The Popular Mechanics fiasco has absolutely zero documentation of the crash site. Where is it DOCUMENTED that the wreckage was examined, inventoried and measured. that is how many bits were recovered, &or how much by weight, WHAT was found? how much of the aircraft was accounted for? A pix of a piece of sheet metal on the PENTAGON lawn doesn't prove anything.
ZERO EVIDENCE... just empty claims.... which no-one has taken seriously but <.0001% of scientific community
hundreds of witnesses saw the plane debris; witnesses saw the plane flying low as it was about to hit; Remains of most of the bodies found and identified;pics everywhere showing debris; voice data recorder and cockpit voice recorder were recovered... The evidence is OVERWHELMING, supporting flight 77 hit pentagon. What do you guys have? ZERO EVIDENCE. All you have are small coincidences, distorted facts, claims by truthers and questions about events you simply don't understand. but, you continue, on and on.
so you didn't read it. Surprise. They found the flight data recorder...as reported here. http://web.archive.org/web/20040526034459/http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3069699/ and http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/14/pentagon-fire.htm It was entered into evidence in a court. Are you saying that that is false?
Evidence for flight 77 hitting Pentagon: 1. Several eye witnesses saw the plane, flying unusually low, headed towards pentagon 2. Thousands of plane debris found on site, clearly from an AA aircraft (with AA colors & logo) 3. Flight data recorder and voice data recorder found on site 4. Most of the human remains found and a lot of them identified (some of the AA uniform of crew recovered) 5. Flight 77 was an actual flight and if it didn't hit pentagon, where did it go? This is all HARD FACTS and HARD EVIDENCE which is IRREFUTABLE. truther claims are nonsense, zero facts...
Where is this DOCUMENTED to have actually been verified by standard forensic tests? That is verification that "FLT77" was indeed the source of that wreckage, rather than said wreckage simply being a pile of scrap metal?
You can't produce it because the documentation doesn't exist! The airliners did not exist! the whole scene = FRAUD.
modern far-right is subtle. PNAC and t so on. the twin towers were obsolete, losing more than they gained. there's books about this written well before 2001. throughout the 90s they were deemed bad for business. they were privatized for the first time since they were built and insured against terrorism-related destruction weeks before 9/11. the insurance specified COMPLETE DESTRUCTION. The CIA itself including George Tenet stated that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 according to the best of their evidence. Too bad you didn't watch my video. I posted a thread about CIA senior Paul Pillar and other officials that encompass the State Department sharing his doubt. It was said live on TV.
and again, a post with ZERO EVIDENCE, just 'a hunch' or 'suspicion' we have OVERHLEMING EVIDENCE on our side, you guys have a lost of 'suspicions', 'inconsistencies', 'coincidences', 'hunches' etc... BUT ZEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERO EVIIIIIIIDENCE! not a single post in all these 09/11 threads contains any EVIDENCE of an inside job, do you guys realize that?
If you think it's normal for the CIA and the State Department to distrust the president on live TV, it's your choice. If you think it's perfectly sound for the head of the Secret Service air defense unit of the White House to state in front of a camera, in a documentary, that he watched UA93 on radar for 60 minutes and had no orders to do anything about it, the it's also your choice. If you want physical evidence, you have the fake crash site of UA93 as a leading example. An approximate sculpture by some ordinary explosive buried there just in case the plan goes off track and a crash site is handy to justify a missing plane... Obviously a fake crash site. There is no other like it in the history of crashed airliners.
first of all, i'm not going to even waste my time verifying these accounts but they may very will be taken out of context and a distortion of facts. In any event, i'll ASSUME what you state above is accurate. Even so, where is the evidence? big deal that someone in CIA or in state department distrusts the president? there is always is distrust. what does this prove? again, just a 'hunch' or 'suspicion'... and so what if someone from SS or some other intelligence agency observed flight 93 for 60 minutes without any orders to do anything? ordering a shoot down isn't an easy decision and who knows how factual your assertion is, or how distorted or out of context it is. where is the proof that it was a fake crash site? a what?sculpture by an explosive? WTF??? obviously a fake crash? says who? Truthers? there is no other like it in aviation history? says who? truthers?
If you think it's out of context then good job. Don't watch it. Keep up the good work. Keep preaching about truthers while keeping yourself informed in an exemplary fashion, knowing that a criminal investigation never starts from such leads, nor does it start from testimonies of people that are then correlated. It only starts from 'evidence'. What you call evidence is something you need to tell me about. Regarding the monitoring of UA93 for 60 minutes by the army and the intelligence... the most common excuse is that USA could not respond because of the unarmed jets which were on a military exercise. The common misconception here is that USA relays on jets alone to defend its territory. The main protection of the US homeland are the missile systems which at that point were already standing on decades of continuous improvement as the country just came out of the cold war, a time when USA feared USSR might even take electronic control of US systems, both civilian and military. And they knew exactly where all the planes were. There's video and sound evidence as well as the recorded display of the radar screen made available by NORAD. They knew exactly where all 4 jetliners were as soon as they went off course because computers that monitor the airliners at different levels of US power trigger an alarm as soon as they go off course. USA had all the means back then to intercept flying objects with different types of missiles at several mach. They had been expecting a simultaneous missile attack from enemy nuclear submarines for decades.
Why even bother joining a message board then, let alone, starting threads intended to argue with ideologically different people. Well, at least you can admit that you're a troll and only have the intention of wasting people's time.
And where exactly did I say that it was infallible? You are building a straw man based upon an irrelevance, while treating me like an idiot. Did you even bother to peruse the quantity in question? Simple test: compare the amount of material in support of the NIST paper to that which put about by AE911T and get back to me. You tried to introduce a false generalisation by innuendo to reinforce already irrational suspicions of the academic community, and that is a questionable tactic, in addition you assumed that I believed peer review to be infallible when I never mentioned any such thing. I stated that the papers produced by AE911T weren't subject to peer review and even though 'papers' was being generous, I fail to see how you could jump to such a conclusion that I believed peer review to be infallible. It seems to be more of a derail than an actual point.
you fail to present any evidence, PLEASE PRESENT EVIDENCE. AGAIN, just pure conjecture, 'hunch', 'suspicion' without any evidence of anything I can create all sorts of crazy theories using your tactics. I DON'T CARE about anything but evidence cause the easiest thing in the world is what truthers do - claim hard evidence is planted, fabricated, covered up and claim that coincidences, suspicious (or incompetent) behavior, unexplainable events ARE EVIDENCE. AGAIN, NO EVIDENCE...
resorting to ad hominem huh? one of the silliest posts in the forum on different levels now, go back and read my response. You see, my argument is that EVEN if what he said was factual, it STILL DOESN'T HOLD ANY WATER. So, i'm basically assuming that what he stated is factual (a big assumption) but go on to explain that even so, he fails to produce any evidence. So why waste my time fact checking his claims if my argument is that they are worthless anyway? they doesn't prove anything and it's still nonsense (suspicions, conjecture, false premise, wild conclusions and 0 evidence). makes sense? man the IQ around here, it's really something..
Some witnesses said they saw a 757 hit the Pentagon. Others say they saw a smaller plane. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=10632 This is consistent with an inside job as there would be some planted witnesses and some real ones telling conflicting stories. It was possible to stage the light poles. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=9632 This analysis shows the route of the 757 that flew over the Pentagon and landed at the airport behind it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGvXVzdlcQk Here's a summary of the video for those who don't have time to watch it. http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2170 The crash site is not consistent with a 757 having hit it. http://www.physics911.net/missingwings April Gallup - Was there a bomb in the Pentagon? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88JQL4esHFg There are also people who say they saw the plane flying away after the explosion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKbT9r-6IPQ This analysis of the frames from the video shows that the craft that was behind the box was too small to be a 757. http://www.bcrevolution.ca/911_part_iii.htm None of the parts recovered could be linked to flight 77 by serial number. http://physics911.net/georgenelson/ (excerpt) -------------------------------------------------------------- In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft and in most cases the precise cause of the accident. This is because every military and civilian passenger-carrying aircraft have many parts that are identified for safety of flight. That is, if any of the parts were to fail at any time during a flight, the failure would likely result in the catastrophic loss of aircraft and passengers. Consequently, these parts are individually controlled by a distinctive serial number and tracked by a records section of the maintenance operation and by another section called plans and scheduling. -------------------------------------------------------------- This video has the latests analyses of the Pentagon crash. September 11 -- The New Pearl Harbor (FULL) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DOnAn_PX6M (1:55:25 time mark) The proof is crushing. A 757 didn't hit the Pentagon.
again... NO EVIDENCE... just conjecture, suspicions etc.... when will any of you actually produce any evidence? btw, Scott.. 1. what happened to flight 77 and the passengers if it never hit pentagon? 2. What about the thousands of plane pieces in the pentagon, showing AA logo and colors? 3. What about the flight data recorder and voice cockpit recorder that were found at the pentagon? 4. What about the 150+ bodies that were recovered, most of them identified? THIS IS HARD IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE, Scotty..
I agree with the quote ( I wonder who it is from?) anyhow, the whole fiasco about hijacked airliners being used as weapons simply doesn't add up, the wreckage at the 4 sites was never properly investigated/documented, and therefore stands as either and indictment against the people who should have been doing their jobs, &or the fact that all 4 flights were totally bogus. The concept that at the Pentagon, an aircraft could have allegedly struck at the angle that it was said to have done, and only left minimal bits of wreckage on the Pentagon lawn + the fact that this wreckage was never inventoried & checked to confirm for certain that it was from the alleged "FLT77". The official story is a load of crap!
Some? There were eighty-five witness statements attesting to the fact that the plane struck the Pentagon. How many saw a missile? None.