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.

 

how deep can you go? Investigation vs common sense / Pentagon Jerry Henson interview

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 03:35 AM
link   
There's an enormous amount of data about 9/11: pictures, animations, physical evidence, eyewitness testimony, FDR/Black Box, etc. When it comes to witnesses and people-related evidence it sometimes takes a different type of investigation to get answers.

Since people are a subject here, I would like to start with a statement that they are not forgotten. 9/11 was an awful, horrific day for our world with all the casualties of the day as well as from all the subsequent wars. I wish the families and friends, everyone really, best wishes toward continued healing. One aspect of healing involves a search for justice, "finding the killer", knowing the facts - which is why 9/11 must still be researched and investigated.

This thread is about levels of research, from casual assumption to full phenomenological investigation (analyzing the meaning of each sentence and meme). This thread is about what to believe... does the fact that someone claims to be an eye-witness prove there was an airplane? Does the fact there's a website that lists the people who died mean, in fact, the list is accurate?

At a basic level of research having an eyewitness might mean it happened, BUT there are too many casual statements that conflict each other... one guy says he saw a commercial plane fly away from the Pentagon, another says he saw a commercial plane at tree level and the wing clipped the ground. A taxi driver claims his taxi is hit by a falling lightpost that AA 77 hit on its way to the Pentagon, then later admits he wasn't even on the scene. There are some lies out there, who do we trust? (these are examples, not claims at truth)

If some website claims to have all the names and occupations of people who died on AA flight 77, but the site name is something like 911blogbusters (made up example), I might hesitate to believe them; where did they get the information and what is their motivation or bias?

A different example is an in-depth interview with someone who was obviously there, take this prime example:
Interview with Jerry Henson, who nearly died in the Pentagon on 9/11.

A quick recognition that this interview exists, which seems very plausible and accurate at first glance, would make it seem that 9/11 happened as the original story (OS) said... I mean the guy almost died there! It's very typical for some people to use an interview like this for proof of the OS, because honestly who wants to read 23 pages to find out the truth?
... well I do
I REALLY want to know the truth behind 9/11,

The interview is long and very detailed and seems legitimate. Mr Henson nearly died, a large object fell on him after the explosion and he was unable to move, breathing in black smoke, unable to see, just yelling for help. He explains the layout of the building, who was working that day, etc.

In part of the interview he mentions someone saw part of the landing gear:


the rescue team that came in said when they shined the light up into the overhead, they saw portions of the plane cockpit from the landing gear.


We've likely seen this vary piece of landing gear as part of the evidence [front landing gear, picture at end]. Does it truly prove a plane crashed there? It would seem so, but let's read on...

Here's what Jerry Henson heard at 9:38 am on 9/11/01:


at that time, as I learned later, was 9:38, which was the attack on the Pentagon. I heard a very large crump-thump noise. It was just a single noise. It wasn't a sliding-type impact or a succession of events or anything. It was just one loud, sharp report and at the same time, the lights went out.


This absolutely DOES NOT sound like an airplane crash - no engine noise, just a single explosion, yet if you believe the original story the airplane crashed through wall after wall, sliding along the ground at high speed, multiple fuel tanks exploding. There's no way it would have made only "a single noise".

So, in one single interview we have seemingly conflicting information, how do we rectify what really happened? We need to see all possibilities:
OS theory > An airplane crashed there because there's a piece of landing gear (among other things)
Truther theory > An airplane doesn't make a single noise while crashing through wall after wall, sliding and exploding along the way (among other things)

Next step:
Is there any OTHER possible explanation for the events we know:
1) The area of the explosion was under construction, it would have been very easy to plant this landing gear strut amongst the explosives.

2) single sound? there's no way to make a complex airplane crash, squeezing through holes in a wall, blowing up, and crashing through six walls, sound like a single explosive event...

Did someone see a piece of an airplane? yes they did, we have a picture
Does it PROVE that an airplane crashed there? no, it could have easily been planted, and the description of the event doesn't remotely match an airplane crash.

Investigation into a crime should not stop at casual observation or even "common sense", it should delve all the way into the very essence of what was said; asking questions along the way, measuring other possibilities. Peoples lives are at stake, the US is as stake, justice is at stake.


Did an airplane crash defy the laws of nature and blow up in a single-sound event, or did that rusty strut come from the back of a warehouse somewhere...?



edit on 22-3-2011 by Thermo Klein because: added Jerry Henson to title




posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 03:39 AM
link   
the use of speculation is a great way to get ideas, find what to reseacrh... it is not necessarily truth but is a good way to start from scratch and investigate "directionally" from evidence to conclusion, and NOT having a conclusion and searching for things to fit your belief.

Here's a speculation:
What if a missile was inside the Pentagon before the explosion. We heard a single sound event, what if that single sound was explosives, which also set the missile into action?

If you operate from the idea "IT WAS A PLANE" then you lack the creativity to explore other options and speculations.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 07:00 AM
link   
You really have this issue stuck in your craw, don’t you?

So when did the perps carry and place all the debris outside?
So when did the perps place the remains of the bodies found?

It takes a whole lot more time, trouble, people, and money execute this Pentagon conspiracy you support than to just misinterpret spy reports, fail to communicate between agencies and over all due diligence of our government.

So I ask you which is our government better at?
Execute the secret destruction of many buildings on the same day.
or
Screwing up everything they touch.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 



This absolutely DOES NOT sound like an airplane crash - no engine noise, just a single explosion, yet if you believe the original story the airplane crashed through wall after wall, sliding along the ground at high speed, multiple fuel tanks exploding. There's no way it would have made only "a single noise".


How long do you think the crash event took? This wasn't a train pulling into a station at 5 mph. The plane was going in excess of 400 mph. That means the plane covered 100 feet in about 2/10 of a second. One big sound to the observer.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 08:53 AM
link   
Another absurd thread.

To state that it would have been easy to plant aircraft debris in this man's office also among other offices in the same are is the epitome of absurdity. As if he wouldn't notice!


Regardless of the words of sympathy used in the OP, this is disrespectful vividly illustrates the lengths to which conspiratists are willing to go in preserving delusions of "inside job".

This man experienced a very traumatic event that was over in a matter of seconds. He was no doubt surprised and shocked with no idea what was happening around him until well after he was rescued and on the path to recovery.

To scrutinize his account for discrepancies with what he RECALLED that he heard is utterly absurd. There are and will always be inconsistencies and anomalies to be found with witness statements to virtually ALL traumatic events. Trained investigators know this, understand it, and are able to put it into context with other accounts and the physical evidence. An example would be number of gunshots in a gun fight. Even police frequently do not remember correctly the number of gunshots fired. It can and does vary by a huge number in many cases. Witness frequently confuse the timing of events in recalled memory. Frequently, witness will testify to an airborne explosion of an aircraft when, in fact, the explosion was not airborne, but on the ground.

There is no need to go further with this absurd scrutiny to find inconsistency in this man's account or any other for that matter. There are dozens and dozens of eyewitness and victims' stories regarding events at the Pentagon on 09/11/2001 and they all have a common reoccurring theme. An aircraft was the cause of damage with most of those inside referred to jet fuel and the odor of the same. In fact, a great many of the injuries sustained were fuel inhalation type injuries and not necessarily blunt trauma, particularly those on the periphery of the damage.
edit on 22-3-2011 by Reheat because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
the use of speculation is a great way to get ideas, find what to reseacrh... it is not necessarily truth but is a good way to start from scratch and investigate "directionally" from evidence to conclusion, and NOT having a conclusion and searching for things to fit your belief.


Speculation based on evidence is, dreaming up tales of dragons and the tooth fairy are not.



Here's a speculation:
What if a missile was inside the Pentagon before the explosion. We heard a single sound event, what if that single sound was explosives, which also set the missile into action?


Of course your speculation ignores the evidence ...

And somewhere in that area in front of the truck I just happened to look up to my left and see the airplane right there just a couple hundred yards away. And it was coming after us. It was coming at us. So I yelled to Mark, "Let's go" I believe ... ... I had a about a second and a half, from the time we saw the plane and until it hit the building. - Alan Wallace

This is of course a fireman who was there and survived by diving under the van parked at the helipad area.



If you operate from the idea "IT WAS A PLANE" then you lack the creativity to explore other options and speculations.


No sir, we operate from reality, not fantasy land.

So, then, they power up, like I said, it just went right into the Pentagon. And, at that time, for a brief second, you could actually see, you know, I think about 30 seconds [unintelligible], the tail sticking out for a minute, because the wings just disappeared. You know, they just exploded into nothing. And, the tail is just sitting out for a second. Then, the explosion and two fireballs. I mean, the side came out. And that's when I got knocked back up against a light pole where I was at and I hit the back of my head on the light pole. - MSgt Noel Supelveda

edit on 22-3-2011 by 911files because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
To state that it would have been easy to plant aircraft debris in this man's office also among other offices in the same are is the epitome of absurdity. As if he wouldn't notice!



I didn't state that, I noted the section was under construction... depending on how you respond I might read the rest of your post(s).



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   
I posted this OP as sort of a reference, to just be part of the ATS information base in case someone reads up on Mr. Henson and thinks this interview proves the OS. When I come across something that is SOLD as "proving" the events of 9/11 where hijack/crash situations I read them to see if it's true... yet again it's not the case.

I'm probably done with this thread because I don't want to deal with the same three or four OSers that always comment on the 9/11 threads, continually misdirecting, discussing other things, blatant lies (reheat), and purposeful ignorance.

hooper I appreciate you actually commenting on the primary issue

but an airplane crashing through one wall, then another, then going to the next wing of a building, crashing through more walls, etc WILL make more than a single noise, the alleged debris would have been slowing down as well so your math is misleading.

Hasta la vista boys. If someone posts a relevant statement, in my opinion, I may be back.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Another thing to think about on this, in case it was an actual argument you could learn from, and not just an effort to fight the OP... is that as the eye has a sample rate of around 25 frames per second (why we see flashes of pictures as a movie) the ear doesn't operate that way. There is no known "sampling rate" for hearing because we hear in a compressed wave form, meaning we can hear myriad things at the same time. A single sound comes roughly from a single event.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
comment on the 9/11 threads, continually misdirecting, discussing other things, blatant lies (reheat), and purposeful ignorance.


Name one blatant lie. Just one is all I ask.

Then we'll go to yours. Mr. Thermo Klein are you a coward?



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Originally posted by Reheat
To state that it would have been easy to plant aircraft debris in this man's office also among other offices in the same are is the epitome of absurdity. As if he wouldn't notice!



I didn't state that, I noted the section was under construction... depending on how you respond I might read the rest of your post(s).


And just where do you think this was located?

1) The area of the explosion was under construction, it would have been very easy to plant this landing gear strut amongst the explosives.




posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
comment on the 9/11 threads, continually misdirecting, discussing other things, blatant lies (reheat), and purposeful ignorance.


Name one blatant lie. Just one is all I ask.

Then we'll go to yours. Mr. Thermo Klein are you a coward?



Thermo Klein (from the OP):
The area of the explosion was under construction, it would have been very easy to plant this landing gear strut amongst the explosives.

reheat:
To state that it would have been easy to plant aircraft debris in this man's office also among other offices in the same are is the epitome of absurdity. As if he wouldn't notice!


stating I said it was in the man's office is a blatant lie...
I got no more time for your BS.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by hooper
 


Another thing to think about on this, in case it was an actual argument you could learn from, and not just an effort to fight the OP... is that as the eye has a sample rate of around 25 frames per second (why we see flashes of pictures as a movie) the ear doesn't operate that way. There is no known "sampling rate" for hearing because we hear in a compressed wave form, meaning we can hear myriad things at the same time. A single sound comes roughly from a single event.


And? It was one big event. Unfortunately it took only a fraction of a second. And thats what he heard, all compressed into the space of a fraction of a second. Wow, talk about a fishing expedition.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
comment on the 9/11 threads, continually misdirecting, discussing other things, blatant lies (reheat), and purposeful ignorance.


Name one blatant lie. Just one is all I ask.

Then we'll go to yours. Mr. Thermo Klein are you a coward?



Thermo Klein (from the OP):
The area of the explosion was under construction, it would have been very easy to plant this landing gear strut amongst the explosives.

reheat:
To state that it would have been easy to plant aircraft debris in this man's office also among other offices in the same are is the epitome of absurdity. As if he wouldn't notice!


stating I said it was in the man's office is a blatant lie...
I got no more time for your BS.


Mr. Jerry Henson stated that rescuers enlarged the "punchout" hole to get to him. He was in his office. That is EXACTLY where that what appears to be a main gear strut was found.

Referring to the photo in the post above.....


This piece of landing gear found in the C-Ring near the exit hole has matching structures and a similar shape to a 767's landing gear's main shaft (right), the 767 having larger parts than a 757. (Source of 767 part photograph: PentagonResearch.com)


911research.wtc7.net...



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


it's clear from reading his interview that they're NOT talking about the same hole

have you read it yet!??

ya, some guys used a pole to make their way through a hole, and they made it prefectly round and large enough to fit a car in
!!!!

There's more than ONE hole in the Pentagon there genius.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by Reheat
 


it's clear from reading his interview that they're NOT talking about the same hole

have you read it yet!??

ya, some guys used a pole to make their way through a hole, and they made it prefectly round and large enough to fit a car in
!!!!

There's more than ONE hole in the Pentagon there genius.


Alright Einstein, if there is more than one hole, let's see it....No good photograph clearly showing another hole, it did not exist...



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by Reheat
 


it's clear from reading his interview that they're NOT talking about the same hole

have you read it yet!??

ya, some guys used a pole to make their way through a hole, and they made it prefectly round and large enough to fit a car in
!!!!

There's more than ONE hole in the Pentagon there genius.


Alright Einstein, if there is more than one hole, let's see it....No good photograph clearly showing another hole, it did not exist...


nice job on the critical thinking... if there's a hole in the C-wing, then there must be holes leading from the initial explosion site TO THAT POINT. There's more than one hole - you are wrong. If you wish to follow that you are right, then you disprove the fact an airplane crashed there and went through mulitple walls - gotta love it, reheat wrong either way


guy thinks an airplane crashed through 6 walls and left one hole.... amazing.



edit on 22-3-2011 by Thermo Klein because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by Reheat
 


it's clear from reading his interview that they're NOT talking about the same hole

have you read it yet!??

ya, some guys used a pole to make their way through a hole, and they made it prefectly round and large enough to fit a car in
!!!!

There's more than ONE hole in the Pentagon there genius.


Alright Einstein, if there is more than one hole, let's see it....No good photograph clearly showing another hole, it did not exist...


nice job on the critical thinking... if there's a hole in the C-wing, then there must be holes leading from the initial explosion site TO THAT POINT. There's more than one hole - you are wrong. If you wish to follow that you are right, then you disprove the fact an airplane crashed there and went through mulitple walls - gotta love it, reheat wrong either way


guy thinks an airplane crashed through 6 walls and left one hole.... amazing.



edit on 22-3-2011 by Thermo Klein because: (no reason given)


Read what Henson said and then get back to me.
I think you can read as there aren't too many big words in his Interview.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

There's more than ONE hole in the Pentagon there genius.
nice job on the critical thinking... if there's a hole in the C-wing, then there must be holes leading from the initial explosion site TO THAT POINT. There's more than one hole - you are wrong. If you wish to follow that you are right, then you disprove the fact an airplane crashed there and went through mulitple walls - gotta love it, reheat wrong either way


guy thinks an airplane crashed through 6 walls and left one hole.... amazing.


Well, you've just proven that you have no clue about the construction of the first floor of the Pentagon in that area. I think you'd be wise to read this link closely and see just how many walls were between the facade and the C-Ring. After you read that I'd suggest you edit you're flippant remarks above and eat a little crow............COLD!


911research.wtc7.net...
edit on 22-3-2011 by Reheat because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


you say there's only ONE hole in the Pentagon, and then when you recognize you made a 100% impossible and stupid statement you don't have the B***s to say you were wrong...

there was more than one hole... anyone can tell this
even you

u know the ONLY reason I answer your proposterous posts? because it bumps my thread!




top topics



 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join