Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

Located - the direct quote of a first responder who saw passenger bodies still strapped into their seats.

In a book highlighted on this interesting blog that delves into the CIT Flying Circus

911debunkers.blogspot.com...

"Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11"

the authors interviewed more than 100 Pentagon first responders ...

"They walked closer. At the mouth of the third hole they saw a piece of a wheel and countless shards of wreckage. Some of them looked like pieces of seats." Page 149.


"For the first time, Regan's team saw something they had expected to see all along but had been scarce until then: recognizable airplane parts. They all thought they would find big pieces of the airliner laying everywhere, the way car parts end up strewn across a highway after a crash. But the physics of an airplane crash were obviously different: Mostly there was just tons of shredded metal and melted plastic.

Finally, they found several airplane seats, piled among the usual mounds of upturned office furniture and random wreckage. A couple of the seats still had bodies belted into them which had already been found and marked for the FBI. Most of the workers inside were conscientious about not gawking, yet the seats attracted a lot of attention. They were the first objects the non-aviation experts had seen that unmistakably belonged to an airplane." Page 373.


"The airplane had nearly disintegrated, but Dan Fitch's group found several huge cogs, bent and blackened, that weighed a couple hundred pounds each; it took a couple of workers to handle each one. Other objects nearby looked like large gears, and strips of metal that appeared to be fan blades. Workers realized that they were pulling apart the remnants of one of the aircraft's two engines. The aluminum cowling that had encased it all had been torn away, but the guts of the engine were there.

FEMA crews used a blowtorch to free the core of the motor from the column in which it was embedded. Then Fitch and several others used pieces of six-by-six to pry the motor loose from the column and push it off the pile. With the help of some Old Guard troops, they rolled the heavy piece of machinery onto a dolly and finally managed to push it outside. The whole effort took the better part of an entire shift." Page 425.


"As crews dug deeper, unmistakable remnants of a passenger plane were everywhere. Wallets, shoes, jewelry, and the everyday items that had been stuffed into dozens of suitcases were littered throughout the debris." Page 426.

Originally posted by Shadowflux
reply to post by burntheships

 

Very true! Most people are just ignorant as to fact that a plane that size, going that fast, has such a large cushion of air due to lift on the wing that it can't physically fly that low at that speed. Not to mention the high level of piloting skills needed to drop a plane from cruising altitude to 50 feet +/- off the ground and then keep it completely level, at full throttle, without hitting anything else, and fly it right into the Pentagon.

I mean, we're talking Top Gun stuff here. (on second thought, Tom Cruise may be crazy enough to have planned this)

False, a large cushion of air does not keep planes from flying low; you can fly as low as you want as fast as you want if the aircraft is under control. You will hit the ground with negative pitch no matter how fast you are going. Ground effect helps you with something like a “cushion” near the ground, but is not a magic can’t hit the ground fantasy. In addition, the final RADAR altimeter readings from Flight 77 were as follows for the last seconds. 233, 183, 89, 57, to 4 feet were the height above the ground or objects on the ground for the last 5 seconds. Does not look level and Flight 77 hits the Pentagon.


www.aerospaceweb.org...
“First of all, there is no bubble of air that pushes an aircraft away from the ground. The true cause of ground effect is the influence of the ground on the wing's angle of attack as described above. Ground effect does nothing to force an aircraft upward from the ground, it only changes the relative amount of lift and drag that a wing will generate at a given speed and angle of attack. Second, we have seen that this effect actually decreases with speed since induced drag has increasingly less influence on an aircraft the faster it flies.”
cool part… “this effect actually decreases with speed”…

There was no skill required to crash into the Pentagon; the terrorist pilot almost hit the highway over pass next to the Pentagon. He was pulling an average of 1.83Gs for the last two seconds just to avoid hitting the ground when he has the largest office building in the world as his target. Skill?

Flight 77 was not level; the last few decent rates were over 50 feet per second down. The last pitch reading was -1.9 degrees, the pitch while taxiing on the ground is -0.4. Flight 77 was not level; the last two seconds pitch averaged -2.6 degrees and the aircraft lost 59 feet in one second. Level? Not exactly; do not let the distorted fisheye lens from the Pentagon parking lot gate camera fool anyone into thinking the aircraft was level.

reply to post by burntheships


The term 'independent researcher' doesn't mean anthing. It's empty verbiage.

Who did the research?

By googling these two guy's names, I get nothing but links to 911truther websites. Hardly 'independent, in the spirit of the word, when you have a built in bias.

What are these guys credentials? Are they at all qualified to be doing an investigation?

Originally posted by jthomas
Meanwhile.... AA77 still hit the Pentagon,

I don't care about that as much as what the alleged Flight AA77 did before it allegedly hit the Pentagon.

You claim that it hit a light pole, which hit a taxi, jthomas. Prove it.

Originally posted by iSunTzu
No evidence?, only the lampposts knocked down by Flight 77 and witnesses.

Prove that a light pole was knocked over by the alleged Flight AA77 and then hit a taxi. If you believe this is true, then you should have no trouble showing me the witnesses who saw this happen, as you claim.

Originally posted by iSunTzu
The FDR with a true track of 61.5 degrees lines up the downed lampposts with the Pentagon impact. Hard evidence from the FDR has never been refuted with facts and evidence.

Right... so which part of the alleged FDR data shows that a light pole was struck and hit the taxi? Your clutching at straws is more than obvious.

Originally posted by iSunTzu
16 witnesses to the lampposts being hit by 77 is bad news for the fly over delusion.

How many of those 16 witnesses have been independently verified? You haven't stated a single name, so which 16 do you claim saw the plane hit the light pole that then hit the taxi? How many of those 16 witnesses do you claim saw the light pole hit the taxi?

Originally posted by mmiichael
Located - the direct quote of a first responder who saw passenger bodies still strapped into their seats.

You retracted this claim a long time ago, mmiichael. What are you trying to prove now?

Originally posted by mmiichael

911debunkers.blogspot.com...
Finally, they found several airplane seats, piled among the usual mounds of upturned office furniture and random wreckage. A couple of the seats still had bodies belted into them which had already been found and marked for the FBI.

Where is the direct quote from the witnesses? Where has this been independently verified?

Which bodies were strapped to the seats? Unidentified bodies are not evidence, mmiichael. Unless it has been clearly stated which passenger's body was strapped to an airline seat, you've got nothing.

Nice try. Get back to us when you have concrete proof, not a line from a book that has not been verified.

reply to post by mmiichael


Mmmmmichael, this has been covered and covered. It seems as if you just run these things on a loop, hoping they will grab a few new dupes along the way each time around.

Not only is there NO VERIFICATION of this person and their quote being even remotely real, but there is also the fact that in every single report made of the crash scene, there are no bodies in seats listed as being found.

If you can explain why anyone should give more credibility to an unverifiable quote than to say the coroner's office, then you might win me over.

Can you even try?

reply to post by tezzajw


Are you saying that if no one saw it, it didn't happen? No witness means no event?

Originally posted by pteridine
Are you saying that if no one saw it, it didn't happen? No witness means no event?

I'm not saying that at all, pteridine.

Originally posted by tezzajw
Where is the direct quote from the witnesses? Where has this been independently verified?

Which bodies were strapped to the seats? Unidentified bodies are not evidence, mmiichael. Unless it has been clearly stated which passenger's body was strapped to an airline seat, you've got nothing.

Nice try. Get back to us when you have concrete proof, not a line from a book that has not been verified.

The great thing is that in the future kids will click on this thread entitled "Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information" And then be forced to wade through endless pages of laboured avoidance of the subject.

They will give up in despair after never finding an iota of evidence to validate any of the implied claims of information disproving what has been established.

Given it's perpetual rerun status, inevitably the Truther Movement will slide over a cliff weighed down by it's very apparent inability to make a declarative statement on what they think really happened at the WTC, the Pentagon, et al.

Truther video prices are down from $19.95 a few years ago to $5 a pop.
Last I heard, Pilots for Truth or whatever it's called still can't find it's 1000 professionals to sign on their dotted line. Cheap hotels are getting fewer bookings for 9/11 Truth events.

Maybe the Citizens Investigating Team will have to move on to uncovering cover-ups of chemtrails, aliens hidden at military bases, lethal flu virus vaccines, etc.

Still waiting for that " Alarming Information"




[edit on 19-11-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael
They will give up in despair after never finding an iota of evidence to validate any of the implied claims of information disproving what has been established.

This would explain why someone would repeat lies they have already had to admit were lies or back away from claiming are true. Every ten pages or so, start the same line of BS over again and that should turn people away pretty quickly.

Miss me?

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by mmiichael
They will give up in despair after never finding an iota of evidence to validate any of the implied claims of information disproving what has been established.

This would explain why someone would repeat lies they have already had to admit were lies or back away from claiming are true. Every ten pages or so, start the same line of BS over again and that should turn people away pretty quickly.

Miss me?

I miss a lot of things. But I know some will turn up again like it or not

Noted repeatedly, the promised "Alarming Information" fails to materialize. Endless Truther 'poof' but no 'proof' of hinted at missiles, flyovers, light poles pulled out of the ground.

Anyone even thinking any these fantasies actually happened can see what evidence has been gathered in 8 years of intensive research.

Nothing.








[edit on 20-11-2009 by mmiichael]

reply to post by mmiichael

Originally posted by mmiichael
Endless Truther 'poof' but no 'proof' of hinted at missiles, flyovers, light poles pulled out of the ground.

I've found the official story believers must constantly flip to the defensive; they'll claim that alternate theory supporters have no proof, and will even disagree that truthers have the most solid evidence, without actually providing evidence that this is true. Most importantly they constantly deflect attention away from the dearth of evidence, let alone proof, for their own beliefs.

Admittedly, proof is hard to come by for or against many theories, but most of the big names in the truth movement have discredited the missile theory, so I think we can dismiss that here.

As to the flyover theory, and the idea that the light poles were removed without the aid of a plane, I believe as does CIT and PFT, that it's the most solid theory, based on things such as the flight path as well as many more things, that CIT and PFT bring up in their videos.

[edit on 20-11-2009 by scott3x]

reply to post by scott3x


If witnesses to the flight path are valid, then witnesses to the impact are equally, if not more, valid. The flight path is a matter of witness estimation but the impact witnesses do not have to estimate flight path at all. Where did the plane hit? Look at the damage. What was in the way? Light poles. How did they get knocked over?

The entire flyover-with-timed-explosives theory is weak beyond belief.

Originally posted by mmiichael
Maybe the Citizens Investigating Team will have to move on to uncovering cover-ups of chemtrails, aliens hidden at military bases, lethal flu virus vaccines, etc.

Still waiting for that " Alarming Information"

CIT will have to cull its rank/membership since some members are going off the reservation with claims that an aircraft *can* fly NOC and hit the building at the same time.

The "Independent" element of this whole thread really is misleading. There's nothing "independent" about CIT. They, and their supporters, are as biased as anyone has ever been in the history of the galaxy.

Originally posted by scott3x
I've found the official story believers must constantly flip to the defensive; they'll claim that alternate theory supporters have no proof, and will even disagree that truthers have the most solid evidence, without actually providing evidence that this is true. Most importantly they constantly deflect attention away from the dearth of evidence, let alone proof, for their own beliefs.

Admittedly, proof is hard to come by for or against many theories, but most of the big names in the truth movement have discredited the missile theory, so I think we can dismiss that here.

As to the flyover theory, and the idea that the light poles were removed without the aid of a plane, I believe as does CIT and PFT, that it's the most solid theory, based on things such as the flight path as well as many more things, that CIT and PFT bring up in their videos.

You have to realize very few people bother to come to 9/11 threads who have detailed knowledge of the event because there is just a swamp of ignorance and disinformation swilling around and people desperately trying to adhere to it.

There is no Official Story that the government and media sanction as far as destruction goes. What happened was cumulatively witnessed by thousands, and thousands participated in the clean-up and analysis. Most were ordinary people or employed by cities, medical labs, etc.

The adversarial notion of it being a big conspiracy by government is something Truthers introduced to the formula.

In the first two three years there were some serious issues like how the WTC buildings collapsed, Flight 93, etc. Collection of data and analysis have supplied solid answers. Thousands again, across the world have looked at the findings. Structural engineers, demolitionists, etc. For the most part they find little difficulty with the reports and their breakdowns.

No reporters or investigators have found anything radically conflicting with the trail to al Qaida as perpetrators with Saudi and Pakistani backing and co-ordinating. And it would be a coup for anyone finding anything different.

So it comes down, 8 years later, to a sub-culture desperately clinging to their notion it was a massive cover-up, but offering no alternative scenario that fits the vast amount of hard data, testimony, documentation.

And, quite frankly, virtually every major tenet of the Truther Movement has been debunked ten times over.

So here we find ourselves, down to some inconsequential incident, a taxi having it's windshield smashed. In the one hour period when 3 major buildings were hit by large planes and thousands died, no one bothered to document this bit of trivia. Why should that be unusual or noteworthy? And where is there a shred of evidence the cause was anything other than a light pole? The poles were upright and traffic was moving one minute, and the next they're on the ground just after a huge low flying plane passes over? What other explanation is physically possible besides the plane knocking them over?

There are many outstanding questions on 9/11. Who knew what in advance, why was defense so poor in responding, why were some involved in the planning and funding in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan not pursued, etc.

But the specifics of the crashes and their destruction is documented and understood. Truthers feel compelled to hunt for non-existent clues in the available reports. A few failed academics try to cash in on the interest with books and speaking engagements. Amateur websites and videos proliferate. A fringe cult.

Much like the UFO phenomenon. It has become a matter of fantasy and self-delusion rather than investigation.


M


[edit on 20-11-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by mmiichael
They will give up in despair after never finding an iota of evidence to validate any of the implied claims of information disproving what has been established.

This would explain why someone would repeat lies they have already had to admit were lies or back away from claiming are true. Every ten pages or so, start the same line of BS over again and that should turn people away pretty quickly.

Miss me?

I miss a lot of things. But I know some will turn up again like it or not

Noted repeatedly, the promised "Alarming Information" fails to materialize. Endless Truther 'poof' but no 'proof' of hinted at missiles, flyovers, light poles pulled out of the ground.

Anyone even thinking any these fantasies actually happened can see what evidence has been gathered in 8 years of intensive research.

Nothing.

Ummmmm.....who is starring these posts of yours???????????

I asked a very clear and specific question about your little quote. Not one line of your response addresses it.

WHY SHOULD ANYONE GIVE ANY MORE CREDIBILITY TO A RANDOM, UNVERIFIABLE QUOTE OVER THE CORONER'S REPORT???????????????????????????????????

Can you read it now? Can you answer what was asked? Can you address what I am actually gettting at? Can you get more stars for dodging a question yet again?

Originally posted by pteridine
The entire flyover-with-timed-explosives theory is weak beyond belief.

So it must have been AA77 right? Where is the logic??????

reply to post by Lillydale


Many witnesses saw the plane strike. How many saw a plane fly away? It is apparent that a plane struck the Pentagon.