Sunofone, ease up on the denigrating remarks and conduct yourself civily or face the consequences, your choice.

I think its crazy to assume that something of that magnitude COULD be covered up....I mean come one....this WHOLE thread is kind of ridiculaous........You are all looking at pictures....and mostly poor-quality, grainy ones at that......there were firefighters and policemen ON THE SCENE........there were also lots of other goverment employees......are you going to sit there and say they are all liars?????? That the "truth" could be hidden by telling all of them to keep quiet.....thats horseshit...........What would the US goverment have to gain from sending a missile into their own building??? We don't need to bomb ourselves to go to war......we go to war when want to regardless of bombs dropping on the pentagon or not.........also, what about the bodies? They found people's bodies there right? If they missiled the place, what'd they do....land the other plane somewhere else...which would produce MORE witnesses....then ship the people to the pentagon.....MORE witnesses......then place there bodies throughout the BUSY site of the crash...without being noticed of course.......Thats CRAP people.......its a stupid theory......it WAS FLIGHT 77.......NOT A MISSILE.........jeez.........If a bird crapped on you people in the dark you'd think the damn sky was falling....

There are too many people in the US Goverment that actually CARE about human beings and the citizens of this country to let a cover-up like that happen anyways...

something was up though, people have a video that the FBI took of the plane crashing into it adn never showed it to the public. WHY?

I know they did, and so did many other government agencies like FBI and CIA and NSA, just to name a few. Problem-reaction-solution


"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans." Bill Clinton.

Why do you say that? Why did Patriots act 1 and 2 get passed then? And what about all those protesters get held in pier(57??) in New York for at least 24 hours. That building was unused prior because it was unsafe.



Thats what i was saying. At first they said they had NO photo/video of the crash. Then some french guy started saying that there was no plane, just a van blew up in front of the building. Suddenly 5 low quality stills were released anonymously by the pentagon that raised more questions then they answered.

I geuss its easier to just say nothing happened, because of the glorious track record of the government not lying to the general public. And lot of people can be kept quite if they all have something to lose. Its called leverage, its been used for thousands of years to get people to do things that they normally wouldn't do because of morals.

http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main

watch that, it will make you think

Nice find also I have been at an Aircarft crash site and you nedd more than a couple of fire engines to control the aftermath of impact... I am sure Fluffy would advise more professionally on that?

did anyone see that video yet? it weird how much they try to prove it was a plane, they show a little movie on the news of a video game art of how the plane crashed but they didn't do it for the twin toers.

And there is some doubt about the missile theory, the plane explanation seems a little weak.

proponants of the missile theory, please explain external damage on route to the pentagon? damaged street lights, damaged fences, the gouge in the generator as well as the generator having been pushed towards the pentagon

Please show us your photographic evidence of all this damage as it does not show any of this on any pictures that have been posted in fact the ground is still intact.

The most recent link here shows minimum damage to any surrounding area: http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main

Should we consider this something like what you previously called a "most pathetic attempt at diverting attention away from facts and putting words in peoples mouthes than i have ever seen", or is it different when you do it?

The only thing I have a hard time grasping is the logic of your argument.
If I told you that I had 10 one hundred dollar bills, and I threw them in a furnace while no-one was watching, do you believe that I had threw that money in the furnace?
According to your logic, the destruction of it's evidence PROVES that I did it just because I said I did.
Wow. In that case, I have a bridge, swamp land and numerous other things to sell you at a bargain price, $1400, just because I said so.

Oh, I should tell you, the deeds to all that property were destroyed, but, the fact that they were destroyed PROVES that I own them.
I accept Money Order, Cashier's Check and VISA.

imo its crazy to think that it could not be covered up! also you have got to be aware of what cannot be denied--you have fallen victim to mind conditioning and a clever technique of espionage where false data is set up to be exposed at a later date--the missle theory is not the only theory--it was put out by the govt so they could use it to destabilize the investigation as a whole--the most rational is that it was remotely operated 707's not 767's claimed in the govt conspiracy theory--photos of the enginge pieces have been positively identified--the pilot episode of "the lone gunman" was exactly the scenario foretold before 9/11--real terrorists would have targeted indian point,real terrorists would not have made it to the pentagon,real terrorists use torture,real terrorists demolish buildings with occupants and cover it up by shipping out the evidence and orchestrating a media propaganda whitewash,real terrorists profitted from the event...carlyle group,halliburton,larry silverstein,CDI,guilianni and partners...ect,ect,ect ....just investigate wtc 7 the proof "is" in the video----forget missles! think... cui bono

There is no hope for strangehug, he was born and raised in the denial state, they still think the government doesn't lie to them in Texas, wow they must be "special".

Basically, it seems that your stance in life is that "if it CAN be covered up, it is"

Do I hear the words "clinical paranoia"

Wow, that is not only irrelevant and uncalled for; it is also blatant stereotyping. That must feel good.

Here's the thing about paranoia, everyone thinks your crazy until your proven right. But then it becomes "common" knowledge and suddenly your not crazy. Then, people who did the finger pointing at the crazy people act like they had the same idea all along.
Proof of this you ask?
look no further than the sky above. There was a major paranoid who swore that the Earth revolved around the sun and was round not flat. Well the majority fixed his crazy ass, at least till his deathbed.
This is just to illustrate that the paranoid classification is a catchall for those people who cannot comprehend things outside there own little world.

Wait...how is that paranoia?

hey wait--im from texas--my family has been in these parts since before texas was made a state--i think your talking about the fake texans like 43 and all the people who come down here to south padre during the winter

no your problem is that you are completely "addicted" to your fairytale fantasy govt version of how things are--the first step in over coming an addiction is to admit you have one--your too comfortable to consider the welfare of others and the truth concerning your submissive compliance is too horrible to grasp--people like you are responsible for the continuing rape of human rights and the destruction of america --you are not a true american as you have failed to percieve the threats to our constitution and republic and through your failure continue to aid and assist the true perpetrators of the 9/11 tragedy

Yeah, too bad we can't follow your shining example and accuse all those who don't agree with our viewpoints of being pathetic, bush ball suckers, submissive, rapists, and traitors to America.

Lets forego the acrimony and focus on debating the issue or the thread will be closed. Anyone else making snide remarks targeted at another member will have their privileges suspended.

MM

I think the reason Bush gets away with so much is because people do not do that much homework on who's who. Then people are bathed in propaganda from media outlets. They all report what the pentagon and Whitehouse wants...and its all ok as long as you are a republican that doesn't ask any questions. Bush is a corporate world man.Hes out to do whats best for his energy cartel friends put him there to do. If that means creating 9-11 to go to war over the Middle -East oil feilds then so be it...is it so hard to believe considering the many other false reasons created to go to war in the past?

The scary thing for me is I have read enough about the Bush dynasty to know not to put it past them to do something like this and if you think that sounds crazy then read about one Orlando Bosch, a Bush sponsored terrorist (an anti-castro cuban).

It is not surprising that they would say a plane hit the Pentagon. After all, it was hard enough for them to accept the fact that a disaster like 9/11 could have happened in New York, why would they want to admit that a secret facility, which is supposed to be under high guard like the Pentagon was successfully attacked?

FACT #1 - ALL videos that recorded the Pentagon crash were confiscated immediately following the event. Hotel, gas station and other videotapes TAKEN by the FBI.

FACT #2 - The Gov't has now SUPPRESSED the release of these videos to the taxpaying public (who are THEIR employers) since that time. They have NO RIGHT to sieze and withhold this evidence as they are public employees fully accountable to them under Constitutional Law.

FACT #3 - the US Gov't is acting in an entirely duplicitous, deceitful manner by, on the one hand claiming the videos are classified for the flimy excuse of "security risks", while on the other hand releasing four poor quality frames of the event from a single security camera. This contradiction in actions by the Gov't is insulting,reprehensible, and shows utter arrogance that they believe this is acceptable to the public in any way whatsoever.

These INDISPUTABLE facts are my main reason for anger about the Pentagon part of the 9/11 events.

How ANY ONE OF YOU on this forum can accept these facts without any qualms is utterly beyond my comprehension. I would like to know the reason for this acceptance. Is it because you blindly accept the Gov't story, so you are 100% confident those videos would ONLY CONFIRM the Gov't account?? Or are you so comfortable with the flimsy evidence supporting the Gov't story that you are not bothered by the intentional suppression of videos that would prove what did occur?

To not be bothered by your own Gov't seizing and withholding evidence (Pentagon videos) and illegally destroying evidence (WTC Towers rubble) is EXTREMELY troubling to me. Does NONE of this bother you????

Right turbo...The Bushies and their hired hands have whitewashed enough evidence to warrant suspicion and also don't forget congresswoman Cynthia McKinney from Georgia who said she saw evidence that Bush knew about the attacks ahead of time. This war played right into thier hands.

sigh ok i'll post stuff from links that have been posted IN this thread agan

Downed lightpole

Another downed lightpole

Fence by generator which has been squashed

Generator itself

Generator damage and movement


There is no way a small plane/missile could have caused this trail of damage



these INDISPUTABLE facts however do not discount any of the publically available evidence, which unfortunately doesn't support your crackpot conspiracy theories. The missile theory makes the titanic look watertight:)

Sigh... is that your evidence to support your argument... a couple of lamp posts a a small generator that has been damaged, the lamp posts are not even dented they are fully intact but on their side... do you actually believe a Boeing 757-200, weighing nearly 100 tons and travelling at a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour only managed to cause even minimal damage to a lamp post... hey guys we can find the lamp post but we can't finad anay plane????? where is the ground damage on any pictures before it hit the pentagon.

tell me, what did this damage, it couldn't possibly have been a missile, there goes the missile theory. That is my point. Theres plenty of evidence of a plane, there is wreckage, there are pictures of the landing gear inside the pentagon etc etc Why must the wreckage be on the outside? the only parts of the plane that would have been on the outside are the wings and tail, and guess what at that speed and being full of fuel they were obliterated into tiny bits, and can be seen strewn around the place. Why would
there be any ground damage? the plane didn't hit the ground...
.


this is what purely fire damage is capable of doing to a 747, i don't see why the little recognisable wreckage is so hard to comprehend.

Small isolated photo's of wreckage that could have been taken at any crash site... look at the larger photo's and show us real damage... I see an 18ft hole no damage to teh ground in fact the fire engines are parked on the ground the plane would have crashed into.

There is more evidence to suggest it was not a plane that crahsed into the pentagon even a car bomb would have caused more damage to the building and the ground.

show us real damage? i've shown you damage that is inconsistant with a missile or small aircraft, the generator was knocked towards the freaking pentagon with a huge chunk taken out of it, are you trying to tell me an explosion did this? i'll assume your comment regarding isolated photos of wreckage are refering to the streetlights, let me rummage up an image of the exact same scene with the flaming pentagon in the background shall we?

notice the black car with the stripe, thats a taxi
Different angle of that shot, shows damage to the taxi, look whats in the background
Yet again another angle, notice the same white car

so please oh please explain the knocked down lamp posts and the damage to the generator, and how this is consistant with a missile strike or small aircraft, a single man fighter (hah) is going to have a hard time staying up in the air after striking a street light i would imagine.

The plane DIDN'T crash into the ground, where are you getting this absurd notion from? it hit the pentagon, not the ground in front fof the pentagon, there isn't going to be a big hole in the pentagon lawn because nothing hit the pentagon lawn.

here's a great little clip

Plane crash test

an f4 fantom is accelerated to 500mph at a concrete wall to determine what sort of damage it would cause, lets play find the plane.


Unfortunately i doubt anyone will actually look at my links or view the footage:(

Firstly keep calm... secondly I have not said this was a missile attack, I have said it was not a plane of that proportion fully laoded up with fuel that caused that damage... the damage is more cosistent to a missile or internal explosion or similar.

There is no way a Boeing 14.9 yards high, 51.7 yards long, with a wingspan of 41.6 yards and a cockpit 3.8 yards high, could crash into just the ground floor of this building? and hit a taxi, a generator, a few lamp posts on its way..

This plane would have had to hit the ground first if it hit a taxi several hundreds of yards away before the ground floor.

Please explain to all of us how the lamp post and taxi suffered minimal damage and how the Boeing 757-200 only damaged the ground floor and why in the photo's there is only 3 fire engines needed to control the fire after a 100 ton plane hit the pentagon, how the ground is left undamaged after this plane only impacteed the ground floor leaving an 18ft hole, why the damage is localised, central to the plane hitting the pentagon yet the fuel storage on the engines never damaged the side of the impact zone.

forget missles--it was not a missle nor was it a 757--an enginge part discovered at the site has been identified as coming from a jt8d engine--the most likely culprit was a remotely operated a3 skywarrior or a 737 which uses the engine in question --
**************************************************************
Chicago's Museum of Science and Industry displays the Pratt & Whitney JT8D. These photos show that JT8D matches the Pentagon engine photographed at the crash site. Note the outlined bolt flanges for comparison purposes. The bolt flanges hold the sections of the engine together. Both engines have portions of the outer cover removed so the inner engine is clearly visible.

Measurements:
Fan tip diameter: 39.9 - 49.2 in
Length, flange to flange: 120.0 - 154.1 in
From: http://www.pratt-whitney.com/prod_comm_jt8d.asp


Make That A 737Jet Engine...

From J. Kaplowitz
3-2-5

Try 737.

http://www.onlinejournal.com/ (pdf)

They are all jet engine components (past and present) on the A-3 Skywarrior twin-turbojet airplane and on older versions of the 737. The USAF only has a few of the A-3s left in operation and what was formerly Hughes Aircraft, now Raytheon, has a fleet of them at Van Nuys, Calif. This type of turbojet engine has never been used on a Boeing 757, so the debate on "type of plane" can end there. This is a jet engine component with fan, not an auxiliary power unit (APU) as some have speculated or dropped into the conversation as disinformation.

That part has a specific UPN (Universal Part Number) and it cannot be found by looking for that UPN. Other measures were needed to find what you are seeing in these photos to circumvent what is apparently intentional content blocking. Someone has gone to considerable lengths to make sure that the actual components that were found at the Pentagon could not be found and it took my team over two years to hammer through such blocks to find three of these photos (Praxair and Evergreen) to verify the component.

Yes, Hughes aircraft had a fleet of them and was bought out by Raytheon. Hmm, that company is doing well for two reasons that I know of due to Bush war policy and even the move from Mode 4 to Mode 5 technology since the PRC got its hands on our top secret Mode 4 technology with that little Hainan Island incident and our Navy EP-3 that was forced down in April of 2001. As of Sept. 11, 2001, most air traffic controllers and National Air Guard units were not upgraded after the PRC got their hands on some of our most sensitive military technology.


http://www.rense.com/general63/ident.htm

those pictures could have been smashed after adn then took pictures of it

By Colonel George Nelson[/SIZE]
USAF (ret.)
4-23-5

The precautionary principle is based on the fact that the failure to prove a proposition completely does not disprove the proposition. If the proposition warns of an ongoing or oncoming disaster (e.g. global warming) it is wise to take precautions. The proposition arrived at here is this: the 911 hijackings and damage to buildings were not the work of Arab terrorists, but appear to have been part of a black operation carried out with the cooperation of elements in our government.

In July, 1965, I had just been commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the U. S. Air Force after taking a solemn oath that I would protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that I would bear true faith and allegiance to the same. I took that oath very seriously. It was my constant companion throughout a thirty-year military career in the field of aircraft maintenance.

As an additional duty, aircraft maintenance officers are occasionally tasked as members of aircraft accident investigation boards and my personal experience was no exception. In 1989 I graduated from the Aircraft Mishap Investigation Course at the Institute of Safety and Systems Management at the University of Southern California. In addition to my direct participation as an aircraft accident investigator, I reviewed countless aircraft accident investigation reports for thoroughness and comprehensive conclusions for the Inspector General, HQ Pacific Air Forces during the height of the Vietnam conflict.

[B]In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft -- and in most cases the precise cause of the accident. This is because every military and civilian passenger-carrying aircraft have many parts that are identified for safety of flight. That is, if any of the parts were to fail at any time during a flight, the failure would likely result in the catastrophic loss of aircraft and passengers. Consequently, these parts are individually controlled by a distinctive serial number and tracked by a records section of the maintenance operation and by another section called plans and scheduling.

Following a certain number of flying hours or, in the case of landing gears, a certain number of takeoff-and-landing cycles, these critical parts are required to be changed, overhauled or inspected by specialist mechanics. When these parts are installed, their serial numbers are married to the aircraft registration numbers in the aircraft records and the plans and scheduling section will notify maintenance specialists when the parts must be replaced. If the parts are not replaced within specified time or cycle limits, the airplane will normally be grounded until the maintenance action is completed. Most of these time-change parts, whether hydraulic flight surface actuators , pumps, landing gears, engines or engine components, are virtually indestructible. It would be impossible for an ordinary fire resulting from an airplane crash to destroy or obliterate all of those critical time-change parts or their serial numbers. I repeat, impossible.

Considering the catastrophic incidents of September 11 2001, certain troubling but irrefutable conclusions must be drawn from the known facts. I get no personal pleasure or satisfaction from reporting my own assessment of these facts.

United Airlines Flight 93

This flight was reported by the federal government to be a Boeing 757 aircraft, registration number N591UA, carrying 45 persons, including four Arab hijackers who had taken control of the aircraft, crashing the plane in a Pennsylvania farm field.

Aerial photos of the alleged crash site were made available to the general public. They show a significant hole in the ground, but private investigators were not allowed to come anywhere near the crash site. If an aircraft crash caused the hole in the ground, there would have literally hundreds of serially-controlled time-change parts within the hole that would have proved beyond any shadow of doubt the precise tail-number or identity of the aircraft. However, the the government has not produced any hard evidence that would prove beyond a doubt that the specifically alleged aircraft crashed at that site. On the contrary, it has been reported that the aircraft, registry number N591UA, is still in operation.

American Airlines Flight 11

This flight was reported by the government to be a Boeing 767, registration number N334AA, carrying 92 people, including five Arabs who had hijacked the plane. This plane was reported to have crashed into the north tower of the WTC complex of buildings.

Again, the government would have no trouble proving its case if only a few of the hundreds of serially controlled parts had been collected to positively identify the aircraft. A Boeing 767 landing gear or just one engine would have been easy to find and identify.

United Airlines Flight 175

This flight was reported to be a Boeing 767, registration number N612UA, carrying 65 people, including the crew and five hijackers. It reportedly flew into the south tower of the WTC.

Once more, the government has yet to produce one serially controlled part from the crash site that would have dispelled any questions as to the identity of the specific airplane.

American Airlines Flight 77

This was reported to be a Boeing 757, registration number N644AA, carrying 64 people, including the flight crew and five hijackers. This aircraft, with a 125-foot wingspan, was reported to have crashed into the Pentagon, leaving an entry hole no more than 65 feet wide.

Following cool-down of the resulting fire, this crash site would have been very easy to collect enough time-change equipment within 15 minutes to positively identify the aircraft registry. There was apparently some aerospace type of equipment found at the site but no attempt was made to produce aerial numbers or to identify the specific parts found. Some of the equipment removed from the building was actually hidden from public view.

Conclusion

The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view. The hard evidence would have included hundreds of critical time-change aircraft items, plus security videotapes that were confiscated by the FBI immediately following each tragic episode.

With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged. Similarly, with all the evidence available at the Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged. Regarding the planes that allegedly flew into the WTC towers, it is only just possible that heavy aircraft were involved in each incident, but no evidence has been produced that would add credence to the government's theoretical version of what actually caused the total destruction of the buildings, let alone proving the identity of the aircraft. That is the problem with the government's 911 story. It is time to apply the precautionary principle.

As painful and heartbreaking as was the loss of innocent lives and the lingering health problems of thousands more, a most troublesome and nightmarish probability remains that so many Americans appear to be involved in the most heinous conspiracy in our country's history.......
http://rense.com/general64/prec.htm

Some very interesting pictures, I'd have to go by the damage path to say yay or nay. There should be damage on the ground, the light posts are not damaged enough to be from impact from a plane(the bolts on those posts are easy to remove) and they had the equipment on hand to knock them over onto the ground. And unfortunately the US (read CIA) has a history of creating their enemies from scratch, going all the way back to Vietnam. They have been responsible for the training and placement in power of every leader they have fought against since Vietnam. For the US and other countries war is the gas pedal of their economy, so war is just good for business. With all these anomalies facts everyone's instinct should be to look closer at the whole deal. Instead everyone is looking everywhere but where they should look. Some magic trick.

All the pictures of aorcraft wreckage are just that... they could have been taken anywhere there is no evidence to support these pictures are at the pentagon... I can pull pictures like that from the net. here is a good link take a look: http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...what-hit-it.htm

so how can a 757 collide with two lightpoles and agenerator without fracturing and leaving debri?



this witness testimony comes from one of the few pentagon witnesses--they stated that the plane banked left,clipping light poles and a generator before dragging its wing into the ground at impact



its worthless -- the pentagon contains no 5ft thick concrete wall anchored to its foundation and an f4 is in no way representative of a 757

thats like comparing an impact of an Austin mini to the impact of an 18 wheeler ridiculous.

This web page is probably the most heavily written article concerning the cover-up and was posted earlier in this thread.

The ASCE's Pentagon Building Performance Report

For some reason there are a few members lacking in their arguement that backs-up the US governments report on the Boeing-757. They keep side-stepping away from articles such as these.
And for those who still don't believe the cover-up after reading this article. You belong in one of these categories:
1. You did not read it, because you did not understand it or thought it was too much reading.
2. You somehow work for the government, posing as a member in UM simply for debunking certain conspiracies--more or less.
3. You are truly patriotic and blindly ignorant that you can't believe they could do this.

And I'm not pointing fingers... you know who you are...

Thank you Scorpius

First off, I never said I supported the missile theory, or "crackpot" theory as you call it, so don't try and sidestep the issue I brought up with false accusations.

Second, you didn't answer my questions - why are you so willing to accept the Gov't bs story, even after taking away video and physical evidence and refusing to release the videos? Why are you so comfortable with that??

With all this rambling and conjecture of "conspiracy" I have a question:

What happened to Flight 77 and where are all the passengers?

Ok lets look at flight 77:

Summary of Flight 77 passengers:
Total passengers: 64
Passengers involved in gov’t/defense related work: 21
Senior staff/directors/managers: 18
Military backgrounds: 10
Navy background: 7
Executives/chief officers/presidents: 5
Men: 30
Women: 24
Kids: 5
Non-hijacker passengers: 59
Alleged Hijackers*: 5
*Allegedly armed with only knifes and box cutters.

Is it a just coincidence the most of the passengers on Flight 77 with military backgrounds were Navy and that the crash at the Pentagon happened in the Navy's command center which took the heaviest casualties

Why didn't the passengers of Flight 77 rise up against the alleged hijackers like we are told the passengers on Flight 93 did since they both knew the hijackers were going to kill them? Considering the majoraty are Military trained?
If the reason there is no debris of Flight 77 at the Pentagon is because the plane disintegrated upon impact and/or melted from the ensuing fire afterwards as some say, then how did the government manage to find the DNA of all but one of the 64 passengers onboard at the crash scene?

What evidence is there that Capt. Burlingame "fought off the terrorists" and died before the crash as some of his friends and family believe?

Is it unusual that Ted Olsen was able call CNN to report his wife's phone call right after she just died when he should have been very distraught about her death?

Where are the 64 people of Flight 77 now?

Let me help:

To answer the question "Where are the 64 people of Flight 77 now?" There are 3 possibilities:

1) They never existed, or

2) They exist but were confined by military authorities to "cover" the event, or

3) They were killed in the plane crash on 9/11 at the Pentagon.


So, where are the 64 people?

why dont you tell us what happened to flight 77 as you keep on going on and on about palliden. xsas has is opinion plus your goverment is always covering there tracks all the time

Names are easily made up.. they do it all the time in elections.. why are you avoiding the questions.. you seem to have all the answers?

Stop ignoring the obvious and answer the questions.

Answer WHAT questions? Those are not questions, those are LEADING STATEMENTS of conspiratorial speculation.

As opposed, my question is NEUTRAL and very simple: What happened to those people?