9/11 - Did flight AA77 Hit The Pentagon?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
One reason that the truthers will never go away is that they basically will not be satisfied with anything less than free and unfettered access to to all the data the the FBI, the CIA, and the White House have on 9/11 and any tangentially related topic. Of course they are not going to get it - either because it does not exist (demands for nano-thermite experiment results), or simply because it's classified, right or wrong. It's unfortunate, and I'm in favor of more openness in government, however that's the way the CIA works - they are not going to open their databases to the public - so there is always going to be some opacity that theorist can point to.

With these tapes, I imagine the reason they were not released it that they don't pertain to the case. Security footage showing nothing is the property of the person who recorded it, so it's not the FBI's to give.

Yeah, it would be great if we could have all those tapes digitized and on the web- but it really would not change anything, just one less thing of thousands for conspiracy theorists to talk about.

In fact it would probably just make things worse. You've see what happened with the Sandy Hook madness - people claiming family photos were photoshopped, and that the funerals were performed by actors. Im'm sure if they look hard enough they will find something suspicious in even a tape showing empty sky.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
A more true statement you have not written Mick . . .


One reason that the truthers will never go away is that they basically will not be satisfied with anything less than free and unfettered access to to all the data the the FBI, the CIA, and the White House have on 9/11
Content from External Source
 

Billzilla

Senior Member.
A more true statement you have not written Mick . . .


One reason that the truthers will never go away is that they basically will not be satisfied with anything less than free and unfettered access to to all the data the the FBI, the CIA, and the White House have on 9/11
Content from External Source

But it's not.
An example is that at some point in the future a spacecraft will land somewhere near the Apollo landing sites on the Moon and photograph them from a distance, beaming that signal live back to Earth or where-ever.
There'll still be people that won't believe it.
You could fly them over the sites themselves and they still wouldn't believe it.
If I said what I really wanted to say, I'd get banned.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I'm not the one spouting my ignorance over the corpses of other people. The web is perfectly accessible to you. I (and several others) have told you where to look (basically on any sites that are NOT woo). And you won't do it. That helps your description of me exactly fit yourself.

There really is no need of this tone Jazzy. I am not attacking you... merely commenting on your attacks on me.

I ask you, what sort of a CTist would I be if I did not visit the 'woo' sites as you call them. I do not call them woo sites, that does not preclude them from containing what may appear to be woo. If I find something I think may be woo, which I have often done, I will check it out to see if there is any substance in it. In short, I will attempt to debunk it myself.

However, oftentimes what I thought was woo is actually fact. Some of it is part fact and some supposition or extrapolation... it requires looking at the evidence dispassionately and often it is good to get an opposing viewpoint. This is why I post on this site. If you disprove something which is woo, I am pleased. There is nothing personal in it... merely a difference of opinion or a different viewpoint. I do not mean to be patronising but I feel we need to clear this up, it is generally known as free speech and free thinking.

To speak to me of 'spouting my ignorance over the corpses of other people', is IMO completely uncalled for.
There are many dead, that is true and I am not only referring to the official 3000 of 9/11, I am talking also about the millions of others who have died over political manoeuvrings and wars preceding and resulting from it. Many people are against the wars and we are entitled to be heard. We are not 'chips on the table', we do not have to have degrees or funny hand shakes to have opinions and expect to be taken into account. We will not shut up when we are told to just because the government or government sympathisers tell us to.

These people died, many more will die and it is only right that the truth of who killed them and why they died must be sought. So far there is a strong case that the Bush administration was either party to it or at least allowed it to happen with the apparent view that 'the ends justify the means'.

On a governmental scale, 3000 people are not that many. In previous wars 11,000 men have been sacrificed in a battle to take a completely worthless piece of land. At the end of the second world war thousands were lost in the last few hours taking land they could have walked into unopposed a few hours later. That is the way TPTB think when they have their grand plans.

To put it in perspective, 900,000 people go 'missing' every year in the U.S alone. That's 2500 per day. Add to that the accidents, natural deaths, murders etc, so yes I believe the Bush administration are certainly capable of being involved or worse.


You call the turbine ring blade count "zilch" when it is unique to the RB211. What's more to be said? Even with missing features the engine wreckage is completely identifiable with an RB211.

I wouldn't call it 'zilch' if you showed from some independent source that it was unique to the RB211. I cannot locate such evidence.

You live in this world you describe. I don't. Nor can I imagine it, quite. As the years pass by so all the more closely your actions are going to match those of a holocaust denier.

You mention the holocaust but just look at that. People are imprisoned for pointing out the flaws in it and daring to question its accuracy. Is that what you want for all conspiracy theorists? Anyone who dares to question the official view should be killed or locked up or 're educated... is that what you actually want?

As far as 'hole in the pentagon' is concerned, I accept that it is bigger than stated in some instances but I do not accept it is as large as you suggest. I have modified your picture of the damage to show the actual hole through which an object could enter unobstructed by remaining pillars.

Tried to post pic twice but would not accept, will post separately

The actual 'gap' is only from yellow line to yellow line. How many feet do you estimate that to be?

Also there is debris in the form of giant spools, which I marked with red dots. I do not know where these originated but I assume they must have been moved there after the fire but if not they would have precluded any aircraft debris from entering at that point. Do you have any knowledge regarding these?

I surmise the blue highlight is where the tail went in.
 

joe24pack

New Member
It's actually explained quite accurately. If you only look at the outside of the building and ignore what was going on inside it, then you could easily be suckered into thinking it was deliberate. But if you look at the entire system of its damage and destruction it makes perfect sense.

Ok, so you basically just said absolutely nothing about building 7. What exactly was going on INSIDE the building that would cause it to collapse in pure symmetrical freefall? A few isolated office fires will not collapse a building in pure symmetrical free fall.


Never in history has such large buildings nearly been cut in half by high-speed & heavy aeroplanes violently impacting them. as I have said many times in many places before, I am more surprised that they didn't collapse immediately. That would have been far less surprising that them taking an hour+ to fail.

I don't recall Building 7 being hit by "high-speed and heavy aeroplanes".


Pure fiction, there is no such thing as 'nano thermite'. What was found was the scale rust from the burnt steel and that is the same base material as regular thermite.

wow a simple search disproves this ridiculous comment that there is no such thing as nano-thermite. Nano thermite can not be made naturally- you can't take the aluminum from the plane and iron oxide together to create it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3a0B4CAZVM


Correct, and yet not one single person anywhere noticed anyone in any building placing the explosives.
Yes I'm sure no one noticed it, especially the folks who provided security for the World Trade Center, a company called Securacom, whose principal, Marvin P. Bush was George Bush's younger. Total coincidence, nothing to see there.

When the aeroplanes hit they would have somehow managed to hit exactly in the correct pre-planned spot on the correct face, or the damage the pre-placed explosives would have created would have been in the wrong spot. The way to ensure that you get an explosion at the point the aeroplane hits is to have a lot of explosives all over, but then you need to not set them off where the aeroplane doesn't hit so it doesn't look fake. Funny thing is that no explosives were found in the debris. Nothing. No det cords, no timers, no nothing.

Huh? the airplanes did not cause the collapse of the the buildings so it didn't really matter where the explosions were set in relation to the impact. Remember we are talking about BUILDING 7. NO AIRPLANE HIT BUILDING 7.

These responses are so ridiculous I am starting to wonder if this site is just pure cointelpro. Just confuse the average person with a large volume of ridiculous explanations and hope won't be able to tell truth from fiction.

Building 7 was a STEEL FRAMED SKYSCRAPER. 1700+ architects and engineers agree that the official story does not explain how that building collapsed. It was not HIT BY A PLANE. HOW THE HELL DID IT COLLAPSE?

But if you look at the entire system of its damage and destruction it makes perfect sense.
Thanks for the good laugh by the way. This one will be a classic! Remember these 4 words about the big steel structure that was not hit by anything. It's not hard. Follow along:

BUILDING-7.
PURE.
Symmetrical.
FREE-FALL.
 

Billzilla

Senior Member.
Ok, so you basically just said absolutely nothing about building 7. What exactly was going on INSIDE the building that would cause it to collapse in pure symmetrical freefall? A few isolated office fires will not collapse a building in pure symmetrical free fall.

I don't waste my time doing research for people that won't listen, do poor research, don't understand physics, and have already made their mind up. I can't see any reason to waste my time.
It's in an official report, you find it.





I don't recall Building 7 being hit by "high-speed and heavy aeroplanes".

Correct, and I did not say nor infer that it was.




wow a simple search disproves this ridiculous comment that there is no such thing as nano-thermite. Nano thermite can not be made naturally- you can't take the aluminum from the plane and iron oxide together to create it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3a0B4CAZVM

It's just regular thermite with very small particle sizes to maximise the surface area for the given volume. So, just regular thermite slightly more developed, nothing special at all.





Yes I'm sure no one noticed it, especially the folks who provided security for the World Trade Center, a company called Securacom, whose principal, Marvin P. Bush was George Bush's younger. Total coincidence, nothing to see there.

So you're saying that someone was related to someone.
Amazing, do go on please, I think some of my family is like that as well.




Huh? the airplanes did not cause the collapse of the the buildings so it didn't really matter where the explosions were set in relation to the impact. Remember we are talking about BUILDING 7. NO AIRPLANE HIT BUILDING 7.


Okay building 7 then. Your amazing powers of observation are correct in that no aeroplane hit building 7. However it was very badly damaged by debris from the other two towers smashing into it. There's photos of it with a huge hole in the side and if you look for them (not on woo-woo sites because they don't want you to see that) you will find them.



Building 7 was a STEEL FRAMED SKYSCRAPER. 1700+ architects and engineers agree that the official story does not explain how that building collapsed. It was not HIT BY A PLANE. HOW THE HELL DID IT COLLAPSE?

Do some research, you will see how the collapse mechanism occurred.
You will then ignore it and it'll somehow be my fault still.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
There really is no need of this tone Jazzy. I am not attacking you
LOL

However, oftentimes what I thought was woo is actually fact. Some of it is part fact and some supposition or extrapolation... it requires looking at the evidence dispassionately and often it is good to get an opposing viewpoint. This is why I post on this site. If you disprove something which is woo, I am pleased. There is nothing personal in it... merely a difference of opinion or a different viewpoint. I do not mean to be patronising but I feel we need to clear this up, it is generally known as free speech and free thinking.
It's always woo.

To speak to me of 'spouting my ignorance over the corpses of other people', is IMO completely uncalled for.
It's necessary. You are voicing doubts before you have absorbed all the facts. That is pointless and socially dangerous.

We will not shut up when we are told to just because the government or government sympathisers tell us to.
Good. Instead you will not shut when you don't know what you're talking about, and a private citizen tells you that you are an arrogant and pompous prick. Didn't I?

it is only right that the truth of who killed them and why they died must be sought.
That said, why don't you try it?

That is the way TPTB think when they have their grand plans.
And you, of course, know.

I wouldn't call it 'zilch' if you showed from some independent source that it was unique to the RB211. I cannot locate such evidence.
Tut, tut. It's there. And the PTB are bad because you're too lazy to find evidence which might disprove this? LOL.

Anyone who dares to question the official view should be killed or locked up or 're educated... is that what you actually want?
Why should I answer? You appear to know already what other people think.

As far as 'hole in the pentagon' is concerned, I accept that it is bigger than stated in some instances but I do not accept it is as large as you suggest.
I should care.

Also there is debris in the form of giant spools, which I marked with red dots. I do not know where these originated but I assume they must have been moved there after the fire but if not they would have precluded any aircraft debris from entering at that point. Do you have any knowledge regarding these?
Read the report. Your assumptions are as usual, incorrect.

I surmise the blue highlight is where the tail went in.
Neither the tail nor the wingtips penetrated the building.

Read the report.
 

scombrid

Senior Member.
Yeah, unfortunately there's always going to be someone who thinks there still something hidden, no matter what you show them.

Recently went to a public meeting about a lake in my region. Local residents were complaining that the aquatic plant management section was destroying the lake by using herbicide applications to control invasive exotic plants. They were claiming that the whole lake had been denuded of vegetation. Two or three days before the meeting the biologist that oversees those lakes had done over-flights and taken photographs showing a fairly robust assemblage of native submersed and emergent vegetation. Half the old rednecks in the audience told him flat to his face in the middle of his presentation that he was a liar and that the photographs were either faked or more than three years old.
 

joe24pack

New Member
I don't waste my time doing research for people that won't listen ... Bunch of mindless text.... It's in an official report, you find it.

Actually Building 7 wasn't in the official 585 page 911 Commission Report. I can understand why, I mean there's nothing strange about a 47 story steel framed building, a football field away from the other two towers, collapsing at near gravity free fall speeds, after not being hit by an airplane in a matter of hours. Nothing worth noting in 585 pages.

Correct, and I did not say nor infer that it was.

Never in history has such large buildings nearly been cut in half by high-speed & heavy aeroplanes violently impacting them. as I have said many times in many places before, I am more surprised that they didn't collapse immediately. That would have been far less surprising that them taking an hour+ to fail.

Uh, yeah, you did infer that it was hit by a "high-speed and heavy Aeroplane"


It's just regular thermite with very small particle sizes to maximise the surface area for the given volume. So, just regular thermite slightly more developed, nothing special at all.

Right, so this "regular" thermite that is not found OR created naturally in nature, is used to cut steel, and created in a military facility got there... how? From the thermite fairy? Or should I do some more "Research" and re-read the official stories?

So you're saying that someone was related to someone.
Amazing, do go on please, I think some of my family is like that as well.

Yes it's perfectly reasonable to ignore related parties in a crime. I mean, crimes are never related to people who know each other. Nothing to see here. Carry on.

Okay building 7 then. Your amazing powers of observation are correct in that no aeroplane hit building 7. However it was very badly damaged by debris from the other two towers smashing into it. There's photos of it with a huge hole in the side and if you look for them (not on woo-woo sites because they don't want you to see that) you will find them.

I have looked for them and have not found them. A "huge hole" in one side of the building will not cause the entire footprint of the building to collapse in symmetry. Only part of the building should have collapsed if the damage was that bad (which they were not).

Do some research, you will see how the collapse mechanism occurred.
You will then ignore it and it'll somehow be my fault still.

"Do some research" is the best you can do? You must have been the debate champion in highskrool.

Based on the number of mindless responses to this thread I have a suspicion that this is a cointelpro site. I just happened to have found this site and read some of the threads that were of interest to me but it is becoming clear to me that this is not a regular site full of people who are trying to figure out what is going on out there. Probably gov't agents acting as regular citizens to confuse the masses and demonize the truth seekers.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
Originally Posted by Mick
Beats me. Maybe they don't have the tapes any more. What did the FOIA request responses say?
Discussed here http://911myths.com/index.php/FBI_hi...urce_documents
Landru, note from the link you referenced:
The Pentagon security camera footage was then released at the Moussaoui trial, but of course cleared up nothing at all. The Citgo and Doubletree footage followed, but didn't show the impact site. End of the story? No, because some people have claimed there are far more videos that are still being suppressed:
The Doubletree footage had a view of the explosion upon impact. Why is this website implying it contained nothing? Why did the FBI apparently state it contained nothing in a sworn affidavit before a court of law? If the FBI misled a court on this issue, and 911myths is misleading their readers on this issue, is it wise to simply take their word on this issue?

This is easily calculable as an amount sufficient to raise one thousand seven hundred tons of steel to its melting point, in the case of a single tower. Knock off 5% for the noise, and the crushing of the concrete - gives you fifteen hundred tons of hot steel.

The energy of the towers falling was massive, the friction caused may have been enough to raise the temperature of the steel beams to melting point.
However, the witnesses would not have been able to confirm if the molten steel was from the structural beams or from other structure - It's like my father's sock I found on the floor the other day; did my dad drop it there or did the dog drag it? I have no evidence either way.

Jazzy, Bill, before any discussions about what might have caused it's presence, are you acknowledging the presence of molten steel in the wreckage of the WTC buildings, or at least that the evidence available suggests it's presence was probable?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Chaps, it's not necessary to continually be pointing out the failing you perceive in the nature of others. It only leads to acrimony, which distracts from discussion.

Show, don't tell.

On track... the potential energy into molten steel discussion is interesting, but perhaps should be a different thread. I'll try to tidy this all up in a bit, split of sub-threads as needed. I like to make it so that if there's any useful discussion, it can be more easily found by future generations.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Actually Building 7 wasn't in the official 585 page 911 Commission Report
Because there's nothing unusual about a long-frame steel building with 2-hour fire protection collapsing after a 7-hour fire. Caused, apparently, by being hit by WTC1 (everyone saw this!), which also "fell in its own footprint".

got there... how?
Didn't get there. Was primer and silver paint.

crimes are never related to people who know each other
Without evidence. [...]

I have looked for them and have not found them. A "huge hole" in one side of the building will not cause the entire footprint of the building to collapse in symmetry. Only part of the building should have collapsed if the damage was that bad (which they were not).
That the building was a bridge beam structure doesn't mean anything to you, does it?

"Do some research" is the best you can do? You must have been the debate champion in highskrool.
So what is a bridge beam? What does structural instability mean?

Based on the number of mindless responses to this thread I have a suspicion that this is a cointelpro site. I just happened to have found this site and read some of the threads that were of interest to me but it is becoming clear to me that this is not a regular site full of people who are trying to figure out what is going on out there. Probably gov't agents acting as regular citizens to confuse the masses and demonize the truth seekers.
Might as well demonize. [...]

This fellow likes to curse. Nevertheless his last question is mine also:

 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It's a strange omission, no matter how you try to slice it.

Which report are you referring to exactly? The 9/11 Commission report only had a few pages actually about the events on the WTC site. Here's the table of contents:



And you know there's a pretty good NIST report on WTC7.
 
Last edited:
U

Unregistered

Guest
Which report are you referring to exactly? The 9/11 Commission report only had a few pages actually about the events on the WTC site. Here's the table of contents:



And you know there's a pretty good NIST report on WTC7.

The Commission Report did not mention 7, not once. The Nist report failed to share its input data into its computer simulation on the ground that it 'might jeopardize public safety'. This failure negates any claim Nist might have to the concept of scientific openess - which is how science works - by sharing information so it can be reviewed by peers.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The Commission Report did not mention 7, not once. The Nist report failed to share its input data into its computer simulation on the ground that it 'might jeopardize public safety'. This failure negates any claim Nist might have to the concept of scientific openess - which is how science works - by sharing information so it can be reviewed by peers.

Lee, is that you?
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
Lee, is that you?

Blimey! Thought you'd catch me quicker than that! Come on man, keep up! I felt compelled to have a butcher's and just couldn't help meself. Sorry.

How about a new year's amnesty! For the sake of intelligent argument....what do you say?

x

ps- I'll even really start a thread (my first ever) you might like - for less jousting and more discussion....
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Blimey! Thought you'd catch me quicker than that! Come on man, keep up! I felt compelled to have a butcher's and just couldn't help meself. Sorry.

How about a new year's amnesty! For the sake of intelligent argument....what do you say?

x

ps- I'll even really start a thread (my first ever) you might like - for less jousting and more discussion....

I'm a sucker for third chances. Go for it, lee h oswald is unbanned. You know the deal - polite and on topic please. No snark.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
The 9/11 Commission's book was the public release, intended to inform everyone/anyone about the events leading up to, during, and after the attack. So why leave out a whole skyscraper? Makes no sense to me.

I suspect that it was simply viewed as ancillary to the main events of the day. It was collateral damage so-to-speak. It wasn't attacked, no one died in it. It was damaged, caught on fire and collapsed...they also didn't mention the other 40+ buildings that were damaged and/or caught fire from the collapse of of WTC 1&2.

Here is an interesting look at the fire in WTC 7- apologies if its been posted before.


[video]http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d45_1320106542[/video]
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Here is an interesting look at the fire in WTC 7- apologies if its been posted before.

[video]http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d45_1320106542[/video]

There's a lot of good FOIA raw footage uploaded on this channel:

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheMKMonarch/videos?query=wtc7

Here's a better quality version of the LiveLeak you posted:


One worth looking at is the video of the actual collapse, often the this is presented as evidence of demolition. But if you look at this, full screen, HD, you can see that the building interior collapsed several seconds before the exterior which then kind of folds a bit in before it collapses, just as NIST describes.



Those videos are part of the NIST FOIA 09-42 "Release 14" set found here:
http://911datasets.org/index.php/Main_Page

The full release 14 is nearly 1TB of uncompressed video, but there's also a compressed version at "only" 84GB. I'm going to download that for reference.

A lot of the videos are available in a near-original format here:
http://wtcdata.nist.gov/
 

Billzilla

Senior Member.
One worth looking at is the video of the actual collapse, often the this is presented as evidence of demolition. But if you look at this, full screen, HD, you can see that the building interior collapsed several seconds before the exterior which then kind of folds a bit in before it collapses, just as NIST describes.

Bingo!
Unsurprisingly, Mick posts exactly what I was talking about. Isn't it amazing what you can find if you want to search for it?
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
Landru, note from the link you referenced:

The Doubletree footage had a view of the explosion upon impact. Why is this website implying it contained nothing? Why did the FBI apparently state it contained nothing in a sworn affidavit before a court of law? If the FBI misled a court on this issue, and 911myths is misleading their readers on this issue, is it wise to simply take their word on this issue?

The Doubletree footage did not show the impact site. You only see the part of the explosion.

External Source
Video from security camera at Doubletree Hotel, 300 Army Navy Drive, Arlington, Virginia. Security video showing rotating footage from different camera locations at hotel; no camera captures impact of plane into Pentagon.
The explanation and images showing the source documents that say that are on the website I posted. To state that the "FBI misled a court on this issue," is completely wrong.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Coincidence after coincidence after coincidence... No video, no identifiable wreckage, no Arabic names
Not one of the planes alerted ground control that they were being hijacked... Shortly after climb-out to flight level, their transponders are de-activated...(they are no longer a blip on the radar screens)

The "pilot" Hani Hanjour didn't even have a ticket

And no black boxes.

http://www.911review.org/Wiki/Flight77BlackBoxes.shtml
On September 14, the DoD announced that they had found the black boxes for Flight 77,

Feb. 25, 2002 --FBI Director Robert Mueller said Flight 77's data recorder provided altitude, speed, headings and other information, but the voice recorder contained nothing useful. CBS
FBI Director Robert Mueller said that the voice data recorder contained nothing useful, it would imply that there are no words of the hijackers on the tape, which would once again reinforce our feeling that there is no evidence of hijackers. We'd like to have a independent and reputable expert look at the originals - perhaps what they do or do not contain is useful. Because, as we shall see below, we are deeply suspicious of the FBI's withholding or burying all evidence related to Flight 77.
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said the data on the cockpit voice data recorder was unrecoverable.


If the cockpit voice data recorder was unrecoverable, it would be the first time in aviation history a solid-state data recorder (the type used on Flight 77) was unrecoverable after a crash. From a Scientific American feature article lauding the "Better Black Box" in their September 2000 issue:
Nearly 100,000 flight recorders have been installed in commercial aircraft over the past four decades. The prices of the latest models generally range from $10,000 to $20,000. Their survival rate has greatly improved in recent years as the FAA has raised the certification requirements. Although older recorders using magnetic tape were susceptible to fire damage, no solid-state device has been destroyed in an accident to date.

Content from External Source
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Seems odd you would claim "no black boxes" and then link to an article explaining how the black boxes were found. Also:

Officials at both American and United Airlines said the black boxes aboard their destroyed aircraft were modern solid-state versions, which are more resistant to damage than the older magnetic tape recorders.[86] The cockpit voice recorder was quickly transported to the NTSB lab in Washington, D.C., and its data was downloaded. Soon afterward, the FBI took charge of the box and its data.[87] CBS News reported that "Preliminary information shows there is nothing that appears to be useful on the cockpit voice tape. The tape appears to be blank or erased."[88] In its report on the CVR, the NTSB identified the unit as an L-3 Communications, Fairchild Aviation Recorders model A-100A cockpit voice recorder; a device which records on magnetic tape. The NTSB reported that "The majority of the recording tape was fused into a solid block of charred plastic." No usable segments of tape were found inside the recorder.[89]
Content from External Source


You know all these things you keep bringing up have been debunked. Maybe the subject is new to you, but to avoid wasting our time why not at least look up the subject on Wikipedia, and then if still unsatisfied, explain why you think the debunking is incorrect. Like the ticket thing:

On September 11, 2001, Hani Hanjour arrived at the passenger security checkpoint at 7:35 am, en route to board American Airlines Flight 77.[25] Some earlier reports stated he may not have had a ticket or appeared on any manifest,[26] however he was documented by the 9/11 Commission as having been assigned to seat 1B in first class,[27] and reported to have bought a single first-class ticket from Advance Travel Service in Totowa, N.J.[28]
Content from External Source
Please don't Gish Gallop and then claim there's a weight of evidence. An avalanche of bunk does not provide a firm foundation.
 
Last edited:

MikeC

Closed Account
Coincidence after coincidence after coincidence... No video,

Not true - 1 frame is not much video, but it is not "no" video.

There is also no video of me typing this on the computer ....indeed there is no video anywhere where there is not a camera pointing at the right time. Not any sort of coincidence at all - just reality.


no identifiable wreckage,

Proved wrong already - there is plenty of identifiable wreckage. Your continued refusal to acknowledge this fact is particularly damning of your inability to face reality.

no Arabic names

Hani Hanjour, Nawaf al-Hazmi, Khalid al-Mihdha, Majed Moqed, Salem al-Hazmi

What is not "Arabic" about those names??

Not one of the planes alerted ground control that they were being hijacked... Shortly after climb-out to flight level, their transponders are de-activated...(they are no longer a blip on the radar screens)

Wrong - radar coverage was retained on Flight 77 for 2 minutes after the transponder was turned off but was then lost to the Indianapolis centre (but the "blip" was still on the radar tapes).

At 9.32 Dulles centre picked up the "blip" that was Flight 77 and vectored a C-130 to intercept and identify it - which they did. The C-130 also reported that the 757 had crashed into the Pentagon.

The "pilot" Hani Hanjour didn't even have a ticket

He had a 1st class ticket for seat 1B purchased from Advance Travel Service in Totowa, N.J. as reported in hte NIST report and newspaper coverage.
Employees at Advance Travel Service in Totowa, N.J., told The Star-Ledger of Newark that Hanjour and Moqed bought single, first-class tickets for Flight 77 on Aug. 31. Hanjour spoke little English, the employees said, so Moqed did most of talking.
Content from External Source
And no black boxes.

Wrong as per the post above.

So you score 0.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Seems odd you would claim "no black boxes" and then link to an article explaining how the black boxes were found. Also:

Well perhaps you have a point Mick, but I thought I was supposed to be communicating with intelligent people who do not need every single t crossed, i dotted and apostrophe in exactly the right place.

Clearly, (to my mind), if someone were to post
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said the data on the cockpit voice data recorder was unrecoverable
and then express the view that it was suspicious there were 'no black boxes', I would understand with no difficulty at all that the poster was referring to the absence of useful black box data rather than the physical but useless entity itself.

Similarly, if someone were to complain there was no video footage of a major event which happened in a massively surveilled area, I would hardly expect someone to counter with 'that's a lie, there was one frame', when everyone knows that does not a video make, merely a photograph; which still diminishes not one jot the suspicious fact of the absence of video.

To me, it simply shows the mindset of people who are prepared to contest every aspect at such pedantic levels, apparently to score points. Whatever happened to 'concern for the truth'.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Thank you. I think here we are getting at a fundamental problem of communication. I personally can't see how you can say the controlled demolition with explosives looks like the towers collapse, but the Verinage does not. That seems entirely backwards to me.

Consider the conventional demolition. Would you agree that the entire structure sinks as one? Would you agree that in the WTC1&2 collapses, the collapse starts at the impact floors, and works its way down - such that when WTC1 is half collapse, the bottom half is still perfectly intact?

Ok, I would be very interested to hear your views on what process could account for the following event.



I must admit to being at a total loss to explain how 16 Inch Thick, Steel Cores can Melt/Vaporize before our very eyes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Well perhaps you have a point Mick, but I thought I was supposed to be communicating with intelligent people who do not need every single t crossed, i dotted and apostrophe in exactly the right place.

Clearly, (to my mind), if someone were to post and then express the view that it was suspicious there were 'no black boxes', I would understand with no difficulty at all that the poster was referring to the absence of useful black box data rather than the physical but useless entity itself.

Similarly, if someone were to complain there was no video footage of a major event which happened in a massively surveilled area, I would hardly expect someone to counter with 'that's a lie, there was one frame', when everyone knows that does not a video make, merely a photograph; which still diminishes not one jot the suspicious fact of the absence of video.

To me, it simply shows the mindset of people who are prepared to contest every aspect at such pedantic levels, apparently to score points. Whatever happened to 'concern for the truth'.

I think it's best to ALWAYS assume you audience needs thing speling out, in a nice polite way of course. It saves misunderstanding.

You see, you said "no black boxes", and then linked to an article explain how the black boxes were found and how data was recovered from the flight data recorder. It's a little hard to to extrapoloate "no black boxes" to "two black boxes were found, but only one had recoverable data".

Plus of course the article you linked to was incorrect about it being solid state (recording to chips). It was actually tape based.

But the truth is not semantics. The truth is not about if "black box" means "black box with recoverable data", or if "video" means "more than one frame of video". We should be seeking not to argue about semantics, but to accurately describe, and agree on a description, of what actually happened. Like now I think we agree what happened to the black boxes on flight 77? Would you still say that it's suspicious?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Ok, I would be very interested to hear your views on what process could account for the following event.



I must admit to being at a total loss to explain how 16 Inch Thick, Steel Cores can Melt/Vaporize before our very eyes.

It fell, leaving dust.



PLEASE STOP DOING THIS!!!! It's wasting time. Look things up.
 
Last edited:

Ronald Wieck

New Member
aMick West is taking unfair advantage by invoking the Pentagon Building Performance Report. It is common knowledge that no conspiracy liar has ever attempted to read that document, or any other reality-based material.

When citing the "work" of the Pilots for Truth (I'd run out of scare quotes if I applied them wherever appropriate), let us bear in mind that Rob Balsamo suffered a massive breakdown and started posting as a woman after Warren Stutt decoded the final seconds of AA77's flight data recorder.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
inkwell American Airlines Flight 77 Aircraft Accident Package lists no. of Passengers/Fatalies as "Unknown" Conspiracy Theories 3
J Colored lights from airplane flight deck Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 47
J UFOs from flight deck over South China Sea - Flares? Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 106
Mendel Flight Tracking Tools for Investigating and Debunking 0
Marc Powell Debunked: Explosions preparatory to demolition of the WTC North Tower are visible as Flight 175 crashes into the South Tower 9/11 7
Marc Powell Debunked: Demolition “squib” is visible at top of WTC North Tower before Flight 11 crash 9/11 67
Marc Powell Debunked: Mysterious Explosion Before the Flight 11 Crash 9/11 48
Agent K Serpentine flight pattern over Los Angeles Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 18
Leifer USS Ford : leaked footage of UFO seen on flight deck [CGI] UFOs and Aliens 7
Priyadi Antipodal Flight Flat Earth 18
Mick West Explained: Jet Chasing UFO: X-45A and F/A-18B Formation Flight Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 6
Mick West Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 and 9/11's United Flight 93 9/11 6
Mendel Debunked: Air Map of the World 1945 is a flat Earth map Flat Earth 0
G Flight data for Flights 11 and 175 9/11 4
Mick West Inexperienced Pilot Recreating 9/11 Flight 77's Descending Turn into the Pentagon 9/11 77
inkwell American Airlines Flight 77 Missing from Bureau of Transportation Departure Report 9/11 12
Mick West Explaining the 9/11 Murray St Engine from Flight 175 (N612UA) that hit WTC2 9/11 14
Mick West Halifax, NS: Regularly Spaced Gaps in Contrails [Ethiopian Flight 501] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 47
Whitebeard 'Strange' Flight Path on FR24 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 10
Mick West A Plane Flying Across the Face of the Sun, with Contrails [Virgin Flight 353] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 7
V Flight 93 Crash Physics - Fragmented Plane Buried in the Ground 9/11 10
TEEJ Contrails filmed from commercial flight over the Irish Sea - 6th May 2017 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 2
Clouds Givemethewillies UK Flight Reporting 115,000 feet Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 5
psilyguy Flight Tracking Over Oceans and Emergency Landings Flat Earth 27
Trailblazer Jet Airways intercept video "UFO" (airliner, flight LH998 or LH66?) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 14
Trailblazer Identified: linear clouds seen from Virgin Australia flight ['morning glory'] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 7
Marin B Flight Radar 24 glitch? Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 4
Mick West Explained: Chilean Navy "UFO" video - Aerodynamic Contrails, Flight IB6830 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 186
TWCobra A Flight over the Antarctic Sea Ice From Chile to Australia (QF28) Flat Earth 23
Mick West Relative Humidity at Flight Altitudes. Resources and Contrail prediction. Contrails and Chemtrails 11
steve holmes I'd appreciate help IDing this very odd contrail flight Contrails and Chemtrails 12
steve holmes I'm trying to ID the flight for this old photo of mine, Feb 19, 2014 5:25 pm Contrails and Chemtrails 5
steve holmes I can't ID this flight of Oct 5th [Alaska 577] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 6
Whitebeard EgyptAir flight MS804 Current Events 52
skephu Horizon Air Dash 8 making many circles from Seattle Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 3
c.eileen Help to ID a plane? [N90 - FAA Flight Inspection Aircraft] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 30
Trailblazer Unusual flight paths over SW England Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 12
JFDee New fuel dump "chemtrail" video [Munich, Thai Airways Flight 925] Contrails and Chemtrails 33
Mick West Flat Earth Theory Debunked by Short Flights (QF27 & QF28) From Australia to South America Flat Earth 276
TEEJ Belfast Observer Skywatch claiming that airliners do not appear on Flight Radar 24 - 10th March 2015 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 0
Trailspotter Omega loop contrail over Toronto: Veni Vidi Volavi?.. [Likely Bombardier Test Flight from Montreal] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 27
TEEJ Gary Cameron Clydebank, Scotland Video, 1st May 2015- Claim of aircraft not being on Flight Radar 24 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 11
Mick West HAL47 and HAL9981 Two Hawaiian Flights Diverted to Oakland Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 2
Efftup Issue with Flight Radar 24? General Discussion 10
Igrokush1 Plane with Yellow Tail over Redding, CA [Polar Air Cargo Flight] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 119
Mick West Flight BOE1 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 7
Mick West Hoax: Fuel Dump video on Facebook [Flight BA244 from Buenos Aires to London] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 181
WeedWhacker Build your own ADS-B Ground Station! For free premium FlightAware or FlightRadar service General Discussion 12
Mick West Solved: Portsmouth UK, "Alien Flight Path" UFO Contrail [Private Jet + Perspective] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 11
Mick West N22387 Zig-Zig flight path near Sacramento [LIDAR data collection] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 3
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top