It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

9/11: A Boeing 757 *DID NOT* Strike the Pentagon

page: 10
2
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimm

Joe Quinn argues that confusing and overwhelming data is a cointelpro technique, then we see him and "Merc" use the same apparent technique.

How are we to know what is, and what is not "cointelpro" or professionally planted disinformation?

For the sake of argument, it's just as easy to say that Joe Quinn is engaged in keeping discussion focused on an entertaining controversial subject so that it doesn't stray away. It's also just as easy to say that both Joe and CatHerder are collaborating to keep us hapless fools engaged in one chosen topic.

How do we know?


i know in mercs case because i am a personal friend of his.

the taxi cab incident is NOT germane to what struck the pentagon and that is not why merc raised the issue and i imagine that is why skepticO made it a separate thread.

merc did not make the issue up on his own. it is simply another questionable event outlined by other researchers online.

could it be disinformation?

sure.

could it actually be a staged witness?

sure.

do we know for sure either way?

of course not.

is it worth discussing?

of course.

should we insist on ignoring it because it might be disinformation?

of course not.




if you are trying to insinuate that merc and joe quinn are disinfo agents you are only hurting your own credibility according to your own logic.




posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle
on 9/12 when the mass media was fed the bogus story of barbara olson's cell phone calls



Joe Vialls?


Unless you have another link that supports that story, I think it's safe to say that's probably not true.


Vialls is probably the worst source out there, right behind Ken Hovind, and right before Alex Jones.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind

Joe Vialls?


Unless you have another link that supports that story, I think it's safe to say that's probably not true.


Vialls is probably the worst source out there, right behind Ken Hovind, and right before Alex Jones.


hunter s. thompson was a 'bad source', too. that's why they offed him, too.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 07:51 PM
link   
Hi guys,


I've just viewed the security video from the Pentagon supplied by SO, just two things that sprung to mind and I wondered if you could give your opinion.

I bring no facts or figures, just observations;

In frame one looking towards the area that took the impact you can see what appears to be a JCB (digger) appears from nowhere as the initial cloud of gas/flame explodes from the building. You can make out the background and what should have been hidden behind it.
Spooky

This one I'm not too sure about, as I don't know how feasible it would be; are there two separate explosions? The first is very clean with absolutely no soot, the second appears to be a much larger dirty sooty explosion as I would have expected from aviation fuel.

All feedback is welcomed, but I must warn you I've got my Teflon vest on so no rough stuff.


Best Wishes

J



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 08:28 PM
link   
Hi again Lyte, thanks for your responses.

So I think we've established that we cannot be certain Joe Quinn is not a disinformationist, and likewise, the same applies to CatHerder.

And it seems as though you cannot find Joe Quinns claim that the "pro-757" material claimed the airline ""folded up and flew inside the building" (to use his words).

It also seems as though Joe Quinn does not have any evidence to support his claim that the wire spools were indeed untouched by a possible 757 flying low. Without any photos to indicate the original positions, his claim that they were "clearly untouched" is unsubstantiated.

So we have two factual problems and one "unknown" at this point. Let's look at a few more issues.


Item Seven
Again, referring to Joe Quinn's blue text commentary interspersed with CatHerder's post -->

In fact, there appear to be no pictures of the Pentagon facade immediately after the attack that show a clear picture of the exact extent of the damage

If this is the case, how can he speculate on the extend of the damage? He is letting us know there is no complete or clear picture, then attempting to gauge actual damage from the available pictures. Then his (or any) analysis is unreliable.


Item Eight
Further down, we find this -->

how do we explain that the 125 feet long wings of a 757 disintegrated, yet a fairly slender tree standing just a few feet from the front of the Pentagon - and in the direct path of the alleged 757 - was still standing, albeit severely charred?

Can we assume that a "slender" tree might be a young tree, recently plated as part of the renovations? If so, I believe we all have experience with young and slender trees that are very flexible. I'm not sure this is a reliable indication of what happened.


Item Nine
And this, a bit further -->

While we agree that the wheel rim from the Pentagon appears to be the same as that of a Boeing 757, does this mean that it comes from a 757?

Possible. Or at least it's one indication that a large aircraft with large landing gear was involved. Would you agree?


Item Ten
And let's look at Joe Quinn's statement here -->

Yet again our non-expert author presents photographs of mangled pieces of debris and asserts categorically that they are parts from a 757 engine.

In response to CatHerder's statement here -->

Below is a significant portion of a badly smashed RB211 engine in the Pentagon wreckage - what appears to be the diffusor section of the compressor

Clearly, the wording of CatHerder's statement says the piece "appears to be", but Joe Quinn is seeking sensational effect by misrepresenting what was actually said. Why is this?


Thanks again for helping to work through these issues.

G.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 08:34 PM
link   
Excuse me. I have been reading all these 9/11 threads and haven't posted because I am not an expert in anything relevant, but this caught my attention:


Originally posted by billybob
hunter s. thompson was a 'bad source', too. that's why they offed him, too.


How does HST relate to the Pentagon event?
Sorry for the interruption.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 10:06 PM
link   
I think he is implying that HST was murdered while writing a book on 9-11.

Conspiracy sites will post this article as proof.



portland.indymedia.org...


Hunter telephoned me on Feb. 19, the night before his death. He sounded scared. It wasn't always easy to understand what he said, particularly over the phone, he mumbled, yet when there was something he really wanted you to understand, you did. He'd been working on a story about the World Trade Center attacks and had stumbled across what he felt was hard evidence showing the towers had been brought down not by the airplanes that flew into them but by explosive charges set off in their foundations. Now he thought someone was out to stop him publishing it: "They're gonna make it look like suicide," he said. "I know how these bastards think . . ."



However if you read the whole article the next paragraph clearly shows that it is fiction. The first paragraph was meant as a tribute.


That's how I imagine a tribute to Hunter S. Thompson should begin. He was indeed working on such a story, but it wasn't what killed him. He exercised his own option to do that. As he said to more than one person, "I would feel real trapped in this life if I didn't know I could commit suicide at any time."



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 10:13 PM
link   
Thanks Leftbehind. You know I had totally forgot about that. Now it all comes flooding back.
HST- kill the ones that eat you and eat the ones you kill.
(go Seahawks- I was born in Tacoma)



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimm
Hi again Lyte, thanks for your responses.

So I think we've established that we cannot be certain Joe Quinn is not a disinformationist, and likewise, the same applies to CatHerder.


sure but i highly doubt it. even in catherder's case i figure he is probably just another overzealous pseudoskeptic who has contempt for people he deems "paranoid conspiracy theorists" so he is not beyond using decetion to upset them. that is just my opinion though. since people around here are so hypersensitive to disinfo agents i guess we can't rule that out either.



And it seems as though you cannot find Joe Quinns claim that the "pro-757" material claimed the airline ""folded up and flew inside the building" (to use his words).


i didn't look for it. this is the standard and typical claim as to what must have happened to the wings. either that or that they "disintegrated on impact" which opens a whole other can of worms that will be mentioned.


It also seems as though Joe Quinn does not have any evidence to support his claim that the wire spools were indeed untouched by a possible 757 flying low. Without any photos to indicate the original positions, his claim that they were "clearly untouched" is unsubstantiated.


wrong. i already explained this. the spools are in the impact zone of the engine and are visibly undamaged. the "before" picture is irrelevant unless you are claiming they could have been in a different spot before impact and ended up clustered together right in the impact zone unscratched. so.....if the impact of the plane moved them to where they are......how could they be undamaged? this is especially troubling if we are to assume a complete 90 ton aircraft wings tail and all disintegrated but the spools did not. here is the first worm from the can of the official lie.


So we have two factual problems and one "unknown" at this point. Let's look at a few more issues.


no. we have nothing but a debunked catherder. you are reaching and failing.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle
i didn't look for it.

Could you find it please? Joe Quinn is claiming that quote to CatHerder, and I can't locate it.



the "before" picture is irrelevant

No it isn't. Joe Quinn cannot state with confidence the spools are untouched without first having a photo of their positions before the attack.


Thanks.

G.

[edit on 28-1-2006 by Grimm]



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Item Seven
Again, referring to Joe Quinn's blue text commentary interspersed with CatHerder's post -->

In fact, there appear to be no pictures of the Pentagon facade immediately after the attack that show a clear picture of the exact extent of the damage

If this is the case, how can he speculate on the extend of the damage? He is letting us know there is no complete or clear picture, then attempting to gauge actual damage from the available pictures. Then his (or any) analysis is unreliable.


that sentence was taken completely out of context. (does that make you a disinformationalist?)


In fact, there appear to be no pictures of the Pentagon facade immediately after the attack that show a clear picture of the exact extent of the damage. That's because all press personnel were restricted. We only have photos because a civilian managed to take them in spite of the "cordon sanitaire." What IS clear is that, as the Pentagon report noted, the Pentagon facade bears NO evidence of damage from parts of a 757 at ALL. One notable explanation for this mysterious lack of damage offered by official government story enthusiasts is that by some mysterious force of nature, the wings and tail must have sheared off before impact. Of course, in such a case, we would expect to see at least some recognisable debris of the wings and tail section outside the building. Yet, as anyone who has carefully inspected the evidence at the scene can attest, there is no such debris.


he says no CLEAR picture of the EXACT extent of the damage and he sources the pentagon report stating that there was no evidence of a 757 and that the wings folded. ahhhhhhhh. so there you go. an official source brought forth the wings folding concept first.



Item Eight
Further down, we find this -->

how do we explain that the 125 feet long wings of a 757 disintegrated, yet a fairly slender tree standing just a few feet from the front of the Pentagon - and in the direct path of the alleged 757 - was still standing, albeit severely charred?

Can we assume that a "slender" tree might be a young tree, recently plated as part of the renovations? If so, I believe we all have experience with young and slender trees that are very flexible. I'm not sure this is a reliable indication of what happened.


don't be sure then but it is quite obvious. i don't care how young or old it is if the tree was in the impact zone of a 90 ton aircraft that completely disintegrated....how could you expect any portion of the tree to remain? merc will have more on this with pics later. but bottom line.....even if the tree was young.....this is an inconsistency with the official story.



Item Nine
And this, a bit further -->

While we agree that the wheel rim from the Pentagon appears to be the same as that of a Boeing 757, does this mean that it comes from a 757?

Possible. Or at least it's one indication that a large aircraft with large landing gear was involved. Would you agree?


nope. especially when all the other evidence/damage does not indicate it was a 757.


While we agree that the wheel rim from the Pentagon appears to be the same as that of a Boeing 757, does this mean that it comes from a 757? Do other types of aircraft use double rims such as those pictured above? We need to look at the "wheel rim" evidence firstly in the context of there being a massive government conspiracy on 9/11 and secondly in context of the other massive evidence that points to something else having hit the Pentagon. Taking these facts into consideration and the evidence for a general 9/11 government conspiracy, is it not plausible that the conspirators would have taken the precaution to plant evidence at the scene to cover up the truth of their activities? Could this planting of evidence not include a "damaged" wheel rim from a 757 landing gear? In the final analysis, the only people qualified to make any definitive statement on the "wheel rim" evidence at the Pentagon are those people whose jobs involve designing or maintaining Boeing 757 landing gear and/or those people whose jobs involve the design or maintenance of Global Hawk landing gear.

Keep in mind that there are very few available photos of aircraft debris inside the Pentagon: a wheel rim and a landing gear strut, and an engine combustion chamber. The wheel rim was in the non-renovated Wedge 2 by the AE drive hole. And despite the assertions of the author of the ATS post, without expert analysis, no one can say that the few recognizable airplane parts are unequivocally from a 757.





Item Ten
And let's look at Joe Quinn's statement here -->

Yet again our non-expert author presents photographs of mangled pieces of debris and asserts categorically that they are parts from a 757 engine.

In response to CatHerder's statement here -->

Below is a significant portion of a badly smashed RB211 engine in the Pentagon wreckage - what appears to be the diffusor section of the compressor

Clearly, the wording of CatHerder's statement says the piece "appears to be", but Joe Quinn is seeking sensational effect by misrepresenting what was actually said. Why is this?


because you are splitting hairs. he did present them as 757 engine parts. you are merely arguing semantics here.

.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimm

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle
i didn't look for it.

Could you find it please? Joe Quinn is claiming that quote to CatHerder, and I can't locate it.



the "before" picture is irrelevant

No it isn't. Joe Quinn cannot state with confidence the spools are untouched without first having a photo of their positions before the attack.


Thanks.

G.

[edit on 28-1-2006 by Grimm]


we have to agree to disagree on that.

i am out for the night so we will have to continue this tomorrow.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle
that sentence was taken completely out of context. (does that make you a disinformationalist?)

The sentence is still Joe Quinn's. I didn't concoct something different out of thin air and attribute it to him.



i don't care how young or old it is if the tree was in the impact zone of a 90 ton aircraft that completely disintegrated....how could you expect any portion of the tree to remain?

I'm anxiously waiting on the additional material.



all the other evidence/damage does not indicate it was a 757.

All the other evidence? Every single piece? There is not one item that points to a 757?




you are merely arguing semantics here.

I don't think so. I'm seeing a pattern of exaggeration, sensationalism, and fabrication in some areas of Joe Quinn's piece. This is important to gauge the professionalism and credibility of the author.


I'm just as interested as you are in understanding the truth. However, I've been keeping an wide-open outlook and preventing a closed-minded point of view. While your intent at discovering and promoting the truth as admirable, you seem to have a very narrow-minded outlook that has developed through a limited source of information.


G.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle
we have to agree to disagree on that.

How can you disagree if CatHerder never said it?

It's clear that Joe Quinn has fabricated that statement and attributed it to CatHerder for sensational effect.

There is no "gray area" in this.


G.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 11:16 PM
link   
ah! but there's more!

anthrax mailings, for one, but HEY! that's got 'nothing' to do with the pentagon attack, right?

so, what DOES it have to do with, then?

hunter s. thompson claimed to have solid proof of the 911 demolition, and he was trying to publish, and he was suicided. capiche? that's the way it is. spin away, but you won't change 'my opinion'.

what about reports of hijackers having 'guns' and 'bombs'? i think too many actors were improvising that day.

or you could say that just enough actors were improvising that day, and that the confusion they caused may eventually bury the 'gut' truth of 911, in the same manner that jfk is 'gut'-forgotten.

there is a certain point, in the pursuit of truth, where you hit 'too much truth', and you will pull your head into your skull like a turtle into a shell. the truth CAN'T be THIS BAD!

wellll.

it is.

deal with it.


[edit on 27-1-2006 by billybob]



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimm

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle
we have to agree to disagree on that.

How can you disagree if CatHerder never said it?

It's clear that Joe Quinn has fabricated that statement and attributed it to CatHerder for sensational effect.

There is no "gray area" in this.


actually i agree.

no "gray area" here.

but he didn't attribute the statement to catherder.

here is the part you quoted:


The above nonsensical argument would have you believe that the only thing to consider is a "13 ft wide cylinder" that just magically lost everything else, or that everything else just "folded up" and flew inside the building plastered to the side of that 13 ft cylinder. Even if the wings could do that, we are still left with the two 6 ton engines that were NOT dropped off on the lawn, and which, together, are as wide as the cylinder body!


so joe quinn in fact did not claim that catherder said any such thing. he was merely pointing out that by leaving out the details of what happened to the wings & tail that catherder was being disingenous to say the least.

here is the other statement joe quinn makes in this regard:


One notable explanation for this mysterious lack of damage offered by official government story enthusiasts is that by some mysterious force of nature, the wings and tail must have sheared off before impact. Of course, in such a case, we would expect to see at least some recognisable debris of the wings and tail section outside the building. Yet, as anyone who has carefully inspected the evidence at the scene can attest, there is no such debris.


so once again he was not attributing the claim to catherder rather but simply mentioning the only explanations that have been given by anyone official or not.



I'm seeing a pattern of exaggeration, sensationalism, and fabrication in some areas of your rebuttal. So by your own logic i suppose this is important to gauge the professionalism and credibility of your intentions in participating in this debate.

why do you keep framing yourself as an unprofessional uncredible disinformationalist?




so please explain to me what catherder's exlpanation for what happened to the wings and tail is.

if he has no explanation; doesn't it make sense that joe quinn would bring this up as an important fact left out when talking about the impact hole and mention some of the only explanations that have been given?

Thanks.

LT



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimm

I don't think so. I'm seeing a pattern of exaggeration, sensationalism, and fabrication in some areas of Joe Quinn's piece. This is important to gauge the professionalism and credibility of the author.


not one of your examples have held true.


I'm just as interested as you are in understanding the truth. However, I've been keeping an wide-open outlook and preventing a closed-minded point of view. While your intent at discovering and promoting the truth as admirable, you seem to have a very narrow-minded outlook that has developed through a limited source of information.



i will continue to give you the benefit of the doubt on this even though you continue to paint yourself as a disinformationalist since you are guilty of the very things you are falsely accusing joe quinn of.

the reason i won't hold it against you is that i understand that catherder, joe quinn, you, and certainly myself will all make honest mistakes.

but without nitpicking semantics, and when considering the entire picture of everthing in regards to these two articles and all of the details surrounding the pentagon.....it's quite clear who has been making the dishonest "mistakes" such as leaving out details about what happened to the wings and tail.

i agree that discovering and promoting the truth is admirable, but i fail to see how not believing the official story about what happened on 9/11 or at the pentagon constitutes a narrow-minded outlook that has developed through a limited source of information.

you have no basis to make that claim about me.



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 07:05 PM
link   
are there any who can account for an eyewitness report of an aircraft flying into the pentagon.

the angle at which it has come in means it must have had a long and low flight path at the pentagon. somebody must have seen it.



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by spearhead
are there any who can account for an eyewitness report of an aircraft flying into the pentagone

the angle at which it has come in means it must have had a long and low flight path at the pentagon. somebody must have seen it.


actually the trajectory of the plane is another highly questionable part of the official story.

the plane was headed straight towards rumsfeld and all the top brass' offices on the north side but the pilot (hani hanjour) who was denied a permit to rent a tiny cessna a couple weeks prior to 9/11 because he failed the test........supposedly did a complete wrap around to hit the west side of the building that was under renovation and had a lot less people.

there are many conflicting eyewitness accounts.

some say it was a small commuter jet.

some people from the 9/11 truth movement including myself believe it was a military drone painted to look like a commercial airliner as was planned back in 1964 for operation northwoods.

so of course if this was the case, traveling at 400 mph after doing a loop to hit the west side of the pentagon, it would make perfect sense that some eye witnesses would think it was a commercial airliner and some would see it for what it really was.....a much smaller craft.



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle
but he didn't attribute the statement to catherder.

Correct. However, Joe Quinn's sensational exaggeration was in response to this paragraph in CatHerder's post:

Here is the hole in the building - it's been reported by at least a dozen different sources (including conspiracy theory sites) to be a 16 to 20 foot hole. That is really interesting when you take into account the fact that the 757 body is 12 ft 4in wide and 13 ft 6in high. (Here is where I was mistaken in the past, like so very many others I was led astray by the HEIGHT of the aircraft, which is actually the measurement from the wheels-down to the tip of the tail. That measurement is for aircraft hangar clearance, not the SIZE of the aircraft.) The 757 is basically a cylinder that is 13 feet across. It then should not be surprising that it would create something around a thirteen foot hole in the side of the building.

Can you explain where in this paragraph CatHerder implied or otherwise indicated that everything else "folded up and flew inside the building"?



so please explain to me what catherder's exlpanation for what happened to the wings and tail is.

I thought we were to focus on Joe Quinn's piece here?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join