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.

 

Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

page: 113
215
<< 110  111  112    114  115  116 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by scott3x
 


A number of witnesses mentioned that they thought it contacted the lawn just before the building but we must remember the length of time they had to observe a 125' wingspan aircraft moving at about 800ft/sec when the human brain processes visual images at about 24 frames/sec and also factor in their distance from what they witnessed (about 250m from Washington Blvd to the impact point for example). To me, they're confirming its height as extremely low, too low to not hit the building and indeed they do state they saw it hit. Grazing the lawn would have nill effect on the impact speed in any case.

The CIT theory can only stand IMHO if every piece of physical evidence and the bulk of witness testimony can be discredited.




posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


They did not state that they saw it hit. One man stated that he and others saw it hit. He also claimed he saw it hit somewhere it did not. So we are supposed to accept his testimony, even though we need to alter it to make it fit the OS?

If he did not see it hit the building, he did not see it hit the building. You cannot make 23 witnesses out of one man claiming to see something that we all know did not happen.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by jthomas
You said there was an "event" at the Pentagon. We're still waiting for you to tell us what "event" occurred at the Pentagon.

Speak up, man. Have you forgotten what that "event" was?



Originally posted by JPhish
simply because someone was present at an event, does not mean they witnessed something.

This is what i said actually.


In response to the claimed "event" that there was a flyover in my reference:

"I'm going to take a look at CIT's claim of a "flyover" from a realistic perspective by showing a View Shed analysis of the topography around the Pentagon to demonstrate the visibility of any aircraft flying over the Pentagon from any location in the area."

www.abovetopsecret.com...


I reminded you:

"Where are the statements of the hundreds of people who were all around the Pentagon on the freeways, bridges, in the Pentagon parking lots?



Now . . .

An event is a point in time. There is an event every moment, the nature of the event is of no consequence.


An event also occurs over an interval of time. And it is of consequence when we are talking about a spoecific event. Are we not talikng about a specific event, JPhish?


A person being present at a point in time does not necessarily mean they witnessed an event.


Tell us how you know what hundreds of people all around the Pentagon on the frewways, bridges, in the parking lots saw or did not see, JPhish? What power do you posess to state that you know a specific "event" was or not witnessed when hundreds of people were clearly in a position to witness an event?

To wit, CIT's claim of a jet "flying over and away" from the Pentagon:



See how usuual that "event" is, how loud it would have been, how easy it would have been to see it? And you want us to believe that the probability that someone witnessed and reported that event is zero?

One can never underestimate the intelligence of 9/11 "Truthers", like JPhish.



[edit on 6-12-2009 by jthomas]



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Sorry if there's any confusion there:

I was referring to all the witness statements that mentioned impact, not just Joe Harrington. I noted the earlier discussion about the behaviour of the wings on impact (the curious 'folding') which could only be associated with witnessing an impact, not a flyover, don't you think?

I didn't drop in to argue about it all as I've seen how pointless that is



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
reply to post by JPhish
 


I find Pteridine's logic completely fascinating. He believes the wings sheared off as well as folded back. He believes they folded back as well as did damage to the building. I would really love to understand just what shape Pteridine thinks an airplane's wings are and how it is they are attatched to the body.

In order for it to fit his scenario, they would have to be on a hinge that is magically strong enough to make it through the first few walls, dragging the wings into the plane and hole. Before impact though, these wings need to both break apart from the plane but not the magic hinge and turn themselves forward in order to damage the building all the way across before folding back.




I said nothing about a magic hinge. The scenario you propose is all yours. You asked if I thought that it was possible that the wings "folded" on impact. I said that I thought that it was possible. I wasn't there on 9/11 and didn't see the impact from the vantage point of the witness in question. I cannot say what he saw. I am not aware of others saying that the wings folded as they described the plane striking the buiding. Maybe, in the short time it took the plane to penetrate, wings disappearing into the building appeared to fold. Maybe the wingtips folded back. Maybe the angled impact had something to do with it. There is no slo-mo instant replay for the color commentator to blather about. What the witness described was a plane striking the building, consistent wth the physical evidence, and his tesitmony cannot be discounted because you don't agree with certain details. If we were to exclude all witness testimony because of minor inconsistencies or differences based on vantage points, no testimony would be valid.
The preponderance of evidence says that the plane struck the Pentagon at, or near, ground level. There was no flyover.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by scott3x
There's these reports that some if not all of the alleged flights to be hijacked didn't really exist.


There's these reports there were no planes and it was done with holograms.There's these reports CIT and you are disinformation agents working for the CIA.

The Flights were not alleged. Maybe in Internet fantasy land, but there has never been any question about them in the real world. The passengers with hijackers among them and crew took off from their respective airports and were tracked in flight.

None of these planes or passengers have been seen from since the crashes.
Plane parts, body parts, dental records, DNA have all matched up.

Flight data and recorded reports exist on multiple levels. You're saying radar readings were all faked - hundreds of them. That controllers, data entry people, airport personnel, even baggage handlers, worked together faking evidence and are all in on the Big Govt Plot and have remained silent for 8 years. No trace has been left, every computer reading rewritten to accomodate radar readings, transponder feedback, etc. Hundreds if not thousands of accessories to murder are running free with knowledge of mass murder. None have blown the whistle.

Or maybe some guys in basements are just making stuff up and people like you buy into it.



Polling the American Public

[...]another measure of the convincing power of the evidence is the sheer number of Americans who by 2006 questioned the official account. A Zogby poll taken that May indicated that 42 percent of the American people believed that "the US government and its 9/11 Commission concealed... critical evidence that contradicts their official explanation of the September 11th attacks." Even more significant was the finding that the conviction that no cover-up had occurred was held by only 48 percent. (Ten percent said they were unsure.)(11) This meant that even though virtually all of the mainstream press coverage of 9/11 has supported the official account, less than half the American people are confident that the government and the 9/11 Commission have not covered up evidence contradicting this account.


This is again pretending the evidence doesn't exist. Polled Americans think there was some level of cover-up. And they're right. The Bush concealed associations with countries sponsoring 9/11, negligence and entanglement of their agencies, various levels of culpability.

But there is no poll of how many Americans think the plane attacks were faked. That is what you are trying to push - and it is not there.

There are DNA and dental records of over 50 people from samples supplied by passenger families. They've been matched to the people on flight.

So now added to the theory is that DNA labs are all lying. Supplying false matches to dead passengers. Employees and personnel are also accessories to planned mass murder. Their staff read the news reports and know what their companies analyzed.

How many of them have been interviewed by the "Investigators"? Why don't the CIT clowns want ot talk to them?

Maybe because they'll be revealed as lying scumbags? Their believing flock will have confirmed what anyone intelligent looking at the evidence already knows.



[edit on 6-12-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine



I said nothing about a magic hinge. The scenario you propose is all yours. You asked if I thought that it was possible that the wings "folded" on impact. I said that I thought that it was possible.


Ok, how exactly is that possible without this magic hinge? Please explain to me just how it is even remotely possible for the wings to fold back. What is it they are still attatched to that causes them to fold? If they break off, they will not be folding. They need to be attatched to some pivot. Either you can explain to me just how you believe it is possible or you are just talking for the sake of talking. Logic and anyone with even a basic understanding of how planes are constructed will tell you that you are wrong.

Apparently, you are not willing to even hear that could be wrong. You just want to cling to your belief that something is possible without any good reason to believe that. Why is that? Do you need this for your OS to be true? Please explain it to me. I am very confused as to why you would say something is possible but then claim that you do not believe that the circumstances necessary are true. Help me out here.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Sorry if there's any confusion there:

I was referring to all the witness statements that mentioned impact, not just Joe Harrington. I noted the earlier discussion about the behaviour of the wings on impact (the curious 'folding') which could only be associated with witnessing an impact, not a flyover, don't you think?

I didn't drop in to argue about it all as I've seen how pointless that is



Which "all the witness statements" are you referring to then? You have one man claiming that 23 people saw it and that was counted as many witnesses. What other witnesses are you talking about? I have asked several times throughout this thread for a list of the "scores" of people that witnessed the impact and still have none. Even the witnesses being discussed at the time did not see the impact because he was wrong about where the plane actually crashed.

As to the folding...sure. If someone witnessed the wings folding back, that would seem to mean they witnessed the impact. So who all claims they saw this happen? Aside from the fact that it being impossible kills that witness testimony anyway but please list these witnesses.

No need to argue here. I am asking questions, can you answer them? I am happy to return the favor. There is no reason we cannot discuss this without arguing. So far it seems like you can be polite and you have yet to tell a blatant lie so maybe you can show your brethren what it looks like to just discuss something with someone you disagree with. If more people on these boards could be honest and have a discussion we might get somewhere.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 



Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by scott3x
There's these reports that some if not all of the alleged flights to be hijacked didn't really exist.


There's these reports there were no planes and it was done with holograms.


That's a theory that never really took off in the truth movement.


Originally posted by mmiichael
There's these reports CIT and you are disinformation agents working for the CIA.


You the one making these reports :-p?


Originally posted by mmiichael
The Flights were not alleged.


This isn't really my area of expertise regarding the pentagon attack, but from what I've read, there are many issues that remain unresolved on this.


Originally posted by mmiichael
Maybe in Internet fantasy land, but there has never been any question about them in the real world. The passengers with hijackers among them and crew took off from their respective airports and were tracked in flight.


As you may know, the transponders were turned off shortly after flight initiation on all flights. At this point in time, the flights that (allegedly) contained the passengers may have been swapped for remote controlled planes.



Originally posted by mmiichael
None of these planes or passengers have been seen from since the crashes.


There's quite an interesting story concerning the flight 77 plane, atleast. Pilots for 9/11 Truth has talked about it at their site, but I don't really want to go over there and dig it out right now.


Originally posted by mmiichael
Plane parts, body parts, dental records, DNA have all matched up.


1- Plane parts:
The plane parts were mostly small pieces that could be picked up by hand. To my knowledge, there has never been a plane crash before or since 9/11 that had so little wreckage in 2 of the events- Flight 77 as well as the one that crashed in Pensylvania.

2: Body parts:
Sure there were body parts. But I have seen no evidence that any of them were from plane passengers, though, other than an uncorroborated anonymous report that there were some still strapped in their seats. If you have or ever find the source of that link, let me know, will you? I think I may have seen it here once, perhaps you posted it, but was busy with other things at the time.

3: Passenger DNA:
As to the alleged evidence that DNA of most of the passengers was found at the pentagon; although the coroner apparently found no passenger bodies, but those FBI agents seem to have conveniently found this DNA you speak of; there seem to be contradictory statements as to where this DNA was found, however.. in one version, it was found in the area off limits to everyone but the FBI; the same area where it is alleged that a fireball from the crash was so intense that it broke through a wall; interestingly, it did so in a fashion that greatly resembles the way a wall breaking kit would do it.

Don't you think it's mighty convenient how the FBI is always there to pick up or perhaps plant all this convenient evidence, in places that are off limits to everyone else? Or how about how they managed to arrive 5 minutes after the pentagon crash to confiscate all the videos that would apparently have shown conclusively whether or not the plane that approached the pentagon crashed into it?

In summation: NORAD was all tied up with war games that day, war games that weren't even known about until people started doing some investigating, but the FBI seemed to be perfectly positioned to pick up/plant certain evidence in off limit areas to everyone else and confiscate any videos that might well have proven whether or not a plane actually hit the pentagon...


Originally posted by mmiichael
Flight data and recorded reports exist on multiple levels.


I think there are some members here from Pilots for 9/11 Truth that could probably answer the issue of flight data in much more detail then I could at present.

As to recorded reports, can you be more specific?

[edit on 6-12-2009 by scott3x]



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 



Originally posted by mmiichael
You're saying radar readings were all faked - hundreds of them.


I never said that.


Originally posted by mmiichael
That controllers, data entry people, airport personnel, even baggage handlers, worked together faking evidence and are all in on the Big Govt Plot and have remained silent for 8 years.


I never said that either.


Originally posted by mmiichael
No trace has been left, every computer reading rewritten to accomodate radar readings, transponder feedback, etc.


Never said that either. Michael, I'm beginning to understand why people such as KJ get upset with you. I wouldn't say that youre lying, just that you assume a bunch of things that simply aren't true. As to traces, the FDR that allegedly came from flight 77 is certainly interesting.


Originally posted by mmiichael
Hundreds if not thousands of accessories to murder are running free with knowledge of mass murder. None have blown the whistle.


Again, didn't say this. I don't know exactly how many people knew or suspected on 9/11 that there were elements of the government involved in it. What I -do- know is that almost half the U.S. population now thinks that elements within the government covered up atleast part of what truly happened that day.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by scott3x
reply to

Never said that either. Michael, I'm beginning to understand why people such as KJ get upset with you. I wouldn't say that youre lying, just that you assume a bunch of things that simply aren't true.


I will. He blatantly lied. It may seem petty but when you have others suchs as swampy and thommy doing the exact same thing, it does add up. Why do so many debunkers feel this need to attribute statements to people that they never said.

originally posted by mmmichaellll
Your years ago disproven fruit loops theory of the Big Bad Government blowing up the Pentagon just might still be proven if you find a discrepancy in an account of what happened to airplane wings that were blown to smithereens in half a second.


He clearly stated that it was my theory and yet I never stated any such theory and he cannot produce any evidence of me saying it. When you have a group of people regularly making up quotes about other posters, it is hard not to call it lying.

[edit on 6-12-2009 by K J Gunderson]



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 



Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by scott3x

Polling the American Public

[...]another measure of the convincing power of the evidence is the sheer number of Americans who by 2006 questioned the official account. A Zogby poll taken that May indicated that 42 percent of the American people believed that "the US government and its 9/11 Commission concealed... critical evidence that contradicts their official explanation of the September 11th attacks." Even more significant was the finding that the conviction that no cover-up had occurred was held by only 48 percent. (Ten percent said they were unsure.)(11) This meant that even though virtually all of the mainstream press coverage of 9/11 has supported the official account, less than half the American people are confident that the government and the 9/11 Commission have not covered up evidence contradicting this account.


This is again pretending the evidence doesn't exist.


What evidence are you referring to?


Originally posted by mmiichael
Polled Americans think there was some level of cover-up. And they're right. The Bush concealed associations with countries sponsoring 9/11,


We agree on this, yes.



Originally posted by mmiichael
negligence and entanglement of their agencies, various levels of culpability.


Can you elaborate on this negligence? And what do you mean by "entanglement"? And I certainly agree that there was "various levels of culpability".


Originally posted by mmiichael
But there is no poll of how many Americans think the plane attacks were faked. That is what you are trying to push - and it is not there.


It's a rather specific issue, to be sure, and I doubt that it'll ever be put into a poll. However, I find it interesting that you only quoted that first poll that I excerpted from David Ray Griffin's Debunking 9/11 Debunking book. There was another, and it followed immediately after the excerpt of my post that you quoted. Perhaps you missed it? Well, here it is again:


People can differ, of course, with regard to the kind of evidence they believe is being covered up. Many may think of it as evidence that would merely embarass the government, not show its complicity in the attacks. More revelatory, therefore, was a Scripps/Ohio University poll in Auguest 2006, which showed 36 percent of the public holding that "federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them 'because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East.'" (12)


So there you have it; more than a 3rd of americans believe that on 9/11, federal officials either stood down or outright partipated in the attacks. Think about it for a moment there Michael; one out of 3 americans feel this way; not such a fringe movement after all eh? And they're this numerous -despite- the mass media constantly deriding anyone who disagrees more than an inch or so with the official story.


Originally posted by mmiichael
There are DNA and dental records of over 50 people from samples supplied by passenger families. They've been matched to the people on flight.


Just remember who allegedly got the evidence, and see if you can figure out where, precisely, the evidence was obtained.


Originally posted by mmiichael
So now added to the theory is that DNA labs are all lying.


Your theory perhaps? The FBI is the one who allegedly found the DNA. The DNA may truly have been from the alleged flight 77 passengers. The real question to ponder may be: where, precisely, did the FBI obtain this DNA? And who within the FBI obtained it?



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 



Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by scott3x
Never said that either. Michael, I'm beginning to understand why people such as KJ get upset with you. I wouldn't say that youre lying, just that you assume a bunch of things that simply aren't true.


I will. He blatantly lied. It may seem petty but when you have others such as swampy and thommy doing the exact same thing, it does add up. Why do so many debunkers feel this need to attribute statements to people that they never said.


originally posted by mmmichaellll
Your years ago disproven fruit loops theory of the Big Bad Government blowing up the Pentagon just might still be proven if you find a discrepancy in an account of what happened to airplane wings that were blown to smithereens in half a second.


He clearly stated that it was my theory and yet I never stated any such theory and he cannot produce any evidence of me saying it. When you have a group of people regularly making up quotes about other posters, it is hard not to call it lying.


I haven't seen him ever make up a quote of yours. I could, ofcourse, now state that -you- are lying if you don't present a post of his where he literally made a false quote. But I, atleast, believe that you have to -consciously- be trying to misrepresent the truth in order to be lying. If we define lies in such a manner that when someone says something that isn't true, whether they know it or not, they're lying, we'd probably all end up being guilty of "lying" fairly often.

I have never seen any evidence of Michael -consciously- misrepresenting the truth. Perhaps he has, but I haven't seen it.

I'm somewhat touchy on this whole accusation of someone lying thing, in part because I myself was accused of lying in a truther forum, and banned immediately thereafter. Now, if you were to define "lying" as making a mistake, I guess I'd be guilty. But if you were to define lying as -consciously- trying to mislead, I was innocent. And as of yet, I haven't seen any evidence that Michael isn't innocent, in that sense of the term.

[edit on 6-12-2009 by scott3x]



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by scott3x
reply to
I haven't seen him ever make up a quote of yours. I could, ofcourse, now state that -you- are lying if you don't present a post of his where he literally made a false quote.
I have never seen any evidence of Michael -consciously- misrepresenting the truth. Perhaps he has, but I haven't seen it.



Scott, you usually make great posts. You seem intelligent and informed. Maybe you missed the post just above yours; the one you replied to. I clearly quoted mm as telling me about MY theory of the government blowing up the pentagon.

Can you show me where I ever said that I believed that the government blew up the Pentagon?

[edit on 6-12-2009 by K J Gunderson]



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 



Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by scott3x
reply to
I haven't seen him ever make up a quote of yours. I could, ofcourse, now state that -you- are lying if you don't present a post of his where he literally made a false quote.
I have never seen any evidence of Michael -consciously- misrepresenting the truth. Perhaps he has, but I haven't seen it.



Scott, you usually make great posts. You seem intelligent and informed.


Thanks. I feel the same way about you.


Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Maybe you missed the post just above yours; the one you replied to. I clearly quoted mm as telling me about MY theory of the government blowing up the pentagon.

Can you show me where I ever said that I believed that the government blew up the Pentagon?


Nope. The point I'm trying to make is this:
Michael said something that apparently was mistaken. He made a mistake. Did he -consciously- say something that he knew wasn't true? I see no evidence of this.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by scott3x
more than a 3rd of americans believe that on 9/11, federal officials either stood down or outright partipated in the attacks. Think about it for a moment there Michael; one out of 3 americans feel this way; not such a fringe movement after all eh? And they're this numerous -despite- the mass media constantly deriding anyone who disagrees more than an inch or so with the official story.


What percentage of Americans believe Jesus Christ died for their sins and is returning? How many believe Santa Claus delivers presents from a sleigh? How many believe the Flight 77 crash was faked?

Is any general public poll response relevant to this discussion?


The FBI is the one who allegedly found the DNA. The DNA may truly have been from the alleged flight 77 passengers. The real question to ponder may be: where, precisely, did the FBI obtain this DNA? And who within the FBI obtained it?


So the new theory proposed is the FBI obtained body parts, blood, teeth from the passengers. These were sent to labs for analysis and comparison with family supplied samples. Or else the labs and dental technicians all lied about their results. Hundreds of people work for these companies and would be aware of so many high profile tests being done by them.

And what happened to the actual passengers and crew? 60 people are murdered by the FBI?

Additionally you're proposing something else - a bomb, a missile, a combination are set off. Body parts are scattered among the destruction, so that ordinary people helping out with the clean up will be convinced. Just as light poles are pulled down and the taxi windshield is smashed to make it look real.

Then all the NIST and FEMA analysts and their assistants have to fake reports detailing the damage of the Pentagon is consistent with a Boeing crashing into it.

As you start tabulating the people needed to carry off this concealment of the greatest crime in American history, the list gets staggering. What, thousands of ordinary working stiffs, sworn to silence or visited by Men in Black giving them warnings? And not a whisper from anyone in 8 years.

Wouldn't it be cheaper, more effective, less risky, simpler to have Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon?

I can’t even comment on this without saying something that would be insulting.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 



Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by scott3x
more than a 3rd of americans believe that on 9/11, federal officials either stood down or outright partipated in the attacks. Think about it for a moment there Michael; one out of 3 americans feel this way; not such a fringe movement after all eh? And they're this numerous -despite- the mass media constantly deriding anyone who disagrees more than an inch or so with the official story.


What percentage of Americans believe Jesus Christ died for their sins and is returning?


Similarly, there are all those americans who believe the official story. Yes, a lot of people believe fairy tales, especially when they're backed up by big institutions, such as government and/or religious ones :-p.


Originally posted by mmiichael
How many believe Santa Claus delivers presents from a sleigh?


I think that particular belief is generally limited to a rather young subset of the american population ;-).


Originally posted by mmiichael
How many believe the Flight 77 crash was faked?


Again, that's a very small subset of the larger picture. If you're going to ask a bunch of people a few questions, you'd probably want to focus on the bigger picture, as the polls I mentioned do.


Originally posted by mmiichael
Is any general public poll response relevant to this discussion?


I'd think so; for one, it soundly debunks your notion that there's only a few people who believe that american federal officials stood down or actively participated in the 9/11 attacks.


Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by scott3x
The FBI is the one who allegedly found the DNA. The DNA may truly have been from the alleged flight 77 passengers. The real question to ponder may be: where, precisely, did the FBI obtain this DNA? And who within the FBI obtained it?


So the new theory proposed is the FBI obtained body parts, blood, teeth from the passengers.


As I mentioned in my previous post, I have seen no evidence that the FBI obtained body parts, blood or teeth from the alleged flight 77 passengers. This doesn't mean that they didn't do it, only saying that I haven't heard that it was done. All I've heard is that they obtained DNA from most of the passengers; to do this, even skin will do. Furthermore, while it would certainly be interesting to know whether or not the FBI obtained anything more than DNA samples obtained from, say, skin of the alleged flight 77 passengers, the question that I think is even more important is, where, precisely, were the DNA samples obtained? I have heard that they were allegedly obtained in 2 contradictory locations; near the entrance hole, and near the exit hole. The exit hole was, ofcourse, where the alleged fireball that broke through the wall occurred; intense fireball, but DNA of almost all the passengers survives intact.. in a place that's off limits to everyone but the FBI. So who, precisely, in the FBI obtained these samples? Aren't you atleast curious?


Originally posted by mmiichael
These were sent to labs for analysis and comparison with family supplied samples. Or else the labs and dental technicians all lied about their results. Hundreds of people work for these companies and would be aware of so many high profile tests being done by them.


I don't know how many people would be involved in testing; you claim hundreds; for all I know, you're right. But how many FBI agents collected the alleged DNA? That number would be a lot less; a select team? Perhaps even one lone FBI agent?



Originally posted by mmiichael
And what happened to the actual passengers and crew? 60 people are murdered by the FBI?


I have heard that a plane was shot down in the ocean on that day, as part of the war games exercises. Alternatively, one or more of the passenger flights didn't even exist; all of the planes were unusually light on passengers; why? You'd probably bring up the bit about there being many reports, and I'd wholeheartedly agree that I don't have links handy to provide evidence for these claims. But perhaps someday I'll find where I read these things again.



Originally posted by mmiichael
Additionally you're proposing something else - a bomb, a missile, a combination are set off.


CIT has consitently stated that there is no evidence of a missile; this would leave explosives as the most likely option. As I've mentioned in the past, atleast one pentagon survivor mentioned smelling cordite, which is an explosive.


Originally posted by mmiichael
Body parts are scattered among the destruction, so that ordinary people helping out with the clean up will be convinced.


There's no need to do this Michael; actual pentagon employees were killed in the pentagon attack.


Originally posted by mmiichael
Just as light poles are pulled down


As CIT has mentioned, the light poles might well have been taken down the day before, if not earlier.



Originally posted by mmiichael
and the taxi windshield is smashed to make it look real.


Yes, this would have to be part of the deception. I'm sure you'd agree that it's not that hard to smash a windshield, though.



Originally posted by mmiichael
Then all the NIST and FEMA analysts and their assistants have to fake reports detailing the damage of the Pentagon is consistent with a Boeing crashing into it.


What if the damage was made to -look- as if a plane had hit the building? This doesn't mean that they were perfect at the job though. Much has been made of the infamous pentalawn, which apparently didn't suffer a scratch despite the fact that if the plane had truly been as low and level as the 5 frame video of the alleged plane shows, the engines would have left large gouge marks in it. And then there's the issue of the 'massive fireball' that left an exit hole that looked remarkably like the damage a wall breaking kit would make. And let's not forget the rather dubious explanations of why the wings didn't seem to leave a mark on the pentagon, and little if any trace for them anywhere for that matter...



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by jthomas
You said there was an "event" at the Pentagon. We're still waiting for you to tell us what "event" occurred at the Pentagon.

Speak up, man. Have you forgotten what that "event" was?



Originally posted by JPhish
simply because someone was present at an event, does not mean they witnessed something.

This is what i said actually.


In response to the claimed "event" that there was a flyover in my reference:

"I'm going to take a look at CIT's claim of a "flyover" from a realistic perspective by showing a View Shed analysis of the topography around the Pentagon to demonstrate the visibility of any aircraft flying over the Pentagon from any location in the area."

www.abovetopsecret.com...


I reminded you:

"Where are the statements of the hundreds of people who were all around the Pentagon on the freeways, bridges, in the Pentagon parking lots?



Now . . .

An event is a point in time. There is an event every moment, the nature of the event is of no consequence.


An event also occurs over an interval of time. And it is of consequence when we are talking about a spoecific event. Are we not talikng about a specific event, JPhish?


A person being present at a point in time does not necessarily mean they witnessed an event.


Tell us how you know what hundreds of people all around the Pentagon on the frewways, bridges, in the parking lots saw or did not see, JPhish? What power do you posess to state that you know a specific "event" was or not witnessed when hundreds of people were clearly in a position to witness an event?

To wit, CIT's claim of a jet "flying over and away" from the Pentagon:

See how usuual that "event" is, how loud it would have been, how easy it would have been to see it? And you want us to believe that the probability that someone witnessed and reported that event is zero?


You're asking loaded questions. You are the one claiming that hundreds of people saw something, i never made such a claim. I never claimed to know what people witnessed. You are the one making that claim and you have yet to back it up.

simply because someone was present at an event, does not mean they witnessed something.



that debunks your entire angle.

Now . . .

Let's stay on topic

Are you seriously considering the notion that Mike Walter, who has a conflict of interest, is telling the truth and the nearly 20 other witnesses cited in this thread are lying/mistaken?



Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

More Witnesses

Now i will challenge you just as i did pterdine.

Would you like to "battle" on this tropic with me in a Member Debate jthom??

You seem to think that i am doing a shoddy job.
I think you're being illogical.

Why not allow less biased members judge our efforts?

[edit on 12/7/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

If he did not see it hit the building, he did not see it hit the building. You cannot make 23 witnesses out of one man claiming to see something that we all know did not happen.


Seems to be a fixation on Mr Harrington and his 'guys' here which is not what I implied. He is just one more to add to the list of witnesses who claim to seen an impact whether it be with the helipad, the ground or the building or all or any of the above. Let's place those people in a group of 'non-flyover' witnesses.

Those impact accounts have been published online and discussed ad nauseum for years so it would appear pointless if I really have to paste them all here yet again and you can leave out Mr Harrington and his guys if his story is not to your liking.

I mean, with all the investigation you've done to arrive at a definite conclusion on what happened surely you've read every one of those accounts more than once?



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by scott3x
What if the damage was made to -look- as if a plane had hit the building? This doesn't mean that they were perfect at the job though. Much has been made of the infamous pentalawn, which apparently didn't suffer a scratch despite the fact that if the plane had truly been as low and level as the 5 frame video of the alleged plane shows, the engines would have left large gouge marks in it. And then there's the issue of the 'massive fireball' that left an exit hole that looked remarkably like the damage a wall breaking kit would make. And let's not forget the rather dubious explanations of why the wings didn't seem to leave a mark on the pentagon, and little if any trace for them anywhere for that matter...



Scott,

I won’t descend to the level of trying to prove to anyone something basic like DNA tests were real unless you can provide evidence there was tampering.

A pretty tough thing to do considering one would have to fake months of test results and detailed reports made by lab workers, technicians, supervisors, who would contribute to reports that for which summaries became part of the public record.

Scientific people are pretty anal. They know what's going on around them especially if theres is something of high profile and interest. The faked evidence woulds also have to fly past them as well.

You also would have to show me how everything was normal in the Pentagon at 9:35 AM, Sept 11, 2001 and when the fires had cooled down enough to enter the scene of destruction apart from human remains there were identifiable furniture from the plane’s cabin, and even scattered small items like seat cushions, briefcase, luggage contents, etc.

Did FBI gremlins carrying bags full of this stuff sneak in while the fires were still hot so that firemen and clean up volunteers would find them?

I’ll quote the OP of this thread where this issue is discussed for 25 pages with even fighting “Investigator” Craig Ranke chips in and embarrasses himself.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

The following is information that shows the who's and how's of the collection of DNA evidence and the morbid tasks of identifying victims of flight 77 and the victims that died in the Pentagon. Please keep in mind, 5 bodies were not able to be identified as it was impossible to match what was left with the five missing people. Army Major James Cassella, a Pentagon spokesman stated in November of 2001, that they have exhausted all their scientific leads but were unable to match 5 of the victims.

First of all. In the beginning minutes post attacks, DMORT teams were dispatched to two of the sites. NY City WTC Coplex & the Pentagon. Teams were dispatched to Shanksville on September 13th.

For those that do not know, DMORT stands for Disaster Mortuary Operational Response Team. They are a Federal Level Response team designed to provide mortuary assistance in the case of a mass fatality incident or cemetery related incident. They work under the local jurisdictional authorities such as Coroner/Medical Examiners, Law Enforcement and Emergency Managers. Please keep in mind that they are comprised of voluntary medical, forensic and mortuary professionals.

How do they do it?
DMORT assists in identifying victims pretty much in a two step process that uses a sophisticated computer program for matching physical characteristics. They gather information from the families to assist them. X-rays, known tatoos, scars, Dental Records ..Something that may contain DNA evidence.. this is called antemortem evidence. Or (pre-death). All this information is entered into a program called a WIN-VIP.

This program can assimilate 800 different item categories, including graphics, photos and x-rays. As forensic scientists (pathologists, anthropologists, odontologists) examine the recovered remains, they place their findings (that are called postmorten data) into WIN-VIP prograrm. Depending on the how much data is entered, the WIN-VIP system allows scientists to match the remains to their identity.

If you are interested, the five that were not identified:

Ronald Franklin Golinski - Colonel, United States Army
James T. Lynch - civilian electronics technician
Ronald John Hemenway - Electronics Technician, United States Navy
Rhonda Ridge Rasmussen - Department of the Army Employee
Dana Falkenberg - a passenger on Flight 77


For the Pentagon there was a team of more than 100 workers at a military morgue at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware that used several methods to identify remains but primarily relied on DNA testing and dental records.

So... what was done? How was it done? Was it possible?

Here we go:


At the centre of the identification process was the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, the main government agency for postmortem identification of bodily remains recovered from new and old military events. Its efforts were challenged by the destructiveness of the crashes; for forensic specialists, little was left to work with at either site. Nonetheless, advanced preparations for disasters proved useful, perhaps indispensable, to identification efforts.

After the crashes, on-site responses were promptly provided by the federal government's regional Disaster Mortuary Operational Response Team (DMORT), a volunteer organisation of citizens and federal employees who provide forensic, mortuary, and family support services after disasters. The DMORT professional roster includes forensic pathologists, forensic anthropologists who specialise in osteology, and forensic odontologists. The crash sites were designated as federal crime scenes, so federal authorities could control access and supervise recovery of remains.

Each recovered item was then sent to radiography, photography, and DNA stations for initial identification procedures. Tissue samples from both sites were sent to the mortuary at the Dover, Delaware Air Force Base for analysis and matching with DNA samples from victims and their relatives. A team of forensic anthropologists from the army, the FBI, and the Smithsonian Institution was assembled and, mindful of the need to bring closure to grieving families, worked to identify victims as quickly as possible, working long shifts 7 days a week.

This team was led by William C Rodriguez III, one of 51 board-certified forensic anthropologists in the USA, who is often summoned to solve difficult criminal cases. These experts generated a DNA profile from each tissue sample received, and also developed a DNA profile from known reference specimens, such as tissue from biopsy samples, Pap smears, extracted teeth, and saliva from toothbrushes. Surviving relatives provided blood samples. The scientists then analysed the DNA profiles for potential matches.

At the Pentagon, identification efforts ended on Nov 16, 2001; 179 of the 184 victims were identified, plus five profiles that did not match family reference materials, thought, therefore, to be the terrorists. No biological material was recovered for the remaining five people in the building or on the aeroplane.


To view the entire text:

www.thelancet.com...

I hope this explains that yes indeed that all but 5 victims from the Pentagon attack were identified.

Here is a very good article that explains is great detail the processes:

Naming the Dead — Confronting the Realities of
Rapid Identification of Degraded Skeletal Remains
S. M. Edson, J. P. Ross, M. D. Coble, T. J. Parsons, and S. M. Barritt
Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory Rockville, Maryland


www.cstl.nist.gov...


Other Sources:
1-www.dmort.org...
2-en.wikipedia.org... [Disaster_Mortuary_Operational_Response_Team]
3-www.hbo.com...
4-www.arlingtoncemetery.net...



[edit on 7-12-2009 by mmiichael]




top topics



 
215
<< 110  111  112    114  115  116 >>

log in

join