The real truth about 9/11 according to FBI vault!

reply to post by FDNY343


For starters, maybe they didn't have to cover up the pentagon lawn as quickly as possible. Imagine all the forensic evidence that was never reviewed here...

Originally posted by jhn7537

Originally posted by userid1

Originally posted by jhn7537

Originally posted by userid1

Originally posted by rstregooski
reply to post by Uncertainty

 

I'll mention that the 6-ton engines from the plane that supposedly crashed into the pentagon were never recovered, and the explanation was that the metal "vaporized" upon impact. Having said that, it was reported that all the bodies were able to be identified either by fingerprints or other means. So how can a "fire" vaporize a 6-ton engine and leave human remains en-tact, well enough for identification? And yes I realize this is in that clip I posted but not the first place the information has been presented...

Not sure if you've seen the clip I posted on page 3, but if not, check it out and then see what you think. It compiles a lot of news reports the day of, and much more.

Where did you get the idea that the engines weren't recovered, and the "explanation" was they'd "vaporized"? That myth was put to rest on *this* site: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Also, here's one of several accounts of bodies being found still strapped into the plane's seats: www.usatoday.com...

So because usatoday.com has a news article saying bodies were still strapped into the plane's seats, does it automatically make it true?

Barring evidence to the contrary (and I've yet to see anyone provide any) then "Yes", an interview with a rescue worker describing their first hand experience suffices as evidence for me. Do YOU have any verifiable evidence that his description is not true? Please provide...

edit on 10-4-2011 by userid1 because: (no reason given)

No, I do not have any evidence, nor have I seen any pictures that show bodies strapped to the plane's seat, but if the conspiracy is true, don't you think that the "people" behind these attacks would have false stories sent to media outlets to help sell the lies?

And therein lies the problem...in order for a conspiracy theory (like any theory) to be "true" - there must be *some* tangible proof (evidence). I've yet to see ANY verifiable evidence/proof from the Truthers regarding the Pentagon attack. The "official story" does seem to have the necessary evidence to support 99.9% of it - and 1/10th of 1% is NOT enough to scrap an entire theory on for most reasonable people.

reply to post by jhn7537


Have multiple accounts of bodies being found in aircraft seats in the rubble

Firefighters Carlton Burkhammer and Brian Moravitz "spotted an intact seat from the plane's cockpit with a chunk of the floor still attached."

Mark Willams: "When Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their seats. The stench of charred flesh overwhelmed him.

'It was the worst thing you can imagine,' said Williams, whose squad from Fort Belvoir, Va., entered the building, less than four hours after the terrorist attack. 'I wanted to cry from the minute I walked in. But I have soldiers under me and I had to put my feelings aside.'

"I did see airplane seats and a corpse still strapped to one of the seats."
–Capt. Jim Ingledue, Virginia Beach Fire Dept.

You have the witness accounts and their names - why dont you contact them and demand the "truth".....

reply to post by rstregooski


They had trucks spread gravel to create a surface for the fire apparatus and heavy equipment for search & resuce
to operate from

Otherwise the movement of all that equipment and water from fighting the fires would have created a mud pit
and bogged the apparatus up to their axles

Another idiotic "truther" theory down the drain.....

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by userid1
Also, here's one of several accounts of bodies being found still strapped into the plane's seats: www.usatoday.com...

Which turned out to be not true. There are pictures of three bodies, but you can not see seats, or any sign of aircraft parts around them. Two of them are in coveralls, one in what looks like a Navy uniform. It was the Navy part of the Pentagon that was hit. They are not identified, so no one knows if they were passengers or Pentagon staff...

This thread is from 2008...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There were 42 Navy victims in the pentagon attack...

www.navy.mil...

edit on 4/10/2011 by ANOK because: 911wasaninsidejobby

34 of 45 members of the Army Budget Office were also killed. It wasn't just a Navy area that was affected. 911research.wtc7.net...

Regarding your links: I read most of the first one and all I saw was a guy from Australia named Tezzajw whining because he didn't see pics of bodies in aircraft seats to support the first responder's claims. He also demanded coroner reports, body identification/position reports, etc., in order to accept any part of the responder's claims. He further went on to say that without pictures or a coroner's report to back it up, the 1st responder's quoted statements about the bodies were just "heresay" - this is completely unreasonable. Next time we have a terrorist attack, we'd better make sure we have ALL necessary experts available on scene in advance (in triplicate) to view, comment for the record, and video it - or it just *never* happened. Bottom line - your link itself supplied multiple first responder/recovery personnel reports of bodies found still strapped in seats. Evidence to the contrary supplied = none.

I didn't read the second link you supplied - sorry, I hope you understand.

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by rstregooski

 

They had trucks spread gravel to create a surface for the fire apparatus and heavy equipment for search & resuce
to operate from

Otherwise the movement of all that equipment and water from fighting the fires would have created a mud pit
and bogged the apparatus up to their axles

Another idiotic "truther" theory down the drain.....

I guess you interpret photos the same way you read google maps. Gravel's one thing, and the photo shows geo-technic fabric underneath. But then the two feet of soil you neglected to mention? And you're the one that mentioned "mud pit"...

reply to post by rstregooski


Again the idea was to create a stable surface to prevent fire apparatus or heavy construction equipment from
bogging down

Refer to the picture again

reply to post by userid1


Whatever, the pics are publicly available, find the link and you can see for yourself. I don't have the link handy, it's in one of those threads somewhere, or on ATS somewhere. It's the NIST evidence site.

If you're so sure then you should already have seen the pics yourself, otherwise you are just repeating someone else's incorrect claim. There is enough of that already clouding the 911 discussions, we need FACTS not opinions and hearsay.

Show me the passengers in seats otherwise you have nothing.

My point about the Navy is in regards to the one body in a Navy uniform, making it more likely to be pentagon staff than passengers. Logical deduction.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by userid1

 

Whatever, the pics are publicly available, find the link and you can see for yourself. I don't have the link handy, it's in one of those threads somewhere, or on ATS somewhere. It's the NIST evidence site.

If you're so sure then you should already have seen the pics yourself, otherwise you are just repeating someone else's incorrect claim. There is enough of that already clouding the 911 discussions, we need FACTS not opinions and hearsay.

Show me the passengers in seats otherwise you have nothing.

My point about the Navy is in regards to the one body in a Navy uniform, making it more likely to be pentagon staff than passengers. Logical deduction.

edit on 4/10/2011 by ANOK because: 911wasaninsidejobby

Seriously???!!!
*I* have three different eyewitness claims and you deny them all because of a lack of pictures? *You* are the one who is absolutely unable to prove these eyewitness testimonies are "incorrect". You lack *any* proof whatsoever, and yet you try to turn this around and say without pics the statements are "incorrect"? Not only is no reasonable person ever going to buy that defense, it's downright pathetic.

I simply can't understand why you would be so obtuse on this issue - there is far more evidence than necessary to overcome "reasonable doubt", and yet...

reply to post by userid1


Yes, eye witnesses are not reliable, especially when they are second hand from some web site. I find it hard to believe a whole Boeing all but disappeared inside the pentagon yet bodies and seats remained.

But that's beside the point, the claim I was disputing was that there were pictures of passengers strapped into seats.

There wasn't, end of discussion.

If you want to argue witnesses there are as many who contradict the OS as there who support it. What can you trust if you are really unbiased? Physical evidence. So please don't throw witnesses at me as if it proves anything.

Who said there were pictures? I certainly didn't. I don't see where this was ever claimed anywhere in this thread. In fact, the first person who brought that point up either way was, well...you. Perhaps you should read a bit more carefully if you're going to argue or dismiss comments out of hand.

End of discussion.

I'm curious, based on your demonstrated reading comprehension, and stunning technical insights like "...hard to believe a whole Boeing all but disappeared inside the pentagon yet bodies and seats remained.", do you ever find that people sometimes have difficulty accepting your arguments on the subject of the Pentagon attack - particularly since you haven't offered a shred of proof to back anything you've said up?

Originally posted by ANOK
Yes, eye witnesses are not reliable, especially when they are second hand from some web site. I find it hard to believe a whole Boeing all but disappeared inside the pentagon yet bodies and seats remained.

Then buy their book, and call them liars, see if you can find any evidence to support it.

Originally posted by ANOK
If you want to argue witnesses there are as many who contradict the OS as there who support it. What can you trust if you are really unbiased? Physical evidence. So please don't throw witnesses at me as if it proves anything.

You don't trust the physical evidence though, so I have no clue what you are talking about. There are many many more witnesses supporting the 'official story' than those against it. For example, there are multiple witnesses to the impact from within a couple hundred metres of the plane.

What witnesses are of similar calibre and disagree?

reply to post by exponent


You know my Aunt from my dad's side of the family. Her bosses conference room was in the area where the plane hit in the pentagon. She was at the time working officially as Deputy for Armament, Vehicle and Soldier Technologies. Unofficially with DARPA TTO at the pentagon . On morning of 9/11 She was lucky enough to have felt sick/off kilter that morning and had called in. She had really talked a lot about how weird it was that day with my dad and how close a call it had been since she would have had a meeting there that morning if she had chose to go in. She has since moved to a position as deputy assistant secretary for r&t for the army at NSRDEC or Natick. she works there as a director for scientist that do the future soldier R&d info in the link at the bottom. I remember talking to her couple family gatherings ago about how when the army first inserted troops in Iraq they sent them in with woodland camo instead of desert. amusing conversation. I've read alot about the twins towers and i belive the questions asked are valid. I was reading this post and just thought i've never really asked her anything about what happened over at the pentagon. I've lightly talked about it with my dad and he said i doubt she would tell you much. im sure she knew some of the people that died there that day or at least of them. Anyway last family gathering she asked me to come see her this summer at the base. i guess i will try and talk to her there. i don't feel comfortable calling her since in a discussion with my dad he believes due to her security clearance (note as a civilian) that she is monitered. I guess thats a no brainer seeing where she had worked. . I'm not going to go jesse ventura on her or conspiracy theorist like. Staying way clear of that, just general questions since i never really sat down and had a one on one with her about that day. I will post my finding and maybe do an interview and anything interesting in a post here after i see her. She has an exciting job methinks she recently had a meeting in front of congress about her R&D budget which is about 2 billion lol.
Info about NSRDEC

I read through it last week and noticed there was not one mention of Bin Laden. Several mentions of Hamas. Could it be misdirection? Meant lead us further away from the Mossad...

I seriously doubt Hammas is working with the CIA. Now the Mossad is a different story. Where do you get Hammas working with the CIA?

reply to post by filosophia


vault.fbi.gov... ation-2002-06-jun/view

You can enter 'Hamas' in the upper right hand corner and it starts getting mention on page 5. Page 7 directly specifies the mosque where some would meet in Falls Church, VA.

9-11 was known about long before it happen if you really look into and watch how the second tower fell and so on you will realize that there was a bomb inside as well A jet plane could not take it down as it did and there was a second kaboom after the plane crashed into it. We lost American lives just so we could have some thing to go to war about, the french told us about even other countries told us of the plot but no one listen for they needed to go to war for the oil and to have revenge on Saddam

Originally posted by Queenicess
9-11 was known about long before it happen if you really look into and watch how the second tower fell and so on you will realize that there was a bomb inside as well A jet plane could not take it down as it did and there was a second kaboom after the plane crashed into it. We lost American lives just so we could have some thing to go to war about, the french told us about even other countries told us of the plot but no one listen for they needed to go to war for the oil and to have revenge on Saddam

Why did the US and UK need to go to war for oil instead of buying it in the normal way ? Please be specific.

reply to post by Alfie1


in my thoughts they did not want to spend the money it was tried many times it was denied for we were wanting to give to little for it. Then it also came with a bonus for the USA to get a bit more credit so they thought that they were would be big and bad and try to take control over there.

There has been much talk of what I just said so it is not just only my thoughts but many

Dont believe what the FBI tell you...Geeeeeez. They probably want to go after Hamas, that's why they are now getting the blame!