CatHerder: Taken to the woodshed over Pentagon thread!!

Here is an interesting article that tears apart the ' logic ' used by CatHerder in his supposedly seminal work " A Boeing 757 Hit the Pentagon ".

Every point is examined in detail and shredded. I had not seen this before and am curious as to how this will be received by the rabid Believer's in the official story/fairy tale. Worth a close examination for sure:

It is quite in depth and should stimulate some heated posts on both sides.I am curious how the supporters of the official story can hold their heads up any more; the evidence is clear.

admin editLink REMOVED, We don't allow TRASH on our site.

[edit on 8-22-2007 by Springer]

I think it's pretty common knowledge in these here parts that Catherder was thoroughly de-bunked...

The original frozen fish thread...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by eyewitness86
Here is an interesting article that tears apart the ' logic ' used by CatHerder in his supposedly seminal work " A Boeing 757 Hit the Pentagon ".

Every point is examined in detail and shredded. I had not seen this before and am curious as to how this will be received by the rabid Believer's in the official story/fairy tale. Worth a close examination for sure:

Staff Edit: Link removed, see SO's post below for explanation.


It is quite in depth and should stimulate some heated posts on both sides.I am curious how the supporters of the official story can hold their heads up any more; the evidence is clear.

It doesn't "tear apart" anything, it simply offers more wild conjecture and speculation. Cathearder was much more convincing.

[edit on 8/22/2007 by Djarums]

Originally posted by PriapismJoe
...Cathearder was much more convincing.

Yeah sure it was, just like your claim that the bridge in the Bay Area melted...

Shows you just hear what you want and then investigate no further. The truth is rarely right on the surface. I noticed btw since I proved that point you have been absent from that thread.

Funny but even Catherder himself new he was busted and hasn't posted on ATS since.

I believe he was banned.

Also the Beams on that overpass wasn't melted, just the crap holding it together.

I read somewhere on here from the area that they are re using the beams to make the new part of that overpass.. I have been looking for that person post for a few days.. But I don't think the metal melted.. I just thing the pieces that held the beams together came apart.. cause of the asphalt expanding

That article is a joke, supposition, fallacy and out and out LIES....

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
That article is a joke, supposition, fallacy and out and out LIES....

catherder's thread? yeah. i agree.

This link was removed because it's "TRASH"? Why isn't discussion being allowed?

Originally posted by Johnmike
This link was removed because it's "TRASH"? Why isn't discussion being allowed?

It's a very long story involving lawyers and copyright issues.

The short version... the site on which the piece is hosted has been repeatedly requested to give us (ATS) proper attribution and abide by our Creative Commons deed. Their article is a derivative work which is not allowed under the usage rights linked on every post on ATS, and they never followed our attribution guidelines (link back to ATS) as well.

The piece was originally removed from their main site, but now seems to have surfaced on a new domain operated by the same people. (As a result of a stern letter from our legal council at the time)

We may send yet another sternly-worded letter... but it's silly really... our request is rather simple, yet they continually refuse.

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
.. I have been looking for that person post for a few days...

Yeah that was me lol...Thus my comment to PriapismJoe above.

AN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - The portion of the East Bay freeway charred in an explosion three days ago will likely be repaired rather than demolished and replaced, significantly shortening the time the heavily used road remains closed, state transit officials said Tuesday...
...“It doesn’t look right now like we’re going to have to replace it,”Caltrans spokesman Bob Haus said. “We might have to do some straightening, but it looks as if the actual structure is OK despite the scorching.”

From this thread...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thanks Anok Appreciate it.
You have a link where that news article is?


[edit on 8/23/2007 by ThichHeaded]

reply to post by ThichHeaded

I can't believe I forgot the link...

This is the link to the SF Examiner...

www.examiner.com...

And here's a more up to date story...

The overpass — which is part of the heavily traveled MacArthur Maze used by 75,000 drivers each day — was essentially rebuilt like a massive jigsaw puzzle.

www.examiner.com...

Essentially all they replaced was the concrete deck, and the rubber expansion joint absorbers which was all that melted.

Originally posted by billybob

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
That article is a joke, supposition, fallacy and out and out LIES....

catherder's thread? yeah. i agree.

umm no catherder's thread wasnt the one I was speaking of.



Arlington County Patrol Officer Richard Cox over radio net

"Its an American Airlines plane and its heading towards the Pentagon, I think"

"Probst (Frank Probst) did not notice the jet until he looked up and saw it heading right at him. The aircraft had just come over the hill at the south end of the Navy Annex.....the nose was dropped, no lights were on and the wheels were up. The plane seemed impossibly low--its wings clipped off several light poles...as the jet crossed over Washington Boulevard, flying towards the Pentagon. Probst did not even notice that--his eyes were focused on the engine on the plane's right wing, heading straight towards his face...."

"The Pentagon: A history" Steve Vogel, Random House 2007.


In spite of the hundreds of witnesses that saw the plane, in spite of the wreckage of the plane recovered at the Pentagon, in spite of the remains of the people KNOWN to have been onboard Flight 77 being recovered at the Pentagon, in spite of the hundreds of people that spent weeks going through the debris finding body parts and airliner wreckage...people still think it wasnt Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon.

sad.......

Gee, I had no idea I was opening a can of worms..to get Spinger on a thread of mine is either an honor or a bit unsettling, as in this case!! I had no knowledge of any controversy and was posting that only because it mentioned ATS prominently and concerned a controversial subject.

I understand now why the link was removed and please believe me I would never post anything I thought was ' trash ' or that would in ANY way detreact from the high standards and quality of this forum. Sincere apologies for any unintentional mistake there.

As far as the article went, I believe that it merely highlighted the obviously weak and spurious case that some present that asserts that a Boeing hit the Pentagon. The evidence is massive that no airliner hit the Pentagon, beyond massive. When you have a few anomalies present in a situation, that MIGHT be coincidental, when you have hundreds of ' anomalies ' that are inherent parts of one event, that alone mathematically disallows any chance at a mundane explanation.

I find it an interesting psychological commentary that anyone can still, after all the evidence we have seen, could still buy the official story about the ' attacks ' of 9-11. It has to be a denial based upon a dread fear of what the truth actually means; to undermine a persons entire support structure and belief system all at once can be a terrible and disturbing change of paradigms for many; they would rather cling to the last sinking piece of flotsam rather than strike out for shore and at least try to swim to the truth, and safety.

As far as the ' witnesses ' who claimed to see an airliner that day at the Pentagon, all I can say is that a plane moving over 400 miles per hour could not have left enough time to comprehend exactly what was happening in such a tight geographical area..it would have zoomed over so fast that no one could have seen details( recall the ' witness ' who claimed to even have seen windows on the ' jetliner !!) that allegedly hit the building. Reinforcement and publicity can do tricks to memory and perception, and I have no doubt several people heard the story about the Boeing and unconsciously adapted their memories to fit the story that was given initially.

Has no one else here forgotten the impossible ' light poles ' that had no real damage and that could NOt have been hit by the incoming craft? I say that the light poles were wired beforehand and triggered to go when the craft passed nearby. They simply fell over; look at the pics of the light poles..all snapped off at the base. To me they were a part of the deception as to the exact path that the Global Hawk or missle or whatever ( no plane ) that was steered into the Pentagon.

The eyewitness security guards that were interviewed at length placed the incoming craft far away from the official line of trajectory and the light poles HAD to go to prop up that scenario..I believe firmly that those light poles were rigged to fall over at the moment that the craft was being directed into the building, and all evidence I have seen points to a well planned and delicate conspiracy of the shadow govt. and the ruling criminals in the White House ( Cheney in particular ).

In any event, from now on when I see a story about ATS on another site, I will send it to the Board for attention before posting; I never would purposely initiate any thread that was not in keeping with the desires and dictates of the leaders that so ably keep this forum of such high quality..

That's a little lame the link was deleted, but it can be found around - Joe Quinn, "frozen fish" etc. It's not dangerous at all, except where CH handed Quin ammo by showing the wrong entry hole. This is all old stuff BTW, early 2005. Quinn is silly tho folks. He was insitent, and maybe still is, that a global hawk hit the Pentagon. Censorship? Maybe, but you ain't missing much. Some of his sage words reproduced here in pieced I wrote:
his RQ4 theory
ripping on Hoffman
I never did review his fishy CH panning but it would've gone about the same.