Bodies strapped to seats on AA77, Pentagon?

reply to post by Seymour Butz


If you really want to be "logical." Then how can you move on to discuss why the bodies would still be there, without establishing that they actually were first? You have added nothing to either theory anyway. You have offered nothing in agreement of otherwise. You have not backed up or proven anything alternate. Thanks for this post though. It truly demonstrates "believer logic."

"Blah blah blah logical logical make sense logical. Now, lets discuss why the bodies would be there. Were they there? That is irrelevant, all that matter is why they were."

OOOOKKKKAAAAYYYY

p.s. try actually reading the OP and the thread title and the thread you are on before you tell people what the topic here is. You really cannot even get a hit here can you? Another swing and a miss!

[edit on 10/18/08 by MorningStar8741]

Originally posted by tezzajw

1- That was one of the questions that I was asking. Sure. Given that there may have been bodies at the Pentagon.

2-Also, take a look at the title of the thread, Seymour. What does a question mark usually signify? In this case,

3-I was hoping that someone could actually prove that there were bodies found strapped to airline seats, before we could then discuss the case of why it was not so at Shanksville.

4-Your own incredulity wants to assume that those bodies existed.

1- there were, according to first responder testimonies. You've read them, but rejected them. As I've noted, you will move the goalposts and hand wave away evidence... then set standards of proof that the normal citizen wouldn't have access to. And comically, mistakenly claim that an eyewitness's testomony is hearsay, even though it was a good enough evidence train for the Moussaoui trial.

2- In this case? It means that you're using the question of whether or not there actually WERE bodies in seats found as a red herring to distract from the fact that you question from ignorance/incredulity about why the same conditions don't exist at the 2 crash sites.

3- as noted, it was used in the Moussaoui trial. Your own ignorance and politics prevents you from accepting what was used in court. There will be NO proof that will convince you. If someone does an FOIA request and gets the coroner's report, you will then claim they were faked. I wonder if I'll win Randi's Million Dollar challenge....

4- LOL... you've shown that you're semi-illiterate now. You have no idea what hearsay is - it isn't what an eyewitness says HE saw.... it's what a witness says someone ELSE saw. And now, incredulity wouldn't lead someone to believe that something DOES exist, but the opposite, it doesn't exist. In your case , this fits - your personal incredulity prevents you from accepting that those bodies exist as reported.... and 2, your personal incredulity prevents you accepting that your lame and shallow comparison of the 2 crashes as being "similar" to be stupid, and so your question about why there weren't bodies in Shanksville to be one from ignorance.

That's ok though kid..... you definitely live up to the "troll" moniker in your sig line.

reply to post by Seymour Butz


#2 is stupid and you know it. There is no red herring. It is two seperate questions. One spawned from the other.

What was used in that trial? Documentations or these few easily tossed eyewitness "reports?" Where is the coronor report showing that bodies were found strapped to seats.

You are doing nothing but deflecting. Nothing at all. You offered nothing. Contributed NOTHING. Show us this proof bodies. You keep saying that the OP will not accept proof. How about you try actually presenting some and see what happens.

reply to post by Seymour Butz


Seymour, I missed the part in your post where you provided proof that there were bodies found, strapped to airline seats, that were identified passengers from the alleged Flight AA77.

Please, highlight that for me again? The part where you proved it and provided credible sources that confirmed those bodies by name would be very handy to help your cause right now.

Originally posted by MorningStar8741

Then how can you move on to discuss why the bodies would still be there, without establishing that they actually were first?

Because as noted, no amount of testimony will convince troofers.

It is a dead end.

An enterprising troofer could show the bodies should have been in the same shape, and bypass this part, but will not. They like dead ends and circular arguments and logical fallacies.

Troofers want a new investigation. It is up to them to provide the evidence that their suspicions have merit. If "you" do nothing, then you lose that chance.

I am satisfied with the investigations. If I do nothing to counter the lame arguments put forth by the troofers, I lose nothing.

Understand the difference here? This is why the burden of proof has always been on troofers.

reply to post by tezzajw


Like I said, if I do nothing, then I lose nothing.

If "you" do nothing, then you lose everything - your quest for a new investigation.

My guess is that you will do nothing, and thus achieve nothing.

This is trooferism at it's finest.

reply to post by tezzajw


I see your question is why bodies are at one location and not the other.
Well could it be that the angle of impact on the one that crashed in Pennsylvania be the reason there were no bodies?
Like wise when the “plane” hit the pentagon it punctured into an interior open area small as that area may have been possibly allowing a seat group to be thrown free from the craft.
Unlike the one that hit the dirt there is nowhere for seats to be thrown once the plane disintegrates.

Or maybe this is yet another example of terrorist coincidence and a potential firsts, just like thermal expansion, imploding buildings weakened by fire ALL on the same day, convenient insurance purchases, cameras malfunctioning at convenient times in the London bombings, so on and so

Originally posted by MorningStar8741


What was used in that trial? Documentations or these few easily tossed eyewitness "reports?" Where is the coronor report showing that bodies were found strapped to seats.

Again,you must do something to get your new investigation.

It was accepted in court. Deal with that.

Deal with the fact that if I do nothing to prove it to you, I lose nothing.

But if you do nothing, you lose everything.

The burden of proof is yours, and it always has been. "We" have just been humoring you by engaging in these discussions.

reply to post by Seymour Butz


You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your comments and opinions fail to offer any meaningful dialog or information, and are worthless except to pander to emotionalism, and in fact, reveal you emotionally insecure with these matters. Why do you refuse to address the issues, by use of such disinformation tactics?

reply to post by Seymour Butz


What exactly was used in court that pertains to bodies found strapped into seats?

reply to post by SPreston


Having used rapid wall breaching kits as they called them they do not leave a debris fields anything like the photo at the pentagon. The blast causes it to make a pile on the left and right of the breach. So that whole video is silly even in the video you see stuff laying there that obviously wasn't from the wall there's aluminum shards everywhere.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Like I said, if I do nothing, then I lose nothing.

If you do nothing, then you prove nothing.

You have not offered one shred of evidence that proves there were bodies strapped to airline seats found at the Pentagon.

Again, you admit your inaction and your complete failure to substantiate the claim that some witnesses saw bodies strapped to airline seats.

I don't know why you can't see that, but ultimately, it's your loss not mine, Seymour.

Originally posted by fmcanarney
At the rate of speed of 500 mph you are travelling at close to 750 feet per second.

It matters not which direction you are travelling, because when the vehicle you are riding in stops, you continue to travel at 750 feet per second. It matters not whether the ground or a building stops your vehicle you do not stop as you are not attached or bolted to the vehicle, you are just "riding" in the vehicle.

750 feet per second might not sound fast until you compare it to the length of a football field. A football field is 300 feet long. Divide 750 by 300 and it is 2.5 football fields per second.
Remember, the vehicle stops but the person "riding" in the vehicle does not. The seat belts, being bolted to the vehicle would stop, and probably bisect/trisect those wearing one.

You pretty much have the right idea but take into consideration the distance used to become stationary from that speed IE the deceleration. A plane nose first into earth stops much faster than one penetrating a building wall and how far was it from the outer wall to the last resting place of plane debris? I didn't put any precise figures to that but it's obvious the deceleration in one case is far greater than the other.

If a part of the question here is whether these 2 situations are the same - plainly they are not. If the disputed event were to occur there's a greater likelihood of it happening in the case of stopping in the greater distance. Another major factor is the consistency and compressability of the material in front of that seat and its occupant (think about how airbags work) and also needs any missile-like debris from behind to miss that seat+occupant.

All we have is 1 or 2 accounts so far that state this actually happened so the possibilities seem to be:

1. It happened and they reported it accurately.
2. They saw something but were mistaken in the confusion.
2. They're in on the cover-up and had to lie to support the cover-up.

If it's case 3 then it seems virtually every emergency service worker plus a lot of outsiders are 'in on it' with the only definite exceptions being you and I. By now you're probably having second thoughts about my involvement too

I'll go for 1 or 2 until something more definite comes to light but like I said, I see it as possible, just not very probable.

Edit for typos

[edit on 18/10/2008 by Pilgrum]

Yes you are so right about all the witness, but one thing you do not know, and nether do I or anyone else in this matter, is this, They all could have been paid very well to misinform, to lie, and it is a known fact a lot of these witness were given high promotions in their jobs. So you are only parroting the lying media.

The typicial response of the "twofer" accuse anyone who doesn't agree
with you of being a shill or paid stooge of some vast conspiracy

So the firemen are in on the conspiracy ! I suppose in NY the FDNY
was in on the conspiracy too!

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Deal with the fact that if I do nothing to prove it to you, I lose nothing.

But if you do nothing, you lose everything.

The burden of proof is yours, and it always has been. "We" have just been humoring you by engaging in these discussions.

Yes, if the government gets away with lying to it's own people about what happened during the worst attack ever on it's soil, what would you have to lose? Freedom? Security? $700,000,000,000? That is the thinking that is the problem. That if you just go along with everything that they tell you, you have nothing to lose. That just proves you are as stupid as they want you to be.

Claiming there was no lie and the Gov did NOTHING wrong is idiotic at this point but to claim that by letting it go you stand to lose nothing is insane! Just for a starter list of the things that you already lost but people like me would like to get back, please read the patriot act. When you get done circling all the rights you already lost, let me know. I have more stuff for you to read about what you have already lost, are losing, and will lose.

[edit on 10/18/08 by MorningStar8741]

Originally posted by MorningStar8741
you are a proven liar,

Hey tough guy, you are are a lot of bark but no bite. Your heated rant had absolutely no substance what so ever. For some reason you like to write a critique to all of my posts. The thing is, they are all the same.

You have failed to find ONE lie I have made, you can not refute ANYTHING I post. This upsets you.

Now try to respect the OP and stay on topic.

reply to post by SPreston


Again with the "head in sand" syndrome.

So, after all the debris found from a 757 AA inside and outside the Pentagon, and plenty of witnesses that saw the plane and the impact, YOU are STILL going to deny it and ignore it? That's right, just keep repeating it, maybe one day it'll become true in your mind. However, reality is, there was a plane there. an A 757.
Again, why did you and CIT refuse to answer my simple questions? How did the aircraft debris manage to find its way into the Pentagon? Where are the numerous witnesses on the OTHER side of the Pentagon that should have seen a very low flying 757 trying to gain altitude after the fireball and explosion, which would, nay, DID, send thousands of people outside looking at the Pentagon immediately? Also, what kind of a missile has a wingspan the size of a 757 and the length of a 757 and engines like a 757's and landing gear like a 757's and people on it like in a 757? Enough with your willful ignorance and denial of facts.

[edit on 10/18/2008 by GenRadek]

Originally posted by pccat
because there are many testimonies contrary to the 13 witnesses..
in this case there are no conflicting stories to deal with..

Please point out the many testimonies that state the plane flew on the south of citgo please. I haven't heard them yet. Thanks.

reply to post by Griff


Griff,

If an eyewitness states they witnessed the impact. That would mean the plane WAS south of the Citgo.

reply to post by Griff


Light Pole Witnesses...this proves a south of citgo path.

Steve Riskus:

"I could see the "American Airlines" logo...It knocked over a few light poles in its way."

Mark Bright:

"...at the height of the street lights. It knocked a couple down." Mike Walter: "...it clipped one of these light poles ... and slammed right into the Pentagon right there. It was an American Airlines jet."

Rodney Washington:

"...knocking over light poles"

Milburn:

"I heard a plane. I saw it. I saw debris flying. I guess it was hitting light poles."

Afework Hagos:

"It hit some lampposts on the way in."

Kat Gaines:

"saw a low-flying jetliner strike the top of nearby telephone poles."

D.S. Khavkin:

"First, the plane knocked down a number of street lamp poles."

Wanda Ramey:

"I saw the wing of the plane clip the light post, and it made the plane slant.

Penny Elgas:

A piece of American Airlines Flight 77 was torn from the plane as it clipped a light pole. It landed in her car.

Lincoln Liebner:

"It was probably about thirty feet off the ground, clipping the lampposts. I could clearly see through the windows of the plane. It was maybe going 500 miles an hour - when it just flew...into the Pentagon ... less than a hundred yards away."

americanhistory.si.edu...







[edit on 10/18/0808 by ThroatYogurt]