Anonymous wrote....

"Ever hear of geosynchronous orbit? You think the Pentagon doesn't have one or more satellites in geosynchronous orbit trained on it?"

I probably heard of them long before you were born.

They don't use Geo-Sync satellites for high-resolution photos of earth.

"No radar images of AA77? Its entire flight was always under the radar?"

You don't know anything about radar. By the time it AA77 got to a low enough altitude, radar would not be able to see it, therefore it couldn't tell if AA77 hit the Pentagon or flew just over it.

"No other videos of the Pentagon except the few blurry frames they released? That's the only camera? No cameras taping the heliport? Is this Walmart or the Pentagon we are talking about?"

Didn't you bother to read what I wrote?

Do you have something against doing your own research before posting or are you just willing to beleive what you are told?

I don't care what st911 thinks, I know for myself that 9/11 is clouded with uncertainty.

Down to 4hr and 22m... you gotta love torrent.

In regards to this article, the rules in the truther forum pretty much sum it up for me...

The Rules Of The 9/11 Truther Forum

1. There is to be NO infighting. If you have a disagreement about a certain aspect of 9/11, talk it through to its' conclusion, and if there is no conclusion, move on. Don't let the disagreement cause division. There are plenty of aspects of 9/11 truth that we ALL agree on.

2. Just because someone doesn't believe a certain aspect of 9/11 Truth, do NOT label them "Disinfo". If they're here, and are actively trying to help, then who cares if they don't completely agree with you. This is not a "popularity contest".

3. There is to be NO posting of articles from sites that particpate in, and promote infighting (specifically, WingTV).

4. There is to be NO posting of articles that say any particular 9/11 site or 9/11 researcher is "Disinformation", or a "Gatekeeper". If you have doubts about a certain organization, or a certain researcher, then don't follow them, period.

5. If you post something, please source the information.

These rules are put in place to help ensure that we spend MORE of our time spreading the truth, than we do arguing about it.

Every minute spent arguing with another 9/11 Truther, is a minute taken away from spreading the truth. Period.

We are starting from a clean slate as far as I'm concerned. Any previous articles posted by me, or anyone else is the last of its' kind.

thats what pisses me off about WINGTV, they spend so much time and energy trying to bash fellow 9/11 activists and its just plain irritating.

"truth" is indeed overrated to most americans. they,for the most part, are still under the impression that 19 muslims with box cutters brought down the U.S. military and standard operating procedures.

I have to disagree with any blanket rule against arguing among one another. The truth is a hard thing to know, and one way to try to get there, or at least get closer, is via the dialectic, the give and take of productive debate.

Green is right about Hufschmid but wrong about a lot of other things, in particular tha pentagon picture. Mostly, Green seems to be needlessly critical, and I'm not sure what his game is. Green claims he is convinced that 9/11 was an inside job, but gives us no reason why he thinks that except he is convinced of the WTC demoliiton-- but then doesn't like Jones' treatment of the issue?

All in all, Green seems similar in tone to Hoffman, whose site he posts this on, and Hoffman often does games like this-- criticizing others' 9/11 research and tending to support the official story except for demolition.

maddog wrote...

"May I remind all that 'The truth is self-evident.' Nothing can change that.

Then you'll agrree with this:

The problem with Prof. Steven Jones' claims are twofold.

1. He doesn't ACTUALLY reveal his physics calculations - one of the reasons his university, BYU, and his own department issued statements distancing thesmselves from Jones paper.

2. So far, despite being asked to, Prof. Jones and his group have not seen fit to entertain alternate explanations from scientists, much less rebut them, for example, these papers:

http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf

http://www.911myths.com/Energy_Transfer_Addendum.pdf

http://www.911myths.com/NISTREPORT.pdf

If the truth is not self-evident in these scientific papers, then you might ask Prof. Jones to actually publish his calculations to refute them.

So far, "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" haven't even acknowledged them.

Answer: Because Flight 77 didn't crash into the Pentagon, something else did. Likely a smaller & more versatile aircraft was needed for this intricate mission in striking the most secure building in the world.
Anonymous | 02.09.06 - 11:39 pm | #
DING DING DING DING DING!!! exactly. there is a reason they dont release that stuff, and its not because they need it for 'the 20th hijackers" case, its because its damning stuff.

There's no doubt that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

Ever since I challeneged 9/11 conspiracy theorist, Gerard Holmgren, four years ago, none who claim that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon have willing to interview any of the hundreds of rescue and recovery personnel who were on the scene in the minutes, hours, and days after the crash and who walked through the debris, recovered the wreakage, and who have intimiate knowledge of what the wreakage was.

Secondly, no one has been willing to say what happened to AA77 if it did not hit the Pentagon nor investigate it even though it is their responsibility to do so.

No one who makes the claim that AA77 did not the Pentagon has done any proper research on the subject.

Rather curious, wouldn't you agree?

Why do people like S. King insist that 77, definitely, no doubt whatsoever, is what hit the Pentagon?

What's so crucial that the official story on 77 must be unconditionally accepted as absolute Gospel truth?

Rather curious, wouldn't you agree?

It is pretty clear that the the overwhelming evidence from hundreds of different independent sources points to only one conclusion - that AA77, a Boeing 757, hit the Pentagon.

The real question is why it is so important for 9/11 conspiracy theorists to insist otherwise with no evidence to back it up.

Even when we repeatedly ask them for evidence.

Plenty of evidence & logic in “Painful Deceptions” and other truth-oriented books & videos.

Speaking of videos, where are the ones clearly showing AA77 crashing into the Pentagon? I guess 4 years isn't enough time to get something ready. Maybe we'll see something when the next edition of PhotoShop comes out.

@ S. King: In general, I welcome guys like you who want to check the facts. But it seems to me that you are not checking the facts, instead you provide your own myths.

The chosen words dismantle you.

For me there are dozens of reliable hints that indicates that something else had hit the Pentagon.
Ande the best were that no one could fly a boeing this way into the Pentagon, and, like german researcher Christian C. Walter showed in his book: "The censored day", there was no way that flight 77 could hit the Pentagon, because the time difference between someone reports reliable a flight course change ( not the hijacking, this seems to be some sort of cover ) was to little to reach the Pentagon. Please also visit team8+.org.

Sitting-Bull,

I've been at this for four years and have read it all. I've seen so-called "facts" repeated over and over and I've seen them debunked over and over.

As much as people believe such things as "reliable hints" that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon, and logically-fallacious claims that something "could not have happened," it still comes down for these people to refute ALL of the existing evidence and eliminate ALL other possibilities.

Naysayers don't get the luxury of being excused from claiming AA77 did not hit the Pentagon and then claim they are under no obligation to provide evidence of what DID happen to AA77, as I argued with 9/11 conspiracist, Gerard Holmgren, four years ago.

Prof. Steven Jones and his group do not get to be excused from making a direct assertion, "Physics research establishes that only controlled demolitions are consistent with the near-gravity speed of fall and virtually symmetrical collapse of all three of the WTC buildings," without revealing the assumptions, data and calculations for his peers to analyze or dealing with alternative theories as I presented in these links:

http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf

http://www.911myths.com/Energy_Transfer_Addendum.pdf

http://www.911myths.com/NISTREPORT.pdf

Invariably, the discussion of what did or did not happen on 9/11 is heavily influenced by one's feelings for Bush and his administration. It is far too politicized, has divided people into two political camps, and obscures the need to understand the whole picture, including the physics, chemistry, structural engineering, and forensic science of what happened in NYC and DC.

Most all of us are at a disadvantage at understanding complicated science and, by necessity, must heavily rely on others with more expertise. The danger in this, of course, is letting one's skeptical guard down and too readily accepting conclusions one "feels" is right, whether it sounds logical or is in line with one's politics.

My arguement is that everyone who makes an arguement on 9/11 must be held to the same rigorous standard of proof, evidence, and logic, whether it is the government, independent scientists, or 9/11 conspiracy theorists. So far, those on the 9/11 conspiracy theories side have not made a good, sufficient, or irrefutable case.

Including Prof. Jones and the "Scholars for 9/11 Truth."

If truth is what we are all after, then we must all allow the facts and evidence to take us wherever it ends up.

That is why I am pushing Prof. Jones and his group to actually deal with the physics and alternative theories, and not dance around the issue.

"Invariably, the discussion of what did or did not happen on 9/11 is heavily influenced by one's feelings for Bush and his administration."

On the contrary, my feelings for Bush & Co. are based on what did and didn't happen on 9/11, not the other way around.

Beware "S. King" & others who spend days on 9/11 truth sites to continually imply that the "Official Story" is true--plainly have an agenda to protect that "Official Story."

I guess anonymous believes there is some "official story" other than the evidence and the facts.

S.King,

thanks for the response, although i would tend to disagree with your assertion that the beliefs of 9/11 stem from an opinion on Bush.. I actually used to be an O'Riely(sp?) freak, and supported both of the current wars.. it wasn't until after I saw how family members of those who died on 9/11 were upset with the administration about not being forthcoming.. after 3 months of research i stopped supporting bush..

sure there are points to which cannot be answered by the '9/11 conspiracy theorists' (as you labeled them), but these questions were not even attempted by the 9/11 commission, who had the supoena power to get the questions answered, and the duty to do so as well..

as for the physics, i personally have been contacted by respectible professors asking for information, and they dont think the answer is quite so cut and dry as perhaps you do. the point that sticks with me is the speed of the collapses, the ability for superstructures to telescopicly collapse through themselves at near the speed of freefall while meeting no measurable resistance from the 80%+ of the undamaged remaining structure is ludicris to me. even if the remaining structure was made of wood it still would have impeded the speed of the collapse dramatically.

in any event, while you may not personally beleive the physics are questionable (which of course i highly disagree with), the coverup of the event is not questionable. all of the evidence from that day was removed as quickly as possible, no independent investigation ever truely occured, and the ommissions/distortions from the 9/11 commission are a disgrace to those that died that horrible day.

so, make your judgements of '9/11 conspiracy theorists' as you will, just be sure to include the official 'conspiracy theory' as well, because if anything its executive director Zelikow was the one whose beleifs were so highly altered by his opinions (read connections) of the Bush administration.

now a question for you, have you only focused on the physical aspects of 9/11? do you not think the 9/11 commission re-writing the time of cheney arriving at the whitehouse from ~9:20 to ~9:50 and completely ignoring the sworn testimoney of norman moneta and richard clarke to be at least disengenuous? perhaps you have focused so much on the physical aspects argued over on the web that you have missed the more provable coverup aspects as laid out in Dr. Griffin's second book?

Truth seekers come to this site to rack their brains and try to find answeres about the horror known as 9/11.

Why do "S. King" and others who supposedly believe the official cover-up waste so much time and energy trolling here?

If they truly believe the official excuses, what motivates them to continually play devil's advocate with us? Wouldn't they have moved on long ago, secure in their beliefs that 9/11 was explained & resolved by the Bushies on 9/12?

Or are they really "sheeple" herders, spinning the party line?

Homepage wrote...

"as for the physics, i personally have been contacted by respectible professors asking for information, and they dont think the answer is quite so cut and dry as perhaps you do. the point that sticks with me is the speed of the collapses, the ability for superstructures to telescopicly collapse through themselves at near the speed of freefall while meeting no measurable resistance from the 80%+ of the undamaged remaining structure is ludicris to me. even if the remaining structure was made of wood it still would have impeded the speed of the collapse dramatically."

Dr. Greening argues that the speed of collapses are somewhat slower than free-fall. He also argues that pancaking floors in this situation would not add more than .1 second to the total collpase.

Now, should there not be a full and open debate on this question between both sides? How about the professors to whom you have talked? Can they not question Dr. Greening's calculations openly and transparently so we can all understand what is the most likely answer?

Re-read my post. I am arguing for full transparency of everyone, and not that the physics is clear-cut. I repeat:

"My arguement is that everyone who makes an arguement on 9/11 must be held to the same rigorous standard of proof, evidence, and logic, whether it is the government, independent scientists, or 9/11 conspiracy theorists. So far, those on the 9/11 conspiracy theories side have not made a good, sufficient, or irrefutable case.

"Including Prof. Jones and the 'Scholars for 9/11 Truth.'

"If truth is what we are all after, then we must all allow the facts and evidence to take us wherever it ends up.

"That is why I am pushing Prof. Jones and his group to actually deal with the physics and alternative theories, and not dance around the issue."

Anonymous,

What are you afraid of?

I am afraid of people like you who refuse to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. You are either a fool or a COINTELPRO agent.

I want those responsible for 9/11 brought to justice. Most importantly, I DO NOT WANT THESE FUCKING MANIACS FREE TO STAGE ANYMORE ATTACKS, OR PERPETRATE ANY OTHER CRIMES!!! DO YOU UNDERSTAND???

Those like you who deliberately dick around with the truth are aiding & abetting Chaney, Rummy, Bush, Wolfowitz, Kristol & the other NeoCons to get away with these atrocities and to commit new ones.

Anonymous wrote...

"I am afraid of people like you who refuse to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. You are either a fool or a COINTELPRO agent."

You have to have evidence for it to be overwhelming.

And you have to refute evidence you that contradicts you.

You've done neither.

"Question: So who is hiding the video, radar, and satellite images of Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon, and why does it need to be hidden???"

It's being hidden so that it can be revealed at an opportune time, showing that the official story is true *for that part*, thus discrediting the whole 911 truth.

"Likely a smaller & more versatile aircraft was needed for this intricate mission in striking the most secure building in the world."

I don't think you know what 'versatile' means.

random wrote....

"Question: So who is hiding the video, radar, and satellite images of Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon, and why does it need to be hidden???"

Of the three, two are invalid.

Existing radar cannot show anything that low in altitude. There is just ground clutter.

Satellites do no provide continous coverage. It would be shear luck to have any photo of DC at that instant.

There is discussion of one or more videos being confiscated by the Feds.

"It's being hidden so that it can be revealed at an opportune time, showing that the official story is true *for that part*, thus discrediting the whole 911 truth."

That's a tacit admission that you believe AA77 hit the Pentagon.

But it doesn't make a lot of sense. As I've maintained all along, the government never had the ability to control the evidence to begin with, no more so at the Pentagon than they did in NYC with all the pictures and videos taken by ordinary people of the jet hitting WTC 2. Anybody might have been able to take a picture of AA77 hitting the Pentagon and get it to the media.

But any video is irrelevant as to whether a 757 hit the Pentagon or not. No one needs a picture or a video of the crash. We didn't have a video of the Titanic sinking. We have ALL of the other evidence that AA77, a Boeing 757, hit the Pentagon.

"They don't use Geo-Sync satellites for high-resolution photos of earth."

You can't prove this basic technology isn't used to monitor the Pentagon, White House, etc.

"You don't know anything about radar. By the time it AA77 got to a low enough altitude, radar would not be able to see it, therefore it couldn't tell if AA77 hit the Pentagon or flew just over it."

I'll settle for the radar of AA77 some miles out, long before the acrobatic pilot buzzes the highway & bounces on the Pentagon lawn...Sure.

So helicopters just takeoff & land at that Pentagon heliport, passengers & crew disembark there, etc., all with no video records made of this highly-sensitive area...Sure. All this while we're videotaped in our 7-11's parking lot, and the drive-through at McDonald's...Of course.

Anonymous wrote....

"You can't prove this basic technology isn't used to monitor the Pentagon, White House, etc. "

You're welcome to prove otherwise but the government does not use cameras at 22,300 miles altitude for high resolution photography of only the western hemisphere. All high-res photos are taken by satellites in orbits ranging to about 400 miles in altitude.

"I'll settle for the radar of AA77 some miles out, long before the acrobatic pilot buzzes the highway & bounces on the Pentagon lawn...Sure."

Which doesn't tell you if AA77 hit the Pentagon or flew over it.

I'll repeat for the third time that videos are irrelevant as to where AA77 crashed into the Pentagon or not. That's not rocket science to you is it?

how can any type of further evidence be considered 'irrelevant'? its obvious that there are those that question if flight 77 hit the pentagon or not.. the only way to further prove the case that it did or didnt is through the release of further evidence, all of which is held by the government and has not been released despite multiple FOIA requests..

its not irrelevant, its evidence, and it should be shown to the public. also, planes that are involved in crashes must be held in cargo bays for a number of years in case further investigation needs to be done, yet again that is not available as well.

the confiscated videos are as far from irrelevant as possible.. to suggest otherwise seems a bit disengenuous.

dz wrote...

"how can any type of further evidence be considered 'irrelevant'?"

I wrote specifically that "videos are irrelevant as to where AA77 crashed into the Pentagon or not."

And earlier I wrote: "But any video is irrelevant as to whether a 757 hit the Pentagon or not. No one needs a picture or a video of the crash. We didn't have a video of the Titanic sinking. We have ALL of the other evidence that AA77, a Boeing 757, hit the Pentagon."

Isn't that perfectly clear?

And everyone is making assumptions that videos - even if they exist and were confisctaed - actually show anything at all. None of us possess the knowledge to make the claims tht you do.

Even the security camera video that was released cannot be used to legitimately claim it shows a 757 or anything else like a missle or fighter, as many conspiracists claim. One cannot identify the object al all.

S.King, who is paying you?

wow dz, thats big of you to admit you were a right-wing puppet.seriously,i mean it.

chris,

luckily that was almost 2 years ago now.. and at the time i wasnt a 'right-wing puppet', i just fell for the fox news 'cutting-edge' type style when they started.. i really wasnt political back then, i just didnt question our government and bought into the fox news hype..

glad i can look back at that now.. ;)

chris wrote...

"S.King, who is paying you?"

My last check was signed by you.

BTW, I would like a raise, Chris.

dz, sorry about the puppet line, i have the utmost respect for you,and anyone else who runs sites like this. it was a broad statement, my point being that only a puppet could watch O'Reilly and take him seriously.(the puppet line was just my righteous liberal anger showing,hahaha)keep up the good work man, your site rules.

The only visual evidence any of us have ever seen of the WTC1 and Pentagon impacts refutes, rather than supports, the government's contentious claim of what hit those buildings!!!

No flight data recorder or cockpit voice recorder evidence has ever been released. No NTSB investigation -- as required by law -- occurred. None were intercepted, as required by law. Transponders were all turned off, without any hijack codes having been received (yet another 0-for-4). Etc.

I recall how the 9-11 Commission assiduously avoided all evidence which did not fit the government's conspiracy theory of 9/11. Apparently it was left to the disinformation agents posing as 911 truthers to try to refute the contradictory evidence, and to get us to not talk about it.

Maybe people other than paid government disinformation agents would attack and attempt to divisively label/smear/marginalize those of us who do not take the government at its word, but I can't think of any.

So when "researcher", who offers a link to a site of researcher Jim Hoffman's, says that "The no plane (sic) stuff always falls apart upon examination.", that nonsense reminds me of just how claustrophobic it must be getting in the plane-huggers' quarters by now. (I also note how they'd rather argue endlessly and divisively about "planes", and point out how hot "jet fuel" burns, and tell us why we should not talk about certain evidence, than to encourage the simpler, more powerful realization that it's ludicrous to blame 9/11 on "hijackers" once we know that we cannot blame the collapses on "planes".)
______________________________________