The strangest Coincidence regarding the Pentagon attack on 9/11

originally posted by: Pilgrum
a reply to: D8Tee

Yes, the name Osama Bin Laden was well known even in Oz for at least a decade prior to the events of 11/9/01 due to his terror related activities. He became the default top suspect for any terrorist acts anywhere it seemed in those days.

I can't find any evidence that Osama was working with the CIA right up until the September 11 attacks as some claim. I find dead end leads and unsubstantiated claims.

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Informer1958

Unfortunately, most of 911 evidence was hidden from the public.

Why do you say most? What do you think is hidden, videos that don't exist?

All of the aircraft debris was hidden from the public, inside Iron Mountain. Sorry for no link from today, but several local TV stations covered that many years ago. Nobody was allowed to check parts serial numbers or anything else.

The bulk of all the steel at WTC was cut up and hauled away quickly. There was NO forensic investigation, and Fire Engineering Magazine was editorializing about it as it was happening.

a reply to: Salander

There is debris from Flights 11 and 175 on display at the 9/11 Museum. The Smithsonian, has parts of Flight 77 on display, not sure why you would say it was hidden from the public. Not to mention, the insurance companies paid on the airline's claims, so just because no one took you by the hand to examine the evidence, does not mean it was not checked.

a reply to: Salander

The wreckage was so hidden that it made its way to news reports and trail evidence? Do you even think about what you post.

Wreckage that littered the lawn all the way from the helicopter pad to the pentagon. Distrusted throughout the pentagon.

Still waiting for you to state what remains were turned over to the surviving families of flight 77 for burial. Remains confirmed by DNA testing to be the crew and passengers of flight 77.

So how big was the entrance hole made into the pentagon?

Still waiting on you to discredit the 100 plus accounts by individuals of a large commercial jet striking the pentagon.

a reply to: Salander

The bulk of all the steel at WTC was cut up and hauled away quickly. There was NO forensic investigation, and Fire Engineering Magazine was editorializing about it as it was happening.

Debris from WTC was hauled to Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten Island where it was sorted, cataloged, examined for
evidence or personal effect and human remains

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Steel that was of interest. from areas of impact , was saved for analysis

www.liveleak.com...

My town has beam from WTC (as are other towns in area)

Why are you so pathological in denying facts.....

a reply to: Informer1958

We all know how easy it is to sell BS to you don't we

a reply to: Salander

Tell you what why don't get a bunch of truthers and one person arned with a box cutter in a confined space see how you would react.

Also had a look at the impact force calculators yet.

a reply to: Salander

You do know there is wreckage of flight 77 on display at the Smithsonian....

a reply to: Salander

The bulk of all the steel at WTC was cut up and hauled away quickly.

The alternative being leave it lay there? It was kinda in the way...

originally posted by: firerescue

Debris from WTC was hauled to Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten Island where it was sorted, cataloged, examined for
evidence or personal effect and human remains

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Steel that was of interest. from areas of impact , was saved for analysis

www.liveleak.com...

My town has beam from WTC (as are other towns in area)

Why are you so pathological in denying facts.....

a reply to: Salander

You do know there was toxic and corrosive chemicals in the WTC debris. Combined with the heat and steam, the chemicals threatened to attack the buried evidence/remains, make an increasingly toxic soup, and was a threat to health / environment longer the pile sat there.

If it was a government conspiracy, why not just let the pile sit there and let the heat, steam, chemicals dissolve away evidence?

However, it is a true statement the debris were methodically removed to prevent the slurry wall from collapsing.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Salander

You do know there is wreckage of flight 77 on display at the Smithsonian....

Maybe there is, but about a year ago when I last visited I never noticed it, and I spent quite a bit of time in the aviation section,.

If there is, rest assured it is there ONLY for propaganda purposes. Many are easily led, and if they see it in a museum they just KNOW it's gotta be true. LOL

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Salander

The bulk of all the steel at WTC was cut up and hauled away quickly.

The alternative being leave it lay there? It was kinda in the way...

originally posted by: firerescue

Debris from WTC was hauled to Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten Island where it was sorted, cataloged, examined for
evidence or personal effect and human remains

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Steel that was of interest. from areas of impact , was saved for analysis

www.liveleak.com...

My town has beam from WTC (as are other towns in area)

Why are you so pathological in denying facts.....

Yeah, kinda in the way if one was trying to keep certain things secret and unexamined, just like Fire Engineering Magazine noted.

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Salander

The bulk of all the steel at WTC was cut up and hauled away quickly.

The alternative being leave it lay there? It was kinda in the way...

originally posted by: firerescue

Debris from WTC was hauled to Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten Island where it was sorted, cataloged, examined for
evidence or personal effect and human remains

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Steel that was of interest. from areas of impact , was saved for analysis

www.liveleak.com...

My town has beam from WTC (as are other towns in area)

Why are you so pathological in denying facts.....

Yeah, kinda in the way if one was trying to keep certain things secret and unexamined, just like Fire Engineering Magazine noted.

Just as the magazine noted what? Can you include a link to your claims?

a reply to: D8Tee


You know, some things can be discovered in places OTHER THAN the internet. I'm sure you're aware of that, but maybe just had not thought about it too much.

The January 2002 of the old-fashioned snail mail version of the magazine, in an editorial written by its editor at the time William Manning, issued a "call to action" demanding a blue ribbon panel to investigate the collapse of the towers. Obviously, his calls fell on deaf ears.

Though you may not understand why, I do.

a reply to: Salander

You know, some things can be discovered in places OTHER THAN the internet.

Your search skills are lacking. His editorial was prior to the NIST or FEMA reports being released.
editorial

However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time.

He wrote a subsequent article when more information was available to him.link

The investigation into the collapse of the towers was significantly expanded, with the National Institute of Standards and Technology acting as the lead agency. Had this not occurred, the painfully superficial World Trade Center Building Performance Study recently published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency likely would have been the only document from the federal government to analyze the worst building collapse in American history.

a reply to: D8Tee

Yes, my research skills ARE lacking. I don't even have a smart phone, they are so lacking.

But, my analytical skills and common sense are exceptional to make up for that.

Mr. Manning did not retract his earlier criticism in the link you provided. In fact it was quite vague and did not even mention his January editorial. Yet you present it here as something meaningful.

You know, Van Romero and Wally Miller both had to retract their early honest criticism. Romero to keep his job and Miller to keep the FBI happy by being a "team player".

The fact remains that almost all the steel was gathered up and shipped overseas, and NO PROPER FORENSIC INVESTIGATION was conducted, Manning's point.

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Salander

You do know there is wreckage of flight 77 on display at the Smithsonian....

Maybe there is, but about a year ago when I last visited I never noticed it, and I spent quite a bit of time in the aviation section,.

If there is, rest assured it is there ONLY for propaganda purposes. Many are easily led, and if they see it in a museum they just KNOW it's gotta be true. LOL

Classic cognitive dissonance

"All of the aircraft debris was hidden from the public"

"There's aircraft debris on display in museums"

"Aircraft debris not hidden from the public is only for propaganda!"

Funny but sad

a reply to: mrthumpy

Hold on Mr. Thumpy. Just because it's on display in the Smithsonian and described as you say it is, DOES NOT MEAN that what is on display is really and truly from any of the airplanes involved on 911. The Smithsonian, a wonderful facility to be sure, is very much in the good graces of the CIA. It very much tells the stories in the official ways.

Years ago, several TV stations covered the Iron Mountain connection as the repository for all the "aircraft debris" from 911.

a reply to: Salander

No, not for ALL of the debris, just the majority of it. After, you know, the insurance companies said yep, those were the airframes we insured and sent the checks to the airlines.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

You cannot prove any of that. I am happy to accept that the airlines received insurance payments for their losses that day, but that doesn't mean that it really happened that way, for indeed, it was not flight 11 that hit the north tower, but something smaller as described by several of the witnesses who saw it happened and called NYPD911.

If the insurance companies paid off for that, they were in on the deception.

Move obviously, it was not flight 175 that hit the south tower.