top
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature

Physical and Mathematical analysis of Pentagon crash Part 3

by Gerard Holmgren (investigation77 [at] hotmail.com)
Let’s call the total distance from driver’s eyes to fuselage 118 ft. To make the maths easy, round it to 120. Sitting in the car, her eyes are about 4 ft off the ground, so the effective height of the plane from her eyeline is about 76 ft. Round this to 80. If you check the angle made by something which is 80 ft high and 120 ft distant, it’s approximately 30 degrees. When I sit in my car, a 30 degree angle from my eyes looks straight into the folded up sun visor. In other words, you can’t see something at this angle from a car. Of course, it’s a little different for each person, depending on their car, seat position and posture Her distances, as in the case of Wallace are subject to inaccuracy, but the point needs to be made that on the basis of these figures it would be impossible for her to see the fuselage, from that height and distance. The open sun roof wouldn’t help. The fuselage would be behind the section that joins the windscreen to the roof edge. Of course, with a moment to spare, one can change this by leaning forward, but its been established that she probably has about 1/4 of a second to sight the small section of the windows and AA colour scheme that isn't obscured by the wing. Because of the many variables, we can’t state with certainty that the fuselage was hidden from her vision, but when taken at face value, it appears to be impossible for her to have seen it.
And now, the encore. The piece of plane that found it’s way into her back seat. If you’ve checked the link, you will have seen the photo of it, and will unreservedly agree that it is definitely, without doubt, unequivocably a piece of - ??? - a piece of whatever they tell us it is. It’s turned up at the Smithsonian museum, in a little patriotic box, which apparently proves that it must have once been part of a 757. And we know that it was found in Penny’s back seat. We have absolute proof of that because she told us so. Penny - as one of the few people on Earth who has actually witnessed a 125 ft solid object move through another solid object without leaving a 125 ft hole - and also with the help of some adrenalin, has performed the visual equivalent of jumping over a 100 ft fence, is not a person who’s word can be doubted.
So this piece of the plane which had just been flung 100 yards out of a violent explosion, with temperatures orders of magnitude above 700 degrees C, just a few seconds before, lobbed into Penny’s back seat, 1 to 2 feet behind her head, so gently and quietly that she didn’t even notice it - which is strange for a person who was in a state of mind that enabled her take in tiny details in 30 ms increments. Furthermore, the piece of plane had miraculously cooled down during it’s 100 yard journey, to the extent that nothing caught fire, or even singed, or made a burning smell in the back seat. It just sat there quietly like a good little piece of plane should, until she was ready to find it and put it in the little patriotic box.

SUMMARY

It is physically impossible for all of the plane to have entered the crash site, and this is backed by solid mathematical proof.

There is no evidence outside the building of wreckage to account for the part of the plane which cannot have entered the crash site.

There is no evidence of identifiable wreckage inside the crash site.

Cremation of the plane was unprecedented in aviation history and physically impossible.

Even could such cremation have been possible, it is impossible in the context of the modest damage to the wall.

The hole in the back of the third ring cannot be explained by any means other than a missile.

Fake wreckage has been designed and planted with the express purpose of impersonating the American Airlines colour scheme.

Eyewitness evidence is inconclusive and fabricated eyewitness reports have been presented to try to shore up the official story.

Claims that DNA testing identified 63 of the 64 people on board, are mutually exclusive with claims that the plane was cremated, and with the official line on the WTC victims and the Bali bomb victims.

So if it didn’t hit the Pentagon, what happened to AA 77 and the passengers? An important question, but it’s irrelevant to the argument of whether it hit the Pentagon. By way of analogy, imagine a murder prosecution where the defence has presented an overwhelmingly strong case - more than just reasonable doubt - solid proof that the accused cannot possibly have committed the crime. But then the prosecution plays it’s trump card.
“ But if your client did not commit the crime, then who did? “
The defence answers that it has no idea. Everyone would agree that a guilty verdict on this basis, would be an outrageous lapse of logic. Yet this is precisely the same lapse of logic as suggesting that a lack of alternative explanation for what happened to the plane and the passengers is in any way relevant to the question of whether it hit the Pentagon. The government knows what happened. Investigators have to work it out bit by bit. The full truth will emerge in time, if a methodical, rational, step by step approach is persevered with.

I can see one good reason to cling to the belief that AA 77 hit the pentagon. The unshakable faith that the govt would not - could not lie to us. A faith so strong that the laws that laws of physics and motion suspend themselves in order to maintain it. A faith so strong that even the government admitting that it lies cannot overturn it. This statement from Solicitor General Olsen.

http://old.smh.com.au/news/0203/20/world/world10.html

[[ "It's easy to imagine an infinite number of situations where the government might legitimately give out false information," the Solicitor-General, Theodore Olson, told the court on Monday.
"It's an unfortunate reality that the issuance of incomplete information and even misinformation by government may sometimes be perceived as necessary to protect vital interests." ]]

Of course, he could be lying ...
pentagon_757_crash.jpgy86449.jpg
For "where's the evidence?" buffs:

New simulation shows 9/11 Pentagon plane crash with scientific detail

WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. – Engineers, computer scientists and graphics
technology experts at Purdue University have created the first
publicly available simulation that uses scientific principles to
study in detail what theoretically happened when the Boeing 757
crashed into the Pentagon last Sept. 11.

Researchers said the simulation could be used as a tool for designing
critical buildings – such as hospitals and fire stations – to
withstand terrorist attacks.

The simulation merges a realistic-looking visualization of the
airliner approaching the building with a technical, science-based
animation of the plane crashing into the structure.

"This is going to be a tremendous asset," said Mete Sozen, Purdue's
Kettelhut Distinguished Professor of Structural Engineering.
"Eventually, I hope this will be expanded into a model that we can
use to help design structures to resist severe impact loads.

"Using this simulation I can do the so-called 'what-if' study,
testing hypothetical scenarios before actually building a structure."

The simulation can be recorded on a DVD and played on an ordinary
personal computer.

The software tool is unusual because it uses principles of physics to
simulate how a plane's huge mass of fuel and cargo impacts a
building. The plane's structure caused relatively little damage, and
the explosion and fire that resulted from the crash also are not
likely to have been dominant factors in the disaster, Sozen said.

The model indicates the most critical effects were from the mass
moving at high velocity.

"At that speed, the plane itself is like a sausage skin," Sozen said.
"It doesn't have much strength and virtually crumbles on impact."

But the combined mass of everything inside the plane – particularly
the large amount of fuel onboard – can be likened to a huge river
crashing into the building.

The simulation deals specifically with steel-reinforced concrete
buildings, as opposed to skyscrapers like the World Trade Center's
twin towers, in which structural steel provided the required strength
and stiffness. Reinforced concrete is inherently fire resistant,
unlike structural steel, which is vulnerable to fire and must undergo
special fireproofing.

"Because the structural skeleton of the Pentagon had a high level of
toughness, it was able to absorb much of the kinetic energy from the
impact," said Christoph M. Hoffmann, a professor in the Department of
Computer Sciences and at Purdue's Computing Research Institute.

Sozen created a mathematical model of reinforced concrete columns.
The model was then used as a starting point to produce the
simulation.

Continued at: http://news.uns.purdue.edu/hp/Sozen.Pentagon.html

Watch the simulations here:
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/
by gerard holmgren
Thats all conclusion and no data. It doesn't answer or even acknowledge any of any of the calculations in the above article.
To pick just a few of the anomalies:
If the wall was so tough that it resisted the 100 ton fuselage, how did the 6 ton engine burst through 3 rings?
How did the engine esxcape cremation when the rest of the plane was allegedly vapourized?
And if they've changed their story about that being an engine, what caused the missile hole at the back of the third ring ?
The "sausage" theory is refuted by the hundreds of crash photos linked in the article.
It still doesn't explain what happened to the wreckage afterwards. Cremation was physically impossible, on several grounds, as demonstrated at length in the article.
What happened to the wreckage which never entered the impact zone? (something significantly more than a length of 25 ft of at least one wing.)
If the impossible cremation of the plane did take place, then the alleged DNA testing of the occupants is impossible. etc etc.
What's next, plastercine wings? The plane was liquified by a freak sonic vibration set up by the collision? The jet fuel leaked out and dissolved the wreckage into gas?
You guys obviously all failed physics but excelled at at creative writing.
if you were serious about this you would methodically go through each piece of data in the article and refute it point by point, the same way that the article was constructed.
You won't because you can't.
by Sky King
"You guys obviously all failed physics but excelled at at creative writing.
if you were serious about this you would methodically go through each piece of data in the article and refute it point by point, the same way that the article was constructed.

"You won't because you can't."


I guess you haven't read all the threads on this subject. The original poster was thoeoughly refuted on known evidence (e.g., the credible and available testimony of dozens of witnesses; the radar data). But it is not up to anyone to refute the post. It is up to the poster to support his argument. In fact, the poster did not present any evidence to support his conclusion.

What he did was to commit a classic fallacy, one that is used often to support conspiracy theories, and one that unsuspecting people opften fall for. This is such a case.

What the original poster did was to "argue from ignorance." His entire argument is that a supposed lack of evidence constitutes evidence. The objective is to shift the burden of proof from the person making the claim to someone else. (See "Attacking Faulty Reasoning", ISBN 0-534-55133-5)

The original poster comes to unsupported conclusions ("The hole in the back of the third ring cannot be explained by any means other than a missile. Fake wreckage has been designed and planted with the express purpose of impersonating the American Airlines colour scheme") based on the claim that a supposed lack of evidence of wreakage of a 757 constitutes evidence. When you look closely at his arguments, even you will see how faulty it is.

We might ask, for instance, what actually happened with AA77, a an American Airlines 757 with known human beings aboard. Shall we deny that the flight ever existed? Perhaps you can shed some light on where we might find it if it didn't crash into the Pentagon?

In short, answer this question: does the supposed lack of evidence of a 757 hitting the Pentagon constitute evidence that a 757 did not the Pentagaon?

As for the Purdue study, you are free to call them up and ask them about their study. I'll be curious about your final conclusion about this matter.



by Gerard Holmgren
You've still dodged every fact, figure, calculation and point by point step of the article. I thought you'd be salivating at the prospect of your inevitable victory.
So let's start right now. One point at a time. A minimum of something greater than 25 ft of at least one wing of the alleged 757 passed outside the impact zone. Your alternative calculation ?
by matthew
"What the original poster did was to "argue from ignorance." His entire argument is that a supposed lack of evidence constitutes evidence. The objective is to shift the burden of proof from the person making the claim to someone else. (See "Attacking Faulty Reasoning", ISBN 0-534-55133-5)"

talk about "faulty reasoning." actually sky king, you're the one "arguing from ignorance."

the CLAIM here, is a "757 hit the pentagon." the BURDON OF PROOF falls on the shoulders of those that support this claim, like yourself apparantly. gerard points out evidence refuting this claim and all you do in response is try to create a double-talk smoke screen instead of addressing the very reasonable points he's made.

"We might ask, for instance, what actually happened with AA77, a an American Airlines 757 with known human beings aboard. Shall we deny that the flight ever existed? Perhaps you can shed some light on where we might find it if it didn't crash into the Pentagon?"

perhaps he might, but he doesn't have to to defend his argument. the argument is no evidence that flight AA77 hit the pentagon. c'mon man. stop with the bad logic. is your best argument the that SOMETHING must have hit the pentagon, and SOMETHING must have happened to flight AA77, therefore AA77 MUST have collided into the pentagon?
by 555
This is mumbo-jumbo. There were several people interviewed by TV, radio, magazines, and newspapers who were on the freeway right next to the Pentagon who saw the plane hit and reported the whole sequence. Too many eyewitnesses to deny. There are people who believe eyewitnesses when they confirm what they believe anyway and will disbelieve that same eyewitness if it doesn't match their preconceived beliefs. They dwell in droves here. These people are not worth considering, and outside their own little world where they regard themselves as legitimate, the rest of us don't.
by brian
there were also 'eyewitnesses' who said the plane hit the lawn. But pictures show an undamaged lawn.
by Sky King
"Point by point by Gerard Holmgren • Thursday October 31, 2002 at
07:36 AM"

"You've still dodged every fact, figure, calculation and point by
point step of the article."

If you actually read what I wrote, I was quite clear that you are
"arguing from ignorance." It is up to you to support your conclusions
with facts and present evidence for all that must then derive from
your conclusions. Theories from an untrained eye making invalid
assumptions, reasoning that a lack of evidence constitutes evidence,
and not considering alternative views nor the existing credible evidence
that exists does not cut the mustard. Sorry.

"I thought you'd be salivating at the prospect of your inevitable
victory."

Pointing out what you need to do (re-look at your entire reasoning
with the benefit of having your error in reasoning pointed out above)
is just common courtesy. You may need a victory; I don't.

"So let's start right now. One point at a time."

OK, I guess I'll have to help you out to quickly settle this matter.

"A minimum of something greater than 25 ft of at least one wing of
the alleged 757 passed outside the impact zone. Your alternative
calculation ?"

See Purdue simulation above.

But if scientific modeling is not satisfactory to you but amateur
speculation is, I can help you out. Before addressing it, let me
rephrase your question in standard form using your figures given what
you posted to make sure I understand you correctly:

Since the wingspan of a 757 is about 125 ft, and the hole probably
was 40 ft wide, but no greater than 65 ft wide, and 77 feet high, and
there is no way 125 ft wings can fit through a 65 ft hole, and the
wing tips would have to be sheared off, and thus wreakage of the wing
tips would have to be outside the Pentagon, and "no evidence exists
of any such wreakage, and there is no reason why it should not have
been found and presented if it existed," therefore a 757 could not
have crashed into the Pentagon.

Let me know if this is a correct reading before I proceed.

And also, would you refute the following eyewitness testimony before
I proceed further:
http://www.criticalthrash.com/terror/identification.html

and:

"I was there. I saw it. That is my entire rebuttal."

- James S. Robbins, a national-security analyst & NRO contributor
http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins040902.asp


by Sky King
"argue from ignorance by matthew • Thursday October 31, 2002 at 01:02
PM"

>>"What the original poster did was to "argue from ignorance." His
>>entire argument is that a supposed lack of evidence constitutes
>>evidence. The objective is to shift the burden of proof from the
>>person making the claim to someone else. (See "Attacking Faulty
>>Reasoning", ISBN 0-534-55133-5)"

"talk about "faulty reasoning." actually sky king, you're the one
'arguing from ignorance.'"

Incorrect. I did not make the claim that a 757 could not have hit the
Pentagon. He did. He has to support it.

"the CLAIM here, is a "757 hit the pentagon." the BURDON OF PROOF
alls on the shoulders of those that support this claim, like
yourself apparantly."

Incorrect. We already know that a 757 hit the Pentagon WITHOUT even
looking at his so-called "evidence."

"gerard points out evidence refuting this claim and all you do in
response is try to create a double-talk smoke screen instead of
addressing the very reasonable points he's made."

Reasonable? You should take a course in logic and get your hands on
the book I recommended to Gerard.

If you had read correctly you would have understood that he is
claiming that the 757 could not have hit the Pentagon BECAUSE the
physical evidence that EXISTS cannot POSSIBLY support a 757 crash AND
the LACK of some evidence MUST mean that a 757 could not have been
the offending projectile. In so doing he is committing several errors
in reasoning, 1) that which I pointed out, his claim that a LACK of
evidence constitutes EVIDENCE to support his position, 2) his refusal
to consider OTHER possibilities for the LIMITED things he SEES, 3) to
ASSUME there can not be other reasons OTHER than the one he favors,
and so on. It is not up to me to disprove what he has NOT been able to
demonstrate. It is up to him to DEMONSTRATE that he has eliminated
every possible reason that it could not be the 757 in HIS claim.

He has neither done that nor countered the evidence that DOES exist.

>>"We might ask, for instance, what actually happened with AA77, a an
>>American Airlines 757 with known human beings aboard. Shall we deny
>>that the flight ever existed? Perhaps you can shed some light on
>>where we might find it if it didn't crash into the Pentagon?"

"perhaps he might, but he doesn't have to to defend his argument."

"Oh, yes he does! Anyone making a claim as he has done MUST be able to
defend it. Those are the rules of argumentation."

"the argument is no evidence that flight AA77 hit the pentagon. c'mon
man. stop with the bad logic. is your best argument the that
SOMETHING must have hit the pentagon, and SOMETHING must have
happened to flight AA77, therefore AA77 MUST have collided into the
pentagon?"

Lots of laughs! He is the one claiming it did NOT hit the Pentagon.
Not only must he present an argument about what happened to it AND
the people on board, he must present evidence negating ALL of the
eyewitness testimony to the crash and the rescue workers and the
firemen and the Red Cross workers, and present evidence of a missle
attack, how "fake" evidence was planted, and everything that DERIVES
from his conclusions.

Sorry, all of the responsibility rests on Gerard's shoulders.
by Gerard Holmgren
A section of at least one wing, significantly more than 25 ft long never entered the impact zone.
Still waiting for your alternative calculation. Purdue doesn't address the problem as far as I could see.
Did all of the plane enter the impact zone? Yes or no?
by Gerard Holmgren
[[And also, would you refute the following eyewitness testimony before
I proceed further:
http://www.criticalthrash.com/terror/identification.html ]]

That has already been done.
An entire chapter was devoted to eyewitnesses. and that chapter linked to another article totally dedicated to that subject, which specifically examined the witnesses cited on that page - plus more. Read more carefully.
by .
What've I been telling you all along? These idiots who question whether or not a plane hit the Pentagon are just like those nuts who would never believe that man landed on the moon. Lo and behold, what do I run across but this in The Miami Herald.

"More than 33 years after the United States landed men on the moon, NASA is spending more than $15,000 to convince people that it really did happen and that the space agency didn't make it all up." NASA has "hired James Oberg, a Houston-based former aerospace engineer and award-winning author of 10 books on space, to confront skeptics point by point." Polls show some 11% of Americans believe the moon landing was a hoax.

Well, good luck to NASA, but I suspect this is money down the drain. Trying to persuade people to give up an idée fixe is generally an exercise in futility, and by looking around we can all know this firsthand. I mean, you still got Americans who think George W. Bush STOLE the 2000 election.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/4400099.htm

by Gerard Holmgren
And the 25 ft plus of wing, that didn't fit into the impact zone?
by Sky King
You missed this part of my post, Gerard. Please respond.

"Before addressing it, let me
rephrase your question in standard form using your figures given what
you posted to make sure I understand you correctly:

"Since the wingspan of a 757 is about 125 ft, and the hole probably
was 40 ft wide, but no greater than 65 ft wide, and 77 feet high, and
there is no way 125 ft wings can fit through a 65 ft hole, and the
wing tips would have to be sheared off, and thus wreakage of the wing
tips would have to be outside the Pentagon, and "no evidence exists
of any such wreakage, and there is no reason why it should not have
been found and presented if it existed," therefore a 757 could not
have crashed into the Pentagon. "

"Let me know if this is a correct reading before I proceed. "

by matthew
"Lots of laughs! He is the one claiming it did NOT hit the Pentagon. Not only must he present an argument about what happened to it AND the people on board..."

no he musn't. he doesn't have to make an argument about what DID happened to that plane and its passengers, and still make an argument that what DIDN'T HAPPEN to it.

so by trying to force that on him as terms for presenting his argument which refutes the story that a commercial passenger jet was what hit the pentagon, you either just can't understand that logic or are consciously attempting to create a smokescreen to avoid his thesis.

either way your position is undermined.
by Sky King
"no he doesn't
by matthew • Friday November 01, 2002 at 08:50 AM"

>"Lots of laughs! He is the one claiming it did NOT hit the Pentagon. Not only must he present an argument about what happened to it AND the people on board..."

"no he musn't. he doesn't have to make an argument about what DID happened to that plane and its passengers."

He doesn't have to do anything. Instead, we'll let you explain to us what happened to AA 77 and its passengers. And if you say you don't know and it is irrelevant to Gerard's argument, then we'll know for sure you haven't taken your Logic lessons.

And, while you're at it, you'll have to shoot down the Purdue simulation, too.

That's all just for starters.



by Gerard Holmgren
It was not the "wing tips that were sheared off "
It was a section of at least one wing, more than 25 ft long, and possibly sections from both wings - that NEVER ENTERERED the impact zone. The unknown variables which affect the exact amount are - the angle of wing tilt, the distance of the lower wing from the ground (if tilted) the approach angle of the fuselage, and the actual size of the original hole. The methodology for calculating this was clearly explained early in section 3, so go back and read that part again if you have to, but the bottom line is that something significantly MORE than 25 ft of wing never entered the impact zone. So stop stalling and provide your alternative assumptions, methodology and calculations if you have any.
by Sky King
"What you missed Sky King by Gerard Holmgren • Friday November 01,
2002 at 02:07 PM

"It was not the "wing tips that were sheared off"

OK, so I restated your position incorrectly which is the reason I
want it clarified. So, again restated in standard form, does this
accurately describe your position:

"Since the wingspan of a 757 is about 125 ft, and the hole probably
was 40 ft wide, but no greater than 65 ft wide, and 77 feet high, and
there is no way 125 ft wings can fit through a 65 ft hole, and a
section of at least one wing more than 25ft long, and possibly
sections from both wings, never entered the impact zones, and thus
said wreakage should have been found, and "no evidence exists of any
such wreakage, and there is no reason why it should not have been
found and presented if it existed," therefore a 757 could not have
crashed into the Pentagon."

Also, could you provide your background in physics, engineering, or
air disaster investigations. Do you have credentials in these areas
or is strictly an amateur endeavor?

Also, have you submitted your paper for review by any recognized
authority in physics, engineering, or air disasters? If not, do you
intend to?

by guide
Hunt the Boeing!
From the mailbag...

Dear Guide:

Got this URL forwarded to me from a friend. It's a series of pictures that "shows" that a truck full of explosives, rather than a plane, caused damage to the Pentagon on Sept. 11. I'm sending it on to you for examination:

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm



Dear Reader:

"Hunt the Boeing!" is a provocative display of smoke and mirrors, but there's little else to recommend the site. Its authors present a fraction of the available evidence in a highly selective, distorted, titillating way, proving absolutely nothi a ng — 15a0 except, perhaps, that there's always room for another conspiracy theory.

While making few explicit allegations, the authors argue, in effect, that based on photographic and physical evidence, the damage to the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 could not have been caused by a crashing jetliner, contrary to the official and overwhelmingly accepted explanation.

The argument is weak. For starters, it conveniently ignores some of the most obvious, compelling evidence. For example:

Eyewitness testimony of bystanders who saw and/or heard American Airlines Flight 77 approach and collide with the Pentagon

The recovery of both black boxes belonging to the Boeing 757 from the Pentagon wreckage

The recovery and identification of the remains at the crash site of all but one of the people known to be aboard Flight 77

Of course, the evasion of bedrock evidence is standard fare for conspiracy theorists. If pressed they would doubtless claim that all of the above must have been planted or manufactured, but they can't even prove such a claim plausible, let alone true beyond a reasonable doubt.

Eschewing plain facts and common sense, they ask us to focus instead on misleadingly posed condundrums such as the following:

Question: "Can you explain how a Boeing 757-200, weighing nearly 100 tons and travelling at a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour only damaged the outside of the Pentagon?"

Answer: It didn't only damage the outside. Structural damage extended at least 150 feet inside, well into the third ("C") ring of the building.


Question: "Can you explain how a Boeing 14.9 yards high, 51.7 yards long, with a wingspan of 41.6 yards and a cockpit 3.8 yards high, could crash into just the ground floor of this building?"

Answer: It didn't just crash into the ground floor. According to official statements and news reports, it took out both the first and second floors on impact.


Question: "Can you find debris of a Boeing 757-200 in this photograph?"

Answer: No, but we can in this one taken by an Associated Press photographer. Bear in mind, eyewitnesses say the Boeing 757 virtually disintegrated when it struck the reinforced wall of the building. Given that, and the tremendous forward momentum of the aircraft on impact, the assumption that a significant amount of debris ought to be visible in front of the Pentagon wouldn't seem justified.

According to a CNN article published the day after the attack, Michael Tamillow, a battalion chief of the Fairfax County, Virginia Fire Department, reported that parts of the Boeing 757 fuselage had indeed been recovered from the wreckage by FBI investigators (the same team that later found the black boxes). "No large pieces apparently survived," the article said.

One visitor who surveyed the crash site a few days later, Representative Judy Biggert of Illinois, told reporters she saw remnants of the jetliner: "There was a seat from a plane," she said, "there was part of the tail and then there was a part of green metal, I could not tell what it was, a part of the outside of the plane." (Chicago Sun-Times, 16 Sep, 2001)

(For a more detailed consideration of these and further "Hunt the Boeing" puzzles, please read the excellent commentary by engineer Paul Boutin and astrophysicist Patrick Di Justo, Web-posted on March 14.)

You're no doubt wondering who's behind these flights of fancy and what, exactly, they're driving at. Well, according to the French newspaper Le Monde, the culprit is Thierry Meyssan, well-known leftist radical and president of the Voltaire Network, a controversial site devoted to "the fight for freedom and secularity." His son, Raphaël Meyssan, is credited as the Webmaster of both the Voltaire Network and Utopian Asylum, which, uncoincidentally, hosts "Hunt the Boeing!"

What are they trying to prove? That the attacks of September 11 were perpetrated not by foreign terrorists, but by the U.S. government upon its own citizens — a conspiracy theory in the grand tradition.

To quote the late Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

So far we haven't seen any proof at all.


Sources and further reading:

Hunt the Boeing!
The original site on Asile.org
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs%5Fen.htm

'Hunt the Boeing' Answers
Debunked by Paul Boutin and Patrick Di Justo
http://paulboutin.weblogger.com/2002/03/14

'Hunt the Boeing!'
Debunked by the Urban Legends Reference Pages
http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

Attentat contre le Pentagone, enfin du scientifique!
Debunked by HoaxBuster.com (in French)
http://www.hoaxbuster.com/hdossier/pentagone/pentagone.html

Un avion a bel et bien frappé le Pentagone
From Le Monde, 20 March 2002 (in French)
http://www.lemonde.fr/article/0%2C5987%2C3236%2D%2D267442%2D%2C00.html

Internet véhicule une rumeur extravagante sur le 11 septembre
From Le Monde, 20 March 2002 (in French)
http://www.lemonde.fr/article/0%2C5987%2C3236%2D%2D267439%2D%2C00.html

No Hope of Finding More Survivors at Pentagon
From CNN, 12 Sep 2001
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/12/pentagon.terrorism/

Images Show September 11 Pentagon Crash
From CNN, 8 March 2002
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/03/07/gen.pentagon.pictures/index.html

Countdown to Doom on Flight 77
From The Age, 13 Sep 2001
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/03/07/gen.pentagon.pictures/index.html

Interactive Look at Pentagon Attack
From USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/gpentagon/frame.htm

The Battle-Scarred Pentagon
From Jane's Information Group, 13 Sep 2001
http://www.janes.com/security/international%5Fsecurity/news/misc/janes010913%5F1%5Fn.shtml

Rebuilding the Pentagon
Graphics showing structural damage caused by Flight 77, from the Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp%2Dsrv/nation/graphics/attack/pentagon%5F7.html

Experts ID 184 Pentagon Fatalities
From the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology
http://www.armymedicine.army.mil/armymed/news/releases/afip.htm

The Pentagon: Facts & Figures
Offical Pentagon statistics
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pentagon/facts.html
by Gerard
I didn't say that the original was 40 ft wide, so don't try to put that into my mouth. I said that it was difficult to determine but probably less than 20. The final hole created AFTER the subsequent collapse is 65 ft wide.
And you've also twisted the leap from one point to the entire conclusion. The conclusion - now read carefully this time - because there's a limit to how long I'll humour this kind of stalling - the conclusion to be drawn from the above data concercing the dimensions of the hole and the plane is that a section of wing - whether from one or two wings - significantly greater than 25 ft , never entered the impact zone. The conclusion that this leads to is that if one is to still postualte a 757 in the face of this data, one must postulate that the missing wreckage was destroyed beyond evidence of its existence, in an explosion. The explosion question then needs to be examined seperately.
BTW, you clearly haven't understrood the most basic parameters of the article. (Or perhaps you're just pretending not to undersatnd them )Why are you so vociferously denouncing a mathematical model which you claim not to have understood?
This is junior high school geometry Sky King. All you have to do is calulate the minimum hoizontal width that a 125 ft line could fit in to, while not being tilted at such an angle such to raise its height to more than 77 ft.
The answer is 96 ft . So you need a 96 ft wide ORIGINAL impact hole in order to not have any wingspan protruding above the building. Or calculated in reverse, the minimum height that a 125 ft angled line will create if fitted into a 65 ft width is 96 ft, meaning that the wing protruded 19 ft above the building, extending 14 ft wide of the impact zone. The length of wing which fits into this is 25 ft.
And remember this is assuming:
90 degree fuselage angle
lower wing tip touching the ground
original hole 65 ft wide.

Now, Sky King, if you failed junoir high school geometry, just tell us. That's OK, I'm sure you're good at something else, but if you cant understand these simple mathematical concepts, then show some respect by not arguing out of your depth.
If you genuinely don't understand , I'll tell you how to construct your own practical model that will prove it to you.
Cut yourself a cardbaord model of 757 dimensions. 155 mm long, crossed at 90 degrees with a 125 mm length. Build youself a cardboard rectangular box 65 mm wide by 65 mm deep by 77 mm high.
And then try to figure out a way to fit the other model inside it. So go away and play with that for a few months. When you're finally ready to come back and concede that its physically impossible, we can work on the explosion question.
by Meet a Sozen
Why not address you brilliant questions to someone with a REAL degree in engineering?

Mete A. Sozen - Kettelhut Distinguished Professor of Civil Engineering
Purdue University, School of Civil Engineering
1284 Civil Engineering Building
West Lafayette, Indiana 47907-1284
Phone: (765) 494-2188
Fax: (765) 496-2378
Email: sozen [at] ecn.purdue.edu

Education
Ph.D., University of Illinois, 1957
M.S.C.E., University of Illinois, 1952
B.S.C.E., Robert College, Turkey, 1951

http://ce.http://www.ecn.purdue.edu/CE/People/Faculty/facpage.cgi?login=sozen
----------------------------------------------------------------

Purdue News
September 10, 2002

New simulation shows 9/11 plane crash with scientific detail

WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. – Engineers, computer scientists and graphics technology experts at Purdue University have created the first publicly available simulation that uses scientific principles to study in detail what theoretically happened when the Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon last Sept. 11.

Researchers said the simulation could be used as a tool for designing critical buildings – such as hospitals and fire stations – to withstand terrorist attacks.

The simulation merges a realistic-looking visualization of the airliner approaching the building with a technical, science-based animation of the plane crashing into the structure.

"This is going to be a tremendous asset," said Mete Sozen, Purdue's Kettelhut Distinguished Professor of Structural Engineering. "Eventually, I hope this will be expanded into a model that we can use to help design structures to resist severe impact loads....

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html

----------------------------------------------------------------
September 11 Pentagon Attack Simulations
Using LS-Dyna

Why?
If any good can come from the events of September 11, it would be to understand in detail what damage occurred, how it occurred, and why it occurred. Then, we should be able to create superior structures that will protect life. By simulating the chilling sequence of events, in this detail, we are able to fashion tools that help decision makers in the future to explore potential disasters before they happen.

Problem Statement
Simulate as faithfully as possible the effects of crashing an air frame loaded with fuel (simulating a Boeing 757) into a reinforced concrete frame similar to the one supporting the Pentagon building. In particular, model the columns to have properties reproducing the behavior of spirally reinforced columns including the difference in material response of the concrete within and outside the spiral reinforcement.

Purpose of the Effort
Use the physically correct simulation results as input to animations and visualizations to produce a vivid reenactment of the impact of the aircraft on the Pentagon building and provide the larger team with the necessary data to construct these using 3D Studio Max, AutoCAD, and research tools....

6. IBM Regatta detailed model
----------------------------------------
1 million nodes
68 hours rendering time
0.25 seconds real-world time
Low-speed Replay http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/image1/10sep02slow.gif

see more >> http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/

----------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE TO JOURNALISTS: Video b-roll of the simulation also is available by contacting Jesica Webb, Purdue News Service marketing coordinator, at (765) 494-2079, (765) 423-7326 (pager), jwebb [at] purdue.edu.
by Sky King
"Junoir high scholl geometry, Sky King by Gerard • Friday November
01, 2002 at 04:18 PM

"I didn't say that the original was 40 ft wide, so don't try to put
that into my mouth."

Yours is a most curious response, Gerard. I'm not quite sure why you
have become so defensive about me trying to clarify what your
position is. Did I not ASK you to clarify MY interpretation of your
thesis? Curious, indeed.

"I said that it was difficult to determine but probably less than
20."

OK, thanks. I'll substitute "less than 20" where I had said "
probably was 40 ft wide" and eliminate "but no greater than 65 ft
wide" altogether.

"And you've also twisted the leap from one point to the entire
conclusion. The conclusion - now read carefully this time - because
there's a limit to how long I'll humour this kind of stalling -"

Stalling? I'm asking you to make sure I have interpreted your argument
correctly? Don't you want to make sure I characterize your argument
correctly?

"...the conclusion to be drawn from the above data concercing the
dimensions of the hole and the plane is that a section of wing -
whether from one or two wings - significantly greater than 25 ft ,
never entered the impact zone. The conclusion that this leads to is
that if one is to still postualte a 757 in the face of this data,
one must postulate that the missing wreckage was destroyed beyond
evidence of its existence, in an explosion."

Let me get this straight. IF a 757 hit the Pentagon and the hole
(20ft?) is not large enough to accomodate a 757, and there is no
wreakage of parts of wings that could not have fit through the
existing (20ft?) hole, therefore the wreakage one would expect to
have been left of parts of the wing(s), since said wreakage could
not have entered the impact zone, must have been incinerated?

"Why are you so vociferously denouncing a mathematical model which
you claim not to have understood?"

Where do I do that? What mathematical model?

"Now, Sky King, if you failed junoir high school geometry, just tell
us."

Actually, I'm proud to say I excelled in geometry. Amongst other
things. But my accomplishments are irrelevant to the conversation.
But what is relevant is physics, is it not? I'm good at that too.
And you?

"I'm sure you're good at something else, but if you cant understand
these simple mathematical concepts, then show some respect by not
arguing out of your depth."

Let's analyze that. I ask you a question to clarify your position
and you respond defensively that I am arguing out of my depth and
not, in fact, asking the question that is on record here of me
having asked. Curious. Are you nervous about your "evidence" or
something, Gerard?

"Cut yourself a cardbaord model of 757 dimensions. 155 mm long,
crossed at 90 degrees with a 125 mm length. Build youself a
cardboard rectangular box 65 mm wide by 65 mm deep by 77 mm high.
And then try to figure out a way to fit the other model inside it.
So go away and play with that for a few months. When you're finally
ready to come back and concede that its physically impossible, we
can work on the explosion question."

I will readily concede that fitting such a cardboard model of a 757
through the hole of another cardboard of the dimensions you specify
won't work. And I don't even have to build one or think about it for
more than a few nanoseconds.

But, dear Gerard, will you concede that we actually in the real
world? That, after all, is the question you are avoiding.

I also note, with interest, that you have not answered my most
important questions. Please do so now so we can proceed with youir
"evidence."

I repeat: Also, could you provide your background in physics,
engineering, or air disaster investigations. Do you have credentials
in these areas or is strictly an amateur endeavor?

Also, have you submitted your paper for review by any recognized
authority in physics, engineering, or air disasters? If not, do you
intend to?

Once I have your answers, I'll rephrase your argument in standard
form.

We haver a lot to cover here, including your evasion of the Purdue
simulation data.

by gerard Holmgren
Sky King refuses to admit that an object cannot fit through a hole smaller than itself. No amount of twisting ,turning , wriggling or smoke and mirrors double talk can conceal this. The assumptions, methodology, calcualtions and resultant logic chain in the article are clearly spelled out, but Sky King continues to pretend that he does niot understand.Because Sky King knows that there is no rational rebuttal to it, he continues to try distract from the core argument.
This debate has passed its use by date.
Build yourself a full scale model if you want, Sky King, you'll discover that it delivers the same result as a small scale model.
Over and out. Doubtless you'll make sure that you have the last word. go for it!
With spit, and a great deal of patience, the elephant deflowered the flea.
by gerard
[[Let me get this straight. IF a 757 hit the Pentagon and the hole
(20ft?) is not large enough to accomodate a 757, and there is no
wreakage of parts of wings that could not have fit through the
existing (20ft?) hole, therefore the wreakage one would expect to
have been left of parts of the wing(s), since said wreakage could
not have entered the impact zone, must have been incinerated? ]]

Yes! (With one qualification- IF you can handle it without having to start all over again) The conclusion remains valid, even assuming a 65 ft hole, which we know to be significantly larger than the original hole.

[[ I will readily concede that fitting such a cardboard model of a 757
through the hole of another cardboard of the dimensions you specify
won't work. And I don't even have to build one or think about it for
more than a few nanoseconds.

But, dear Gerard, will you concede that we actually in the real
world? ]]

Interesting. You think that a small scale model is not part of the real word ? It's subject to different laws of geometry? Lets get this straight. A 155mm long object crossed at 90 degrees by a section measuring 125 mm will not fit into a box 65mm by 65mm by 77 mm. You concede this? But then you think that if we change the measurement to ft instread of mm, that now it will fit ?
Is that what you're saying? Yes or no?

I've written an article. You say that the article is crap. And yet you've pretended to have great difficulty understanding what the argument is. If you were arguing honestly, you would have asked for these clarifications BEFORE you denounced it as crap. An email contact was provided.This clearly indicates that you have a preconceived determination to disagree. The truth of course, is that you understand the argument perfectly well, but pretend not to, to try to buy time to think up counter-spin with a superficial veneer of rationality.

Its basic. Either the wreckage exists or it doesn't. If it doesn't exist, then either it was destroyed in an explosion or it was never there.
The fact that a large part of it cannot possibly have entered the impact zone helps to define the parameters under which the explosion scenario is to be considered.
Do you agree with those parameters? Yes or no?




by Air_Jeff
penta-lawn.jpg
Computer models are only as good as the assumptions that go into them, and there are always a great many. The Purdue simulation was intended to look at the effects of a plane collision on an array of columns, and does not bother to include an outer wall as part of the model. This is fine if we are only trying to study how the fuel mass interacts with the columns, but is obviously not realistic as a model for how a plane would interact with the entire building, outer wall included.

From the Purdue News piece (http://news.uns.purdue.edu/hp/Sozen.Pentagon.html) :

"The simulation merges a realistic-looking visualization of
the airliner approaching the building with a technical,
science-based animation of the plane crashing into the
structure."

Note the term "realistic-looking", and the emphasis in the article on how technically difficult it was to combine the two. The animation of the plane hitting the outside of the building is simply an animation, somebody's idea of what it looked like, not a scientific model. Combining this with a mathematical model that leaves out the outer wall is no doubt very difficult, and questionably helpful in understanding the real events.

The other unrealistic assumption is that the airframe has negligable structural strength, that the plane is in effect a water balloon. As soom as we put the outer wall back in the model, with or without an airframe around it some significant part of the fuel load will splash back on hitting the outer wall, especially at a 45° angle. Though some of this could be consumed in a fireball, fuel-air mixing will be poor and a lot of fuel should end up on the ground in front of the building. Likewise some part of the airframe will rebound from the wall, and given the "flimsy" nature of the airframe relative to a masonry wall we can expect a large amount of debris to be created on the outside in the process of breaching the wall. Yet numerous pictures show an intact lawn wih no pools of jet fuel and little if any recognizable plane debris.
by Sky King
>rest my case by gerard Holmgren • Friday November 01, 2002 at 07:32
>PM
>
>Sky King refuses to admit that an object cannot fit through a hole
>smaller than itself.

On the contrary.

>No amount of twisting ,turning , wriggling or smoke and mirrors
>double talk can conceal this.

What smoke and mirrors? You're getting awfully nervous.

>Actually I'll continue for a bit by gerard • Friday November 01,
>2002 at 08:41 PM

>>[[Let me get this straight. IF a 757 hit the Pentagon and the hole
>>(20ft?) is not large enough to accomodate a 757, and there is no
>>wreakage of parts of wings that could not have fit through the
>>existing (20ft?) hole, therefore the wreakage one would expect to
>>have been left of parts of the wing(s), since said wreakage could
>>not have entered the impact zone, must have been incinerated? ]]

>Yes! (With one qualification- IF you can handle it without having to
>start all over again) The conclusion remains valid, even assuming a
>65 ft hole, which we know to be significantly larger than the
>original hole.

Your conclusion being, of course, and I quote, "It is physically
impossible for all of the plane to have entered the crash site, and
this is backed by solid mathematical proof."

>>[[ I will readily concede that fitting such a cardboard model of a
>>757 through the hole of another cardboard of the dimensions you
>>specify won't work. And I don't even have to build one or think
>>about it for more than a few nanoseconds.

>>But, dear Gerard, will you concede that we actually in the real
>>world? ]]

>Interesting. You think that a small scale model is not part of the
>real word ?

Actually, a scale model in cardboard made to actual dimesnions would
be structurally unsound and fall apart from garvity. Physics 101.

>It's subject to different laws of geometry?

It's subject to laws of physics, no?

>Lets get this straight. A 155mm long object crossed at 90 degrees by
>a section measuring 125 mm will not fit into a box 65mm by 65mm by
>77 mm. You concede this? But then you think that if we change the
>measurement to ft instread of mm, that now it will fit ? Is that
>what you're saying? Yes or no?

What I am saying is quite clear. Obviously, you are not simply
dealing with geometry; you are dealing with physics (motion,
different structural materials, fuel ignition, energy, and so on.)

>I've written an article. You say that the article is crap. And yet
>you've pretended to have great difficulty understanding what the
>argument is. If you were arguing honestly, you would have asked for
>these clarifications BEFORE you denounced it as crap. An email
>contact was provided.This clearly indicates that you have a
>preconceived determination to disagree. The truth of course, is that
>you understand the argument perfectly well, but pretend not to, to
>try to buy time to think up counter-spin with a superficial veneer
>of rationality.

Well, you are correct in one sense. I understand your "argument" very
well.

>Its basic. Either the wreckage exists or it doesn't. If it doesn't
>exist, then either it was destroyed in an explosion or it was never
>there.

You have presented absolutely no evidence that the wreackage does not
exist.

>The fact that a large part of it cannot possibly have entered the
>impact zone helps to define the parameters under which the explosion
>scenario is to be considered.

The fact is, you have not demonstrated that it is impossible for
AA77, a 757, to have entered the impact zone since there is
compelling evidence for it that you have not addressed.

We note right off that you have now refused twice for my request
concerning your credentials. I will repeat a third time and will
expect that you will be able to answer them:

Would you provide your background in physics, engineering, or air
disaster investigations. Do you have credentials in these areas or is
strictly an amateur endeavor?

Also, have you submitted your paper for review by any recognized
authority in physics, engineering, or air disasters? If not, do you
intend to?

Those questions are straightforward and entirely relevant to this
subject. You would not expect a student to enroll in a class without
knowing the qualifications of the teacher. Since you have decided to
publish this on the Internet (curiously only on several Indymedia
sites), you need to establish your credentials, if any, publicly.

After you have done that, there are several areas you need to
address:

1. I see no testimony from the hundreds of professional rescuers,
firefighters, FEMA personnel, Red Cross volunteers, and anyone else
who was on the sight, contradicting the common wisdom of a 757 crash.
Why does such testimony not exist? Have you interviewed any of them?

2. I see no argument from you against the established fact of the
burial of Charles Burlingame, pilot of AA77, at Arlington cemetary
(much less any other identified victim of AA77). Where did his body
come from?

3. I see no references from *anyone*, much less those who are in a
position to know and are qualified, challenging the fact that AA77
crashed into the Pentagon, other than a handful of amateur conspiracy
buffs such as yourself. Do you not find that fact strange?

4. Why have you not addressed this news conference of Sept 15, 2001?
http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:E-ARBi6hti0C:http://www.parrhesia.com/cryptome/dod091501.htm+%22pentagon+damage%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Is it not relevant? Do you challenge it? Why or why not?

5. Why have you not dealt with the destroyed lamp poles? Is this not
relevant to the size of the aircraft? See:
http://www.dragonslair.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/77/poles_.htm and
respond.

6. Play with this model and report your conclusions:
http://www.dragonslair.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/77/poles_interactive.htm

You have your work cut out for you and will have to reconcile it with
your "argument."
by Examiner

Would YOU provide YOUR background in physics, engineering, or air disaster investigations? Do YOU have credentials in these areas or is yours strictly an amateur endeavour?
by Examiner

You posted technical comments: have YOU submitted your arguments for review by any recognized authority in physics, engineering, or air disaster? If not, do you intend to?
by gerard
Here are Sky kings physics/mathematics credentials. He concedes that a small scale model of the plane cannot fit into a small scale model of the hole in the wall, but claims that if you enlarge the dimensions, then the relationship changes and that now it will fit.
Really... 0 out of 100 for that one Sky king. Repeat the class next year. Have you taken an IQ test lately?
But this is only the beginning of the greatest revolution in physics/mathematics since Einstein. Professor sky King has also proved that events can occur even when there is not enough energy to drive the process. His proof for this is the miraculous discovery that 1 gallon of jet fuel can totally cremate 18.5 lbs of aluminium, (Thats about 545 aluminium cans) even when not applied with any designed efficiency.
The incredible talents of Professor sky king extend to revolutionising the world of biology. Everybody who thought that DNA was destroyed by tempratures well below 150 degrees C was wrong. The professor has discovered that DNA subjected to temeratures orders of magnitude above 700 will still test 98.4 % succsessful.
Being an expert in ballistcs , the multi talented sky king has also discovered that while a steel reinforced concrete wall makes mincemeat of a 100 ton aircraft ramming it at about 400 mph, it is no match for a 6 ton flat ended chunk of metal hitting it at a lesser speed. In fact the US military is cursing itself for wasting all those billions of dollars on Bunker busting missile development. The puny result was a weapon which could penetrate about 11 ft. Had they employed Sky king in their program, he could have showed them that a 6 ton chunk of scrap metal, thrown from a catapault
at a few hundred miles an hour could do nearly triple the job.
Sky King has also revolutionalized the world of optometry, proving that people can clearly distinguish events in considerable detail and ordered sequence at a speed of 1 event every 30 milliseconds.
The professor's talents extend to gentic engineering, having designed, specifically for the Pentagon,a new kind of lawn which in spite of being subject to the crash of a giant aircraft and the largest explosion ever seen in avaition history, had completely regenerated within minutes.
But the Leonardo da Vinci of the 21st century is only just warming up! Being an explosives expert, he's also demonstrated that kerosine is one of the violently explosive substances on earth. Forget Dynamite! Forget C4.
Thanks to professor sky king's ground breaking research it's now known that all you have to do if you want to blow something up, is place a small can of kerosine at the scene, fire a weapon into it to create an impact and boom- up she goes! You want something disintegrated ? Instantly, no mess, no fuss, no debris to haul away ? Easy ! Call skyking demolitions! The first to use the revoltionary new kerosine demolition technique! And what's even better that the new technology actually discriminates between what it blows up and what it doesn't. It has no effect on buildings ! The guy is a genius! if you want to get rid of your old metal filing cabinet for example, no need to even take it out of the office. just blow it up with a kerosine bomb. It'll have no effect on the rest of the office, and it'll be like it never existed.
The erudite professor was also the first to recognize that due to a freak warp in the space time fabric of the universe, that the entire nature of impact physics changed for one day on sept 11 2001. Prior to this, no aircraft in aviation history had even blown itself into nothing as a result of a crash, and it's never happened since. But it happened 4 times on sept 11. Only the genius sky King is able to explain how.

Case closed Sky King. Over and out. I'm off to pick the snails out of the garden ,which will enable me to have a more intelligent conversation that I can get out of you.
By the way, I hear there's a special on lobotomies available this week, you might be pick up some bits of discarded brain to cram into your skull. They'd have to work better than what you've got now.
Bye.
by U B Doofus
What happened to both planes that hit the WTC?

Their forward momentum carried them ENTIRELY into the stucture -- it's on tape.

Same thing happened at the Pentagon.

Dude, or take your pathetic arguments to an engineering forum and give us a link to witness your humbling before science.

Scared to try?

Chicken.
by Sky King
"To sly king
by Examiner • Saturday November 02, 2002 at 02:25 PM"

"Would YOU provide YOUR background in physics, engineering, or air disaster investigations? Do YOU have credentials in these areas or is yours strictly an amateur endeavour?"

Sure, I will be happy to, Examiner. I did well in high school physics, took no engineering courses ever, and have always loved flying and have an interest in the causes of air disasters. I also have a high interest in logic, reasoning carefully, and debunking holocaust deniers, conspiracy theories, and the like.

So there you have it.

But, there are several things to note. It is Gerard who is making the argument that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon using his supposed knowledge of geometry, physics, and air disaster investigations to make HIS case. So, is it not proper to ask him what his expertise is? If not, tell us why.

The next thing you should note is that the questions I intentionally asked him questions in my last post that do not require that I address ANYTHING is his arguement. These are the same questions any reasonable person can ask Gerard that would come up just by looking at his conclusion: that a 757 could not have hit the Pentagon.

So, Examiner, if you look at the conclusion knowing nothing about air diasater investigations, physics, or engineering, you could ask the same reasonable questions I did.

And look at Gerard's response that came after yours to me. He's now avoided my question about his own background and credentials three times. He also avoided all of the questions of my last post. What he has done is what is exactly characteristic of those who try to hold up a house of cards.

His increasing shrill replies avoiding my questions, trying to draw me into a debate ONLY about what he has written rather than what other evidence is required to support his conclusion, and trying to discredit me by attacking me for asking him question he cannot answer, is the universal characteristic of holocaust deniers and conspiracy addicts everywhere.

So, Examiner, it doesn't require that you and I have any credentials to question Gerard's *arguement*. If we can come up with questions whose answers are germaine to the validity of his conclusion, it is up to Gerard to address those questions appropriately if we are to accept his conclusion.




by Sky Thing
"Case closed Sky King. Over and out. I'm off to pick the snails out of the garden ,which will enable me to have a more intelligent conversation that I can get out of you."

"By the way, I hear there's a special on lobotomies available this week, you might be pick up some bits of discarded brain to cram into your skull. They'd have to work better than what you've got now."

"Bye."


Bye, Gerard, it's been a pleasure showing everyone here that your are unable to support your conclusion that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon on Sept 11, 2001.

You'll note that my questions that you refuse to answer derive exactly from your conclusion - without me even having to address your supposed *thesis*. This is the trap all conspiracy theorists fall into.

Why? Because I knew from the beginning that you started with a conclusion - a 757 could not have hit the the Pentagon - and spent the rest of your time trying to make "facts" fit your conclusion. And you will spend the rest of your life, at least until you concede that you have wasted enormous energy on constructing a house of cards, trying to avoid unpleasant facts and shooting the messenger.

You've evaded all the questions that are necessary to demonstrate your *expertise* and credentials and you have finally fallen for my test of your willingness to address questions that you MUST answer - or that you need to evade.

And you had to evade them in the most classic form of a conspiracy nut and holocaust denier.

So, your game is up, Gerard. Unless, you are willing to support your *thesis* by addressing questions that derive from your conclusion, you will just remain another lonely conspiracy nut. And smarter people than you know it.

So, hit the garden and pick snails, Gerard. Maybe that will help you come to your senses. Or maybe you can come up with a construct explaining why not ONE of the hundreds of rescuers at the Pentagon has ever come forward to say that a 757 never hit the Pentagon.



by Sky King
Apparently, Gerard Holmgren has flamed out.

Thinking about this thread, I have to wonder how and why Gerard's thinking comes about. And why I think his argument is totally absurd.

Any thoughts?
by watcher
Yep -- the extreme right / left ( militia movement / libertarians / ludites / anti-capitalists ) are merging into a common force with one shared goal...

The destruction of the American government (they have no ideas for replacement mind you).

They have no interest in solving problems or encouraging cooperation other than to foster turmoil -- thus explaining the rampant anti-peaceful demonstration agenda of many radical liberals

To this end, the seek to spread as distrust and disgust of all local/state/federal governents as possible by generating a never-ending stream of outrageous anti-American rumors.

They believe this will disolve any connection the average individual has to another working within the government -- painting the civil workers and elected officials into loathesome monsters of greed and hate.

Here's just one website (a right-wing extremeist group) which promotes such tactics:


Militarism Gives Resistance to Tyranny a Bad Name
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States was in part created by a revolutionary war fought by American patriots against their British oppressors. Throughout much of American history, especially since the beginning of the twentieth century, U.S. leaders have primarily perpetrated war on the people of the world instead of using war to free the people from oppression. Even in the second world war, which has been called "the good war," American and German industrialists collaborated with the Nazis for the purpose of making unconscionable profits.

Even so, we must remember that resistance, of all kinds, against tyranny is sometimes the only or the best response to naked aggression and oppression. The fact that the "High Cabal's" Bush puppet regime has previously (under Bush I) and is now using war merely as a pretext for its imperialistic schemes does not destroy the principle that the people's resistance against tyranny is sometimes necessary. It's necessary to resist the current tyranny of the Bush puppet regime with whatever means are effective.

Certainly, in the present situation the "High Cabal" has a monopoly over violence (military, intelligence agencies, police) in the United States and the world. So it would be idiotic for ordinary citizens to use violence in our present struggle to create a New America where the well-being of all its citizens is the common goal. But we citizens must, nontheless, do everything in our power to combat the onslaughts against our Constitutional liberties:

1. speak out against each instance of oppression that we see

2. inform our national and state representatives that we want them to oppose the oppressive measures the Bush junta is carrying out

3. avoid allowing ourselves to be duped by the call for a jingoistic, 200% patriotism that is part of the "High Cabal's" scam to marginalize the people

4. join with activist groups that are working to improve conditions and fight tyranny

http://www.hermes-press.com/militarismindex.htm

Doesn't seem like such a bad agenda, right? Well just read through the website -- it ought to be obvious who is behind it.

Now here's another such site
http://www.americanfreepress.net/About_Us/about_us.html
and this is their parent company
http://www.btpholdings.com/pub.html
by Aurelius
Gerard,

Your work is thorough and evokes serious questions (later).  If you enjoy playing with those loyal to the system, go ahead, but it's getting a little silly.  The basic argument being made by Sky King and some others is "Daddy said so, and who are you to tell me Daddy told a lie ?"

Regarding the American Public . . .

  • One percent of the population probably figured this caper out from the getgo, (and believe me I was not one of them.)
  • Five percent were suspicious and probably figured out the likely reality in a brief period of time (I might be on the bottom end of that group.)
  • Another fifteen percent are open to looking at evidence and thinking new thoughts.
  • Forty percent don't care (count the SUVs).
  • The remaining 39% believe in mom and apple pie and dubbya. They believe , they don't understand.

Maybe my percentages are off, but maybe not.   

I think there's a cure for people who cant think about thinking, who cant observe their own logic or lack of it.   I think they should go to this website and keep trying until they figure out how the Internet developed ESP. http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/esp.html

I appreciate your analysis.   If Mark Twain said that the King of England was an elephant, you wouldn't have to prove that an elephant never held the position of King of England.   I think it would be quite adequate to show that the evidence presented was inadequate to substantiate the claim.    And that would be true who ever made the claim, Mark Twain, Henry Higgons, George Bush, Billy Graghm, even Sky King.  In the case of any of the events that occurred on September 11th, 2001, when considering statements made by the U.S. government and the George W. Bush administration in particular, the burden of proof lies with them. Without doubt this administration has clearly and repeatedly demonstrated to the public an extradite degree of obfuscation, distraction and deceit. The government and the CIA in particular have been specialists in manipulating public opinion. 9-11 has allot more to do with the techniques of three card Monty than it does with the philosophy of Bin Laden. Study magic and the PR principles of the Third Reich.

Oh yes, the serious questions, What do we do when faced by such deception and callous contempt from a power hungry authority such as the regime in place right now ?

I know the first step must be to declare the truth, but will that suffice ?

thanks

Concerned Citizen

by watcher
Forty percent don't care (count the SUVs)

My, what a scientific way to describe prejudice -- as in yours.

by .......
heh. That ESP site explains alot. SOOO many ppl want to believe I guess.
by Ruth
Sky King, Gerard invited you three times to a point by point by point discussion of the article. And three times you chickened out. It was painful to watch you twisting turning, and blustering your way through the embarrassing fiasco of the question of whether an object can fit through a hole smaller than itself.
I've read this article thoroughly, the facts are correct, the reasoning impeccable and all the references genine ( except for onje link which is dead ).
I notice that the distinguished professor of civil engineering is also lacking the courage to go head to head with Gerard on this.
No wonder you all chickened out from a direct debate.
You would have got your arses severely kicked.
by Sky King
"Just answer the questions
by Ruth • Tuesday November 05, 2002 at 02:45 PM"

"Sky King, Gerard invited you three times to a point by point by point discussion of the article. And three times you chickened out. "

Ruth, you're silly too. There is no need for me to debate anything point by point. I presented evidence that contradicts his conclusion. Didn't you see him run away from his own argument?

"It was painful to watch you twisting turning, and blustering your way through the embarrassing fiasco of the question of whether an object can fit through a hole smaller than itself."

That's funny, too. I had a lot of fun laughing at Gerard on that one. You know, you're so taken with Gerard that you forgot to read what I wrote.

"I've read this article thoroughly, the facts are correct, the reasoning impeccable and all the references genine ( except for onje link which is dead ). "

If the facts are correct, dear Ruth, why couldn't he answer my exceedingly pertinent questions and why did he not give you and the rest of us ANY credentials as to his expertise in this matter?

"I notice that the distinguished professor of civil engineering is also lacking the courage to go head to head with Gerard on this."

I'll tell you what's still apparently a secret to you Ruth. No one gives a damn about Gerard's faulty thesis except, perhaps, you. And neither does the engineer I quoted even know about Gerard's fantasy. If you actually believe what you wrote that's a problem you'll have to deal with. Gerard's house of cards has been suitably exposed, but you're welcome to move in with him.

After all, Gerard depends on those who don't think for themselves.

"No wonder you all chickened out from a direct debate.
You would have got your arses severely kicked."

Is that why I am still here and Gerard ran away from the facts that contradicted his conclusion? Now, try to be honest with us, Ruth, and answer that question intelligently.

If you are still uncertain, re-read VERY carefully what I wrote to Gerard below and show me where he answered MY questions. If you can't find those answers, then I expect YOU to answer them. After all, you believe everything Gerard has written - it should be easy for you, right?

Take your time. Here goes:

----------------------------------------------
We note right off that you have now refused twice for my request
concerning your credentials. I will repeat a third time and will
expect that you will be able to answer them:

Would you provide your background in physics, engineering, or air
disaster investigations. Do you have credentials in these areas or is
strictly an amateur endeavor?

Also, have you submitted your paper for review by any recognized
authority in physics, engineering, or air disasters? If not, do you
intend to?

Those questions are straightforward and entirely relevant to this
subject. You would not expect a student to enroll in a class without
knowing the qualifications of the teacher. Since you have decided to
publish this on the Internet (curiously only on several Indymedia
sites), you need to establish your credentials, if any, publicly.

After you have done that, there are several areas you need to
address:

1. I see no testimony from the hundreds of professional rescuers,
firefighters, FEMA personnel, Red Cross volunteers, and anyone else
who was on the sight, contradicting the common wisdom of a 757 crash.
Why does such testimony not exist? Have you interviewed any of them?

2. I see no argument from you against the established fact of the
burial of Charles Burlingame, pilot of AA77, at Arlington cemetary
(much less any other identified victim of AA77). Where did his body
come from?

3. I see no references from *anyone*, much less those who are in a
position to know and are qualified, challenging the fact that AA77
crashed into the Pentagon, other than a handful of amateur conspiracy
buffs such as yourself. Do you not find that fact strange?

4. Why have you not addressed this news conference of Sept 15, 2001?
http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:E-ARBi6hti0C:http://www.parrhesia.com/cryptome/dod091501.htm+%22pentagon+damage%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Is it not relevant? Do you challenge it? Why or why not?

5. Why have you not dealt with the destroyed lamp poles? Is this not
relevant to the size of the aircraft? See:
http://www.dragonslair.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/77/poles_.htm and
respond.

6. Play with this model and report your conclusions:
http://www.dragonslair.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/77/poles_interactive.htm

by Gavin Rawlings
Nice try Ruth, but you'll never get a straight answer out of this lying idiot.. Lets get real about this.
The equation:
The plane: 155ft by 125 ft
The hole :12ft by 30 ft
Wreckage: negligible.
Lawn : Undamaged.
DUHH!! The plane was never there you morons!
by Ruth
"There is no need for me to debate anything point by point. "

Chicken! Lets have a look at the logic. "Gerard invites me three times to debate the article point by point. I see 'no need' - which proves his thesis wrong." Sorry Sky King, but debating rules don't allow you defeat an argument by simply refusing to engage it.

"If the facts are correct, dear Ruth, why couldn't he answer my exceedingly pertinent questions ..."

If any of the fact are incorrect, why don't YOU point them out?

". No one gives a damn about Gerard's faulty thesis except, perhaps, you..."

And you. You're awfully desperate to discredit it - but not that desperate that you're actually prepared to debate it.

"I presented evidence that contradicts his conclusion. Didn't you see him run away from his own argument? "

Your debating rules. "When I refuse to answer any of Gerard's questions that proves his argument faulty, but when he refuses to answer mine, that means he's running away."

Back to the argument you're so intent on avoiding.
as Gavin pojnted out:
Plane 155ft by 125 ft
Hole 12 ft by 30 ft
No wreckage, no mess.
Where did the damned thing go? And don't give us any of that crap about the plane exploding. Its kerosine, not dynamite. Explain the hundreds of plane crash photos which prove that planes DONT explode into nothing (except on Sept 11).

Getting nervous ,Sky King? what's your next evasion tactic ?
by J. Collins
You ask
" have you submitted your paper for review by any recognized authority in physics, engineering, or air disasters? If not, do you intend to? "
Gerard invites you three times to a point by point debate, and your answer
"There is no need for me to debate anything point by point. "
You demand a review,but then refuse to give one ,when invited to. Is this an admission that you are not a "recognized authority in physics, engineering, or air disasters? " If so, does that mean that we shouldn't take any notice of anything you say.? Or if its not necessary to be a "recognized authority in physics, engineering, or air disasters" in order to dissect this matter, then why are you trying invalidate Gerard on the basis of undisclosed qualifications? Will YOU submit it to a "recognized authority in physics, engineering, or air disasters" for review? If not, then why is it so important for Gerard to do so ? If its a vital part of the debate, then why don't you hunt down your own expert to debunk it? Can't find one? Fine, but if so, then stop paying out on Gerard for also not finding one.
I know - you "don't need to argue it".
As Ruth pointed out "debating rules don't allow you defeat an argument by simply refusing to engage it. "
The fact is - for all your mumbo jumbo, you still haven't debated a single point that's in the article. All you've done is reproduce tired old stuff that was adequately covered in the article.
Like this.
"I see no argument from you against the established fact of the burial of Charles Burlingame, pilot of AA77, at Arlington cemetary (much less any other identified victim of AA77). Where did his body come from? "
Gerard devoted an entire chapter to the issue of DNA testing. your only rebuttal is to simply pretend that this chapter doesn't exist.
I think Gerard was right about the lobotomy...



by Ruth
Step 1. Gerard invites you to debate the article point by point. The first point being the dimensions of the plane compared to the hole.

Your first reply.

"OK, I guess I'll have to help you out to quickly settle this matter." You then ask for clarification of his opening point -which was quite clear from reading the article, and his restating of it.

and ask.

"Let me know if this is a correct reading before I proceed. "

Gerard clarifies for you.

You reply ."OK, so I restated your position incorrectly which is the reason I want it clarified. So, again restated in standard form, does this
accurately describe your position: " and again ask for a totally uinecessary clarification.

Gerard clarifies again, and warns you about stalling. You reply.

"Stalling? I'm asking you to make sure I have interpreted your argument correctly? Don't you want to make sure I characterize your argument correctly?

You again ask for an unnecessary clarification, which Gerard provides, and again asks you - yes or no -whether or not you agree that not all of the plane could have entered the impact zone.

You refuse to give a straight answer and cover it with a barrage of your own questions. Gerard quits ( after having previously warned you that there was a limit to how long he would put up with the stalling.)

Then I ask you the same question that Gerard was asking, and now its.

"There is no need for me to debate anything point by point. "

Nervous, Sky King? Is the concept that a plane can't fit through a hole smaller than itself a little too tough for that overtaxed, undersized brain?







by Gavin Rawlings
Nice shot Ruth! The Sky King is losing altitude rapidly...
smell the burning jet fuel - or is it dynamite ? Well I'll be damned ! His entire plane just disappeared without trace when it hit the ground...and didn't even damage the lawn. We found the body, though.
Roast troll, anyone ?
by Sky King
To Ruth, J. Collins, Gavin Rawlings:

I always found it fascinating how people like you three are so willing to suspend disbelief.

Ruth states: "Chicken! Lets have a look at the logic. "Gerard invites me three times to debate the article point by point. I see 'no need' - which proves his thesis wrong." Sorry Sky King, but debating rules don't allow you defeat an argument by simply refusing to engage it."

The rules of argumentation are quite clear. I'll repeat: it is up to the one putting forth the argument (Gerard) to successfully defend that argument and conclusion (his). It is not required for you or me to debate him point by point to QUESTION his conclusion by bringing up evidence that contradicts his conclusion. I have done so and neither he nor anyone else has addressed it. You see, dear Ruth, I haven't PROVEN his thesis wrong; Gerard has not proven his thesis right. In fact, he refuses to even consider my evidence and questions. The rules are the rules.

J. Collins states: "You demand a review,but then refuse to give one ,when invited to. Is this an admission that you are not a "recognized authority in physics, engineering, or air disasters? " If so, does that mean that we shouldn't take any notice of anything you say.? Or if its not necessary to be a "recognized authority in physics, engineering, or air disasters" in order to dissect this matter, then why are you trying invalidate Gerard on the basis of undisclosed qualifications? Will YOU submit it to a "recognized authority in physics, engineering, or air disasters" for review? If not, then why is it so important for Gerard to do so ?"

I quite clearly gave my background above. Did you not read that either? I am not an expert, understand.? But it doesn't take an expert to question Gerard's conclusion by asking him to deal directly with evidence contradictory to his conclusion. After all, it is Gerard's CONCLUSION that he must defend sucessfully against all contradictory evidence.

Did you read my questions and points that Gerard ran away from? Does it require any expert to ask those questions? Are you saying that you are incapable of asking those very same questions?

But, it is necessary to ask someone who is presenting supposedly "scientific" evidence for a conclusion to reveal his qualifications. Does Gerard have any? Why does he find it necessary to dodge the question? Do you think Gerard would be ask to testify at a hearing on AA77 without revealing his qualifications?

J. Simon states: "I see no argument from you against the established fact of the burial of Charles Burlingame, pilot of AA77, at Arlington cemetary (much less any other identified victim of AA77). Where did his body come from? "
Gerard devoted an entire chapter to the issue of DNA testing. your only rebuttal is to simply pretend that this chapter doesn't exist."

Please disclose whose body was buried. Take your time.

So, when will you three address the fact that Gerard nor any of you can address questions and evidence contradicting Gerard's conclusion? Will you address them or will you continue to pretend that they aren't relevant? In other words, when will you open your eyes?

Or do you all believe as a matter of faith in the card trick someone presented above?


















by .......
Actually - to interject a little sense into this debate - it doesn't make sense to say that Gerard is presenting a thesis at all. He doesn't have to prove any conclusion since he is attempting to disprove a conclusion (that it was a plane that hit the Pentagon is a conclusion).
Now, if Gerard had been positing a specific conclusion - such as saying "it was a missile and I can prove it" this would be totally different. He would have to prove that it was definately a missile and defend his claim. But he isn't. All he's doing is poking holes in the airplane theory.
What Skyking is doing here is trying to reverse the onus. It's actually skyking who is making an assertion (that a plane hit the Pentagon) and Gerard who is challenging the plane theory. Saying that "the plane theory is wrong" is not a theory; its an attack on a theory. If succesful, all it would do is destroy the theory and leave a question mark. It wouldn't even prove that a plane *did not* hit the Pentagon; all it would do is destroy the current theoritical model of a plane hitting the Pentagon. A new model could possibly be constructed that would withstand argument, or it might not.
That's the rules.
For the record, I don't personally believe that it was anything other than a plane. That's just a personal feeling and not a theory I am prepared to defend.
by Sky King
"by ....... • Wednesday November 06, 2002 at 05:22 AM

"Now, if Gerard had been positing a specific conclusion - such as saying "it was a missile and I can prove it "this would be totally different."

Well, Gerard's conclusions are posted above. Here they are below, including: "The hole in the back of the third ring cannot be explained by any means other than a missile. "

I guess you either missed his conclusions or you're saying that Gerard does not have demonstrate that a missle explains the crash.


-----
It is physically impossible for all of the plane to have entered the crash site, and this is backed by solid mathematical proof.

There is no evidence outside the building of wreckage to account for the part of the plane which cannot have entered the crash site.

There is no evidence of identifiable wreckage inside the crash site.

Cremation of the plane was unprecedented in aviation history and physically impossible.

Even could such cremation have been possible, it is impossible in the context of the modest damage to the wall.

The hole in the back of the third ring cannot be explained by any means other than a missile.

Fake wreckage has been designed and planted with the express purpose of impersonating the American Airlines colour scheme.

Eyewitness evidence is inconclusive and fabricated eyewitness reports have been presented to try to shore up the official story.



by Evidence
Actually, it's on record that wreckage from the WTC planes was found indeed - and quite a bit of it:

The New York Times, June 8, 2002: ‘Victims’ Remains Found Near Ground Zero’, by Eric Lipton and James Glanz: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/08/nyregion/08BODI.html

"Large sections" of one of the planes were found.

Do your homework next time BEFORE posting, dude. Bye.
by Logic
So sly: you "took no engineering course ever" - but you keep on spammin' the wire with pseudotechnical conments?

You don't cut it, man. Plank out of your eye first.
by air traffic controller
It is the government who is making the argument that a 757 hit the Pentagon - a zero-evidence argument.

So, is it not proper to ask Bush and his trolls like you what THEIR evidence is? Tell us.
by planker
1929-today.jpg
Only 1 or 2 pilots could pull a 10g spiral, pull out at treetop level , and hit a target. It was a plane, it was remote controlled by the white Lear jet trailing it.
If the target were an unused under construction area...why were so many senior software people killed?

HINT....... It ran radar at andrews afb on 9-11.
It now runs all of andrews AND maintains Bush2 inc. airforce 1 and 2, as well as all congressonal aircraft.

Counterspin is used when propaganda fails. Too many saw both planes. Target choice was ludicrous for many reasons. Capitol...white house...monuments
symbols......

WTC 1 and 2 held hundreds of companies who lost billions to enrons fraud. Statue of Liberty, wall street , 2 years to plan and they hit a fully insured structure and silence a thousand witnesses.

On 9-11 the lost aircraft had been updated along with 200 other types by the maggot who was the money man at enron. His outfit has anthrax and postal centers too. Some links are dead but the info following mine is plenty. I wrote it nice then. There is so much more.

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/rule.htm

by planker
1929-today.jpgb54850.jpg
Only 1 or 2 pilots could pull a 10g spiral, pull out at treetop level , and hit a target. It was a plane, it was remote controlled by the white Lear jet trailing it.
If the target were an unused under construction area...why were so many senior software people killed?

HINT....... It ran radar at andrews afb on 9-11.
It now runs all of andrews AND maintains Bush2 inc. airforce 1 and 2, as well as all congressonal aircraft.

Counterspin is used when propaganda fails. Too many saw both planes. Target choice was ludicrous for many reasons. Capitol...white house...monuments
symbols......

WTC 1 and 2 held hundreds of companies who lost billions to enrons fraud. Statue of Liberty, wall street , 2 years to plan and they hit a fully insured structure and silence a thousand witnesses.

On 9-11 the lost aircraft had been updated along with 200 other types by the maggot who was the money man at enron. His outfit has anthrax and postal centers too. Some links are dead but the info following mine is plenty. I wrote it nice then. There is so much more.

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/rule.htm

by planker
1929-today.jpgw67816.jpg
Only 1 or 2 pilots could pull a 10g spiral, pull out at treetop level , and hit a target. It was a plane, it was remote controlled by the white Lear jet trailing it.
If the target were an unused under construction area...why were so many senior software people killed?

HINT....... It ran radar at andrews afb on 9-11.
It now runs all of andrews AND maintains Bush2 inc. airforce 1 and 2, as well as all congressonal aircraft.

Counterspin is used when propaganda fails. Too many saw both planes. Target choice was ludicrous for many reasons. Capitol...white house...monuments
symbols......

WTC 1 and 2 held hundreds of companies who lost billions to enrons fraud. Statue of Liberty, wall street , 2 years to plan and they hit a fully insured structure and silence a thousand witnesses.

On 9-11 the lost aircraft had been updated along with 200 other types by the maggot who was the money man at enron. His outfit has anthrax and postal centers too. Some links are dead but the info following mine is plenty. I wrote it nice then. There is so much more.

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/rule.htm

by Sky King
"sly king's ruse is up
by Logic • Saturday November 09, 2002 at 03:59 PM

"So sly: you "took no engineering course ever" - but you keep on spammin' the wire with pseudotechnical conments?"

Let' see. In your world asking Gerard why not one of the rescue workers at the Pentagon ever claimed that the plane was not a 757 is a "pseudotechnical conment [sic]?"

No wonder Gerard has you bamboozled.



by Sky King
"sly's flying so low
by air traffic controller • Saturday November 09, 2002 at 04:19 PM"

"It is the government who is making the argument that a 757 hit the Pentagon - a zero-evidence argument."

No, actually no one is making an argument that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

"So, is it not proper to ask Bush and his trolls like you what THEIR evidence is? Tell us."

Since the only argument being made is Gerard's that AA77 could not have hit the Pentagon, it is up to him to prove it. Of course he and the other deniers don't want to deal with certain evidence that does not support his conclusion, some of which I have presented.

Since Gerard can't do it, we'll ask you to take over. Deal?



by Sky King
"counterspin
by planker • Saturday November 09, 2002 at 04:39 PM"

I rather liked your spiral dive into irrelevance.

Plonk!

by Ron Harvey (ron.harvey [at] blueyonder.co.uk)

Impeccable Facts?

How many of those who spout forth in such a fashion have attempted in any respectable sense to check the supposed facts?

Have they, for instance, read the Arlington After Action Report?

I thus refer especially to the scaled damage plans appended to the document. Or is it to be supposed that the work is fraudulent, and the many hundreds of peopkle in volved with the clear up therefore perpetrate a deliberately deceitful cullusion.

Anybody possed of a minimal knowledge of the event could not possibly take Holmgren seriously after encountering his supposition to the effect that the plane penetrated no further than 65 feet into the building, his premise being that only the outer ring was damaged.

See href=
"http://www.wa.gov/wsem/site-general/arl-co-aar/arl-co-idx.htmco-idx.htm"
by JohnnyBeGood
Some great, well presented articles among the above links. Check them out.
by Man skyking is a slimy piece of work
Man skyking is a slimy piece of work, isn't it.
by Sky King
> Here are a few photos of explosives detonating during the collapse of the South Tower.

You lack the knowledge of the physics of the collapse and the details to make such a claim and nothing you present even remotely counters the evidence that the collapse of both buildings was a result of the events of the collision of both planes.

Why are you loons such gullible types?
by Sky King
> "Man skyking is a slimy piece of work, isn't it.
by Man skyking is a slimy piece of work • Sunday December 15, 2002 at 03:59 AM"

> "Man skyking is a slimy piece of work, isn't it."

Yup, conspiracy nuts like you can't stand me.



by Already Published

Hotel employees sat watching the film in shock and horror several times before the FBI confiscated the video as part of its investigation. It may be the only available video of the attack. The Pentagon has told broadcast news reporters that its security cameras did not capture the crash.
Gertzfile, September 21, 2001

Velasquez says the gas station's security cameras are close enough to the Pentagon to have recorded the moment of impact. "I've never seen what the pictures looked like," he said. "The FBI was here within minutes and took the film."
National Geographic, December 11, 2001

CNN's Jamie MacIntyre: "witnesses told me the day this happened that the plane -American Airlines Flight 77 - came in extremely low, but I'm not sure I realized how low it was until I saw these sequence of pictures that CNN obtained from....a.....that were taken by a Pentagon security camera."
CNN, report and "video", March, 2002



The second plane looked similar to a C- 130 transport plane, [Keith Wheelhouse] said. He believes it flew directly above the American Airlines jet, as if to prevent two planes from appearing on radar - while at the same time - guiding the jet toward the Pentagon. Daily Press, September 14, 2001

Kelly Knowles, a First Colonial High School alumnus who now lives in an apartment a few miles from the Pentagon, said some sort of plane followed the doomed American Airlines jet toward the Pentagon, then veered away after the explosion.

At the same time, [Keith Wheelhouse] and his sister, Pam Young, who lives in Surry, were preparing to leave a funeral at Arlington National Cemetery, which is less than a mile from the Pentagon, when they watched the jet approach and slam into the Pentagon. Both of them, as well as at least one other personat the funeral, insist that there was another plane flying near the hijacked jet. Daily Press, September 15, 2001

“Then the plane -- it looked like a C-130 cargo plane -- started turning away from the Pentagon, it did a complete turnaround. New York Lawyer

Off to the west, Sucherman saw another plane climb steeply and make a sharp turn. "I thought, 'Is this thing coming around to make a second attack? If there is another explosion, we're toast.'" eWeek

As we watched the black plume gather strength, less than a minute after the explosion, we saw an odd sight that no one else has yet commented on. Directly in back of the plume, which would place it almost due west from our office, a four-engine propeller plane, which Ray later said resembled a C-130, started a steep decent towards the Pentagon. Cloth Monkey

Within moments there was a very loud bang, which seemed to come from the direction of Henderson Hall. At least, all the heads turned towards Henderson. It is possible that this was a secondary explosion from the Pentagon or possibly an F-16 going supersonic.[...] The only large fixed wing aircraft to appear was a gray C-130, which appeared to be a Navy electronic warfare aircraft, he seemed to survey the area and depart in on a westerly heading. Our Net Family

[Keith Wheelhouse] and at least two other witnesses to the Pentagon attack were troubled that Pentagon spokesmen had until now said they were unaware of a C-130 being in the area at the time. In the days immediately following the Sept. 11 hijackings, the Pentagon had no knowledge of the C-130's encounter, because........all reports were classified by the Air National Guard(!) Daily Press, October 17, 2001


said Milburn. "It was like a WHOOOSH whoosh, then there was fire and smoke, then I heard a second explosion." WashingtonPost

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The airliner crashed between two and three hundred feet from my office in the Pentagon, just around a corner from where I work. I'm the deputy General Counsel, Washington Headquarters Services, Office of the Secretary of Defense. A slightly different calibration and I have no doubt I wouldn't be sending this to you. My colleagues felt the impact, which reminded them of an earthquake. People shouted in the corridor outside that a bomb had gone off upstairs on the main concourse in the building. No alarms sounded. I walked to my office, shut down my computer, and headed out. Even before stepping outside I could smell the cordite. Then I knew explosives had been set off somewhere. McSweeney's

A personnel attorney at the Pentagon, Goldsmith was riding a shuttle bus to work on Tuesday, Sept. 11, when she learned of the attack on the World Trade Center. [...] "We saw a huge black cloud of smoke," she said, saying it smelled like cordite or gun smoke. Jewish Bulletin News


Witnesses told CNN that a helicopter circled the Pentagon and disappeared on the other side of the building shortly before the explosion and fireball. copy of CNN report @ Lake Today

PLANT (LIVE): Well, and speaking to people here at the Pentagon, as they're being evacuated from the building. I'm told by several people that there was, in fact, an explosion. I was told by one witness, an Air Force enlisted - senior enlisted man, that he was outside when it occurred. He said that he saw a helicopter circle the building. He said it appeared to be a U.S. military helicopter, and that it disappeared behind the building where the helicopter landing zone is - excuse me - and he then saw fireball go into the sky.[...]It's a very tense situation obviously, but initial reports from witnesses indicate that there was in fact a helicopter circling the building, contrary to what the AP reported, according to the witnessess I've spoken to anyway, and that this helicopter disappeared behind the building, and that there was then an explosion. That's about all I have from here. September 11 Live CNN Transcript, Europe

by Sky King
> "videos, C-130. helicopter, cordite
by Already Published • Sunday December 15, 2002 at 06:35 AM"

It's so amusing to watch Pentagon conspiracy loons resort to eyewitness accounts to support their case, and then promptly dismiss eyewitness accounts when they contradict their conspiracy theories.




by DannyK
Man skyking is a slimy piece of work, isn't it No, he's just a bit thick.
by DannyK
Man skyking is a slimy piece of work, isn't it

No, he's just a bit thick.

by Joshua
Nice stuff Already Published!!
by M. Torell (torell7 [at] netscape.net)
Flight 77 was hijacked.

Explanations that the airliner vaporized in the Pentagon crash do not wash; the temperatures generated, 3000 - 4000 degrees Fahrenheit, are lower than the boiling points of aluminum and titanium. If the 757 or its pieces had melted in the Pentagon, there would have been great pools of congealed metal that would have been offered as proof of its fate.

So where did Flight 77 go? It has disappeared and the quickest way to to disappear it would be shoot it down over the ocean or the Chesapeake Bay, far enough from shore that debris would not wash up. The hijacking pilot would have suspected a set up if he had been sent far out over water. He was probably instructed go east over the ocean, make an easy U turn and come back to land, low and fast into a target.

No private flying was permitted in the days immediately following 9/11. This would have prevented unauthorized viewing of the oil slick. and floating debris.

Why should we care that Flight 77 now sleeps with the fish? Because we can find it with side scanning sonar and other wreck finding technology, like what was used to find JFK , Jr.'s plane and in much deeper water, his father's PT boat. Though finding the airliner in the ocean would not in itself, convict anyone of the 2700 murders committed on 9/11, it would make the war on terror a much harder sell.

I hope that countries distressed by the US' aggressive behavior, will offer investigators satellite data that shows the oil slick from Flight 77. It would tell us right where to scan.

by Sky King
"Explanations that the airliner vaporized in the Pentagon crash do not wash; "

There is no explanation that "the airliner vaporized."

Get over your conspiracy theory nonsense.


by no faith
There were two videos seized by the FBI, skyking.

The Pentagon claimed for several months that their own security cameras captured nothing.

When Thiery Meyson started gaining notoriety for asking some good and bad questions, the Pentagon suddenly discovered theat their security cameras actually did capture the impact, and then released a series of highly compressed and extremely dubious September 12 date-stamped images to CBS.



The first report of a C-130 appeared in the Daily Press, described by Keith Wheelhouse with military precision:

"flying directly above the American Airlines jet, as if to prevent two planes from appearing on radar - while at the same time - guiding the jet toward the Pentagon".


***Guiding the jet?****

***trying to hide from radar?***


And what about the olfactory discriminations of cordite by two Pentagon employees?

"then I KNEW explosives had been set off somewhere" ?

How do we explain the original reports of 'a military helicopter + explosion'?


At what time was the official standown order issued?
At what time was it lifted?


Wouldn't you like to see the **other** footage?

by footage
Copy the code below to embed this movie into a web page:
the first few frames of this (2.87mg) clip from CNN includes what is quite possibly the C-130.

Not that it matters.
by Sky King
> those who have nothing to hide by no faith • Saturday December 21, 2002 at 08:42 PM
>
> There were two videos seized by the FBI, skyking.

In itself, meaningless.

> The Pentagon claimed for several months that their own security cameras captured nothing.

So?

> When Thiery Meyson started gaining notoriety for asking some good and bad questions, the Pentagon
> suddenly discovered theat their security cameras actually did capture the impact, and then
> released a series of highly compressed and extremely dubious September 12 date-stamped images to
> CBS.

Logical fallacy. Apart from the fact that Meyson got his facts wrong and his conclusion is unsupported, you cannot draw the conclusion that there is a causal relationship between Meyson's book and the Pentagon releasing a security tape just because the tape was released after Meyson's faulty analysis. And you have not supported your claims about the tape itself.

>
> The first report of a C-130 appeared in the Daily Press, described by Keith Wheelhouse with
> military precision:
>
> "flying directly above the American Airlines jet, as if to prevent two planes from appearing on
> radar - while at the same time - guiding the jet toward the Pentagon".
>
> ***Guiding the jet?****
>
> ***trying to hide from radar?***

On what basis would you accept this claim?

> And what about the olfactory discriminations of cordite by two Pentagon employees?

What about it?

>
> "then I KNEW explosives had been set off somewhere" ?

Did he? Are you sure?

>
> How do we explain the original reports of 'a military helicopter + explosion'?

Show us what happened to the so-called "helicopter" and "C-130" after the explosion. Provide some evidence for a change.

> At what time was the official standown order issued? At what time was it lifted?

Of what relevance is that if it occurred?

> Wouldn't you like to see the **other** footage?

Whether I would like to or not is irrelevant. What I want is evidence that supports the various contradictory contentions that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon but flew over it and a fighter hit it; that it did hit the Pentagon but was controlled by a helicopter, or maybe a C-130; that a hijacker was hoodwinked to fly it over the ocean where it was shot down, and so on.

You cannot accept any conspiracy theory without looking at the implications, causal relationships, and events that must precede and follow it.

And more than anything, I would like to know why human beings are so susceptible to the desire to believe in unsupported conspiracy theories and not think for themselves, as you and others demonstrate.



by ap
niceday.jpgv11125.jpg
>> "On what basis would you accept this claim? "

on what basis do you accept the official narrative?

======================================
The second plane looked similar to a C- 130 transport plane, [Keith Wheelhouse] said. He believes it flew directly above the American Airlines jet, as if to prevent two planes from appearing on radar - while at the same time - guiding the jet toward the Pentagon. Daily Press, September 14, 2001

Kelly Knowles, a First Colonial High School alumnus who now lives in an apartment a few miles from the Pentagon, said some sort of plane followed the doomed American Airlines jet toward the Pentagon, then veered away after the explosion.

At the same time, [Keith Wheelhouse] and his sister, Pam Young, who lives in Surry, were preparing to leave a funeral at Arlington National Cemetery, which is less than a mile from the Pentagon, when they watched the jet approach and slam into the Pentagon. Both of them, as well as at least one other personat the funeral, insist that there was another plane flying near the hijacked jet. Daily Press, September 15, 2001


“Then the plane -- it looked like a C-130 cargo plane -- started turning away from the Pentagon, it did a complete turnaround. New York Lawyer

Off to the west, Sucherman saw another plane climb steeply and make a sharp turn. "I thought, 'Is this thing coming around to make a second attack? If there is another explosion, we're toast.'" eWeek

As we watched the black plume gather strength, less than a minute after the explosion, we saw an odd sight that no one else has yet commented on. Directly in back of the plume, which would place it almost due west from our office, a four-engine propeller plane, which Ray later said resembled a C-130, started a steep decent towards the Pentagon. Cloth Monkey

Within moments there was a very loud bang, which seemed to come from the direction of Henderson Hall. At least, all the heads turned towards Henderson. It is possible that this was a secondary explosion from the Pentagon or possibly an F-16 going supersonic.[...] The only large fixed wing aircraft to appear was a gray C-130, which appeared to be a Navy electronic warfare aircraft, he seemed to survey the area and depart in on a westerly heading. Our Net Family

[Keith Wheelhouse] and at least two other witnesses to the Pentagon attack were troubled that Pentagon spokesmen had until now said they were unaware of a C-130 being in the area at the time. In the days immediately following the Sept. 11 hijackings, the Pentagon had no knowledge of the C-130's encounter, because........all reports were classified by the Air National Guard(!) Daily Press, October 17, 2001
============================


The C-130 was flying at a time when ALL aircraft-- civilian, MILITARY and LAW ENFORCEMENT--were stood down.

The SAME C-130 turned up in Pensylvannia!!

What a coinkydink!

by ap
Why did the pentagon lie about the video tapes, mike?

Why did they lie about the presence of the C-130?

Why did they produce a "confession" video of an actor pretending to be Bin Laden?

Why are the olfactory discriminations of cordite of no relevance to you, mike?

Why is the helicopter of no relevance?

How many times can you say "so what?" when presented with stinky facts?
by Sky King
> have a nice day
by ap • Sunday December 22, 2002 at 08:41 AM

> on what basis do you accept the official narrative?

There is no "official narrative."

Sheeze

But thanks for confirming which conspiracy theory you believe in, AP.
by Sky King
>ps--let's pretend!
by ap • Sunday December 22, 2002 at 08:48 AM

> Why did the pentagon lie about the video tapes, mike?

> Why did they lie about the presence of the C-130?

> Why did they produce a "confession" video of an actor pretending to be Bin Laden?

> Why are the olfactory discriminations of cordite of no relevance to you, mike?

> Why is the helicopter of no relevance?

> How many times can you say "so what?" when presented with stinky facts?

What facts, AP?
by CIAgent
Good stuff

What Really Happens at whatreallyhappened.com?
By S. Boyle
Why would Michael Rivero, an avowed anti-globalist, anti-corporate champion of the truth be working for (or very closely with) a corporate operation like PMC4, LLC?
http://www.ciagents.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=385&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

Borrowing the Skeleton from Senator Trent Lott's Closet
By S. Boyle
A follow-up to What Really Happens at whatreallyhappened.com
http://www.phillyimc.org/article.pl?sid=02/12/13/2339222&mode=thread
by Hasbara Goy
> Why did the pentagon lie about the video tapes, mike?
[see reports above]

> Why did they lie about the presence of the C-130?
[see reports above]

> Why did they produce a "confession" video of an actor pretending to be Bin Laden?
[see reports above]

> Why are the olfactory discriminations of cordite of no relevance to you, mike?
[see reports above]

> Why is the helicopter of no relevance?
[see reports above]

> How many times can you say "so what?" when presented with stinky facts?
[see rMike's responses above]


>>> ""What facts, AP?"" <<<<


"it is not as if there was a Palestinian people and we came along and threw them off their land......they DID NOT EXIST!!!

Remember that famouls lie from the zionists, Mike?

It didn't work!


Do you want me to repost the reports AGAIN, Mike...


....or would you rather try to offer rational explanations for the reported phenomena?

by Sky King
> Do you want me to repost the reports AGAIN, Mike...

I don't know who Mike is, but I'm waiting for some actual facts, not "reports."

What part of that still confuses you?
by Hasbara Goy
> it was reported that the pentagon either lied about the capture of video by their own cameras, or produced a sequence of fraudulent September 12 date-stamped highly-compressed images, while the FBI seized video captured from a nearby hotel, and possibly a gas station.
[see reports above]

> it was reported that the Pentagon claimed no knowledge about the presence of a C-130 because that information was too classified for the Pentagon to know until a month after the attacks.
[see reports above]

> a "confession" video of an actor pretending to be Bin Laden *was* produced. (I've seen it)
[see "have a nice day" post above]

> olfactory discriminations of cordite were reported by two Pentagon employees, one beina very senior Pentagon employee who seems to have concluded that "explosives had been set off somewhere."
[see reports above]

> CNN reported that *unnamed witnesses* saw a helicopter--a military helicopter--buzzing aroung the Pentagon prior to the "explosion", but with no reference to any other aircraft.
[see reports above]


You can judge the value of the various not-necessarily compatible reports for yourself--but the reports exist.
by Sky King
>> ps--let's pretend! by ap • Sunday December 22, 2002 at 08:48 AM
>>
>> Why did the pentagon lie about the video tapes, mike?
>>
>> Why did they lie about the presence of the C-130?
>>
>> Why did they produce a "confession" video of an actor pretending to be Bin Laden?
>>
>> Why are the olfactory discriminations of cordite of no relevance to you, mike?
>>
>> Why is the helicopter of no relevance?
>>
>> How many times can you say "so what?" when presented with stinky facts?
>>

> You can judge the value of the various not-necessarily compatible reports for yourself--but the
> reports exist.

That's right - I did judge those reports.

But thanks for backing off of your claims above. Reports, after all, are not necessarily facts.
by Sky King
>> ps--let's pretend! by ap • Sunday December 22, 2002 at 08:48 AM
>>
>> Why did the pentagon lie about the video tapes, mike?
>>
>> Why did they lie about the presence of the C-130?
>>
>> Why did they produce a "confession" video of an actor pretending to be Bin Laden?
>>
>> Why are the olfactory discriminations of cordite of no relevance to you, mike?
>>
>> Why is the helicopter of no relevance?
>>
>> How many times can you say "so what?" when presented with stinky facts?
>>

> You can judge the value of the various not-necessarily compatible reports for yourself--but the
> reports exist.

That's right - I did judge those reports.

But thanks for backing off of your claims above. Reports, after all, are not necessarily facts.

Have a swell day.

by Hasbara Goy
I didn't back down on anything.


Youy can prkeep pretending that the evidence soedn't exist if it makes you happy.

reports are evidence--particularly when we can trace to actual people.

If you can't accept reports an weighed as evidence, you may as well discard everything a person ever told you.

Good luck, spinboy!
by Hasbara Goy
I meant to say:
"if you can't accept that reports can be weighed as evidence, then you may as well discard everything anyone ever told you."


and you didn't answer my question Sky King--which is typical fraud behavior: generate a plethora of ridiculous questions, demand answers, but don't offer any in return.

On the basis of what reports (HA!) do you accept the Offical Narrative?
by Sky King
> by Hasbara Goy • Monday December 23, 2002 at 08:56 PM

> On the basis of what reports (HA!) do you accept the Offical Narrative?

What "Official Narrative"?




by Already Published

Pet Goat Story - September 11, 2001 (realtime)

JENNINGS: Many thanks, Lindsay Grimm, who saw this occurring, at least the first--hesitate to call it an attack--the first incident. We'll continue to call it for now, and very much the second one now. That's what it looks like, both of the towers in--twin trade towers are now on fire. We have no idea whatsoever the measure of casualties inside or the measure of damage inside, though you can only imagine it. The New York City Office of Emergency Management said to us a short while ago they do not know what happened yet.

Want to check in very quickly with the president of the United States. John Cochran with the president in Florida. John:

JOHN COCHRAN reporting:

Peter, as you know, the president's down in Florida talking about education. He got out of his hotel suite this morning, was about to leave, reporters saw the White House chief of staff, Andy Card, whisper into his ear. The reporter said to the president, 'Do you know what's going on in New York?' He said he did, and he said he will have something about it later. His first event is about half an hour at an elementary school in Sarasota, Florida.

JENNINGS: Thanks, John. John Cochran with the president
ABC Transcript @ Emperors Clothes

Pet Goat Story - September 12, 2001

Mr. Bush was informed that a plane had hit the World Trade Center in a telephone conversation with Ms. Rice shortly before walking into a second-grade classroom at the Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Fla. White House officials said he knew only that it was a single aircraft and not necessarily a terrorist attack. The president did not appear preoccupied until a few moments later, around 9:05a.m., when his chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., entered the room and whispered into the president's ear about the second plane attack.At that moment Mr. Bush's face became visibly tense and serious. [...]

"This is a difficult time for America," Mr. Bush said. Air Force One departed from Sarasota at 9:55 a.m.

Bush Commits U.S. to Hunt Down Both Terrorists and Their Supporters, ELISABETH BUMILLER with DAVID E. SANGER
NYT, September 12, 2001

Pet Goat Story - December 4, 2001

THE PRESIDENT (sic): Hi, Patricia; how are you? How old is Patricia?

Q: Five, and Jordan is in 3rd grade. And Jordan has a question, if I could give him the microphone.

THE PRESIDENT (sic): You bet. Your mother is relaying the Mike to you, Jordan.

Q: One thing, Mr. President, is that you have no idea how much you've done for this country. And another thing is that, how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack? (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT (sic): Thank you, Jordan. Well, Jordan, you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my Chief of Staff, Andy Card -- actually, I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there's one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a horrible accident.
Whitehouse.Gov

Pet Goat Story - January 5, 2001

Q: What was the first thing that went through your head when you heard that a plane crashed into the first building?

THE PRESIDENT (sic):: Yes. Well, I was sitting in a schoolhouse in Florida. I had gone down to tell my little brother what to do, and -- just kidding, Jeb. (Laughter.) And -- it's the mother in me. (Laughter.) Anyway, I was in the midst of learning about a reading program that works. I'm a big believer in basic education, and it starts with making sure every child learns to read. And therefore, we need to focus on the science of reading, not what may feel good or sound good when it comes to teaching children to read. (Applause.) I'm just getting a plug in for my reading initiative.

Anyway, I was sitting there, and my Chief of Staff -- well, first of all, when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on. And you know, I thought it was pilot error and I was amazed that anybody could make such a terrible mistake. And something was wrong with the plane, or -- anyway, I'm sitting there, listening to the briefing, and Andy Card came and said, "America is under attack."
Whitehouse.Gov

Pet Goat Story - September 10, 2002

BREITWEISER: I think what really initially started was I saw the picture of the president in, I think it was “Newsweek” or “Time” magazine, and I read the caption. And the caption said, you know, “Andy Card telling the president about the second plane.” And then I read that he proceeded to read for 25 minutes to the 2nd- graders. He was in a Sarasota school that morning for a reading program. And I read it again, and I thought it was, you know, misreported. And it wasn’t, and I got upset. I said, you know, this nation was under attack. It was clear that we were under attack. Why didn’t the Secret Service whisk him out of that school? He was on live local television in Florida. The terrorists, you know, had been in Florida. I mean, we

DONAHUE: Right.

BREITWEISER: And I-I am concerned. I want to know why the Secret Service did not whisk him away. I want to know why he is the commander-in-chief of the United States of America, our country was clearly under attack, it was after the second building was hit. I want to know why he sat there for 25 minutes.
MSNBC/Newsweek

Pet Goat Story - September 12, 2002

New York Post
September 12th 2002
Teacher relives moment Bush- and her kids- got the news

"...at Emma E. Booker Elementary School, teacher Sandra Daniels recalled yesterday how she and her class learned of the terror attacks- when a Secret Service agent rushed into the room to inform the president of United States.

President Bush had been presiding over her reading class last 9/11, when a Secret Service agent interrupted the lesson and asked, "where can we get a television?".

"The President bolted right out of here and told me: "take over", Daniels told the Post yesterday...

...a short while later he came back and said, 'What we thought was an accident turned out to be a terrorist hijack."
NewYorkPost

by AP
I forgot to mention that I disagree with Gerard's pathetic attempt to dismiss the relevance of the five Mossad agents with false passports, cash and traces of explosives arrested after they were reported celebrating the attacks.

Check out this spin:
================================
I'm Unimpressed with Attempts to Link Israel and 9-11
by Gerard Holmgren

Regarding Israel's alleged involvement in September 11th let me first state that I'm open to anything but I WANT TO SEE THE EVIDENCE. Everything I've seen on this accusation has been at best highly circumstantial and SPECULATIVE and at worst completely WITHOUT FOUNDATION.
[...]
Unlike the forked tongue propaganda of the US, Israel makes it quite CLEAR AND OPEN what its agenda is. It pursues it ruthlessly so what you see is what you get. I see no evidence of a shadowy covert strategic chess game of the type the US plays.
================================


In case you never noticed it before, Gerard, the slogan (slaugh-gairm / army-shout) of the Mossad is....
..... War By Deception.

The "Lavon Affair" was not clear and open.
The attacks on the U.S.S. Liberty were not clear and open (except to the victims).

================================
Vague stuff about Israeli spy rings or some ISRAELI KIDS who were SUPPOSEDLY arrested after cheering the WTC disaster from a rooftop in New Jersey - and WHO KNOWS IF they even knew what was happening - DO NOT CONSTITUTE EVIDENCE OF THE QUALITY NEEDED.
================================

How five actual Mossad agents that were actually arrested due to actual incriminating evidence during preliminary investigation on being reported for celebrating the attacks turned into nothing more than a bunch of Israeli kids supposedly arrested for cheering...


You can read the rest here:

http://emperors-clothes.com/letters/holm.htm


by Hasbara Publications
terrible_pilot.jpg

2) which Pet Goat Story do you prefer, Sky King?

3) Where can we get a television?
> 2) which Pet Goat Story do you prefer, Sky King?

I'm still waiting for the "Offical Narrative."
by Sky King
> oh yeah.......
by AP • Tuesday December 24, 2002 at 09:01 AM

> I forgot to mention that I disagree with Gerard's pathetic attempt to dismiss the relevance of the five Mossad agents with false passports, cash and traces of explosives arrested after they were reported celebrating the attacks.

I hate to break the news to you but Gerard Holmgren was thoroughly discredited on all counts, just as you have been.


by Hasbara Publications
oyou haven't discredited any of the reports, but you can keep asserting that you have if the belief makes you happy.

==========================
The Official Narrative
==========================
The Guilty
Attack on America / The Crimes of Al-Queda / Arab Extremists /
Bin Laden as the Cause / The Islamic Jihad /
Check the Evil Terrorists of the World!
=====================

A few days ago, America was astonished by the news of terrorists attacks on the World Trade Centre Towers and the Pentagon. Thousands of innocent civilians were killed as the towers collapsed in a toxic cloud of dust and smoke after being hit by Boeing airliners that were hijacked by evildoers. The ringleader is thought to be the head of the Al Queda terrorist network in Afghanistan, Usama Bin-Laden.

At the time the press brought another unsettling report: terrorist cells were located in over 60 countries!

Anthrax

was distributed through the post, threats to murder both individuals and groups of American citizens were revealed. The bloody uprising was supposed to begin throughout America in the immediate future. There was to be murder and arson in cities and towns.

These news items had a strong effect throughout America. The indifferent citizen who had not wanted to see the enormous danger of terrorism looked in horror toward New York and Washington. He too realized now that America faced a terrible threat. The threat to freedom and democracy was the signal that brought every American to his senses.

--<a href="http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/ds7.htm" target="_blank"> Already Published Here
by Hasbara Publications
re-quest:

===================================
a) which Pet Goat Story do you prefer, Sky King?

b) where can we get a television?

by Sky King
>faith: designed to thwart inquiry
by Hasbara Publications • Tuesday December 24, 2002 at 11:16 AM

> oyou [sic] haven't discredited any of the reports,...

I don't have to discredit the "reports." You have to support them with evidence.

That is what you're clearly avoiding. With your blind faith in them, that is.


by Hasbara Goy
What Sky King is clearly avoiding


re-re-quest:

===================================
a) which Pet Goat Story do you prefer, Sky King?

b) where can we get a television?
====================================


What a rude and uncooperative fraud Sky King is.

The BinLaden in the US government produced video is also a fraud.




============


FACT--it was reported that the pentagon either lied about the capture of video by their own cameras, or produced a sequence of fraudulent September 12 date-stamped highly-compressed images, while the FBI seized video captured from a nearby hotel, and possibly a gas station.
[see reports above]

FACT--it was reported that the Pentagon claimed no knowledge about the presence of a C-130 because that information was too classified for the Pentagon to know until a month after the attacks.
[see reports above]

FACT--a "confession" video of an actor pretending to be Bin Laden *was* produced. (I've seen it)
[see "have a nice day" post above]

FACT--olfactory discriminations of cordite were reported by two Pentagon employees, one beina very senior Pentagon employee who seems to have concluded that "explosives had been set off somewhere."
[see reports above]

FACT--CNN reported that *unnamed witnesses* saw a helicopter--a military helicopter--buzzing aroung the Pentagon prior to the "explosion", but with no reference to any other aircraft.
[see reports above]
========================================

by Sky King
> another ps
by Hasbara Publications • Tuesday December 24, 2002 at 11:19 AM

> re-quest:

In the spirit of Christmas, I'll refrain from pointing out your embarrasingly irrational thinking today.

Merry Christmas.


by Hasbara Goy
I'm not a christian and I have no need for beliefs in "spirits"--which shows how rationals *you* are, skyboy.


re-re-request:

===================================
a) which Pet Goat Story do you prefer, Sky King?

b) where can we get a television?
====================================



pretty easy to answer, huh?
by Terrible Pilot ®
911.jpg




"Immediately following the FIRST attack...I implimented our governments EMERGENCY response plan!!"
--Nazi Puppet Bush, September 11, 2001

by Ap
...doesn't he Sky King!!

I don't see how any human could possibly misinterpret the facial expression.




...when you're smiling, when you're smiling. the whole world smiles with you....
by Sky King
While Bubba Goy and his sidekick, AP Bottoms, froth at the mouth in multiple hissy fits, we still wait for evidence.

Like with Gerard Holmgren before them, it is never forthcoming.

And like Gerard Holmgren, they too will fade away in obscurity, unable to support their conspiracy fantasies with facts or evidence.


by Terrible Pilot ®

I think I've provided quite a bit of evidence, while you've done nothing but provoke hostility while avoiding each and every question directed at you.

In the spirit of anti-theism, explanatory fitness and transactional equity, a re-re-re-reqest:


===================================
a) which Pet Goat Story do you prefer, Sky King?

b) where can we get a television?
====================================

+

c) what time did the FAA issue a stand-down order to all civilian, military and law enforcement aricraft, and what time was the order lifted?

e) who set fire to the reichstag?

f) did Nazis actively harrass those who asked the previous question?

g) based on your behaviour on this thread, what can we infer about your intent?
by Larry Leonard (Larrl55 [at] juno.com)


Let’s call the total distance from driver’s eyes to fuselage 118 ft. To make the maths easy, round it to 120. Sitting in the car, her eyes are about 4 ft off the ground, so the effective height of the plane from her eyeline is about 76 ft. Round this to 80. If you check the angle made by something which is 80 ft high and 120 ft distant, it’s approximately 30 degrees. When I sit in my car, a 30 degree angle from my eyes looks straight into the folded up sun visor. In other words, you can’t see something at this angle from a car. Of course, it’s a little different for each person, depending on their car, seat position and posture Her distances, as in the case of Wallace are subject to inaccuracy, but the point needs to be made that on the basis of these figures it would be impossible for her to see the fuselage, from that height and distance. The open sun roof wouldn’t help. The fuselage would be behind the section that joins the windscreen to the roof edge. Of course, with a moment to spare, one can change this by leaning forward, but its been established that she probably has about 1/4 of a second to sight the small section of the windows and AA colour scheme that isn't obscured by the wing. Because of the many variables, we can’t state with certainty that the fuselage was hidden from her vision, but when taken at face value, it appears to be impossible for her to have seen it.

So just because you couldn’t see the same thing she did, she’s wrong? Did you use the same car? Did you take in consideration how fast she was driving, the up or down angle of the road? No, you just took for granted it’s impossible in your car. I haven’t seen any evidence that proves her wrong and you right.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
And now, the encore. The piece of plane that found it’s way into her back seat. If you’ve checked the link, you will have seen the photo of it, and will unreservedly agree that it is definitely, without doubt, unequivocably a piece of - ??? - a piece of whatever they tell us it is. It’s turned up at the Smithsonian museum, in a little patriotic box, which apparently proves that it must have once been part of a 757. And we know that it was found in Penny’s back seat. We have absolute proof of that because she told us so. Penny - as one of the few people on Earth who has actually witnessed a 125 ft solid object move through another solid object without leaving a 125 ft hole - and also with the help of some adrenalin, has performed the visual equivalent of jumping over a 100 ft fence, is not a person who’s word can be doubted.

Wrong, that aircraft was not solid. It was hollow. Didn’t need such a big hole to go through. Basic physics.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So this piece of the plane which had just been flung 100 yards out of a violent explosion, with temperatures orders of magnitude above 700 degrees C, just a few seconds before, lobbed into Penny’s back seat, 1 to 2 feet behind her head, so gently and quietly that she didn’t even notice it - which is strange for a person who was in a state of mind that enabled her take in tiny details in 30 ms increments. Furthermore, the piece of plane had miraculously cooled down during it’s 100 yard journey, to the extent that nothing caught fire, or even singed, or made a burning smell in the back seat. It just sat there quietly like a good little piece of plane should, until she was ready to find it and put it in the little patriotic box.
Who said it was in the fire? You did! That’s who. Did you ever consider that it might have been chipped off the aircraft by the concrete structure and bounced backward before the aircraft caught fire? It could have had a spin put on it. Then while acting like a Frisbee it quietly landed in the back seat of a car. Strange and weirder things have happened.

A proven medical fact is that a person with a lot of adrenalin and motivation can do things impossible to do under normally circumstances. Like a wife, who lifted up a pickup truck off her husband after it slipped off the jack. Like four GIs ambushed on a road build on a dike through a rice paddies. They jumped out of the jeep. Each one grabbed a corner of the jeep, lifted and turned the jeep around. Like the woman, who lifted the bookshelf that was crushing her child after he climbed on it and it fell over Not one could repeat the tasks when they were challenged to repeat it later.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



SUMMARY

It is physically impossible for all of the plane to have entered the crash site, and this is backed by solid mathematical proof.

Wrong. The aircraft is made out of thin aluminum sheets and braces. It crumples nicely under pressure. It is not solid! The aircraft is a hollow aluminum tube with hollow aluminum wings. Drop a concrete brick on an aluminum coke can and see how big it is. Then put a lit magnesium flare on it with kerosene poured on for affect and see how much if the coke can is left when the fire burns out.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

There is no evidence outside the building of wreckage to account for the part of the plane which cannot have entered the crash site.

Wrong. The law of an object in motion will continue in motion. Like a coke can being crushed. When the aircraft hit the building, the wings folded back along and in the fuselage as it continued its entry. Same with the vertical and horizontal stabilizers (tail section). Ever seen a crash site in the desert? Large aircraft make large holes and the complete aircraft enters the hole if the angle and speed are right. Slower speeds and lower angles of collision puts scrap medal all over the desert.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

There is no evidence of identifiable wreckage inside the crash site.


DUH! Smoke them if you got them! Any wreckage left would melt or oxidize away! Put a blowtorch on a coke can and see how long it will last. Look at a motor home after a fire has eliminated all evidence of identifiable wreckage.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Cremation of the plane was unprecedented in aviation history and physically impossible.

Wrong! It’s happened too so time in the past for me not to say something. I’ve seen it! All that’s left is the engines and landing gear after a fire.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Even could such cremation have been possible, it is impossible in the context of the modest damage to the wall.


That was an awfully big hole to be called modest! It was more than big enough to swallow a crumpled airplane whole!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The hole in the back of the third ring cannot be explained by any means other than a missile.

Wrong. An aircraft engine is mostly super hard metal. With the weight and the solidness of that assembly, it can fly right along with out the rest of the aircraft. Just like they did in the twin towers crash. Those aircraft engines were found thousands of feet away from the crash site as well as killing and injuring people walking in the streets.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Fake wreckage has been designed and planted with the express purpose of impersonating the American Airlines colour scheme.

Why bother to go through all that trouble? Some one would have seen them haul it in. If it were an unmanned missile it would serve no purpose to hide that fact. In fact the only missile was the aircraft it self. They could have, but there is no reason to as the aircraft has electronic evidence, physical evidence and witnesses.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Eyewitness evidence is inconclusive and fabricated eyewitness reports have been presented to try to shore up the official story.

Wrong. Your conclusion is not based on fact. Just conjecture and uneducated reasoning.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Claims that DNA testing identified 63 of the 64 people on board, are mutually exclusive with claims that the plane was cremated, and with the official line on the WTC victims and the Bali bomb victims.

Wrong. Just like an aircraft, there are parts left over. Bone with small samples of marrow that can be used for DNA testing. How do you think all those pilots who died in crash sites in Viet Nam were identified? They can identify the DNA in the bones buried for twenty years. Why can’t they do the same for bones almost completely burned up?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

$110.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network