Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by jthomas
You can provide no reason whatsoever why anyone should think the passengers' bodies did not exist. You can provide no reason to claim that the passenger bodies were not located and identified. None. Zero. Nada.

"no reason anyone...should think...passenger bodies were not located..."

= Negative Proof

Nope. Repeating your fallacious reasoning will never make it come true no matter how much you are in denial, Jezus.

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by jthomas
You can provide no reason whatsoever why anyone should think the passengers' bodies did not exist. You can provide no reason to claim that the passenger bodies were not located and identified. None. Zero. Nada.

"no reason anyone...should think...passenger bodies were not located..."

= Negative Proof

Nope. Repeating your fallacious reasoning will never make it come true no matter how much you are in denial, Jezus.

Why do I have to ask you the same questions over and over?

What would be proof that something did not happen?

Prove I do not have an alien ship in my backyard.

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by jthomas
You can provide no reason whatsoever why anyone should think the passengers' bodies did not exist. You can provide no reason to claim that the passenger bodies were not located and identified. None. Zero. Nada.

"no reason anyone...should think...passenger bodies were not located..."

= Negative Proof

Nope. Repeating your fallacious reasoning will never make it come true no matter how much you are in denial, Jezus.

This isn't debatable...

You repeatedly use negative proof at your proof...

Originally posted by jthomas
How do you know there is no evidence that AA77's passengers' bodies weren't recovered? What is the source for your assertion?

Show me that no passenger bodies were recovered.

"no reason anyone...should think...passenger bodies were not located..."

"How do you know...bodies weren't recovered?"

This isn't that complicated...

This is a clear undeniable case of negative proof...

Negative proof - en.wikipedia.org...

"X is true because there is no proof that X is false."

It is asserted that a proposition is true, only because it has not been proven false

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by A Fortiori

 

That was an inspirational and emotional response. Certainly, at some point, we will see the a fortieri argument.

Est modus in rebus!

I am pleased that we have a middle ground:

I do agree with you on certain points, i.e., the Bush administration was one of the worst the country has seen. Dick Cheney manipulated the lesser Bush for his own purposes; had he tried that with Daddy Bush, he would have been cut off at the knees.
Dubya wanted to get Saddam from day one for planning to clip Daddy Bush and he is a sorry human being for starting a war in Iraq while we were in Afghanistan. Everyone suffered for his arrogance and vengefulness.

We can agree that they manipulated truth for their own aims and agendas.

The Iraq war was not the direct result of 9/11.

I have never said that it was. They said that it was when the WMD thing didn't pan out. If you recall it was at that point that they trotted out the second big lie: Saddam had ties to Al Qaida. Saddam was afraid of radical Islam in Iraq. This was fairly well established. A year after the Terrible Twins lied about this they were forced to recant.

Perhaps a Constitutional amendment is in order that will not allow any more presidents from Texas or California until all the other states have had a turn.

Back to the topic at hand. Controlled demolition theories have no evidence.

I disagree. They have evidence of a possible controlled demolition. Was it a controlled demolition? I don't know. My PhD is in an entirely different subject matter, so I choose not to comment as though I do know. I will say that I have read some good articles from both camps that used what I deem from my hard science courses to be "good science", and some articles that I feel were sub-par.

They have what some people think is evidence. Many assume that they know how the towers should have collapsed because of Hollywood disaster movies and because they didn't collapse that way, this must be evidence.

I don't watch Hollywood disaster movies. I watch costume period dramas, chick flicks, and anything with an ancient world storyline. My objections do not come from movies.

The only physical evidence that is being investigated are what appear to be paint chips and that are claimed to be highly engineered thermite. The experiments were completely botched and logic was dispensed with but the overwhelming desire to find a conspiracy, anywhere, has led true believers to accept this without question.

There are true believers on both sides.

I will explain what makes me go hmmm. I will admit my lack of knowledge right away. Hard science courses from undergrad were Physics 101-202, Geology (Took every course in major), Chemistry 101-202, Organic Chemistry 202-204, Genetics 401, Calculus 101-201, Statistics, Chaos Theory (elective), and Advanced Logic. Hard science courses in post-grad: Hydrology, Organic Chemistry, Mineralogy, Dating (not what you think), Preservation, Sampling, Scientific Theory, and maybe a few others.

Based off of the above here are my problems with the OS.

Do I believe that it is possible for the planes to hit the towers, the jet fuel to burn hot enough to melt the steel in such a manner as to cause a pancake collapse (yes, I'm rushing through the explanation)? Yes, I do believe it is possible.

Having witnessed the pancake collapse of the first building, the second, then WTC 7 my impressions are: "too perfect." The planes hit on different floors of the first two buildings, not at all in WTC7, and yet they all collapsed in a similar fashion. Having taken statistical analysis and chaos theory, my belief is that what I saw pushes the boundary of what I am comfortable with accepting.

One building, yes. The second building made me me frown. The collapse of WTC 7 made me think that someone blasted the building.

My metals coursework led me to believe that someone was either leaving something out of the story or lying to me. Until I learned that my government was capable of the self-serving, bold-faced lies the type of which push past "jerk" and into "evil-doer" I just assumed that there was something they were not telling us out of some sort "of classified for the sake of our own good" thing.

Having taken
These are the same true believers who insist that the NIST report was a put up job. They accept the words of those who failed to use the scientfic method, failed to properly analyze the materials, and provided a paper rife with speculation. Amusingly, when it suits those who want conspiracies, they apply their selective reasoning in the same fashion that they accuse others of doing.

I can see that in some of the individuals on the "truth" side, and I can see it in individuals on the "OS" side. In eight years both sides allowed dogma to become developed.

As to the Pentagon and the "alarming information" that has generally failed to alarm anyone:

Witnesses saw the plane hit the Pentagon. What do you think happened?

I have a friend who worked at what was MCI in Pentagon City. Based on what she told me I believe a plane hit the Pentagon.

Witnesses saw fires started from the impact. What do you think happened?

I believe jet fuel caused enormous fires at the Pentagon.

Witnesses recovered bodies from the plane. What do you think happened?

I know firefighters who worked 9-11 and I heard no one speak about bodies. Out of the three people I met that worked there not a one described bodies.

There are reports that there were bodies so I would have to compare the reports to what I've heard and in this matter the jury is out.

You're asking me if I think that a missile hit the Pentagon, aren't you? My answer is "no". Based on my knowledge of NORAD, the coverage of the DC airspace, military protocols...I think either a drone hit the Pentagon or the plane was allowed to hit the Pentagon.

The Pentagon is packed usually. Look at the death toll. I don't know how many times I heard: "God was looking out after me, I was supposed to be in a meeting that day and it got canceled". This made me suspicious. So many canceled meetings, NORAD being wacked, the planes that did try to intercept did not come from the closer bases, the Capital building was on the flight path and they choose to hit the Pentagon? Blah blah blah...I have tons of issues with the OS. I mean, had these Islamic fundamentalists taken out our Capital building and Congress with it they would have demoralized the entire nation... and yet...ZOOM! Right by.

So they must be idiots, right? And if they were idiots...how did they manage to pull it off?

Look it could be fundamentalists, my jury is actually still out. I know which way I am leaning, but technically I am still out.

Why I get so rabid on here sometimes is that I think there are no stupid questions and the people asking them are treated like they are idiots. People should fear a government that thinks nothing of lying to its citizens, in fact, it deserves to be questioned.

O praeclarum custodem ovium lupum!





[edit on 9/19/2009 by pteridine]

[edit on 19-9-2009 by A Fortiori]

Originally posted by jthomas
But Lillydale claims she does.

Huh?????? Did you not claim that you knew for a fact that AA77 crashed there and that passenger bodies were found? Why is it that you still cannot prove either of those things? You cannot even prove both with witness accounts.

Your belirfs are irrelevant to the facts and evidence

Why are your belirfs any more valid than anyone else's?

FALSE. "Negative proof" only applies if there is no evidence and no way to demonstrate proof, like" Prove no fairies exist."

You're stuck because there is evidence, you've been pointed to it, and you refuse to refute it.

And Lillydale claimed that "no passenger bodies were found at the Pentagon." That is a claim of evidence. Oops.

No.....that is a statement. That is a statement of the status quo. Before the crash, there were no passenger bodies, correct?

Since the crash, nothing has happened to change that perception.

Thus, there are still no passenger bodies at the pentagon, unless you have some proof otherwise. Do you? Or you can keep playing stupid and pretending you have a case in asking me to prove something did not happen. Whatever helps you sleep at night. Look how much you have written this week. How much of it has gone to enlighten anyone as to the fact that there really were passenger bodies?

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by jthomas
But Lillydale claims she does.

Huh??????

Yup. You claimed "no passenger bodies were found at the Pentagon." And you refuse to support your claim.

Too bad you're not intellectually honest enough to admit it. But no 9/11 Denier is.

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by jthomas
But Lillydale claims she does.

Huh??????

Yup. You claimed "no passenger bodies were found at the Pentagon." And you refuse to support your claim.

Too bad you're not intellectually honest enough to admit it. But no 9/11 Denier is.

Are you a troll? I ask this in all seriousness.

How does one prove that something that does not exist, does not exist? It simply does not exist.

If she believes there were no bodies at the crash, and no one has brought forth evidence of the dead bodies then her supposition stands until someone brings forth the evidence. When that person does bring forth the evidence you may then critique it and force her to explain why she believes there were no dead bodies.

Until then the onus is on you, or lacking it you just simply move on to another topic and not waste board space or bandwidth with the ATS version of: I know you are but what am I.

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by jthomas
But Lillydale claims she does.

Huh??????

Yup. You claimed "no passenger bodies were found at the Pentagon." And you refuse to support your claim.

Too bad you're not intellectually honest enough to admit it. But no 9/11 Denier is.

So then you admit that it is an undeniable truth that I have an alien spaceship in my backyard and an invisible dragon in my garage as well as a unicorn next to me right now????

You will not even begin to try and prove that is not true so you must be admitting it is the truth, right?

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by TheAntiHero420
reply to post by jthomas

 

Alright Jthomas tell me what the "truth" movement is all about, since its not financial gain (otherwise you would have said so in your post).

I asked you as a member to tell us what the purpose of the "9/11 Truth Movement" is. Can't you write an short, concise sentence or two? Right now, you're just indicating that you don't know.

Seriously, what is its purpose?

Well I figured since you knew, that I should hear what you think the truth movement is all about. As for what I would assume the truth movement to be about is finding the answers for the many questions we still have, if there was anyway to get around how dismissive you(and the government) are we might find some common ground.

reply to post by A Fortiori


The fuel was probably not hot enough to melt the steel and did not burn very long but the fires it started weakened the steel and that, coupled with the serious damage done by the aircraft, caused the collapses. For WTC 7 it is a different story. Failure of one or two elements led to a catastrophic collapse. I showed the calculation a while back were temperatures in the fires could cause one of the 50' cantilever beams to lengthen by 5", more than enough to shear bolts and joints. If any investigation should be done, it should look at how the plans for #7 were ever approved by NYC.
It is surmised that Flt 93 was headed to the Capitol and Flt 77 was to hit the White House with the Pentagon as a backup. Big targets are easier than small targets and the White House is small.
I invite you to visit a thread I started: “If there were to be a reinvestigation of 911, who would do it and what evidence would they investigate.” www.abovetopsecret.com...
This is more of a survey to determine what each responder thinks is the most fruitful pathway to showing a conspiracy. So far, it has not had many hits. It does require some careful thought and many may be reluctant to engage in such.

“Semper ubi sub ubi”

Let's all take a deep breath...

And return to civil on topic discussion... There is that swell yellow-flashy reminder at the top and bottom of every 9/11 Conspiracies forum page.



Mod Note: 9/11 Conspiracies Forum Posting Conduct – Please Review This Link.

Originally posted by pteridine

It is surmised that Flt 93 was headed to the Capitol and Flt 77 was to hit the White House with the Pentagon as a backup. Big targets are easier than small targets and the White House is small.

I agree with your statement 99.9% pteridine. Flight 93 was (according to KSM) going to hit the White House. The Capital Building was the back up. Osama Bin Laden wanted the White House. Atta (who was the leader as you know) was afraid that the White House would be too small of a target. Osama insisted and Atta agreed using the Capital building as a back up.

reply to post by A Fortiori


Excellent post, A Fortiori!

I agree with your summation, about questioning and not letting up. But, perhaps for a different reason -- as I tend towards the theory of incompetence and/or intentionally allowing the attacks to happen. Seems the germs of all the 'conspiracy' theories were planted by what are people's attempts to cover up their incomptence, or complicity. The seedlings have grown into outlandish wild shrubs of speculation, having been watered by many levcels of paranoia.

You're asking me if I think that a missile hit the Pentagon, aren't you? My answer is "no".

Absolutely agreed. There is NO evidence to support that particular 'theory'.

...I think either a drone hit the Pentagon or the plane was allowed to hit the Pentagon.

Very, very much doubt the 'drone' hypothesis. You have your field of expertise, I have mine. My experience is in actually having FLOWN the Boeing models (B757/767) used in the attacks, and my over three decades of flying experience, 24 years of which were with a major US airline. As to 'allowed'....I'm civilian, never flew in the military, so I lack certain knowledge of those aspects, the capability at the time to intercept and actually STOP the AA77...actually, there is no other way to 'stop' the jet besides a shoot-down. Several ATS members who ARE active- or ex-military have chimed in about the fighters that stand alert, and that they were not armed.

You know a lot about NORAD...is it true to say that NORAD was, in 2001, focused outward towards unknown/hostile intrusions into the ADIZ more so than inwards??

The Pentagon is packed usually.

That section had just been under months of renovation. Is there any way that the hijackers, in their planning, would have known this? Meaning, IF they had no idea that the section would be sparsely occupied, then the selection was based mostly likely on the terrain and urban geography, I.E., the road "Columbia Pike", which offered a convenient arrow-straight approach from the West/Southwest.

This made me suspicious. So many canceled meetings, NORAD being wacked, the planes that did try to intercept did not come from the closer bases...

In hindsight. BUT, has anyone actually taken time to count how many cancelled meetings? Compared the number on Tuesday, 11 September to historical patterns of meeting cancellations on previous days? OTHER Tuesdays, other months?

Interceptors -- again, WHERE were the hot alerts stationed? (My made-up phrase, "hot alerts").

AA77, without the transponder squawk, is much harder to locate, especially in the confusion. There is a website, somewhere, with timelines. It's been linked before, I'll try to find it. It's a very long read, though.

... the Capital building was on the flight path and they choose to hit the Pentagon?

Very possibly UA93 was targeted on the Capitol. Some suggest the WH, although when you look at aerial photos, you can see that the Capitol stands out, as a much bigger target, especially from a distance.

Remember, even the Pentagon was a bit difficult to locate, from a distance. Slant-range views aren't the same as a top-down aerial photo, obviously. The AA77 pilot (assumed to be Hanjour) spotted the Pentagon, then made the side descending turn to orient for the final run at the target. The WTC Towers, by comparison, were far more prominent from a distance, to aim at.

I've looked at what is available of the SSFDR data from BOTH AA77 and UA93. Just was U2U'd a link to a written transcript of the UA93 CVR. A cursory glance, and two instances on the CVR transcript that noted the sound of the autopilot disconnect warning matched the time intervals on an NTSB graph showing the autopilot mode activity, and various modes of navigation radios. Without going on technically, there is an 'autotune' feature built in to provide updating for the inertial reference system (IRS) that uses known ground stations along a route to triangulate position and refine the calculated position of the IRS laser-ring gyros and accelerometers.

The fact that the Flight Recorders showed this activity, and that it fits with the physical locations of the two airplanes, this is just another in the set of facts that show me how true the SSFDR data is, and how unlikely it is to have been "faked"...(I cannot even imagine how that could be accomplished, anyway).

Recorders 'watch' and log over 200 different aspects of an airplane, on today's modern airliners. Switch positons, valve positions, various quantities (oil, hydraulic fluid, fuel, etc) flight control positions, cockpit controls and their positions...other things that are looked at and understood by technicians, arcane things. "Faked"?? There are way too many experts to be able to 'fool' all of them.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by A Fortiori

 

The fuel was probably not hot enough to melt the steel and did not burn very long but the fires it started weakened the steel and that, coupled with the serious damage done by the aircraft, caused the collapses.

That's the theory. However, given that the orientation of the two planes within the structure was different, the time in the air affecting the amount of fuel left in the tank, etc. not to mention the difference in interiors, add all of that up and we witness perfect pancake collapses from each building within a condensed time frame with zero spillage, zero leans...

*Scratches head*

Then there is the third collapse was almost identical (next to zero spillage, lack of leans).

It may be possible, I do not doubt that, I find it improbable that with all of the variants that there are identical outcomes.

I am not saying that it didn't happen the way you say it did, I'm saying that this is extraordinary.

For WTC 7 it is a different story. Failure of one or two elements led to a catastrophic collapse. I showed the calculation a while back were temperatures in the fires could cause one of the 50' cantilever beams to lengthen by 5", more than enough to shear bolts and joints.

I'm sure that you could produce a calculation where that could happen. Just like if you asked any engineer how a plane could produce a pancake collapse they could explain it certainly. Were they asked if it was probable? My guess is not. They were given a scenario and said that it could happen and showed "how".

Given that to believe otherwise takes admitting that you believe in a very politically incorrect conspiracy scenario one would be hard pressed to have someone of academic standing admit it publicly.

Honestly, I don't know anything about what happened that day. The official story leaves me with too many questions. The "no plane" theory makes me roll my eyes. The they "let it happen" theory made a lot of sense due to the financial picture painted regarding the building's needs for renovation.

It is surmised that Flt 93 was headed to the Capitol and Flt 77 was to hit the White House with the Pentagon as a backup. Big targets are easier than small targets and the White House is small.

It is surmised because people questioned it hitting the Pentagon. There is no proof which plane was to go where.

I invite you to visit a thread I started: “If there were to be a reinvestigation of 911, who would do it and what evidence would they investigate.” www.abovetopsecret.com...
This is more of a survey to determine what each responder thinks is the most fruitful pathway to showing a conspiracy. So far, it has not had many hits. It does require some careful thought and many may be reluctant to engage in such.

Perhaps I will.

“Semper ubi sub ubi”

*smirks*



[edit on 19-9-2009 by A Fortiori]

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Several ATS members who ARE active- or ex-military have chimed in about the fighters that stand alert, and that they were not armed.

What is the source for this garbage? Perhaps there is confusion regarding the term "combat ready" (not armed) versus on NORAD Alert (always armed)

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Interceptors -- again, WHERE were the hot alerts stationed? (My made-up phrase, "hot alerts").

On the East Coast, *alert* aircraft were at Otis ANG Base, MA and Langley AFB, VA.

Originally posted by pteridine
Back to the topic at hand. Controlled demolition theories have no evidence. They have what some people think is evidence. Many assume that they know how the towers should have collapsed because of Hollywood disaster movies and because they didn't collapse that way, this must be evidence.

Planet Earth calling pteridine... come in?

Do you know what the topic at hand really is? That's right, take a look at the thread title. Notice how this thread is dedicated to CIT's investigation of the Pentagon?

Take your WTC demo claims to another relevant thread, please.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Hello, weedwacker!

You asked where there were other air stations did you not?

Andrews AFB
Pax River Naval Air Station
Quantico
Langley (the farthest away)

There are other defensive capabilities in the area. The planes could have been shot from the ground if they chose to do so.

According to the 9-11 transcripts they were supposedly terrible pilots. If you're not Maverick, then why hit the Pentagon with the Capital building is in full range? Look at DC's skyline. From a non-pilot's point of view it appears as thought it would be difficult not to hit the Capital building on that path and yet they still managed to hit the Pentagon.

From your POV what do you think? Pentagon easier hit than the Capital?

Also you mentioned Columbia Pike. The Pike runs fairly close to parallel to the river, the path they flew is perpendicular.

You are right, how lucky for everyone in the Pentagon that the planes hit the side undergoing renovations. I won't comment on the meetings beyond wondering if that pesky alert level had something to do with it, but again...speculation on my part.

Really, that is my point. I speculate because the people in charge were liars, and so many little details don't make sense to me. Oddities that taken separately mean little, put together make me go hmmm.





[edit on 19-9-2009 by A Fortiori]

reply to post by tezzajw


Ah, Tezza, the self appointed policeman of these threads. You forgot your usual catchphrase, "the casual reader will note...."
I was responding to A Fortieri and the WTC had entered into the picture. Casual readers who follow the thread will note that.

What do you think happened at the Pentagon? Did a plane full of passengers hit the Pentagon? Certainly, after all this time you must have an opinion other than "the official story is full of holes." If you could pick a single aspect of 911 to reinvestigate that you think would have the best chance of proving conspiracy, what would it be? The passenger list of the Pentagon plane, the lightpole-in-taxi event, or something else?

reply to post by A Fortiori

According to the 9-11 transcripts they were supposedly terrible pilots. If you're not Maverick, then why hit the Pentagon with the Capital building is in full range? Look at DC's skyline. From a non-pilot's point of view it appears as thought it would be difficult not to hit the Capital building on that path and yet they still managed to hit the Pentagon.

Hani Hanjour, the hijacker pilot of Flight 77, was the most experienced of the four hijacker pilots. He had 600+ hours of flight time compared to the other three which had approximately 250 hours each. Wouldn't it seem reasonable to assign the most difficult target to the pilot with the most experience?

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by A Fortiori

 

According to the 9-11 transcripts they were supposedly terrible pilots. If you're not Maverick, then why hit the Pentagon with the Capital building is in full range? Look at DC's skyline. From a non-pilot's point of view it appears as thought it would be difficult not to hit the Capital building on that path and yet they still managed to hit the Pentagon.

Hani Hanjour, the hijacker pilot of Flight 77, was the most experienced of the four hijacker pilots. He had 600+ hours of flight time compared to the other three which had approximately 250 hours each. Wouldn't it seem reasonable to assign the most difficult target to the pilot with the most experience?

I thought you guys just said that the targets were the White House and the Capital and the pentagon was picked over the White House last minute because of how small it was compared to the capital. If he was the best pilot then why not hit the white house or crash down in the middle of the Nation's capital. That whole area is pretty frickin' sacrosanct. Imagine a plane crashing into the Smithsonian even--hitting the heart of DC.

*shudders*