Bodies strapped to seats on AA77, Pentagon?

Originally posted by SPreston
The aircraft would require engines and in the case of Flight 77; JET engines. The engines would require JET fuel and there was no JET fuel; neither in the area of the 'impact hole' nor burning out on the lawn. Simple reasoning would expect JET fuel traveling at 535 mph to splash off the wall and back on the lawn. NOPE. No burning JET fuel on the lawn nor on those polyethelene undamaged cable spools right there near ground zero

I get it now. The 15 others that saw, smelled, or were doused by jet fuel were near areas in the Pentagon where the perps planted jet fuel bombs? WOW...they are some crafty folks over there at the Pentagon. Who would have ever thought!

What's wrong Preston.... 15 others refute April's statement. 15

Spreston...I'm not sure if you have children or not, but put yourself in April's position.... You hear an explosion, you are with your small child... are you really concerned about taking an inventory of what you did and didn't see? NO... your thoughts are ONLY about getting your child out alive.


15 People

posted by ThroatYogurt
Wow April didn't see any jet fuel?

Schickler Rob (smelled fuel and was a mile away)

Oh wait.. April didn't smell or see any jet fuel! That means there was not ANY.

But again... April saw none of this so... she must be right!

I expect some of your witnesses were a hundred miles away.

NOPE. April saw NO passengers in seats and NO jet fuel. April Gallup and little Elijah were effectively at GROUND ZERO; only 35-45 feet from the alleged impact hole. How do you explain the aircraft passing right through them? MAGIC?

How do you explain them not getting burned up with jet fuel? More MAGIC? Is that all you defenders of the 9-11 perps have to fall back on? MAGIC?

reply to post by SPreston


Spreston:

Nothing to say about the other 15 that saw it?

You talk about April and her young son not getting killed? It has already been pointed out to you the story of Stanley Praimnath. He too should be dead:

It is 9:03 a.m. and United Airlines Flight 175 is staring him in the face.
"Suddenly I see this big gray airplane with red letters on the wing and tail filling my window," Praimnath says. "It’s coming right at me."
Praimnath drops the phone and tucks under his desk in a fetal position as the plane obliterates the wall. The impact is a prolonged, gut-wrenching screech, a hideous, metallic roar. "It sounded like a huge steel cage being ripped apart," Praimnath recalls. Intense smoke and soot punctuate the agonizing explosion.

Then silence.

A flame interrupts the awful blackness, revealing a protruding aircraft wing blocking the exit only 20 feet away. I’m going to die, Praimnath thinks. Yet he cries out to God.
"Lord, help me," he prays, trying to stand. "I can’t do this by myself. I don’t want to die. I want to see my two little girls." Tears spill from squinting eyes as he realizes he is buried shoulder deep in debris. A nail pierces his right hand. Pain sears his body.

"Lord, You take control," Praimnath says aloud. Struggling to his feet, he is instantly showered by dust and debris anew as the ceiling gives way. Hands claw; legs thrash. Mercifully, his desperate plea seems momentarily answered.

www.stanleypraimnath.com...


Now, please answer to the 15 others that witnessed Jet Fuel.

Thank you.

reply to post by ThroatYogurt


Oh boy, TY this is only a story nothing more, do you want me to sit down with you and tell a story. Now you know I can tell a story!

This Content from external source: Is only a story!
You will believe this story but you will not believe in a report done by a real scientist. David Ray Griffin Reveals Major 9/11 Cover-up
On C-SPAN and in Washington Post
www.wanttoknow.info...
There is no proof in your source.

Originally posted by SPreston

April Gallup and little Elijah were effectively at GROUND ZERO; only 35-45 feet from the alleged impact hole. How do you explain the aircraft passing right through them? MAGIC?

Because you're wrong about the hole being 16 ft.

It was 90 ft wide, and she was 40 ft from THAT. Which outs her beyond the wing tip. Therefore, she was out of the debris zone.

This makes her statement true and believeable.

Good post......fire apparently everywhere, engine fan sections strangely almost together, sitting next to cable spools......And, I agree, an aircraft containing at least 10K gallons of Jet A would either have made a MASSIVE explosion inside the Pentagon if the fuel ignited inside (or huge pools of kerosene), however, in most accidents where a forward flying aircraft impacts a hard (or hardened) object, the wings shear, the fuel releases. Now, since in the released photos, we see engine fan sections outside the pentagon, can we assume the engines sheared? If so, there would have been enough to ignite the huge amount of Jet A that should have been there......But, STILL, the issue is bodies in seats......

reply to post by ThroatYogurt



It is 9:03 a.m. and United Airlines Flight 175 is staring him in the face.
"Suddenly I see this big gray airplane with red letters on the wing and tail filling my window," Praimnath says. "It’s coming right at me."
Praimnath drops the phone and tucks under his desk in a fetal position as the plane obliterates the wall. The impact is a prolonged, gut-wrenching screech, a hideous, metallic roar. "It sounded like a huge steel cage being ripped apart," Praimnath recalls. Intense smoke and soot punctuate the agonizing explosion.

Then silence.

A flame interrupts the awful blackness, revealing a protruding aircraft wing blocking the exit only 20 feet away. I’m going to die, Praimnath thinks. Yet he cries out to God.
"Lord, help me," he prays, trying to stand. "I can’t do this by myself. I don’t want to die. I want to see my two little girls." Tears spill from squinting eyes as he realizes he is buried shoulder deep in debris. A nail pierces his right hand. Pain sears his body.

"Lord, You take control," Praimnath says aloud. Struggling to his feet, he is instantly showered by dust and debris anew as the ceiling gives way. Hands claw; legs thrash. Mercifully, his desperate plea seems momentarily answered.

[edit on 23-10-2008 by habu71]

[edit on 23-10-2008 by habu71]

I apologize, my edits do not seem to be working and taken......I shall go on to other threads......Admin, if I have been removed, advise why.....

Originally posted by cashlink
reply to post by ThroatYogurt

 

Oh boy, TY this is only a story nothing more, do you want me to sit down with you and tell a story. Now you know I can tell a story!

Dude? Have you been taking Dora's neuroleptics?

The "story" is the truth.

Stanley Praimnath is a survivor of the destruction of the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001. Praimnath worked as an executive for Fuji Bank on the 81st floor of the South Tower, the second to be attacked. He appears to be one of the few survivors who actually saw United Airlines Flight 175 approaching the South Tower seconds before the impact while inside the building.

en.wikipedia.org...

An improbable escape
Two men defy odds and find a way out of the WTC

archives.cnn.com...

Profile: Stanley Praimnath
Stanley Praimnath was a participant or observer in the following events:
(Between 9:10 a.m. and 9:15 a.m.) September 11, 2001: South Tower Employee Sees No Inferno on 78th Floor

www.historycommons.org...

Would you like some more links? Would you like to read about Brian Clark? He was the man who rescued Stanley.

Clark rescues Stanley Praimnath

Clark was called out of this debate when he heard a voice calling for help. Some of the drywall that was supposed to enclose the stairwell had fallen away so Clark and his co-worker, Ron DiFrancesco, left the others to seek out that voice. DiFrancesco was soon overcome by smoke and returned to the stairway.

Stanley Praimnath was buried under some fallen debris. With Clark's help he was able to extricate himself. When they returned to the stairwell the others were gone. So Clark and Praimnath went down. According to an interview with both of them in a special documentary aired in 2005, Stanley was so grateful that Clark rescued him that he hugged and kissed his saver, rather surprising Clark.

en.wikipedia.org...(9/11_survivor)



Oh, you want to talk about David Ray Griffin? The what? The "scientist?" Actually Mr. Griffin is a retired professor of philosophy of religion and theology. He also worked with of process theology. Go look up that stuff...

Then go read this white paper from Ryan Mackey... a REAL, NASA scientist who refuted Mr. Griffins work. Mr. Griffin was given and acknowledged receiving the paper where Mr. Mackey destroys Mr. Griffins theory. Mr. Griffin has not responded. (it was originally released 31 August 2007)
911guide.googlepages.com...

posted by SPreston
April Gallup and little Elijah were effectively at GROUND ZERO; only 35-45 feet from the alleged impact hole. How do you explain the aircraft passing right through them? MAGIC?

posted by Seymour Butz
Because you're wrong about the hole being 16 ft.

It was 90 ft wide, and she was 40 ft from THAT. Which outs her beyond the wing tip. Therefore, she was out of the debris zone.

This makes her statement true and believeable.

I see how you guys operate. If you don't like April Gallup's eyewitness testimony, you just rewrite it to your own satisfaction. How do you look in a mirror at yourself? About 3000 people were murdered on 9-11 and you act like a little kid cheating at hearts. You dishonest people are disgusting.

At about 15:20 in the audio, April states that the Building Renovation Team did mapping and estimated where different people were located during the event. They told April that she was 35-45 feet from the point of impact. That nose cone sticks out quite a ways ahead of the wings and engine, and that is what would have hit the wall first. If there had been an aircraft, then the 15 foot diameter fuselage would have created the 16-18 foot initial hole in the wall. (the point of impact)

So you are lying. Whether or not there were additional holes in the wall 90 feet wide, if there had been an aircraft impact, then it would have impacted at that central point of impact and that is the point April was 35-45 feet from. Quit your lying. April Gallup was within that destruction zone represented by the Purdue animation and she should have been sliced to pieces and burned up. But there was NO JET FUEL. And April and little Elijah are still alive. The perps you are defending neglected to murder them and April Gallup is a witness against them.

Guns and Butter broadcast with Dave von Kleist interviewing April Gallup. There was an explosion and she crawled out from E-Ring through the hole onto the Pentagon lawn. She saw no jet fuel and nobody burned with jet fuel. She and her baby boy were about 35-45 feet from the alleged impact hole and no jet fuel was splashed on them. What happened to the huge infernos and fuel-air explosions inside which allegedly incinerated all the aircraft parts and engines and wheel hubs and baggage and seats?

Guns and Butter April Gallup - audio live testimony

reply to post by Seymour Butz


(Because you're wrong about the hole being 16 ft.

It was 90 ft wide, and she was 40 ft from THAT. Which outs her beyond the wing tip. Therefore, she was out of the debris zone.

This makes her statement true and believeable.)

Please show your proof, your source please!
If you do not show your source, then your statement is a lie.

reply to post by Seymour Butz

ERROR: 'The Pentagon Attack Left Only a Small Impact Hole'

Some of the most prominent advocates of the no-757-impact theory have radically mis-characterized the dimensions of the impact "hole". Thierry Meyssan describes the hole as 15 to 17 feet wide, apparently on the basis of photographs, such as the one to the right, in which the spray from the fire suppression efforts obscures the first floor, which had far more extensive damage.
911review.com...




[edit on 10/24/2008 by cashlink]

reply to post by SPreston


if you're going to lie, at least don't supply the proof of it.

She says that she was 35-45 ft from the PLACE of impact. Not the POINT of impact.

You twist this to try and mean it is where the exact spot where the nose hit so that you can continue with your delusional "rage against the machine" mantra, and to try and support the 18 ft hole malarkey. Even Cashlink was able to find a link that proves that wrong. If he can find it and you can't.... well....

Have you been able yet to fabricate another lie that would explain how she survived the overpressure from a blast necessary to breach the wall with explosives that were placed - according to your lies - 20 or so ft away in a trailer? Or will you continue to dodge and show that you really don't have a clue?

You are lying when you purposely misrepresent her statement to fit your twisted agenda. You are a terrorist apologist that sees no immorality when you lie to fit your own personal agenda.

Someday, I hope you'll understand just how twisted and wrong you are for accusing innocent people for the purpose of some sort of pathetic troofer political activism.

The approximate 16-foot entry hole at the outside facade of the Pentagon on 9/11 has been the subject of countless questions by those who say the hole was caused by an air-to-ground missile (AGM) fired from a small military jet rather than an impact from a Boeing 757.
www.rumormillnews.com...


Air-traffic controllers from the Washington, DC sector originally said the incoming plane was a military jet according to reports; but no grand jury has called them to testify and they have been strangely gagged from speaking out.
One air traffic controller from another Northeast sector revealed to a 9-11 widow that FBI threats were made of both a personal and career nature: "You are ordered never to speak about what you saw on your screen during the attacks; and if you do, things will not go well for you and your family."

Some reasons cited to support a missile hole include evidence that
a) the wings and rear stabilizer caused virtually no damage to the outside walls and windows at point of impact,
b) no 757 interior or exterior parts were found at the scene, C-Ring hole in the Pentagon on 9-11
c) the soft nose of a 757 would have had difficulty piercing through three Pentagon wall rings, and
d) three aircraft parts found were similar to the somewhat outdated but still serviceable Douglas A-3 Sky Warrior military attack jet rather than the much larger Boeing 757.

CNN Reported No Plane Hit Pentagon
Here is a video clip from CNN coverage on the morning of 9/11. CNN reporter Jamie McIntyre says he inspected the Pentagon site and it is obvious no 757 crashed there. His exact words are as follows below......
JAMIE MCINTYRE: From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.
The only site, is the actual side of the building that's crashed in. And as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse.
Even though if you look at the pictures of the Pentagon you see that the floors have all collapsed, that didn't happen immediately. It wasn't until almost about 45 minutes later that the structure was weakened enough that all of the floors collapsed.
WATCH VIDEO>>> thewebfairy.com...
Alternate link for above video: Check out this shockwave video file
UPDATE: The above video (and transcript) has now become of heightened importance in light of Jamie McIntyre's recent comments on CNN [May 16/06] following the court ordered release of more ambiguous pentagon video footage.
Mr. McIntyre now claims, that on the day of September 11/01 he did see plane wreckage (including a cockpit no less!!) at the front of the pentagon. Either Mr. McIntyre is one of those rarest of individuals who's memory actually improves years after witnessing an event first hand, or we have more evidence of media smoke and mirrors from the usual players. He also states that he "did not feel or know that a plane hit the pentagon till I actually saw it on CNN".... yet no such video was aired by CNN. Mr. McIntyre offers us his proof that the plane that hit the pentagon must have been flight 77 for the "simple fact" that it took off that morning...... and "cell phone calls" were made from it. WATCH HIS COMMENTS HERE
Go HERE to see our analysis of this "new" video, and the media's rather curious attempt to draw conclusions for the viewer..... plus a video simulation of what it would look like if a 757 had been captured by Pentagon video crashing into the front of the building.

www.bcrevolution.ca...


_____________

reply to post by cashlink


That's right, the 16 ft hole is a lie.

Even other troof websites agree to that point.

Here's another:

911research.wtc7.net...

"The Entry Punctures
Regions in which the Pentagon's west facade were punctured were restricted to the first and second floors. The puncture on the second floor was about 18 feet wide and extended to the top of the second floor, about 26 feet above the ground. The region with punctures on the first floor was about 96 feet wide."

reply to post by Seymour Butz


Mr. vonKleist strangely refers repeatedly to Meyssan's books and website as information "released by the French," as though it were released by the French government or the French people collectively. In reality, Meyssan represents only a small fringe on the far left of French politics, and his 9/11 materials have been denounced as disinformation and hucksterism by political and media representatives spanning the spectrum of French political thought, including many of those who strongly oppose U.S. policies in response to the 9/11 terror attacks.
According to vonKleist, when he first saw "Hunt the Boeing," he had only "one goal in mind: to prove the French wrong." However, as he looked into Meyssan's evidence, he says, he became convinced that "the French" were right alter all.
Although critics of the official version of the attack on the Pentagon disagree with the government's version on numerous points, perhaps the main ones, which we will examine here, concern allegations that: the hole in the Pentagon is too small to have been made by a Boeing 757; there is too little aircraft debris for a 757 crash; and flying a 757 into the Pentagon is virtually an impossible feat, especially for an inexperienced pilot like one of the hijackers.

The impact holes are too small." vonKleist parrots Meyssan's false claim that the plane's entry "hole" in the exterior wall of the Pentagon was only 16 feet in diameter. His In Plane Site web page disingenuously presents a smoke-obscured photo which supposedly verifies this point, claiming: "Upon examining these photographs, one can clearly see a hole, which is only 16 feet in diameter. This begs the question: 'How can a Boeing 757 which is over 44 feet in height and 124 feet in width simply disappear without a trace into a hole that is only 16 feet in diameter? Also, why is there no external damage to the Pentagon where the wings and the tail section would have impacted with the outer wall?'" Like Meyssan, the vonKleist video 911 In Plane Site advances the theory that a missile is the most probable cause of the Pentagon damage.
findarticles.com...

Everone is a liar, but you! I have shown you proof, where is yours?

reply to post by Seymour Butz



F.B.I. Counsel: No Attempt Made By F.B.I. To Formally Identify 9/11 Plane Wreckage
Aidan Monaghan
03/18/08
Contained within a March 14, 2008 "DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT" with the Nevada District U.S. Court, concerning a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by Mr. Aidan Monaghan (Case #: 2:07-cv-01614-RCJ-GWF) to order the production of Federal Bureau of Investigation records concerning the 4 aircraft involved in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Assistant U.S. Attorney Patrick A. Rose has indicated on behalf of the FBI, that records indicating the collection and positive identification of recovered wreckage created by these federally registered aircraft, do not exist.
Defendants motion reads in part:
Since being served with the Summons and Amended Complaint, Federal Defendant, with assistance of its attorneys, has analyzed Plaintiff's request and conducted a search for responsive records. Federal Defendant has determined that there are no responsive records. The identities of the airplanes hijacked in the September 11 attacks was never in question, and, therefore, there were no records generated "revealing the process by which wreckage recovered by defendant, from aircraft used during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, was positively identified by defendant . . . as belonging to said aircraft . . . (Amend Compl. Inj. Relief #15 at 1.)"

However, this claim is directly contradicted by public comments offered by Carol Carmody, Vice-Chairman National Transportation Safety Board and Marion C. Blakey, Chairman National Transportation Safety Board, who both indicated in 2002 that FBI director Robert Mueller requested NTSB assistance with 9/11 aircraft wreckage identification and that the NTSB did perform 9/11 aircraft wreckage identification analysis.
"I ... assured FBI Director Mueller that we would assist in any way we could ... he called and said, "Could you send us some people to help find the black boxes and help identify aircraft parts."
The Lack of Foundation Damage at the Pentagon is Irreconcilable with the Official Reports and Data
Craig Ranke, Rob Balsamo

03/15/08 - The lack of foundation damage at the Pentagon is irreconcilable with the official reports and is strong physical evidence contradicting the 9/11 official story.

The ASCE Building Performance Report has meticulously documented the damage to the building and has come to the conclusion that all damage from the alleged plane impact was limited to the bottom two floors, but primarily below the 2nd floor slab so that 90 tons of jumbo jet would have slid on it's belly across the 1st floor slab all the way through the C-ring. Full Article


pilotsfor911truth.org...

Here is the truth and “you” can not disprove these guys unless you want to spit in the faces of these real pilots!

All you have shown is what “you” want us to believe which is lies

reply to post by Seymour Butz



(That's right, the 16 ft hole is a lie.

Even other troof websites agree to that point.)

Uh! No they don’t what happened to you, did you fall off a ladder and bump your head.

First and foremost, I have proven with out any doubt, that the FBI said they did not investigate the plane crash at the Pentagon therefore you have no “proof” that a Boeing 757 crash at the Pentagon, and so far there has never been an investigation to what really hit the pentagon.
You can spout media propaganda, that still not proof. However until the FAA and the FBI release the airplanes time change out parts and their rosters and the serial numbers from the black box to see if it belongs to the correct airplane, Until then “you” don’t have a leg to stand on.

reply to post by Seymour Butz


Arlington Topography, Obstacles Make American 77 Final Leg Impossible
By Rob Balsamo, Pilots For 9/11 Truth
Update - 09/15/08

Conclusion = Impossible for any transport category aircraft to descend from top of VDOT Antenna to top of pole 1 and pull level to "impact hole" as reported by the government story and seen in the DoD "5 Frames Video". 11.2 G's was never recorded in the FDR. 11.2 G's would rip the aircraft apart.

This does not account for response time to initiate the arrest. Increased time is needed or higher altitude at pentagon in order to be within aircraft structural limits, or higher peak G loads. The VDOT Antenna was present on September 11, 2001, and was not struck by any object.
Transport Category aircraft are limited to 2.5 G's positive and 1.0 negative. Although there is a margin of error built into these limits, it is not anywhere near 448% or 11.2 G's positive. Aerobatic Category Aircraft have a positive G load limit of 6.0 G's. Some may argue that the flight path "just missed" the VDOT Antenna, in which case we also worked out the numbers if the aircraft were at ground level at the antenna. The G loads required would be ~4.3 G's. Still excessive for a transport category aircraft. Not to mention the aircraft certainly was not at ground level abeam the Navy Annex and such G loads were never recorded in the Flight Data provided by the NTSB. Feel free to input the numbers yourself using above calculations as a guide and ground elevation of antenna.
Pilots For 9/11 Truth is an organization of aviation professionals from around the globe. The organization has analyzed Flight Data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). The data does not support the government story. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment.
pilotsfor911truth.org... for full member list.
pilotsfor911truth.org...
Conflicting Data, Hardcore Questions and the Media Blackout
by Rob Balsamo, Pilots For 9/11 Truth
02/29/08 - It almost goes without saying that when a major aviation accident occurs, just the fact that "Black Box" data has been released to the public makes mainstream news, not to mention content and analysis. Recently, the Flight Data Recorder information claimed to be from American 77 (AA77, Pentagon) and United 93 (UA93, Shanksville, PA) has been released to the public via the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA). Mainstream Media (and some alternative media) has not reported even the release of this information for such a high profile event. Why? It is interesting to note, CNN has reported an animation made by an independent researcher regarding the events at the Pentagon. The animation supports the government story of an aircraft impact with the pentagon. However, it is not based on any flight data. Why does CNN/Mainstream Media cover an animation based on zero flight data, but does not cover even the release of government provided flight data or the animation constructed and released by The National Transportation Safety Board? Perhaps someone doesn't want to raise curiosity of the content?
As analyzed and published by Pilots For 9/11 Truth, the Flight Data Recorder information provided by the National Transportation Safety Board claimed to be from AA77 and UA93 does not support the government story or observed events. It is clear why the Corporate owned Mainstream Media (and perhaps some alternative media) do not want to cover even the release of the "Black Box" information, as this will no doubt raise curiosity of what the data contains. It appears Media outlets would prefer to cover third party animations, constructed without any flight data, as long as it supports the government story. It is clear media outlets do not want to even mention the release of flight data provided by the government as they would be forced to cover the content and more professionals/experts would be aware to analyze the data finding it does not support the government story and/or observed events.
A recent article published by Aidan Monaghan regarding the mysterious absence of "Black Box" serial numbers for the 9/11 Flights -- where the recorders were reportedly recovered -- reveals unprecedented events in reporting. Aidan sources many situations where "Black Box" serial numbers are reported among past high profile, major aviation accidents, including those under the jurisdiction of the FBI, setting precedent. US Government agencies have refused (apparently giving unlawful excuse) to provide serial/part numbers via the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) in order to establish positive identification of the aircraft reportedly involved on September 11, 2001. Think CNN, Fox or any other Mainstream Media outlet will cover such such blatant disregard for exposing the truth?
Reportedly, the BBC is gearing up for a sequel to their last hit piece covering questions regarding 9/11. Let's hope they contact some experts this time, and the experts they do contact and use, they give fair time. Please see our article, "History Channel Consulted "Experts?" in our articles section.
There comes a time when silence is considered complicity...
Pilots For 9/11 Truth is an organization of aviation professionals from around the globe. The organization has analyzed Flight Data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). The data does not support the government story. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment.
pilotsfor911truth.org... for full member list.
pilotsfor911truth.org...
Lies, Conflicting Reports, Cover-Up's

Location of American 77 Flight Data Recorder - Part II
11/30/07 - Many may recall an article we published regarding location of American Airlines Flight 77 Flight Data Recorder (AA 77 FDR) in which we expose the govt story of the flight data recorder being found at the entrance hole and exit hole. Since the article has been published, the MSNBC article we sourced (www.msnbc.msn.com...) no longer exists and now redirects to an irrelevant Newsweek page (www.newsweek.com...). Why would MSNBC want to remove a page which explains the recovery of AA 77 FDR? Is it because we exposed the conflicting reports of location? It gets deeper.
Full Article
Can the Govt Get Their Story Straight? - Location Of Flight Data Recorder
09/16/07 - As many already know, the data supplied by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) does not support the government story of American Airlines Flight 77 impact with the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 (see Pandora's Black Box - Chapter Two - Flight Of American 77 for detailed analysis). Some have argued how could the data not support an impact when the FDR was found inside the Pentagon? We feel that is a great question and one we have been trying to get Government agencies to explain. Full Article

pilotsfor911truth.org...

reply to post by Seymour Butz

9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon
Allegations Brought to Inspectors General
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 2, 2006; Page A03
Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.
Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said.
In the end, the panel agreed to a compromise, turning over the allegations to the inspectors general for the Defense and Transportation departments, who can make criminal referrals if they believe they are warranted, officials said.
"We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. "It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."
Although the commission's landmark report made it clear that the Defense Department's early versions of events on the day of the attacks were inaccurate, the revelation that it considered criminal referrals reveals how skeptically those reports were viewed by the panel and provides a glimpse of the tension between it and the Bush administration.
A Pentagon spokesman said yesterday that the inspector general's office will soon release a report addressing whether testimony delivered to the commission was "knowingly false." A separate report, delivered secretly to Congress in May 2005, blamed inaccuracies in part on problems with the way the Defense Department kept its records, according to a summary released yesterday.
A spokesman for the Transportation Department's inspector general's office said its investigation is complete and that a final report is being drafted. Laura Brown, a spokeswoman for the Federal Aviation Administration, said she could not comment on the inspector general's inquiry.
In an article scheduled to be on newsstands today, Vanity Fair magazine reports aspects of the commission debate -- though it does not mention the possible criminal referrals -- and publishes lengthy excerpts from military audiotapes recorded on Sept. 11. ABC News aired excerpts last night.
For more than two years after the attacks, officials with NORAD and the FAA provided inaccurate information about the response to the hijackings in testimony and media appearances. Authorities suggested that U.S. air defenses had reacted quickly, that jets had been scrambled in response to the last two hijackings and that fighters were prepared to shoot down United Airlines Flight 93 if it threatened Washington.
In fact, the commission reported a year later, audiotapes from NORAD's Northeast headquarters and other evidence showed clearly that the military never had any of the hijacked airliners in its sights and at one point chased a phantom aircraft -- American Airlines Flight 11 -- long after it had crashed into the World Trade Center.
Maj. Gen. Larry Arnold and Col. Alan Scott told the commission that NORAD had begun tracking United 93 at 9:16 a.m., but the commission determined that the airliner was not hijacked until 12 minutes later. The military was not aware of the flight until after it had crashed in Pennsylvania.
These and other discrepancies did not become clear until the commission, forced to use subpoenas, obtained audiotapes from the FAA and NORAD, officials said. The agencies' reluctance to release the tapes -- along with e-mails, erroneous public statements and other evidence -- led some of the panel's staff members and commissioners to believe that authorities sought to mislead the commission and the public about what happened on Sept. 11.
"I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described," John Farmer, a former New Jersey attorney general who led the staff inquiry into events on Sept. 11, said in a recent interview. "The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. . . . This is not spin. This is not true."
Arnold, who could not be reached for comment yesterday, told the commission in 2004 that he did not have all the information unearthed by the panel when he testified earlier. Other military officials also denied any intent to mislead the panel.
John F. Lehman, a Republican commission member and former Navy secretary, said in a recent interview that he believed the panel may have been lied to but that he did not believe the evidence was sufficient to support a criminal referral.
"My view of that was that whether it was willful or just the fog of stupid bureaucracy, I don't know," Lehman said. "But in the order of magnitude of things, going after bureaucrats because they misled the commission didn't seem to make sense to me."


These are the real facts and I stand by my sources.
The Government has lied, and is being caught in their lies with proof!
If you continue to support the liars, then we all know you don’t care about the truth, and you are in this thread to “Bash” anyone who exposes the truth, and you have already proven that.
pilotsfor911truth.org...










[edit on 10/24/2008 by cashlink]