Pentagon bodies from Flight 77

reply to post by TWILITE22


Sorry, but I can't discern what you thought you heard....what was picked up on the camera's soundtrack were some rather "off-the-cuff" theories and comments, in the heat of the moment, by people who were just talking out of their....ermmmm, shall we call it rear passageways?

A guy handling a very smallish shard of (obviously, to me at least) aluminum, with the characteristic rivet patterns and metal shapes, and painted with the typical zinc chromate (the yellowish-greenish color) that is designed to inhibit corrosion in aluminum.

His comment to the extent that it was "too light" is nonsense, and although he acted as if speaking with some authority, he obviously didn't know, nor have the experience, to make such a claim. Anyone who's ever been up close and personal with an airliner for any length of time will understand.

Finally...."Marine Corps Emblem" (if I recall, that was alleged earlier, regarding this video)? I saw none, nor did I hear it in context referred to regarding that piece I described above.

I see no "conspiracy" here.

I must say, though....had not seen that interview with Porter Goss before. I am outraged that, as an airline pilot, and for that matter the industry, and our own in-house security apparatus at every airline, that WE were not kept better informed by our own Governent of their contemplations about air piracy and the use of the airplanes in a suicide manner. THIS is something that should be looked into more --- and is likely one of the many tips of the iceberg of "cover-ups" that has led to all these other feelings of something being "fishy" vis-a-vis 9/11, and the red herrings that have sprouted up as a result --- fueled by such rampant paranoia and imagination that is astonishing.

This after-the-fact sense that they SHOULD have included their plannings and thoughts about it, and established procedures to have us be more alert (as we are now, of course). Until then, ALL of our training about air piracy incidents was based on PREVIOUS encounters and events, and used as templates for response.

The worst examples (prior to 9/11) of any "suidical" attempts had come from in-house disgruntled employees. But, they were isolated, and thought to be so unlikely, as to have been just "one of those things" that happens. Like, the rash of workers "Going Postal" and shooting up their office workplaces.

The idea of a concerted, co-ordinated multiple air piracy "operation" (if it had been contemplated by those eggheads that Porter Goss chaired) was never disseminated to the people who really needed to be made aware, and could develop procedures. That sort of thing starts first, WITH the awareness.

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

Yeah. Have they asked the families if they can release the names? I guess we can only speculate. In all cases - unless a family came forward - we just have to trust that when they say that body is of someone on the plane, killed in a crash, then that is what it is, and not a Hollywood set or a shot from an entirely different place and time. I would think there would be an effort to ask families to come forth to relieve us of our doubt.

Explain how personal effects of the passengers on AA77, like an engraved wedding ring, are fake?

Example Susan Calley ring was found on her remains and returned to her family.....

Hmmm. I don't believe that I said they were fake. In fact, I can think of several ways they could have been obtained and planted. Also... Perhaps we are merely told that Susan was killed as she seemingly was, and that the body died elsewhere under differing situations.

You also might notice that I am not saying this DID happen. Just that it could have, and if it could have, we can't rule out clever plans of nefarious nature. (Many examples of such clever plans can be found in history, so we might presume there would be those who would take advantage of what they have to work with in creating a myth to cover their nefarious plans...)

Why do so many not consider other ways things could have come about rather than jumping to embrace any datum as a child might the security blanket, claiming it proves anything?

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

Yeah. Have they asked the families if they can release the names? I guess we can only speculate. In all cases - unless a family came forward - we just have to trust that when they say that body is of someone on the plane, killed in a crash, then that is what it is, and not a Hollywood set or a shot from an entirely different place and time. I would think there would be an effort to ask families to come forth to relieve us of our doubt.

Explain how personal effects of the passengers on AA77, like an engraved wedding ring, are fake?

Example Susan Calley ring was found on her remains and returned to her family.....

Hmmm. I don't believe that I said they were fake. In fact, I can think of several ways they could have been obtained and planted. Also... Perhaps we are merely told that Susan was killed as she seemingly was, and that the body died elsewhere under differing situations.

You also might notice that I am not saying this DID happen. Just that it could have, and if it could have, we can't rule out clever plans of nefarious nature. (Many examples of such clever plans can be found in history, so we might presume there would be those who would take advantage of what they have to work with in creating a myth to cover their nefarious plans...)

Why do so many not consider other ways things could have come about rather than jumping to embrace any datum as a child might the security blanket, claiming it proves anything?

Well I suppose it COULD be that all the passengers and crew of AA 77 were pulled up in a UFO tractor beam, all their essence probed out , and their husks teleported to the Pentagon. Got to keep an open mind.

reply to post by mr. toddly
Okay this is actually a reply to my original question. Others have said the bodies reported found from Flight 77 , was simply a lie by the government, since they lied about many other things related to that day. Thanks!! I know it's a theory, but it was an actual answer to the OP. Maybe someone else will take a shot at explaining the bodies or lack of?

reply to post by freedom12

Okay this is actually a reply to my original question. Others have said the bodies reported found from Flight 77 , was simply a lie by the government, since they lied about many other things related to that day. Thanks!! I know it's a theory, but it was an actual answer to the OP. Maybe someone else will take a shot at explaining the bodies or lack of?

What lack of bodies is that ? The passengers on AA77 were accounted for, the hijackers were identified by
process of elimination - DNA profiles not accounted for otherwise. The DNA profiles included a set of siblings, 2 of the hijackers were brothers.

Personal effects belonging to the passengers were recovered from the debris - witness my previous post of
wedding ring of passenger found with remains

Again here is map of human remains recovered from the Pentagon



Blue = AA77

Orange = Pentagon

Again best reference for what happened at Pentagon is book "FIREFIGHT" - read it. Will answer all the questions of recovery of remains along with fire fighting and search/rescue activities.

A 757 never hit the pentagon. From the FDR report the radar altitude was 287 feet above ground, the NTSB tries to confuse the public using pressure altitudes but the rad alt is an actual altitude. Anyone can look at the NTSB flight report and apply the altitude pressure corrections and see for yourself. At 287 feet 2 seconds before impact, the rate of decent is not possible as what is seen in the released footage is an object flying along the ground horizontally into the pentagon. Yes people witnessed a 57 flying towards the pentagon but it flew over at low altitude.

Originally posted by Chordz
A 757 never hit the pentagon. From the FDR report the radar altitude was 287 feet above ground, the NTSB tries to confuse the public using pressure altitudes but the rad alt is an actual altitude. Anyone can look at the NTSB flight report and apply the altitude pressure corrections and see for yourself. At 287 feet 2 seconds before impact, the rate of decent is not possible as what is seen in the released footage is an object flying along the ground horizontally into the pentagon. Yes people witnessed a 57 flying towards the pentagon but it flew over at low altitude.

I thought the flyover theory had died a death. There is not a single witness to it.

As regards the Flight Data Recorder there has been further work on the final seconds by Warren Stutt. This has revealed that the final radar altitude was 4 feet at exactly the same moment as the maximum deceleration the device was capable of recording :-

www.cesura17.net...

A fly over would match up quite well to his findings.

Originally posted by Chordz
A fly over would match up quite well to his findings.

You must be joking . 4 feet altitude at the same time as off the scale deceleration !

Just spoke with a co-worker yesterday (former firefighter) who participated in the FEMA directed cleanup at the Pentagon. I have always seen WTC 7 as the red herring indicating an inside job for the entire operation, but I had no reason to suspect the pentagon attack was an artificially constructed scene... until I saw the security footage of the low-flying projectile which caused the entry hole more consistent with the dimensions of a cruise missile than an airliner. I was surprised when my coworker described the abundance of human remains and miscellaneous parts. Granted, it would be a complex operation to plant these, but the alphabet soup agencies were on the scene before the third-party search and rescue groups coordinated by FEMA were permitted site access. Conceivably cadavers could have been carried as part of the payload on the projectile or pre-staged in the building. I asked my coworker what happened to the wings. He said they "disintegrated." I asked him what happened to the engines. He said they "disintegrated." This is a good-hearted guy and a competent emergency response professional just doing his job to support what appeared to him to have been a legitimate catastrophe. I don't buy it though. If the mass of the engines were to continue their trajectory they would have at least left their mark on the building and fallen in a mass, or penetrated the building to be interspersed with the interior rubble. Partially and wholly intact human bodies but vaporized steel? No way.

originally posted by: CitizenW
Just spoke with a co-worker yesterday (former firefighter) who participated in the FEMA directed cleanup at the Pentagon.

This is a good-hearted guy and a competent emergency response professional just doing his job to support what appeared to him to have been a legitimate catastrophe.

so even someone you describe in good terms you dont believe, yet you choose to believe random you tube videos or blogs from someone you dont know, I hope your co worker believes more of what you tell him

a reply to: CitizenW

You've never been near an aircraft engine have you? The actual core of the engine is very small, and the entire engine is incredibly fragile. A small rock can cause significant damage to one, and if a fan blade lets go, it's going to shell the engine out. Hitting a wall would leave very little left.

a reply to: UpIsNowDown

yet you choose to believe random you tube videos or blogs from someone you dont know,

What do you care, to what people believe? I didn't see where CitizenW said he got his information from, to form his "opinions," do you?

I do not buy into the OS of the Pentagon crash either, are you going to assume to where I get my information as well?

The problem with the alleged Pentagon crash is the lack of evidence to support the OS. I am not part of the "hive minds" and I have my own "opinions" to what I believe may have happened.

When one tallies up the government so called investigation, and the mainstream media properganda on the topic, one can see too many holes in the Pentagon OS, and more questions that the government refuses to answer.

a reply to: Informer1958

lol, what do you care that i care what he cares

Its an internet forum for debate, this thread had been dead for 7 years sorry for responding

I have made an assumption (I will admit that) based on the fact he does not believe what was reported from MSM or even a co worker, who will he believe, again I assume youtube/blogs/random internet sites

I could well be wrong, but then again so could he and so could you

At least there is only 1 OS (whether true or not)how many different versions of events have been provided by non OS believers

originally posted by: UpIsNowDown

originally posted by: CitizenW
Just spoke with a co-worker yesterday (former firefighter) who participated in the FEMA directed cleanup at the Pentagon.

This is a good-hearted guy and a competent emergency response professional just doing his job to support what appeared to him to have been a legitimate catastrophe.

so even someone you describe in good terms you dont believe, yet you choose to believe random you tube videos or blogs from someone you dont know, I hope your co worker believes more of what you tell him

Christopher French, a professor of psychology at Goldsmiths, University of London, explains:
Although conspiracy beliefs can occasionally be based on a rational analysis of the evidence, most of the time they are not. As a species, one of our greatest strengths is our ability to find meaningful patterns in the world around us and to make causal inferences. We sometimes, however, see patterns and causal connections that are not there, especially when we feel that events are beyond our control.
The attractiveness of conspiracy theories may arise from a number of cognitive biases that characterize the way we process information. “Confirmation bias” is the most pervasive cognitive bias and a powerful driver of belief in conspiracies. We all have a natural inclination to give more weight to evidence that supports what we already believe and ignore evidence that contradicts our beliefs. The real-world events that often become the subject of conspiracy theories tend to be intrinsically complex and unclear. Early reports may contain errors, contradictions and ambiguities, and those wishing to find evidence of a cover-up will focus on such inconsistencies to bolster their claims.
“Proportionality bias,” our innate tendency to assume that big events have big causes, may also explain our tendency to accept conspiracies. This is one reason many people were uncomfortable with the idea that President John F. Kennedy was the victim of a deranged lone gunman and found it easier to accept the theory that he was the victim of a large-scale conspiracy.
Another relevant cognitive bias is “projection.” People who endorse conspiracy theories may be more likely to engage in conspiratorial behaviors themselves, such as spreading rumors or tending to be suspicious of others' motives. If you would engage in such behavior, it may seem natural that other people would as well, making conspiracies appear more plausible and widespread. Furthermore, people who are strongly inclined toward conspiratorial thinking will be more likely to endorse mutually contradictory theories. For example, if you believe that Osama bin Laden was killed many years before the American government officially announced his death, you are also more likely to believe that he is still alive.
None of the above should indicate that all conspiracy theories are false. Some may indeed turn out to be true. The point is that some individuals may have a tendency to find such theories attractive. The crux of the matter is that conspiracists are not really sure what the true explanation of an event is—they are simply certain that the “official story” is a cover-up.

a reply to: UpIsNowDown

At least there is only 1 OS (whether true or not)how many different versions of events have been provided by non OS believers

Why would anyone stand behind a story that hasn't been proven?

based on the fact he does not believe what was reported from MSM

MSM? Mainstream properganda media? and all their side talking point TV shows, persuading their viewers to believe a certain event? You mean the fake mainstream media that told the OS? I shut that garbage off many many years ago.

You seem to be cherry picking my statement, what do you think of his co worker friend, is he lying or is he gullable and was he decieved on the day of the tragic event, as this is someone who according to CitizenW was there on the scene

I did also state in brackets that (whether true or not)

a reply to: UpIsNowDown

You seem to be cherry picking my statement, what do you think of his co worker friend, is he lying or is he gullable and was he decieved on the day of the tragic event, as this is someone who according to CitizenW was there on the scene

Apparently, he didn't believe in his so called friend, because "he knows him". We don't know the guy.

a reply to: Informer1958

CitizenW described his friend as

"This is a good-hearted guy and a competent emergency response professional"

Shame we dont have more faith in each other

originally posted by: UpIsNowDown
a reply to: Informer1958

CitizenW described his friend as

"This is a good-hearted guy and a competent emergency response professional"

Shame we dont have more faith in each other

Unfortunately it's more about controlling the narrative than respect.