Missile or Plane? I can't take it any longer!

[anart]

As is probably obvious by now, we were having some technical difficulties last night, thus Maxel's ability to continue to spout his delusional drivel - sorry you all had to read such tripe, but rather than add fuel to his little hate fire, since the forum moderation was acting up, we decided to let him continue to make a fool of himself until we could deal with him properly.

Another lesson in the mind set we're up against, though, eh? The military men and women I know would be embarrassed to be represented by this Maxel tape - then again, I know some exceptional people - and there are many out there who would feel he spoke from their own minds - funny how that works. Always the same pattern - closed minds who get so infuriated - to the point of verbal abuse - when they are not allowed their way - seems they are always allowed their way everywhere else in their life, but, then again, bullies usually are.

 

[noise]

I want to apologize. As I try and reach a balance with people I often hop back on the fence. It seems to me that there has to be a way to beat the ignorance out of people. People do not seem to want to take responsibility for their anger or blame others for their own choices, to be angry in this example. He did admit that he got frustrated and I had hoped he would move forward or just take a break. I know you didn't solicite an apology from me and I'm sorry if I was at all disrespectful, I just thought if he cleared his head and tried to re-enter the debate by sharing the info he had in a different light (minus such strong emotion and demands that his info waws "the facts") that maybe there was something to his view.

The giving me, you.. the finger thing was the only analogy I could come up with.. I had thought that the humor in it or something would have cooled his burners for the enevening and maybe he would come back emotion free and willing to debate instead of imply this is a "do as I say not as I do" forum or whatever he specifically said.

It seems I should focus more on facts (the psychology and manipulation) as I've come to understand them and not just offer somewhat emotional responses wrapped in what I think is logic. I invested a bit of emotion in the end and wanted to go further. Especially on the olive branch. That was a great ploy, probing for more emotional response as I see it. I just about invested heavily in a response.

Anyhow I guess it is water under the bridge but I still wanted to apologize for straddling the fence, it is just this benefit of the doubt thing (program).. I guess what I am learning then is, live and let live and I shouldn't waste my time and energy trying to convince anyone of anything. People will believe what they will. I'm not here to convert anyone and should know the difference. Learning and adjusting accordingly (rewiring) is taking some time.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Sign #1 of hopeless ponerization: the firm and irrational belief that everyone is lying. Military Machine Maxel has revealed that his mind has been marauded by machiavellian masters of mental manipulation. No Maxel, you were not banned to start out with. I, too, could not log on.

Oh, and there's number two, a factor affecting number one: overblown egotism. It's not all about you, Maxel, I'm sorry to say. Did you ever think to ask, "Hmm, I can't log in. I wonder if this is a problem exclusive to my own case, or if this is a general problem with the forum, affecting other members as well?" Research, research, research, my friend.

If you can't even reason your way around a forum glitch, how can you trust your own observations of other people in a work environment such as in the FAA? You are what is called a useful idiot, so certain of their own powers of observation that they make easy tools for more sinister individuals. Said useful idiots end up covering for criminals in the firm belief that their own observations prove their own correctness, and their superiors' innocence. You are a tool.

Funny that you mentioned that there are no anti-aircraft missile batteries in Pittsburgh. Guess where they do have them, Maxel?

 

[Laura]

I fact I spent a few years in the military and most of my life as a civilian air traffic controller with the FAA.

I will freely admit that I lost it with arssnat and the points I tried to make about behavior are lessened by my hissy fit.

Don't ya just love it when people come onboard and claim to be professional this or that (never revealing their true identity nor giving anyone any way to verify what they say, of course), and then demonstrate that they simply don't have either the character or the nerve for the kind of work they claim to have done? How many planes would have crashed with an ATC who couldn't hold his water?

Sheesh. Like we were born yesterday?

 

[tractmec]

Hello Group

I too could not log in over the that period. I had one fleeting moment where I thought, is it me, and then mentaly slapped myself back to reality. No the forum is having a glitch or you are having one of your stupid password typing moments again.

Maxel seemed to make a good case at first and it seemed made a couple of points on transponder procedure that had the potential to add some data to the hypothisis.

However, I could not find in all his posts any instance of a presentation of any credentials other than the claim of working with the FAA for thirty years. I may have missed it however.

It would have been helpful to know in what capacity did he work, in what part of the country, what branch. Was it working behind a radar screen for those 30 years. Was this person working and in what capacity and where on 9/11. What military base and in what capacity. I did not see any of these questions answered in any of the posts.

Without answers to these questions any data presented got lost in emotional noise.
Without these questions answered any data presented should be labled "flawed data from questionable source".

And under that criteria these posts got exactly what they deserved. IMO.

Great learning experience though.

Ted

 

[A-Train]

This aircraft who has been followed/tracked the entire time then flies towards Washington and crashes into the Pentagon. It is all on radar tapes that can be played back (and voice tapes as well)

Can somebody explain to me how a missile was substituted for the aircraft and where the real airplane went?

I AM an air traffic controller and in my opinion the odds of anything having been substituted for the real AAL77 is almost zero. But first, let me point out that AAL77 was not followed/tracked the entire time between its departure and crash. That can be said about the other three 9/11 planes, but not AAL77. When AAL77 turned off its transponder and went incommunicado it was in Indianapolis Center's airspace, and in an area with no primary radar coverage. So when the transponder was turned off, the plane completely disappeared for about 8.5 minutes. Then, a primary target reappeared in Washington Center's airspace moving eastbound toward D.C. That target was never positively identified as AAL77, because the procedure to do so requires the cooperation of the pilots.

Therefore, it is hypothetically possible that a plane was swapped in those 8.5 minutes. It is this hypothetical possibility that has fueled the "no-757" theory that has so bedeviled the truth movement. In my opinion this theory that something else hit the Pentagon has been a complete disaster for those trying to find the truth of what happened on 9/11. It has led many honest researchers down a fruitless path and diverted attention from more promising evidence, such as the collapse of WTC7 and the fact that no military jets were scrambled to intercept this mystery target as it sped to the nation's capital. The hoax has been fueled on both sides-- by disinformationalists like Loose Change for whom the no-757 theory will take center stage on the upcoming "Final Cut" film, and by the government which has played a cynical game of releasing just enough evidence to lead the truth movement on in the wrong direction. The mainstream media, meanwhile, never fails to point out that the no-757 theory is supposedly at the center of all "conspiracy theories."

While the plane swap is theoretically possible, it is ridiculous on many common sense levels. First, you have to believe that the conspirators for some reason decided to execute a completely different method of operation on this flight than the other three. They clearly showed they stand down the air defense system and fly two planes into the WTC towers; why do something different with AAL77? Then you have to believe that the primary target of the real AAL77 was somehow made invisible from the eyes of air traffic controllers, despite the fact that they followed all the other targets to their respective crash scenes. Then you have to believe the real AAL77 was made to disappear somewhere and the passengers disposed of somehow. Under this scenario the conspiracy-- previously quite limited to the hijackers, the demolition teams, and the NORAD cell that engineered the standdown-- must now be vastly expanded to include the mysterious airfield where the real AAL77 is landed and the real passengers taken off and somehow disposed of. Or, as some have suggested, the plane is sent somewhere to crash where magically no one notices.

Would you want to plan such a complicated plot?

But wait, we're not done yet. There is the crash scene at the Pentagon itself. If the plane was not AAL77, you now have hundreds of FEMA workers cleaning up the mess, some of whom are likely to figure out that something is wrong. How are you going to keep all of them silent. And then there are the witnesses to the plane hitting the building. What if one of them takes a picture of the plane hitting the building, and manages to prevent their camera from being confiscated by the FBI?

The people who planned 9/11 were not stupid. The followed the old aphorism Keep It Simple and Stupid. They commandeered AAL77 the same way they did the other three flights and flew it into the Pentagon. If you're concerned about the "18 foot hole," I suggest you read these two essays on Jim Hoffman's excellent website:

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagontrap.html

Finally, I'd like to point out that I'm not supporting the government's story here. Their story is that AAL77 struck the Pentagon while being piloted by Hani Hanjour who, along with 18 other al-Qaeda members, carried out 9/11. The only part of that that's true is the part about the plane hitting the Pentagon. I personally believe the plane was being piloted not by Hanjour or any other human, but by a remote navigation system like Global Hawk.

 

[ark]

While the plane swap is theoretically possible, it is ridiculous on many common sense levels.

Since when what is theoretically possible is ridiculous on many common sense levels? Don't you know that the idea that Earth goes around the Sun was at certain point of time ridiculous on many common sense levels? I thought air traffic controlers have some education in the history of science?

First, you have to believe that the conspirators for some reason decided to execute a completely different method of operation on this flight than the other three. They clearly showed they stand down the air defense system and fly two planes into the WTC towers; why do something different with AAL77? Then you have to believe that the primary target of the real AAL77 was somehow made invisible from the eyes of air traffic controllers, despite the fact that they followed all the other targets to their respective crash scenes. Then you have to believe the real AAL77 was made to disappear somewhere and the passengers disposed of somehow. Under this scenario the conspiracy-- previously quite limited to the hijackers, the demolition teams, and the NORAD cell that engineered the standdown-- must now be vastly expanded to include the mysterious airfield where the real AAL77 is landed and the real passengers taken off and somehow disposed of. Or, as some have suggested, the plane is sent somewhere to crash where magically no one notices.

In fact you don't have to believe anything. What you have to is to think in a logical way.

Would you want to plan such a complicated plot?

We do certain things even if we do not want to do them. Simply because of necessity.

Finally, I'd like to point out that I'm not supporting the government's story here. Their story is that AAL77 struck the Pentagon while being piloted by Hani Hanjour who, along with 18 other al-Qaeda members, carried out 9/11. The only part of that that's true is the part about the plane hitting the Pentagon. I personally believe the plane was being piloted not by Hanjour or any other human, but by a remote navigation system like Global Hawk.

An here you are disregarding the available data that do not support your theory. There is nothing special about it. It happens again and again. In science as well.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

Therefore, it is hypothetically possible that a plane was swapped in those 8.5 minutes. It is this hypothetical possibility that has fueled the "no-757" theory that has so bedeviled the truth movement.

As far as I know, it's all the evidence that has fueled this idea, that hypothetical possibility is simply one tiny piece of a huge amount of evidence.

In my opinion this theory that something else hit the Pentagon has been a complete disaster for those trying to find the truth of what happened on 9/11.

How is it a disaster?

It has led many honest researchers down a fruitless path and diverted attention from more promising evidence, such as the collapse of WTC7 and the fact that no military jets were scrambled to intercept this mystery target as it sped to the nation's capital.

How is anything more promising than a hole in a Pentagon into which a plane simply does not fit?

The hoax has been fueled on both sides-- by disinformationalists like Loose Change for whom the no-757 theory will take center stage on the upcoming "Final Cut" film, and by the government which has played a cynical game of releasing just enough evidence to lead the truth movement on in the wrong direction. The mainstream media, meanwhile, never fails to point out that the no-757 theory is supposedly at the center of all "conspiracy theories."

What evidence do you have that this is a hoax? And which evidence of all the available evidence was "released by the government", and why do you say so?

While the plane swap is theoretically possible, it is ridiculous on many common sense levels.

I could say the same thing about what you just said, but subjectively judging it as "ridiculous" does not help find the truth, I don't think. And how many common sense levels do you know?

First, you have to believe that the conspirators for some reason decided to execute a completely different method of operation on this flight than the other three.

No you don't have to believe it, the evidence points to that conclusion, no belief necessary.

They clearly showed they stand down the air defense system and fly two planes into the WTC towers; why do something different with AAL77?

One possibility is that with the full size airliner they could not control the extent of the damage.

Then you have to believe the real AAL77 was made to disappear somewhere and the passengers disposed of somehow.

You don't have to believe anything, the evidence shows that AAL77 was not what hit the Pentagon. What they did with the plane nobody really knows, but I see no reason why it cannot be "made to disappear" and the passengers disposed of. Why not?

Under this scenario the conspiracy-- previously quite limited to the hijackers, the demolition teams, and the NORAD cell that engineered the standdown-- must now be vastly expanded to include the mysterious airfield where the real AAL77 is landed and the real passengers taken off and somehow disposed of.

You inability to fathom the existance of a top secret facility of some sort where this can be done does not in any way detract from the available evidence that there was no plane that hit the Pentagon. There are many possibilities as to what they could've done with that plane, what evidence do you have to conclude that they would not have anywhere to crash it? And in order for no one to notice it, they had to crash it not in a public area of course.

Would you want to plan such a complicated plot?

Sure it's complicated, but many things in life are complicated like flying to the moon - but you don't see that discouraging anybody. Regardless of complexity - if it is possible and achievable, then there is a possibility that it will be achieved. And the evidence says that this is most likely what has indeed occured.

But wait, we're not done yet. There is the crash scene at the Pentagon itself. If the plane was not AAL77, you now have hundreds of FEMA workers cleaning up the mess, some of whom are likely to figure out that something is wrong.
How are you going to keep all of them silent.

There are many ways to keep people silent, like threatening to harm their families for example. There are also ways to confuse people and make them think they saw something else, like believe they actually saw a plane or parts of one, especially with all the media repetition of how it was the 757 that hit the Pentagon.

And then there are the witnesses to the plane hitting the building. What if one of them takes a picture of the plane hitting the building, and manages to prevent their camera from being confiscated by the FBI?

There are also witnesses who says it was not a plane at all. And as for a picture - have you seen any?

The people who planned 9/11 were not stupid. The followed the old aphorism Keep It Simple and Stupid.

They were not stupid, and therefore, complicated plans do not intimidate them as they would stupid people!

They commandeered AAL77 the same way they did the other three flights and flew it into the Pentagon.

Yeah but where is any evidence for that assumption? You've presented nothing but opinions and subjective judgements about how "not common sense" or "ridiculous" it is, but no evidence. How does that help find the truth?

The only part of that that's true is the part about the plane hitting the Pentagon.

Or so you say. But you do not decide what is true, the evidence does, and all the evidence I've seen says that what you just said is false. Do you have maybe something other than an opinion that demonstrates otherwise?

 

[Ruth]

While the plane swap is theoretically possible, it is ridiculous on many common sense levels.

Wishful thinking (that your government couldn't possibly be involved in hurting you) is also ridiculous and not sensible.

First, you have to believe that the conspirators for some reason decided to execute a completely different method of operation on this flight than the other three. They clearly showed they stand down the air defense system and fly two planes into the WTC towers; why do something different with AAL77?

A surgical strike on the Pentagon, which not only more than likely housed some of the conspiritors at the time, but engineering a 'direct hit' on accountants as well as the office of Naval Intelligence, versus the total destruction of an enormous white elephant (WTC) New York. I'd say that really took quite a lot of doing, not to mention planning.

Then you have to believe that the primary target of the real AAL77 was somehow made invisible from the eyes of air traffic controllers, despite the fact that they followed all the other targets to their respective crash scenes.

Did they? Just because people on the ground saw planes flying into the WTC, doen't mean that air traffic controllers (except the military ones) were tracking them.

Then you have to believe the real AAL77 was made to disappear somewhere and the passengers disposed of somehow.

So what? The technology to do this has been around for literally decades. What most people struggle with is that a group of criminals could actually do this. They simply don't believe that a these people could be so evil. In order to hijack a plane successfully via some sort of remote control, first you have to get control of it away from the pilots (and potentially passengers). You render them insensible or kill them first. This failed with flight 93 which then had to be blown out of the sky.

Under this scenario the conspiracy-- previously quite limited to the hijackers, the demolition teams, and the NORAD cell that engineered the standdown-- must now be vastly expanded to include the mysterious airfield where the real AAL77 is landed and the real passengers taken off and somehow disposed of. Or, as some have suggested, the plane is sent somewhere to crash where magically no one notices.

Its kind of hard for the public to actually NOTICE something that they have such an emotional aversion to. The idea that some section of their government would actively conspire to commit a crime (or cover it up) of such enormous proportions, so big, that nobody believes it. Its a great 'cover'.

Would you want to plan such a complicated plot?

They got away with it, started a foreign war and helped their 'friends' financially too. They have all but succeeded because NOBODY wants to see the truth. Besides, you answered your own question here:

The people who planned 9/11 were not stupid.

But, they do rely quite a lot on other's stupidity, gulibility, desperation and if that fails, directed disinformation.

But wait, we're not done yet. There is the crash scene at the Pentagon itself. If the plane was not AAL77, you now have hundreds of FEMA workers cleaning up the mess, some of whom are likely to figure out that something is wrong. How are you going to keep all of them silent.

Easy, threaten them. They'll lose their jobs if they talk. And even then, if they decide to talk, they will be discredited or attacked in some way. There is enough evidence to suggest that the government conspiracy is all lies. And some people are speaking up. Unfortunately they are an 'easily dealt with' minority.

And then there are the witnesses to the plane hitting the building. What if one of them takes a picture of the plane hitting the building, and manages to prevent their camera from being confiscated by the FBI?

A real fly in the ointment, that one. Because photos of the crash scene did get out - clearly no large Boeing on theirimaculate lawn. Pieces of aircraft that were photographed did NOT belong to a 757.

The people who planned 9/11 were not stupid. The followed the old aphorism Keep It Simple and Stupid. They commandeered AAL77 the same way they did the other three flights and flew it into the Pentagon. If you're concerned about the "18 foot hole," I suggest you read these two essays on Jim Hoffman's excellent website:

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagontrap.html

Directed disinformation? With more holes in it than a Pentagon under self inflicted attack from a criminal element within the government (which you're not supposed to see or question)? Perhaps you should read Joe's article:

http://www.kasjo.net/ats/ats.htm

Finally, I'd like to point out that I'm not supporting the government's story here. Their story is that AAL77 struck the Pentagon while being piloted by Hani Hanjour who, along with 18 other al-Qaeda members, carried out 9/11. The only part of that that's true is the part about the plane hitting the Pentagon. I personally believe the plane was being piloted not by Hanjour or any other human, but by a remote navigation system like Global Hawk.

If you disbelieve some of the official 'story', why not all of it? What difference does it make? Perhaps the answer to this question will reveal the areas to which you have an aversion?

 

[A-Train]

How is anything more promising than a hole in a Pentagon into which a plane simply does not fit?

From reading your post, this too-small-hole is all the evidence you have presented that AAL77 didn't hit the Pentagon. Did you see this hole yourself? Did you measure it? Have you looked at the arguments to the contrary, such as the ones I presented in the links in my post? My research shows the hole was 18 feet in diameter on the second floor, and 96 feet on the first floor where the wings would have hit.

"Measuring the punctured regions shows that the facade was completely punctured for a width of 96 feet on the first floor and 18 feet on the second floor. Punctured areas were bounded by columns and floor slabs. This is natural since the columns and floor slabs were constructed of steel-reinforced concrete, whereas the window bays spanning them were brick walls reinforced with steel window frames and Kevlar mesh as part of the renovation program."

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html#facade

For the record, I can admit that I can't prove AAL77 did hit the Pentagon, just as I'm sure you'll admit you cannot prove that it did not.

What evidence do you have that this is a hoax? And which evidence of all the available evidence was "released by the government", and why do you say so?

My evidence is that on a day when two other airliners were crashed into buildings, numerous eyewitnesses reported a Boeing aircraft hitting the Pentagon, while AAL77 was apparently hijacked and was never seen again. No, that's not absolute proof. But if you're going to say something else happened, the burden of proof is squarely on you. It is your obligation, for example, to provide a realistic scenario of what actually happened to the real plane and passengers.

The government has only dribbled out a few frames of video, when they could easily prove to us all that AAL77 really was the plane that hit the Pentagon. They may be withholding this evidence because it reveals things contrary to the official story, such as the plane exploding before impact, which would indicate a much more sophisticated conspiracy than the "19 Arabs." But they may also be withholding the evidence to play a little game with the truth movement. Many are fooled into thinking that the government is withholding this footage because they don't have it. So they are further suckered into the no-757 hoax, thus embarrassing the whole effort to find 9/11 truth.

No you don't have to believe it, the evidence points to that conclusion, no belief necessary.

What evidence, besides the alleged 18 foot hole? It's amazing to me how so many believe the no-757 idea like a religion, without having scientifically investigated the evidence at hand.

One possibility is that with the full size airliner they could not control the extent of the damage.

Interesting. But I think they were able to calculate the damage that would be done, and that their boy Rummy would be safe and sound in the other wing of the building.

And in order for no one to notice it, they had to crash it not in a public area of course.

And just where in the United States can you crash a jumbo jet with no one noticing? I can't take this seriously.

Yeah but where is any evidence for that assumption? You've presented nothing but opinions and subjective judgements about how "not common sense" or "ridiculous" it is, but no evidence. How does that help find the truth?

Why is everything I say an opinion and subjective judgment, but all your arguments are based on "the evidence"? Just what is your evidence?

 

[anart]

From reading your post, this too-small-hole is all the evidence you have presented that AAL77 didn't hit the Pentagon.

No, it's not. Not by a long shot - but you know that already. In case you need a refresher, try reading the new edition of 9/11 The Ultimate Truth - http://www.qfgpublishing.com/product_info.php?products_id=52&osCsid=709e109f0208b52f2cc30b829ddcd641

But, somehow, I'm pretty sure you know this already. Since you've entered our forum, you've posted on only two threads - both related to 9/11 - sent on a little errand, were you?

 

[Joe]

My evidence is that on a day when two other airliners were crashed into buildings, numerous eyewitnesses reported a Boeing aircraft hitting the Pentagon, while AAL77 was apparently hijacked and was never seen again. No, that's not absolute proof. But if you're going to say something else happened, the burden of proof is squarely on you. It is your obligation, for example, to provide a realistic scenario of what actually happened to the real plane and passengers.

I beg to differ. It was the US government that made the first claims about what happened on 9/11. Soon thereafter, it became clear that there were serious problems and inconsistencies with this official story. In this case, where government provides a version of events, and the available evidence does not match that version, then the burden of proof lies squarely at the door of the government to explain WHY the evidence does not match their version of events.

What evidence, besides the alleged 18 foot hole? It's amazing to me how so many believe the no-757 idea like a religion, without having scientifically investigated the evidence at hand.

What is amazing to me is that so many people end up fawningly kowtowing to "science" and essentially backing up the US government's line that the ordinary citizen is a witless fool and cannot think for himself even on simple issues of logical reasoning and deduction. All must be subjugated to the almighty "scientific evidence", access to the world of and control over the results of "scientific investigation" being restricted to the self-same government.

Let me put it plainly. If a building in NY explodes and then collapses, and the US government says that the source of this disaster was the Stay Puft marshmallow man, who, in a fit of pique, kicked the building over, I do NOT need to wait on or subjugate my opinion to "scientific analysis - my opinion being that the government's version of events is BS.

Why? Because I am not an idiot, despite what the government would have me and others believe and, if allowed access to a significant amount of data about any given situation, I AM able to use my capacity for simple deductive reasoning and analysis in such a way that it WILL give me a GOOD GENERAL idea of what did or did not happen. Basically, I am not such an idiot that I cannot tell BLATANT BLOODY BULLSHIT when I see, hear or smell it.

Joe

 

[Joe]

My evidence is that on a day when two other airliners were crashed into buildings, numerous eyewitnesses reported a Boeing aircraft hitting the Pentagon, while AAL77 was apparently hijacked and was never seen again. No, that's not absolute proof. But if you're going to say something else happened, the burden of proof is squarely on you. It is your obligation, for example, to provide a realistic scenario of what actually happened to the real plane and passengers.

I beg to differ. It was the US government that made the first claims about what happened on 9/11. Soon thereafter, it became clear that there were serious problems and inconsistencies with this official story. In this case, where government provides a version of events, and the available evidence does not match that version, then the burden of proof lies squarely at the door of the government to explain WHY the evidence does not match their version of events. And here I am including the "numerous eyewitnesses" as part of the government story.

If an eyewitness claims that he saw a large ape in the woods, yet on investigation only the tracks of a deer can be found in the area, it is not my responsibility to find some way to prove conclusively that it is empirically impossible that the prints of a deer can NEVER EVER be mistaken for those of an APE!

What evidence, besides the alleged 18 foot hole? It's amazing to me how so many believe the no-757 idea like a religion, without having scientifically investigated the evidence at hand.

What is amazing to me is that so many people are happy to fawningly kowtow to "science" and essentially back up the US government's line that the ordinary citizen is a witless fool and cannot think for himself even on simple issues of logical reasoning and deduction. All must be subjugated to the almighty "scientific investigation", access to and control over the results of "scientific investigation" being restricted to the self-same government.

Let me put it plainly. If a building in NY explodes and then collapses, and the US government says that the source of this disaster was the Stay Puft marshmallow man, who, in a fit of pique, kicked the building over, http://www.cassiopedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Stay_Puft_Marshmallow_Man I do NOT need to wait on or subjugate my opinion to "scientific analysis - my opinion being that the government's version of events is BS. And here I am not talking about the minutia but the overall theory. If an initial premise is based on entirely incorrect foundations, i.e. it is BS, then what point is there in being drawn into arguments over details of such a theory. We need to back up and say to the government, "the basic premise is clearly BS, please try again".

You see, I can say all this because I am not an idiot, despite what the government would have me and others believe and, if allowed access to a significant amount of data about any given situation, I AM able to use my capacity for simple deductive reasoning and analysis in such a way that it WILL give me a GOOD GENERAL idea of what did or did not happen. Basically, I don't need "scientific analysis" to validate my ability to tell BLATANT BLOODY BS when I see, hear or smell it.

Joe

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

My evidence is that on a day when two other airliners were crashed into buildings, numerous eyewitnesses reported a Boeing aircraft hitting the Pentagon, while AAL77 was apparently hijacked and was never seen again.

But what about those eyewitnesses that reported seeing something else?

It is your obligation, for example, to provide a realistic scenario of what actually happened to the real plane and passengers.

I have no evidence for what happened to it. Here is a realistic scenario though: Plane was landed in a secure non-public location, the passengers were shot. Unless there's a reason why this is not a realistic scenario or could not have occured?

But they may also be withholding the evidence to play a little game with the truth movement.

They could be, but since the evidence that they are not withholding also suggests that it wasn't a 757, which further suggests that the reason they ARE withholding the other data is because there was no plane, not to play a game. The hypothesis that it is a game is a valid hypothesis in and of itself, but when considering all other available data, it becomes increasingly invalid. There is other data than just hiding of those videos that points to the same thing.

Many are fooled into thinking that the government is withholding this footage because they don't have it. So they are further suckered into the no-757 hoax, thus embarrassing the whole effort to find 9/11 truth.

Are you referring to yourself when you say "the whole effort to find 9/11 truth"? I mean I looked around and did not see any red faces, so I'm not sure which "911 truth effort" you're talking about, but definitely not any that I'm familiar with. And what do you mean they don't have it when they confiscated all of it and it is public knowledge? What data is there that suggests that they may not have it when there IS data that clearly says that they do?

What evidence, besides the alleged 18 foot hole?

So instead of looking at any of the thousands of websites, including this one, you want me to do it for you and tell you all about it? Didn't you say you researched this?

And just where in the United States can you crash a jumbo jet with no one noticing? I can't take this seriously.

Don't have to crash, could land and just shoot everybody. Speaking of United States as a whole, there are huge areas of hundreds of miles where not a single human ever walked, I'm sure you can find them yourself. As for areas nearby where this occured I'm not sure right now, but certainly the above question you asked cannot be taken seriously by anybody who has the slightest idea about the population density of the united states, because they will be instantly aware of such huge chunks of US that are not settled.

 

[Firefly]

I'm learning a lot about these theories, and for the most part, I believe you have sound ground, but not with this one. It was hit by Flight 77. This writer is correct. The radar and tapes have been verified, and how do you get around all the ground witnesses? Many of them took photos. None saw a missile. All saw a plane. What about he taxi driver who was hit by a light pole when Flight 77's wing clipped it just before it crashed into the Pentagon? Two reporters saw it at 50 and 100 feet, also just prior to impact, and a man living in an apartment heard the Jet engines--not a screaming missile--and jumped up to see "the tail of the plane" seconds before the fireball. Pieces of the wreckage were spred all over the ground, and no, I don't believe they were tossed out of a helicopter and made to look like they fell from a plane. Why? There would simply not have been time to land, rip off plane parts and get them to the scene prior to impact! There were also phone calls to loved ones telling them of the Saudi Arabian men who had hijacked the plane. They reported the plane had been turned around and was heading east. None of them said anything about landing anywhere. All these events happened so rapidly, they could not have been orchestrated. Missile trace was discovered at the site? Duh! It's the Pentagon.