A C-32, the Pentagon and a CALCM?

Going over the plethora of eye witness testimony and the obvious problems with Lloyd England's statements, I began to ask myself what exactly happened at the Pentagon if this version of the truth is accurate?

I'm sure something like this has been posted before, as a general Google search of the web reveals a number of postings on the topic (though none on ATS), but never quite in this manner.

Assume the 9/11 commission report of events is out of the picture and you go by witness testimony as presented in the various videos available in other threads.

All witnesses described a two engine aircraft of white-to-off-white-to-grey-to-silver appearance. The military has a version of the 757, the C-32 and C-32A.

I've tried Google and the ATS search feature and came up wanting... so here's a public plea for assistance.

I'm wondering if the plane that was witnessed flying on the north side of the legendary CITGO station wasn't used as the targeting system for a CALCM, which is what actually struck the Pentagon, fired from another aircraft some time before the impact.

Here are my questions:

• Can a CALCM be detected by civilian radar?
  
• Can a C-32 be modified to house targeting systems for a CALCM?
  
• Is it possible for a CALCM to execute the maneuvers demonstrated in the 9/11 Commission accounts? Could it have been mistaken for Flight 77? If so, is there civilian radar accounting for the supposed position of Flight 77 in accordance with eyewitness testimony?
  
• Were there any CALCM launch platforms in the air?
  
• 757's are big planes that are tough to produce off the books. How many purchase orders has Boeing received prior to 9/11? Can a discrepancies in the fleet be identified?
  
• Assuming all are military aircraft and relaying the proper IFF signals, would this explain the lack of AAA fire from Pentagon/P-56 defense installations?
  

Edit: Apologies in advance for the wall of questions, but I just want to see if my theory holds any water at all.


[edit on 14-11-2008 by cogburn]

Originally posted by cogburn
Here are my questions:

Here are my answers:

Can a CALCM be detected by civilian radar?

A nuclear-capable 15-some-odd foot cruise missile that is designed to ingress to a target using below-the-radar and nap-of-the-earth flight capabilities - what do you think?

Can a C-32 be modified to house targeting systems for a CALCM?

Define "targeting systems". I don't think you know what you are talking about. A conventional air launched cruise missile has its "targeting systems" located within the missile.

Is it possible for a CALCM to execute the maneuvers demonstrated in the 9/11 Commission accounts?

Of course. It flies, it turns, it descends, it impacts.

Could it have been mistaken for Flight 77?

Let's see...a 757 is 155 feet long with a wingspan of 124 feet. A cruise missile is 15 feet long with a diameter of less than 2 feet. So, you have an airplane that is half a football-field long and a missile that is smaller than a car. You decide.

If so, is there civilian radar accounting for the supposed position of Flight 77 in accordance with eyewitness testimony?

n/a

Were there any CALCM launch platforms in the air?

No.

757's are big planes that are tough to produce off the books. How many purchase orders has Boeing received prior to 9/11? Can a discrepancies in the fleet be identified?

No idea.

Assuming all are military aircraft and relaying the proper IFF signals, would this explain the lack of AAA fire from Pentagon/P-56 defense installations?

*what* defense installations?

Edit: Apologies in advance for the wall of questions, but I just want to see if my theory holds any water at all.

It doesn't. Dry as a bone.




[edit on 15-11-2008 by pinch]

Don't mind the condescending remarks of the previous poster. I think there are some answers there to your questions, but not all.

Personally, I wouldn't accept any one word answers without more of an explanation. Maybe they will be so kind as to elaborate.

[edit on 11/14/2008 by Hal9000]

Originally posted by Hal9000
Don't mind the condescending remarks of the previous poster. I think there are some answers there to your questions, but not all.

As always, the truth movement ignores the fact that THEY are the ones that need to supply the answers. The "official story" is the "accpeted story". In order to change that, "you" must educate the world that your suspicions are correct.

If "debunkers" bother to supply anything more than 1 word posts depends on how charitable "we" are, and whether or not "we" sense anything other than an ignorant troofer.

Id think that as a mod, you'd see that logic.

I guess not.

Yeah... wow... talk about denying ignorance. Such venom on a few simple questions.

Re: Targeting systems - CALCM run on GPS with a laser or radar designator painting the target in case of GPS jamming. Given the exacting nature of the timing required for my theory to be valid a secondary targeting system would be required.

Re: Radar systems - I don't care if it's a 2ft long cruise missile if the wavelength of civilian radar are short enough to provide a detectable reflection from the stations in the area. Furthermore, civilian radar has no IFF and cannot tell if a blip is a Cessna,a cruise missile or a 757... it's the identification protocols conducted by the pilot and the ATC that determine what a blip is... not the radar.

Re: Payload - CALCM = Conventional Air Launched Cruise Missile... Who said anything about a nuclear payload?

Deny ignorance.

reply to post by Seymour Butz

As always, the truth movement ignores the fact that THEY are the ones that need to supply the answers. The "official story" is the "accpeted story". In order to change that, "you" must educate the world that your suspicions are correct.

Your comments and opinions fail to offer any meaningful dialog or information, and are worthless except to pander to emotionalism.

The "official story" is the "accpeted story".

Says who?

If "debunkers" bother to supply anything more than 1 word posts depends on how charitable "we" are, and whether or not "we" sense anything other than an ignorant troofer.

Why do you continue to attack the messenger you cowardly fail to offer any concrete evidence that this is so. If you think what has been presented are 'lies', why not simply so illustrate it?

ignorant troofer.

Your imply your own authority and expertise but fail to provide credentials, and you also fail to address issues and cite sources.

Id think that as a mod, you'd see that logic.

I am amazed that you have not been reprimand for posting this garbage and attacking the poster in such a condescending way!

Originally posted by cogburn
I'm wondering if the plane that was witnessed flying on the north side of the legendary CITGO station wasn't used as the targeting system for a CALCM, which is what actually struck the Pentagon, fired from another aircraft some time before the impact.

All the witnesses (including the ones that might believe the plane was on the "north side") reported that the plane struck the Pentagon, no one has ever reported any type of missile or anything at all other than the jet being the cause of the explosion.

Edit: Apologies in advance for the wall of questions, but I just want to see if my theory holds any water at all.

I would say no it doesn't hold any water. Sorry, but in order to "deny ignorance" as you previously stated one would have to realize and accept that no one saw a missle, no missle debris have been photographed or recovered on the site, nothing but airplane parts and bodies of the passengers.

reply to post by Soloist

I would say no it doesn't hold any water. Sorry, but in order to "deny ignorance" as you previously stated one would have to realize and accept that no one saw a missle, no missle debris have been photographed or recovered on the site, nothing but airplane parts and bodies of the passengers.

I would say no it doesn't hold any water. That is your opinion “only”.
What is denying ignorance of no one seen a missle?

No missle debris have been photographed or recovered on the site

I guess not! Since the Government didn’t want to get caught!

bodies of the passengers.

Please show proof to support your statement of dead passengers bodies?





[edit on 11/15/2008 by cashlink]

Originally posted by cashlink
I would say no it doesn't hold any water. That is your opinion “only”.
What is denying ignorance of no one seen a missle?

It is *not* an opinion that no one saw a missile, nor recovered said missile, it is a fact. Please don't confuse the two.

Please show proof to support your statement of dead passengers bodies?

Certainly, right after you show proof of the missile, otherwise this entire thread is pointless and is nothing but a made up "theory".

Thank you, come again.

Hehe... the "deny ignorance" I was tossing around was in response to Pinch's post which was born from more ignorance than I was accused of displaying... nothing more, nothing less.

Now, step back a bit and apply it to this thread. The point was to vet the theory, not say "this is what happened" without anything to back it up.

A 757/C-32 is a HUGE aircraft that takes literal tons of material to construct. How many were supposed to be around in 2001 and how many were around in 2002? Are any C-32's unaccounted for? Would that not answer definitively if it were a military craft or an AA flight that hit the Pentagon given the number of eyewitnesses that identify the plane as a 757/C-32?

Asking stupid questions and being given good answers as to why they are stupid or why they aren't stupid is what this entire website is dedicated to. The only thing worse than being proven wrong is not allowing your thoughts to be vetted in public while still clinging to them as truth.

[edit on 15-11-2008 by cogburn]

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

Originally posted by Hal9000
Don't mind the condescending remarks of the previous poster. I think there are some answers there to your questions, but not all.

As always, the truth movement ignores the fact that THEY are the ones that need to supply the answers. The "official story" is the "accpeted story". In order to change that, "you" must educate the world that your suspicions are correct.

So by your saying "you", I assume you mean me. What in my post gives you the idea that I am a truther, Mr. Butts? I said nothing at all except that the previous poster did not answer the Op's questions to any degree of satisfaction.

If "debunkers" bother to supply anything more than 1 word posts depends on how charitable "we" are, and whether or not "we" sense anything other than an ignorant troofer.

So your saying that the members of this site should be grateful that pinch supplied any answer at all, let alone one that makes any sense. Well It's good to know that your hold your self and fellow member in such high esteem. Thank you so much for your wisdom. I am forever grateful.

Id think that as a mod, you'd see that logic.

I guess not.

As a mod, my job is to see that members treat each other with respect while discussing topics. That is the reason for my post. I don't make judgment on either side of this debate, but because you assume that I do, shows your own flawed logic.

Originally posted by cogburn
A 757/C-32 is a HUGE aircraft that takes literal tons of material to construct. How many were supposed to be around in 2001 and how many were around in 2002? Are any C-32's unaccounted for? Would that not answer definitively if it were a military craft or an AA flight that hit the Pentagon given the number of eyewitnesses that identify the plane as a 757/C-32?

I would hardly call a 757 a "HUGE" aircraft. They're narrowbody aircraft, and they're quite small for an airliner. As for a target pod of some sort, there is no way that you could mount and hide a target laser on a C-32 and not have it be instantly obvious to anyone that knows planes, especially maintenance personnel and planewatchers.

There are only 4 C-32s in service. They got the first of them in June of 1998 and the last one in December of the same year. They were never planned to be bought in large numbers, and it would be immediately obvious if any of them were missing.

reply to post by Soloist

We Saw a Missile Fly into the Pentagon!?
An Account of a Personal Experience
Professor David H. Edwards
January 27, 2006
Following my usual commuting pattern, I parked my car at the Anacostia Station of the Metro Line sometime after 9:00 AM, then took the Green Line into L?Enfante Station, where I transferred to the Orange Line on my way to the Capitol South Station.
Immediately after I boarded the Orange Line train, a young man and a young woman, both in their early twenties and wearing backpacks, burst into the subway car, shouting and exhibiting extreme excitement and agitation. They addressed the entire car, which was mostly empty except for me and perhaps three or four other men in suits. The young people yelled: ?We were standing at the Pentagon Station, waiting for the train to come, and we saw a missile fly into the Pentagon! We saw it, we saw it!? One of the men sitting closer to them must have asked for clarification, because they reiterated the same information several times, saying repeatedly: ?A missile, we saw it, a missile, it flew right into the Pentagon. I can?t believe it. Now it?s on fire, there?s smoke!? They continued in this vein from the L?Enfante Plaza Station until I got off at the Capitol South exit.
David H. Edwards
Professor of Anthropology
Salisbury University
Salisbury, Maryland

www.911truth.org...

9/11 Pentagon Eyewitness Describes Having Seen Global Hawk *PIC*
Civilian Pilot Saw Global Hawk and Control Plane
Christopher Bollyn
An eyewitness from the Pentagon has come forward with an astonishing account that debunks the official 9/11 story and corroborates the hypothesis that an unmanned – and weaponized – Global Hawk drone was involved in the attack.
Nearly 5 years after the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, an eyewitness from the Pentagon has come forth with testimony, which, if accurate, completely debunks the official version that a hijacked Boeing 757 flew into the 5-sided military fortress housing the U.S. Department of Defense.
Samuel D. Danner, a civilian pilot and electrical engineer from Hagerstown, Maryland, says he was trying to get out of Washington on the morning of 9/11 after hearing of the attacks on the World Trade Center. Having made a wrong turn, Danner wound up heading south on Washington Blvd. (Virginia Highway 27), the highway that passes alongside the western side of the Pentagon. It was from the shoulder of Highway 27, across from the Pentagon, that Danner says he observed the approaching aircraft involved in the attack.
Danner's eyewitness account corroborates the theory that an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), known as Global Hawk, was flown by remote control into the newly renovated section of the Pentagon, the fortress of the Department of War that was built on a low lying area formerly known as Hell's Bottom. Although Danner's testimony is unique in its detail and description of the aircraft, it is supported by an abundance of photographic evidence and numerous statements made by other eyewitnesses.

www.rumormillnews.com...

Only Aired Once About PENTAGON !!!
www.youtube.com...
Pentagon hit by missile!
www.youtube.com...

Eyewitness Says Global Hawk Hit Pentagon on 9/11
Samuel Danner (electrical engineer for AmTrak), was involved in the clean-up at the Pentagon crash site and inspected the debris at the site. He said, "It was not a Boeing 757 that hit the Pentagon. The plane looked like a hump-back whale." He thinks a Global Hawk hit the Pentagon. (There were only seven made as of 9/11/01 and two were missing at the time.)
Danner is a former pilot. He said the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was very quiet with one engine near the back. He also saw a second plane overhead and wonders if it was controlling the plane that hit the Pentagon. He walked the lawn and picked up small pieces of debris with others. He did not see any bodies from the aircraft.
Danner is very ill now with lymphoma, which may be the result of DU exposure at the Pentagon on 9/11. He wants to talk now (after seeing "Loose Change") because "it's been bugging me."
The Global Hawk fired a DU missile that penetrated the thick concrete wall of the Pentagon. DU was detected at the time and workers on the scene later in the day wore protective equipment.

billstclair.com...

It is *not* an opinion that no one saw a missile, nor recovered said missile, it is a fact. Please don't confuse the two.

It is an “opinion” and I have *proved* it!

an opinion that no one saw a missile, nor recovered said missile,

People *did* see a missile and parts of supposed missile was recovered by a pilot at the Pentagon. He was not going to be part of the Government cover up like the rest. For G-d sakes, the man was a pilot I think he knows what he saw.

Please show proof to support your statement of dead passengers bodies?
Certainly, right after you show proof of the missile, otherwise this entire thread is pointless and is nothing but a made up "theory".
Thank you, come again.

Now that I have shown it is not just a “theory” how about doing your part in this debate and answer my question. Please show proof to support your statement of dead passengers bodies?

reply to post by cashlink



You post stories? From truther websites? LOL. Sorry, there is no proof there of anything. Zip. Zilch. Nada. All the witnesses that could actually see the plane, did see a plane.

The first story is obvious that the plane was mistaken for a missile...an easy mistake to make since it happened so fast and most likely caught quite a few people by surprise, this also happened at WTC, but as you know we have plenty of video confirming there was no missiles involved.

Although Danner's testimony is unique in its detail and description of the aircraft, it is supported by an abundance of photographic evidence

Well, where is it?

Anyone can tell a story, or be mistaken (hmm, 5 years after the fact on a truther website article, 1 guy claims a missile) (lol), I wish you luck on your quest of finding actual proof of a missile, since you have proven absolutely nothing here.




Even though you didn't keep your end of the bargain here ya go :

The Armed Forces Institute of Pathology at Walter Reed was involved in identifying victims at the Pentagon. Identification took place at a lab at Dover Air Force Base, as well as another lab in Rockville, Maryland.

Many of the remains were badly burned, but remains for all but five of the victims were identified. Remains were also found belonging to the five hijackers. Over 50 forensic specialists and other personnel were involved in identifying the remains.

Remains of additional passengers were recovered during debris sifting operations: Mary Jane Booth, Charles F. Burlingame III (pilot), David M. Charlebois (first officer), Eddie A. Dillard, Barbara Edwards, Dana Falkenberg, Stanley R. Hall, Yvonne E. Kennedy, Christopher C. Newton, Robert Penninger, Zandra F. Ploger, Lisa J. Raines, Diane M. Simmons, John D. Yamnicky, Sr., Shuyin Yang. Remains of other victims (non-passengers) at the Pentagon were also recovered during debris sifting operations: John J. Chada, Julian T. Cooper, Brenda C. Gibson, Ronald F. Golinski, ET1 Ronald J. Hemenway, James T. Lynhc, Rhonda S. Rasmussen, Antoinette M. Sherman.

I will not post the disturbing pictures, however if you choose to you can see them here.

[edit on 16-11-2008 by Soloist]

reply to post by Soloist

Anyone can tell a story, or be mistaken (hmm, 5 years after the fact on a truther website article, 1 guy claims a missile) (lol), I wish you luck on your quest of finding actual proof of a missile, since you have proven absolutely nothing here.

These people are not just telling a story they are eyewitness to the Government crimes of staging a false flag operation.

These people are credible witness just like the witness “you” cherry pick to back your 911 Government conspiracies. What are you laughing at? I do not think this subject is a laughing matter unless I am communicating with a child.

On the contrary, I have proven quite a lot.

You post stories? From truther websites? LOL. Sorry, there is no proof there of anything. Zip. Zilch. Nada. All the witnesses that could actually see the plane, did see a plane.

you demand us to produce evidence which you know is not accessible to us, evidence held by FBI, whom we accuse of cover up. Thus, only YOU are qualified to tell us what to believe? Witnesses be damned? Radar tracks be damned? Satellite tracks be damned? Reporters be damned? Photographs be damned? Government statements be damned? Is there a pattern here?.

The first story is obvious that the plane was mistaken for a missile...an easy mistake to make since it happened so fast and most likely caught quite a few people by surprise, this also happened at WTC, but as you know we have plenty of video confirming there was no missiles involved.

The first story is obvious that the plane was mistaken for a missile...an easy mistake

You do not know if it is a mistake or not! You are not qualified to be a mind reader.
Furthermore, that is his opinion and you have no problem excepting other people opinions as long as it support you theories.

The Armed Forces Institute of Pathology at Walter Reed was involved in identifying victims at the Pentagon. Identification took place at a lab at Dover Air Force Base, as well as another lab in Rockville, Maryland.

Many of the remains were badly burned, but remains for all but five of the victims were identified. Remains were also found belonging to the five hijackers. Over 50 forensic specialists and other personnel were involved in identifying the remains.

Remains of additional passengers were recovered during debris sifting operations: Mary Jane Booth, Charles F. Burlingame III (pilot), David M. Charlebois (first officer), Eddie A. Dillard, Barbara Edwards, Dana Falkenberg, Stanley R. Hall, Yvonne E. Kennedy, Christopher C. Newton, Robert Penninger, Zandra F. Ploger, Lisa J. Raines, Diane M. Simmons, John D. Yamnicky, Sr., Shuyin Yang. Remains of other victims (non-passengers) at the Pentagon were also recovered during debris sifting operations: John J. Chada, Julian T. Cooper, Brenda C. Gibson, Ronald F. Golinski, ET1 Ronald J. Hemenway, James T. Lynhc, Rhonda S. Rasmussen, Antoinette M. Sherman.

Again, nothing but hear say, you have not proved anything here! Where are the passengers that you claim were found strap to their seats where are these bodies

Where is this so call airplane?
Do you have proof that airplane flight 93 was the real plane?
All you have is presented is a news article, statements made by the very same people that are involved in the cover up!

All you are doing is parroting the media nothing more.
I have seen your statement you just post probably a hundred times if not more on the internet. You have not shown me anything that will convince me a 757 crash inside the Pentagon.

Can you produce any of the time change out parts, at the crash scene of flight 93 to prove that was the real plane?
If you can prove that much to me, then I will believe flight 93 crash at the pentagon, until then you have not even proven a plane ever crash at the pentagon.
The only thing you are hanging on to is the Government “word”.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I would hardly call a 757 a "HUGE" aircraft. They're narrowbody aircraft, and they're quite small for an airliner. As for a target pod of some sort, there is no way that you could mount and hide a target laser on a C-32 and not have it be instantly obvious to anyone that knows planes, especially maintenance personnel and planewatchers.

There are only 4 C-32s in service. They got the first of them in June of 1998 and the last one in December of the same year. They were never planned to be bought in large numbers, and it would be immediately obvious if any of them were missing.

Alrighty... that's the kind of information I was looking for. Fair enough on the size, my thinking was screwed up and kept picturing a 777 in my head even after seeing the dimensions of a 757 and knowing it not to be as large. Thanks for pointing that out. Four is at least an easily verifiable number of aircraft... too much so I would think, in fact, to be considered for use in what would be the greatest conspiracy this century. C-32 theory... out the window.

However, either a plane hit the Pentagon or it did not. That plane was either Flight 77 or it was not.

The best evidence I've seen to date that a 757 did indeed hit the Pentagon is on the link below.

www.aerospaceweb.org...

There are numerically more eye witnesses that have come forward (from my count alone, mind you) that indicate a version of events contrary to the version stated by Lloyd England and others including the 9/11 commission as to the trajectory of the plane as it struck the Pentagon. When faced with the contrarian view, most astoundingly Lloyd England changes his story to match that of the eye witnesses.

Why did England act so oddly after the incident? Why did he change his story to match that of eye witness accounts taken 7 years later as opposed to saying "Hey, it hit MY car... THEY are wrong"?

Maybe it was intentional. Maybe Flight 77 really did hit the Pentagon and the 9/11 report of the flight path was intentionally misleading to capitalize on gaps in the radar coverage to further propagate a conspiracy. Perhaps this England fellow wasn't told to lie about what happened... only to change his story later on to cast doubt on his original statements. More conspiracy.

Maybe, just maybe, like the Akira Kurosawa classic "Roshomon" everyone is right, and the truth is something... surprising.

Maybe the conspiracy here is really to keep you investigating bravo sierra instead of focusing on things of more immediate importance.

EDIT: FOIA for photos taken during the analysis mentioned above would be really nice.


[edit on 16-11-2008 by cogburn]

Originally posted by Hal9000

1-So by your saying "you", I assume you mean me.

2-So your saying that the members of this site should be grateful that pinch supplied any answer at all,

1-Nope. The royal you.

2- Yes. These issues have been discussed to death, and the arguments from both sides are laid out. The search function is his friend. I've found that for me, a brief answer would lead me to do an investigation as to WHY Pinch said what he did, and then be able to come to my own conclusion. And to be honest, anyone that just takes what Pinch, or Alex Jones, or Mark Roberts, or David Ray Griffin says at face value... without doing their own vetting process.... is not worth wasting more than a few lines on anyways.

reply to post by Seymour Butz

And to be honest, anyone that just takes what Pinch, or Alex Jones, or Mark Roberts, or David Ray Griffin says at face value... without doing their own vetting process.... is not worth wasting more than a few lines on anyways.

Then why are you even in this thread?

reply to post by cogburn


What I am trying to do is prove that there was a plane crash, so far it has not been proven.
In order to prove you have a plane crash from said plane, you have to have airplane parts, which will be all over a crash scene. Some of these parts are call time change out parts. All these parts are log in an airplane manifest if parts are not change out in a timely manner the airplane is grounded until the parts are change out (FAA laws).
All time change out parts have serial numbers which are log and those time change out parts serial numbers match to said airplane. In all airplane crashes investigators use time change out parts to identify said airplane.

To this day, seven years later this information has not been given to the public as proof that these were said airplanes.

F.B.I. Counsel: No Attempt Made By F.B.I. To Formally Identify 9/11 Plane Wreckage
Aidan Monaghan
03/18/08
Contained within a March 14, 2008 "DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT" with the Nevada District U.S. Court, concerning a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by Mr. Aidan Monaghan (Case #: 2:07-cv-01614-RCJ-GWF) to order the production of Federal Bureau of Investigation records concerning the 4 aircraft involved in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Assistant U.S. Attorney Patrick A. Rose has indicated on behalf of the FBI, that records indicating the collection and positive identification of recovered wreckage created by these federally registered aircraft, do not exist.
Defendants motion reads in part:
"Since being served with the Summons and Amended Complaint, Federal Defendant, with assistance of its attorneys, has analyzed Plaintiff's request and conducted a search for responsive records. Federal Defendant has determined that there are no responsive records. The identities of the airplanes hijacked in the September 11 attacks was never in question, and, therefore, there were no records generated "revealing the process by which wreckage recovered by defendant, from aircraft used during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, was positively identified by defendant . . . as belonging to said aircraft . . . (Amend Compl. Inj. Relief #15 at 1.)"
However, this claim is directly contradicted by public comments offered by Carol Carmody, Vice-Chairman National Transportation Safety Board and Marion C. Blakey, Chairman National Transportation Safety Board, who both indicated in 2002 that FBI director Robert Mueller requested NTSB assistance with 9/11 aircraft wreckage identification and that the NTSB did perform 9/11 aircraft wreckage identification analysis. Full Article

pilotsfor911truth.org...

The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001 , resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view. The hard evidence would have included hundreds of critical time-change aircraft items, plus security videotapes that were confiscated by the FBI immediately following each tragic episode.
With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased, rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged. Similarly, with all the evidence available at the Shanksville, Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged. Regarding the planes that allegedly flew into the two WTC towers, it appears that heavy aircraft were involved in each case, but no evidence has been produced that would support the government's version of what actually caused the total destruction of the buildings, let alone proving the identity of the aircraft. That is the central problem with the government's 911 story.
As painful and heartbreaking as was the loss of innocent lives and the lingering health problems of thousands more, a most troublesome and nightmarish probability remains that so many Americans appear to have been involved in the most heinous conspiracy in our country's history.

reply to post by cashlink


pilotsfor911truth.org...

Well that's a reliable source