observed to have manuevered the morning of 9/11.
Hell, you won't even acknowledge the OFFICIAL account of how that jet was flown, since it shoots your "he was a bad pilot yet managed to pull it off" story right out of the water.
The lack of jet fuel in the vicinty where the left wing should have struck the Pentagon wall indicates it was NOT a 757 that hit the building. Yet you INSIST it was, because you say so.
#454. To: AGAviator, FormerLurker, abraxas, wudidiz, christine, all (#453)
The supposed "fighter pilot turn" of the 757 did not even generate 1 G of extra gravitational pull on the cockpit. Boeing aircraft have been observed to have withstood 3.9 G's in turbulence with zero structural damage.
#499. To: Original_Intent, buckeroo, FormerLurker (#454)
The turn as a point of fact generated about .52 G's.
That the Boeing 757 can has withstood up to 3.9 G's in an emergency maneuver is irrelevant and is a Red Herring which diverts from the point at play.
The question is not whether the plane could withstand a 7,000 foot spiraling descent, in 2.5 minutes
Is a maneuver which is beyond, well beyond, the known competencies of that known incompetent pilot Hani Hanjour.
#508. To: AGAviator (#499)
#515. To: Original_Intent, buckeroo (#508)
The point of course is that Hanjour/Hanjour was incompetent as a pilot, had NEVER under ANY circumstances, at ANY time, or ANY place EVER flown a Jet Aircraft of ANY kind.
The point of course is that Hanjour/Hanjour was incompetent as a pilot
NEVER under ANY circumstances, at ANY time, or ANY place EVER flown a Jet Aircraft of ANY kind
Go blow smoke up someone elses ass.
FLUSSSSSSSSSSSH
#518. To: AGAviator (#515)
Commercial Pilot Type Certification can be done on simulators. Hanjour had access to, and did log hours, on simulators.
#523. To: FormerLurker, buckeroo, turtle (#518)
He failed the simulator training
#528. To: AGAviator, FormerLurker, wudidiz, critter, HOUNDDAWG, farmfriend, christine, all (#523)
He failed the simulator training
#530. To: Original_Intent (#528)
So, are you going to endlessly treat us with more of your logic chopping and logical fallacies?
#542. To: farmfriend (#530)
So, are you going to endlessly treat us with more of your logic chopping and logical fallacies?
Replies to Comment # 542. But can he roll over, fetch, and is he "paper trained"?
End Trace Mode for Comment # 542.