Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
redhen

911 inside job - for what?

4,447 posts in this topic

Commenting on your point about the piece of debris in the yard at the Pentagon, we're in a similar position regarding the piece of debris shown at Shanksville. That is, neither is consistent with the story told.

I don't think we are in a similar position. All being aircraft debris, it is not only consistent with the story that an aircraft crashed there but, coupled with further physical evidence, radar data and witness statements, it is evidence of the fact. The only problem I see is that the presence of debris and this other evidence does not conclude specific identity of the aircraft.

The painted piece in the yard at the Pentagon requires one to believe that an airplane doing something over 350knots, that quickly penetrated through several concrete walls of the building and leaving an 'exit' mark/hole, would eject backwards one small piece of its fuselage. Not several parts, not parts of the tail section, but one fairly small part, backwards. That part had to overcome its 350knot speed, and fly backwards however many feet was required. That's nonsense.

You are talking fantasy: “one small piece” and “selective ejection”? There was debris scattered all over the place inside the building and across the lawn. Lots of it, all over. There was fuselage and landing gear and wheels and engine components. It’s right there in the pictures I’ve linked you before and which are freely available online. The fuselage debris ejected backwards at the Pentagon impact and explosion exactly as it did at the WTC which can be seen in video footage. There is no difference in the physics involved. The backward ejection of debris is completely expected: -

[media=]

[/media]

Uh: -

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=220375&st=90#entry4166589

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that despite the fact that you have just made three important claims in quick succession without evidence??

1) a component serial number matches the Flight 77 record

2) debris serial numbers were checked

3) passengers were found at the Pentagon

Where are you getting this stuff??

Are we still debating whether bodies from flight 77 were found at the Pentagon? This is why I started this thread. It's just as insulting as the CT about Sandy Hook.

Here you go, once again. Hopefully this is the last time I have to post this;

http://www.vaed.usco...secution.html

http://www.vaed.usco...on/P200047.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who hold that 911 was an inside job, I would like to discover why you believe those responsible would have executed this plan.

I can only think of one possible reason that might make sense; to launch a war, to give the armed forces combat experience.

You go.

Thanks

246 billion just for starters

http://www.wanttokno...agle_trust_fund

vDClrq-E6wTKV33CWgF8LfXZFpuB6T9WI1M.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

246 billion just for starters

Wow, that's a lot of info to digest. I'll get back to you.

However, at the bottom of that link I see:

"The author cannot vouch for the accuracy of the source materials, although efforts have been made to validate the consistency of the story line with as many references as possible. There is no single fact or reference that this story is dependent on"

Hmm, that's one hell of a disclaimer, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we still debating whether bodies from flight 77 were found at the Pentagon? This is why I started this thread. It's just as insulting as the CT about Sandy Hook.

Here you go, once again. Hopefully this is the last time I have to post this;

http://www.vaed.usco...secution.html

http://www.vaed.usco...on/P200047.html

Whilst OCTs want to claim there is evidence of Flight 77 passenger remains recovered at the Pentagon, then I guess we are still discussing it.

What I find insulting are poor investigators. Especially those who try to claim competent investigation is insulting. That is not justice or respect for the victims of 9/11. Please, should I be killed under criminal circumstances, do not let redhen near the investigation!

In particular, the photograph linked above shows a group of three intact bodies and lack of complete burning to the clothing. This suggests these are not passengers involved in a high speed impact, compressed within aircraft debris and through steel-reinforced concrete walls, or at the heart of the fire, rather that these are office occupants located at edge of the direct impact damage and fire zone.

If you wanted to claim a photograph was a Flight 77 passenger then it would more likely be one of those unrecognisable remains. However, it could just as well be an office occupant in the direct impact path. So the question: -

How are you distinguishing Flight 77 passengers from office occupants in the photographs?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you wanted to claim a photograph was a Flight 77 passenger then it would more likely be one of those unrecognisable remains. However, it could just as well be an office occupant in the direct impact path. So the question: -

How are you distinguishing Flight 77 passengers from office occupants in the photographs?

P200045.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched a tv program where these chimps were actually communicating by pointing to pictures!

Very clever they were :yes:

But can we try it the human way now?

In case that goes over your head: How does this picture address the question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remains of Sept. 11 Hijackers Held

Families of the airplanes' passengers and crews and those who died within the Pentagon provided DNA samples, typically on toothbrushes or hairbrushes, to aid with identification. The remains that didn't match any of the samples were ruled to be the terrorists, said Chris Kelly, spokesman for the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, which did the DNA work. The nine sets of remains matched the number of hijackers believed to be on the two planes.

http://www.cbsnews.c...ain519033.shtml

Nuclear DNA testing (along with dental records and fingerprints) of the remains from the victims aboard American Airline (AA) Flight 77 and within the Pentagon was useful for identifying 178 of the 183 victims. Five missing individuals (four within the Pentagon and one aboard the airplane) could not be identified due to lack of biological material from the crash.

Five remaining nuclear STR profiles were obtained from the crash site that did not match any references for the victims. These profiles were thought to represent the terrorists aboard the flight. The 40 victims aboard the United Airline (UA) Flight 93 that crashed near Shanksville, PA, were also identified by nuclear DNA testing, dental records, and fingerprinting. Four nonmatching nuclear DNA profiles were also obtained from the crash site and again tentatively ascribed to the terrorists.

The DNA results strengthened the hypothesis that two of the terrorists were brothers, as indicated by other evidence. Two of the terrorist STR profiles aboard the AA Flight 77 gave a sibling index greater than 500. To further test the hypothesis of maternal relatedness, AFDIL sequenced the HVI and HVII regions of mtDNA for these individuals. The sequences generated did match in HVI and HVII, which is consistent with a maternal relationship between the two men.

http://www.cstl.nist.gov/div831/strbase/pub_pres/Edson2004.pdf

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please, should I be killed under criminal circumstances, do not let redhen near the investigation!

Should I have any children, remote though it is, please do not let Q24 teach them history or logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should I have any children, remote though it is, please do not let Q24 teach them history or logic.

I have to scratch my head whenever someone says that the four airliners were either remote controlled drones or switched without accounting for the original airframes, passengers and crew of those flights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to scratch my head whenever someone says that the four airliners were either remote controlled drones or switched without accounting for the original airframes, passengers and crew of those flights.

I believe it's called grasping at straws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe it's called grasping at straws.

I heard that!

I've read where conspiracist speak of the so-called "New Pearl Harbor," whatever that is suppose to mean. Over the years the military has faced serious financial utbacks. Many services have been cut and more are to come and in many cases, aircrews were unable to exchange their worn flight gears because the air force ran out of money. Since the 911 attacks, there have been cutbacks in work hours and many airmen and sailors are now doing work that soldiers have previously performed.

Then, I read where the reason why American 77 flew into the Pentagon was because of the so-called missing $2 trillion. If they had done their homework, they would have found that the money wasn't missing at all because they would have found that the Pentagon was unable to handle that huge amount of money yet someone called out; "conspiracy" and conspiracist took the bait and ran off with it without understanding that the government shares it financial and other data assets among its employees via computers that are spread at locations across the country and around the world, so it is inconceivable to think that slamming an airplane into the Pentagon is going to destroy evidence.

Next, there are conspiracist who've claimed the government withheld videos at the Pentagon. Videos are not required to determine which aircraft crashed into the Pentagon and we have videos of American 11 slamming into WTC1 and United 175 slamming into WTC2 and yet, there are conspiracist claiming the aircraft were drones or missiles and in some cases, holograms and it proves beyond any doubt that 911 conspiracist are not in the habit of using real facts and evidence in their arguments. Proof can be determined by taking a look at the hoaxed video of WTC7 where a number of 911 conspiracist had claimed was proof of an explosive demolition. Had they done their homework, they would have determined the video was a hoax because the video was a reversed imagery of WTC7, and that should have told them the video was hoaxed and doctored, but because they have a one-track mind, some conspiracist failed to understand that a number of factors had pointed directly to a hoaxed video and as a result, they learned the hard way when the perpetrator of that hoaxed video came out into the open and demonstrated in detail how he hoaxed the WTC7 video.

Another example is where 911 conspiracist claimed that a pod was attached to the bottom of United 175. If they had done their homework they would have found there were no pod attached to the bottom of United 175, but why would a pod be attached to carry only a half ton of explosives when over 20,000 pounds of explosives could have been loaded in the cargo holds without modifying anything? Why would anyone in their right mind install a pod where the main landing gears and doors operate? It doens't make any sense at all. Another claim that caught my eye was that the 911 aircraft was modified to achieve higher than normal airspeeds.

Let's take a look at United 175. Why would anyone modify a B-767 to fly at higher-than-normal airspeeds and then conduct a maneuver in order to fly the B-767 into a headwind from a tailwind which will only serve to lower its groundspeed and null any modifications to fly the aircraft at a higher airspeed? That doesn't make any sense at all.

We have their false claims on ACARS as another example. They claim that ACARS depicted the aircraft in flight after they had crashed. Didn't they bother to think that radar data did not jive with their false ACARS comments???

I also called the folks at ARINC, the ACARS experts. What they told me indicates the 911 conspiracist had no idea what they were talking about, and that brings us to their claims on aircraft transponders. They claim that turning off a transponder will make an aircraft invisible to radar, which is not correct at all. They must think that B-767s are stealth aircraft, but even the F-117 stealth fighter was not totally invisible to radar. Turning off a transponder only makes an aircraft difficult to track on radar, not make it invisible. Once again, it shows how ignorance can run amok within the conspiracy camp.

There were conspiracist claiming that there were two aircraft with the callsign of United 175 at Boston airport, but I guess they thought that the FAA, ATC, ground servicing personnel, gate agents and other employees of United Airlines in addition to the airport administration, would have failed to another United 175 sitting on the tarmac.

I guess 911 conspiracist didn't think of the little things such as bills for goods and services, ramp and landing fees, and air safety to name a few, not to mention arrival records.

Then, we have the flight path of American 77 north of the gas station when all of physical evidence proves beyond any doubt that American 77 did not pass north of that gas station. That can be ascertained by the number of downed light poles and distribution of wreckage within the Pentagon that traced the flight path of American 77. They have said that American 77 wasn't visible on radar, but if they check things out, they would have found that ground controllers alerted an air force C-130 to the radar paint of American 77, which was confirmed by the pilot of that C-130. Another missed clue by the 911 conspiracist that ATC was in fact, tracking American 77 on their radar scope when they made the call to the C-130 despite the fact the transponder was tampered with by the terrorist, which once again, proves that turning off the transponder does not render an aircraft invisible on radar.

The list goes on and on and only it serves to prove that 911 conspiracist have no credibility to begin with. I look at things from the aviation side of the house and it is evident to me that many 911 conspiracist haven't the slightest clue as to what they are talking about. It has been over 11 years since the 911 attacks and yet, not one single piece of evidence has surfaced that implicates the U.S. government in the 911 attacks.

They should cease with trying to pin what they saw in Hollywood movies, which reflect fantasy, on what the world saw during the 911 attacks, which reflect reality. What 911 conspiracist have brought to the table does not reflect reality nor what occurs in the real world of aviation.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • This came to me in an email:
  • https://www.facebook...11/501701569837
  • I know some ppl who work at Raytheon. Certainly could be something to fact-check by those who can take an objective stance on this (IOW: not psychiatrically habitual skeptics or people who have pathological skepticisms).
    =====================
    Why Were Raytheon Employees on Every 9/11 Flight that Officially Hit a Building?
    Fascinating findings.
    Flight 11: Peter Gay was Raytheon's Vice President of Operations for Electronic Systems and had been on special assignment to a company office in El Segundo, Calif. This division is one of two divisions making the Global Hawk.
    Kenneth Waldie was a senior quality control engineer for Raytheon's electronic systems.
    David Kovalcin was a senior mechanical engineer for Raytheon's electronic systems.
    Flight 175: Herbert Homer was a corporate executive working with the Department of Defense. And for some very strange reasons he was listed for several days as having died in the offices while working in the Pentagon.
    Flight 77: Stanley Hall was director of program management for Raytheon Electronics Warfare. One Raytheon colleague calls him "our dean of electronic warfare."
    Charles S. Falkenberg: He worked on "EOS Webster" a mapping system which provides Landsat Images, which are part of the mapping system for the Global Hawk technology. Raytheon was working on Global Hawk piloltless aircraft program.
    Now, if this is not coincidental enough for you:
    What are the odds that Raytheon also had one office in the WTC2?
    It was located in 91st floor in WTC2.
    Raytheon shared the floor with Washington Group and Gibbs & Hill.
    13 employees of Washington Group died.
    None died of Raytheon and Gibbs & Hill.
    This is rather surprising as after the hit of the second plane only four person survived who were above the 78th floor where the plane hit. And the 91st might be significant in another way: "every person believed to be above the 91st floor died: 1,344."
    The 91st floor was the line between life and death in the WTC tower opposite to Raytheon's office. Or in other words: The first plane hit the WTC1 in the 91st floor.
    One has to wonder if these Raytheon employees were knowingly taking part in some sort of drill on 9/11-- and then were killed because of their knowledge.
    Why Were Raytheon Employees on Every 9/11 Flight that Officially Hit a Building?
    Fascinating findings.

Edited by regeneratia
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the details and evidence of the events are comprehensive. So it comes down to peoples levels of knowledge in science, technology, military and government workings, and logic/reasoning. And it also greatly depends on people's ideology, basic assumptions and biases.

The image of one of my profs, who always used the classroom as his personal soapbox, will always stick with me. After showing his hostages, er students, a Youtube video of a WTC building collapsing, he turned and spat out "How does steel turn to dust!". And that was the clincher supposedly. I argued and needled him a bit during the semester, but I regret not reporting his unprofessional behaviour to the dean and/or the college allumni.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to scratch my head whenever someone says that the four airliners were either remote controlled drones or switched without accounting for the original airframes, passengers and crew of those flights.

You really need to stop scratching!

"Ties That Bind – Contractor Connections to the Bush Administration: When the Bush administration first took office, it appointed 32 executives, paid consultants, or major shareholders of weapons contractors to top policymaking positions in the Pentagon, the National Security Council, the Department of Energy (involved in nuclear weapons development), and the State Department. Since that time, the "revolving door" has continued to spin, including a high profile scandal in which Air Force procurement official Darleen Druyun pled guilty to criminal charges for negotiating for a position at Boeing while simultaneously negotiating with the company on the terms of a controversial scheme to lease 100 more Boeing 767 airliners for modification and use as aerial refueling tankers. "

http://www.worldpoli...esThatBind.html

Report: Ties that Bind: Arms Industry Influence in the Bush Administration and Beyond

ARMS TRADE RESOURCE CENTER

The Ties that Bind:

Arms Industry Influence in the

Bush Administration and Beyond

A World Policy Institute Special Report

by William D. Hartung and Michelle Ciarrocca

October 2004

Edited by regeneratia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the details and evidence of the events are comprehensive. So it comes down to peoples levels of knowledge in science, technology, military and government workings, and logic/reasoning. And it also greatly depends on people's ideology, basic assumptions and biases.

The image of one of my profs, who always used the classroom as his personal soapbox, will always stick with me. After showing his hostages, er students, a Youtube video of a WTC building collapsing, he turned and spat out "How does steel turn to dust!". And that was the clincher supposedly. I argued and needled him a bit during the semester, but I regret not reporting his unprofessional behaviour to the dean and/or the college allumni.

And think he should have been applauded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • This came to me in an email:
  • https://www.facebook...11/501701569837
  • I know some ppl who work at Raytheon. Certainly could be something to fact-check by those who can take an objective stance on this (IOW: not psychiatrically habitual skeptics or people who have pathological skepticisms).
    =====================
    Why Were Raytheon Employees on Every 9/11 Flight that Officially Hit a Building?

  • Fascinating findings.
    Flight 11: Peter Gay was Raytheon's Vice President of Operations for Electronic Systems and had been on special assignment to a company office in El Segundo, Calif. This division is one of two divisions making the Global Hawk.
    Kenneth Waldie was a senior quality control engineer for Raytheon's electronic systems.
    David Kovalcin was a senior mechanical engineer for Raytheon's electronic systems.
    Flight 175: Herbert Homer was a corporate executive working with the Department of Defense. And for some very strange reasons he was listed for several days as having died in the offices while working in the Pentagon.
    Flight 77: Stanley Hall was director of program management for Raytheon Electronics Warfare. One Raytheon colleague calls him "our dean of electronic warfare."
    Charles S. Falkenberg: He worked on "EOS Webster" a mapping system which provides Landsat Images, which are part of the mapping system for the Global Hawk technology. Raytheon was working on Global Hawk piloltless aircraft program.
    Now, if this is not coincidental enough for you:
    What are the odds that Raytheon also had one office in the WTC2?
    It was located in 91st floor in WTC2.
    Raytheon shared the floor with Washington Group and Gibbs & Hill.
    13 employees of Washington Group died.
    None died of Raytheon and Gibbs & Hill.
    This is rather surprising as after the hit of the second plane only four person survived who were above the 78th floor where the plane hit. And the 91st might be significant in another way: "every person believed to be above the 91st floor died: 1,344."
    The 91st floor was the line between life and death in the WTC tower opposite to Raytheon's office. Or in other words: The first plane hit the WTC1 in the 91st floor.
    One has to wonder if these Raytheon employees were knowingly taking part in some sort of drill on 9/11-- and then were killed because of their knowledge.
    Why Were Raytheon Employees on Every 9/11 Flight that Officially Hit a Building?
    Fascinating findings.

I am scratching my head again!! What do you mean by killed because of their knowledge? We don't keep everything in our heads because we share information on computer systems and conduct regular conference calls with groups around the country and share information openly.

I began employment at Raytheon in 1998 shortly after my retirement from the Air Force and have always traveled by air during my trips while employed with the company. On one trip to Pensacola, FL., the Air Force and Raytheon sent me by air to developed a new repair manual for the inlet that is used for the TF-39 jet engine.

I might add that defense contractors regularly travel by air.

Iraq war costs U.S. more than $2 trillion: study

The U.S. war in Iraq has cost $1.7 trillion with an additional $490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans, expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades counting interest, a study released on Thursday said.

Doesn't sound like the United States made a good profit in Iraq, and we have yet to get to Afghanistan. This is another clear example how conspiracist dream up fantasies in order to concoct unfounded conspiracies.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really need to stop scratching!

"Ties That Bind – Contractor Connections to the Bush Administration: When the Bush administration first took office, it appointed 32 executives, paid consultants, or major shareholders of weapons contractors to top policymaking positions in the Pentagon, the National Security Council, the Department of Energy (involved in nuclear weapons development), and the State Department. Since that time, the "revolving door" has continued to spin, including a high profile scandal in which Air Force procurement official Darleen Druyun pled guilty to criminal charges for negotiating for a position at Boeing while simultaneously negotiating with the company on the terms of a controversial scheme to lease 100 more Boeing 767 airliners for modification and use as aerial refueling tankers. "

http://www.worldpoli...esThatBind.html

Report: Ties that Bind: Arms Industry Influence in the Bush Administration and Beyond

I am still scratching my head because the Air Force didn't make its selection until 2002. In addition, Italy's aircraft became the first KC-767 to be assembled and it made its maiden flight on 21 May 2005. Boeing's revised KC-767 proposal to the U.S. Air Force was selected in February 2011 for the KC-X program under the designation KC-46.

Obama announces Pentagon budget cuts

President Obama announced a new military strategy on Thursday that will cut the Pentagon budget by hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade.

http://content.usato.../1#.UUQKqSqF_ww

About that so-called, "New Pearl Harbor!" What does that mean?

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regen

Thanks for all that! I knew that Raytheon was well represented amongs the 'passengers', but did not realize they also had an office at WTC.

The circumstantial evidence showing deception by the government and the MIC grows every day, even 11 years later. :innocent:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should I have any children, remote though it is, please do not let Q24 teach them history or logic.

Ah, this is what you get when you ask an OCT to explain their argument. But I’m all for second third chances (and pressing home the fact that redhen cannot answer a simple question that underpins his belief): redhen, how are you distinguishing Flight 77 passengers from office occupants in the photographs that you linked? I’ll assume your argument void if no explanation is received at this third time of asking.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regen

Thanks for all that! I knew that Raytheon was well represented amongs the 'passengers', but did not realize they also had an office at WTC.

The circumstantial evidence showing deception by the government and the MIC grows every day, even 11 years later. :innocent:

What deception? Raytheon employees regularly use commercial aircraft for travel purposes, which once again proves that 911 conspiracist dream up fantasies in order to concoct unfounded conspiracies.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there ever going to be an end on this non-sence ? Skyeagle can we ever get this guy to understand that 9/11 was just as it was ! A terror act against America 4 aircraft are now gone and lots of souls that need not of died !

:tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there ever going to be an end on this non-sence ? Skyeagle can we ever get this guy to understand that 9/11 was just as it was ! A terror act against America 4 aircraft are now gone and lots of souls that need not of died !

:tu:

Isn't it amazing that he throws away viable evidence and substitutes that, for which there is no evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, that's a lot of info to digest. I'll get back to you.

However, at the bottom of that link I see:

"The author cannot vouch for the accuracy of the source materials, although efforts have been made to validate the consistency of the story line with as many references as possible. There is no single fact or reference that this story is dependent on"

Hmm, that's one hell of a disclaimer, lol.

Yes theirs loads of info at that link and even more in the pdf, if you was naming individuals and the like, you would put a disclaimer in their too, don’t want to end up in a pine overcoat like so many others that have spoken out, the latest victim Demolition Expert Danny Jowenko after Speaking about Building 7 springs to mind.

Pretty sad state of affairs that a satisfactory investigation was never forthcoming and maybe never will be, personally I think when the next generation look back at history they will be dumb founded that the nearest that came to a proper investigation was a few heated discussions on the internet.

Pdf version

http://www.wanttokno..._fund_trust.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes theirs loads of info at that link and even more in the pdf, if you was naming individuals and the like, you would put a disclaimer in their too, don’t want to end up in a pine overcoat like so many others that have spoken out, the latest victim Demolition Expert Danny Jowenko after Speaking about Building 7 springs to mind.

Pretty sad state of affairs that a satisfactory investigation was never forthcoming and maybe never will be, personally I think when the next generation look back at history they will be dumb founded that the nearest that came to a proper investigation was a few heated discussions on the internet.

Pdf version

http://www.wanttokno..._fund_trust.pdf

You might want to check this out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.