If you would have READ this thread, you would have read where SEVERAL EYEWITNESSES said they removed bodies wearing flight attendant uniforms, and they brought in flight attendants who identified pieces of the plane from the galley, that were ONLY carried on passenger planes. If you're hoping to see pics of it, sorry you're gonna have to keep hoping because they won't release pictures of the bodies. [edit on 3-7-2005 by Zaphod58]

I Said put UP!!!!! Post this thread site, that claims this claimage!

Siberian - dude, you've gotta ease up on the hostility there. That site you posted offers nothing in the way of evidence; a page of rhetoric about the government lying is hardly proof of your claims, is it? Please point out what I'm missing here.

Unfortunately Ashmok, even an eyewitness account won't satisfy the criteria of some doubtors. I'm not sure what would, actually. One thing though - I couldn't find any mention of the witness's name. I can understand the desire to protect privacy, but it would go a long way in backing up the claims. Any suggestions? TIA

A Boeing 757 has 2 engines. They weigh in at nearly 6 tons each. Made from Titanium alloy and has a melting temp of 1688c and are 9ft in diameter and 12ft long. Jet fuel (Kerosense) burning in a pure Oxygen environment will burn at 1000c. Therefore it is physically impossible for 2 engines of that size to dissintegrate into thin air. In my own personal opinion there is no way by the laws of physics that a Boeing 757-200 crashed into the pentagon. There is no indication of a 757-200 crashed ANYWHERE near or in the pentagon. And why is there a nice clean mark of the trajectory of where the "aircraft" hit the pentagon. Before 9/11 happened. peace

Originally posted by billybob it's amazing how bogged down in details everyone gets. not that we don't NEED to look at details, we do, but because the events of the day are a very complex system, it is important to keep all facts in context with all other facts. why did the plane do a difficult turn, and then hit the (mostly) unnoccupied side of building

A difficult turn according to whom? A newscaster? Some guy who makes conspiracy videos and sells them online for $19.95 each? Surely not difficult to a pilot, and certainly not to me (I don't have a pilots license but I do fly flight sims and I do fly 4 to 90lb aircraft remotely). Define difficult, is a wide sweeping 3-minute turn difficult? Heck, I watched on TV just a couple weeks ago the test runs for the Airbus 380, the new double decker 840 passenger plane. They performed far more "difficult" maneuvers than a 3-minute banking turn while descending... I think somebody somewhere sensationalized what was basically a cautious turn from a mediocre pilot who probably wasn't sure he'd be able to put the plane into a sharp banking dive to his left when he realized where he was in relation to the Pentagon once he took his autopilot off.

so it seems, catherder, that they thought of using planes as weapons way back in the seventies. in fact, the pentagon and norad were running a simulation of that exact terror scenario on the morning of 911. you 'debunkers' are also guilty of editing out uncomfortable data from your reality bubbles of comfort. have you forgotten that they were running that drill? i'm sure someone must've mentioned it by now. do you know who grover norquist is, catherder? are you ignoring PNAC's goals and voiced method's, ie. 'we NEED a new pearl harbour'.

They "thought of using planes as weapons way back in the 70's" !?? Gosh how many servicemen and officers were first hand witnesses to kamikaze attacks in WWII by Japanese pilots? Do you think this was some form of revelation to somebody in the 70's? I'm not here stating anything other than one simple fact. A 757 hit the Pentagon. Once people grasp the reality of that single fact regarding the attack on the Pentagon on September 11th they can then alter their conspiracy theories accordingly to suit their desires.

Originally posted by Tinkleflower One thing though - I couldn't find any mention of the witness's name.

Good point... I'm sure I remember seeing a site with an audio tape of her speaking out about what she saw, presumably at some 9/11 talk somewhere, but I've just spent a while looking & can't find it, or any other reference to her name. Hmm, maybe I remembered that incorrectly? I'll email Judge & ask. [edit on 4-7-2005 by ashmok]

Something hit the pentagon, but surely not a 757, anyone who believes this is uninformed. The funny thing is, that when it comes to debunking, those who want to belive the "official story" are now bringing in "eyewitness accounts" to prove that a boeing 757 DID hit the Pentagon, yet in other threads where numerous "eyewitness accounts" descibe EXPLOSIONS at the 2 towers, they dismiss it right away ... Double standards, who doesn't hate them....

Originally posted by Hunting Veritas A Boeing 757 has 2 engines. They weigh in at nearly 6 tons each. Made from Titanium alloy and has a melting temp of 1688c and are 9ft in diameter and 12ft long. Jet fuel (Kerosense) burning in a pure Oxygen environment will burn at 1000c. Therefore it is physically impossible for 2 engines of that size to dissintegrate into thin air. In my own personal opinion there is no way by the laws of physics that a Boeing 757-200 crashed into the pentagon. There is no indication of a 757-200 crashed ANYWHERE near or in the pentagon.

What happens to blades doing 32,000 rpm (the turbines) when they hit a sold concrete and rock object at 500mph? Do they just bounce off? No, they shatter. What happens to many chunks of metal (lets say a car engine) when it impacts another solid object (lets say another vehicle) at far slower speeds (lets say 120mph -- two cars going 60mph in a head on)? Have you ever seen the results of such a crash? Much of the engine is mangled, torn, etc. Why is it so hard to imagine an engine going 500mph into a reinforced object would also sustain tremendous damage? Please explain.

And why is there a nice clean mark of the trajectory of where the "aircraft" hit the pentagon. Before 9/11 happened.

What you are referring to here is where they had ran new water pipes into the building during rennovations - it isn't on the flight path it's more than 20 degrees off the flight path. It's also visible in sattelite photos for more than 2 months prior to the attack. It's a coincidence and nothing more. Just another silly thing for conspiracy theorists to point out as "evidence". I'd equate it to something as silly as "why were the freeway paint lines painted only 2 days before, was it to give the plane a perfect path to follow?" (which didn't happen btw, just an example). THis has been covered many times in previous posts.

Amazing. Brain damage happens far too often, and even when facts are available it is not enough for those who will believe in fantasy. The truth is waiting for anyone who is “able” to see it. Until then, by all means deny ignorance and believe what you will. [edit on 4-7-2005 by EvilSockPuppet]

. CatHerder the evidence for a global hawk is the white object that is there in one frame and then gone the next in the manner of a rapidly moving object and not as a slowly disipating puff of smoke or steam as has been suggested, And WTF did this magic puff of smoke come from? The Global Hawk approaches on the vector perpindicular to the face of the pentagon and the missile that did the deep damage to the pentagon approached on the oblique vector that is proposed for the invisible 757 aircraft on a brilliantly sunny day. Do people trust their own eyes or BS spouted by people zealously attached to the 'official' bogus story? [edit on 4-7-2005 by slank]

i'm curious, catherder... for the sake of argument, i will take it for granted that a 757 struck the pentagon. does this require a muslim behind the wheel? if it is a muslim, does it have to be a religious zealot? wouldn't a mind-controlled puppet(holy hair-splitting, batman!) work just as well? the thing with that is, devout muslims don't drink alcohol, yet two of the alleged hijackers were boozing it up in a nightclub on september 10th. once again, do you know who grover norquist is? do you know of the ties this man has with extremist, muslim terrorist groups like hamas and hezbollah? he is a high level ultra right wing guy, and is a part of the whole pnac crowd. why is there a cover-up? (this is OBVIOUS that there is a cover-up, because they confiscated everything. they showed the towers demise over and over, so sympathy for the families is a super lame excuse. there is a great deal of controversey which could probably be quelled with one undoctored, uncensored video from a gas station or a hotel camera. why won't 'they' release these videos!!?) why should we ignore the MASSIVE stonewalling, and self-immunizing of the bush admin with regards to the investigation? bushy boy couldn't even speak for himself. HAHA! what a stroons. should we ignore the report of a jet 'hovering' nearby? i am unsatisfied with your reason for the plane hitting the particular side that it hit. the pentagon is huge. you could smash it anywhere. you could even hit the inner rings, instead of aiming for an outside wall. or just hit it on top. anywhere you smash a plane into the building would have created the desired effect. i think they could have flown straight in, and the circling around to the other side has signifigance other than, easiest target. that's just me. i'm not saying your wrong. just that i am unsatisfied. p.s. your avatar name really doesn't help your stance. just sayin'. not implying. and finally, do you think there is any deciept going on, or is the government 'forthcoming' in your opinion?

. The video, however imperfect it may be, certainly appears to be an actual video of the real-time event. That is the image of the kinetic event. Not post-event Plane parts and other items that can be [pre?] planted. The missile may be what hit the generator on its separate flight path, It also is what is responsible for all the damage other than the initial face impact of the global hawk. You might note the spherical shape of the fireball from a perpendicular strike, it is not slewed down the face of the building which it would be due to the inertia of an oblique strike of a plane. Jet fuel has inertia. Seems to me the global hawk was used to create the spherical fireball, probably loaded with some kind of explosively flamable material. The effects of the hawk could be adjusted by depending on what it was loaded with or possibly re-inforced with. The hawk was for the fireball show and as 'some-kind-of-airplane' being in evidence, the missile timed to strike at the same instant comming in at the oblique angle was used to do the multi-wall penetration and internal damage. I am guessing the reason the hawk and missile weren't fired on the same path is to avoid having them collide in flight with one another. For an absolute novice pilot to fly a plane six feet off the ground yet over the tops of cable spools on the ground at hundreds of miles per hour does stretch credibility. That would be difficult even for an experienced pilot if he/she were maniacal enough to do it. Machines don't get nervous and make mistakes, They just do as they are programmed to do. edit: spelling also by automating as much as possible that lowers the number of conspiritors that have to be involved. [edit on 4-7-2005 by slank]

Originally posted by billybob i'm curious, catherder... for the sake of argument, i will take it for granted that a 757 struck the pentagon. does this require a muslim behind the wheel?

Not at all. A Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon on Sept 11th. I have no way of knowing for certain who did it, why they did it, or how they managed to do it other than what I see hear and decide. Is it possible that a terrorist group did this? Absolutely. Why do I think so? Because I am not an American and I am not insulated from the rest of the world like most Americans are. (Not an insult, it's just the way you guys live and the way your media works.) The least traveled "1st world" citizens of this world are Americans (fact). If you folks did travel more, you'd come to the startling revelation that an enormous number of people and governments hate your country and hate you personally because it is your country and in their view you control it. (It's true, when I travel, and because I'm a Canadian, I am often mistaken for an American. Once people learn that I am from Canada and am a Canadian their attitude towards me visually, outwardly, emotionally, changes.) Do I think this is right? No I don't, I have a lot of friends in the USA, I worked in LA for 2 years and worked between Seattle WA and Vancouver BC for 8 years. I think most Americans are pretty much the same as most Canadians. But my view of the USA does not matter to over 2 billion people who strongly dislike you or to over 900 million people who want to destroy you (lots of those 900 want to destroy me too...). So, yes it most definitely could be terrorists who did this. Do I believe it was a grand American government scheme to do this? Highly doubtful. Although I've had fist hand experience with your NSA in the past and know how those unscrupulous bastards work so nothing is beyond possible. (oh great, there goes my travel rights for another 5 years...)

why is there a cover-up? (this is OBVIOUS that there is a cover-up, because they confiscated everything. they showed the towers demise over and over, so sympathy for the families is a super lame excuse. there is a great deal of controversey which could probably be quelled with one undoctored, uncensored video from a gas station or a hotel camera. why won't 'they' release these videos!!?)

What "cover-up" exactly are you referring to? Who is "they" ? Do you mean CNN/BBC/FOX/CBS/NBC/ABC ? Yes "they" showed the twin towers being hit over and over and it makes me want to ask you something -- in our lifetime, what other image on television has had as much an impact on the American (and free world) psyche besides the moon landing? Are you saying that the first actual attack on US soil since a lone (and mostly unheard of) Japanese submarine shelled an oil refinery near Santa Barbara in WWII is not "news worthy" or are you saying that the murder of over 2000 people in an office building complex is not compelling news? Are you saying the WTC, and the symbolism it held, was not the single most identifiable civilian target in the USA to hit? Would you have been as shocked and outraged if it were the Sears tower in Chicago that had been hit? I'm sure you would have been shocked and outraged but would it have been as big an impact? Probably not. Why won't they release the videos... well some people on here keep referring to something that I can gather no evidence at all of. People keep alluding to some form of roof top air defense system on the Pentagon. Now, this is 100% conjecture and something I do not like to do (I stay away from theories and bullshit to suit my story, something the conspiracy sites have no problem running freely with) -- perhaps the video footage from the gas station shows nothing at all -- or perhaps the video footage from the gas station shows this air defense system in action. Maybe it is some form of particle cannon or laser beam system (I know the US military has been developing these systems for over 20 years now) and it actually got caught shooting the craft, or failing miserably to do so... who knows? Not me. Something you don't take into account when comparing the Twin Towers to the Pentagon, is the WTC had dozens of news stations filming it after the first strike. And the first one was caught totally by chance by some French film students who were filming some firemen on the street. Once something is in the possession of a news center it is very hard to stop it from being shown - I highly doubt the US government had anything to do with the footage of the WTC being shown on TV by anyone at any time. It was news. It was the biggest news to happen since 1969 when men walked on the moon. 9/11 didn't just affect Americans it affected Canadians and Europeans and Asians and everyone with a TV profoundly. It changed the way the world worked. And, how do you account for flight 93? It doesn't fit into this grand conspiracy scheme where the other 3 planes were landed, the passengers unloaded (killed, etc etc) and then "drones" flown into the WTC and Pentagon. Why would this 4th aircraft not follow the same plan? Why would the passengers onboard make phone calls telling family members what was going on? And why would the Air force shoot it down (which I think they probably did, based on the wreckage pattern spread over 30 miles). If the Air Force didn't shoot it down, well then why would it crash in the middle of a field? How could this one plane out of the 4 manage to evade this grand scheme, this master plan of deception, this dark government plot that worked so incredibly well... That's when I come back to, oh hey, wait a second, this wasn't any grand government plan, this was a balsy plan hatched by some terrorist bastards who think I and you are infidels and we are meant to be killed by the word of their god. Furthermore, to carry out such a huge government conspiracy would require tens of thousands of complicit partners. Not fifty or a hundred, but tens of thousands. How would you keep that a secret? How would not one of those tens of thousands of conspirators not slip up and let something out of the bag? The odds are stacked against it. Sorry for the long reply... but you asked my opinion and not for some facts.

Slank, even if I were able to prove to you beyond any reasonable doubt that it could not be a Global Hawk and a missile (which it certainly was not) I already know what your answer woud be. It was TWO missiles and a Global Hawk! And and and, they planted C4, and they had robots inside, and the firemen were all CIA agents, and and and... Good lord...