Incompetent FBI Merely 'Assumed' Wreckage to be Hijacked Planes

Comment from Ratings:   Not surprising at all that they assumed and concluded poorly on the jets. That's been their specialty since Hoover, and taken to new heights by the Bush regime. The real surprise is how we keep taking it, year after year. Remember their motto - lie and deny. Just the opposite of integrity, justice and balance.

by Jim Prues (15 articles, 33 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 85 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Sep 4, 2008 at 1:34:23 PM

  (0+)

Looks like Len still hasn't interviewed anyone directly involved with the rescue, recovery or clean-up of the Pentagon. Because if he were to, they'd confirm to him that indeed flight 77 flew into the Pentagon. They'd relay stories about the charred bodies of airline passengers being found still in their mangled seats. They'd talk about the various parts of an American Airlines plane they saw/found/recovered/photographed. And if he were to interview anyone involved with the forensic identifications of the victims of the crash, he'd be told that all but one was identified. He's be told that these were the same people who boarded the flight upon its departure. It never ceases to amaze me that Opednews continues to allow such unfounded baseless speculation on its site that so offends the memory of those lost on 9/11, while at the same time always searching for ways to become a respected "progressive" outlet/forum.

by Alan Williams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 858 comments) on Thursday, Sep 4, 2008 at 5:59:33 PM

  (0+)

Seeing evidence of plane parts, even those ID'd with the AA logo, and body parts (they could have been people in the Pentagon), does not prove AA 77 hit  the pentagon.

If AA 77 was shot down, the DNA specimens could have come from this site, wherever it was.

The flight path chosen by an inexperienced pilot only to hit the part of the Pentagon undergoing renovation, which was also the accounting department was curious.  A more direct route would have allowed the plane to hit where the big shots were, and been a much easier and quicker path.

The lack of air cover over DC has also failed to have been adequately explained.

The lack of video showing the plane is curious.  Surely the pentagon had more than a couple of poor quality parking lot surveillance cameras for securing one of the most sensisitive buildings in the country.  The video released was essentially 5 grainy stills that show nothing conclusive.

Something hit the pentagon, what it was seems questionable.

Thanks for the link to the book, I should read this, but remember what witnesses say can be controlled, and they may have been pre-selected.

Anyways, after 7 years, this is pretty much history.  There may be another commission, but it will also be a whitewash.  NIST's ridiculous report on WTC 7 proves that in this world, the public will believe the most ridiculous explanations.  They do not want to know.  The myths are more comforting. 

by pft (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 601 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Sep 4, 2008 at 7:55:47 PM

  (0+)

pft sez...

The flight path chosen by an inexperienced pilot only to hit the part of the Pentagon undergoing renovation, which was also the accounting department was curious.  A more direct route would have allowed the plane to hit where the big shots were, and been a much easier and quicker path.

Good point! Hani Hanjour most certainly could NOT have done it. He would have been challenged to land a Cessna! Moreover, there is NO evidence that Hani Hanjour was on the flight at all! His name is NOT on the official autopsy list that was released in response to an FOIA request.

In fact, NONE of those 'hiajckers' who were 'said' to have been on the Flight are named in the OFFICIAL CORONOR'S report released in response to an FOIA request. We have only the word of a proven liar that there were ANY Arab Hijackers at all. We have only the word of known liars that there was a CONSPIRACY of radical Arabs to hijack US flights. It is an absurd and outlandish CONSPIRACY theory for which there is NOT A SHRED of hard or credible evidence whatseover. 

BUSH'S OFFICIAL CONSPIRACY THEORY IS PURE BULLSHIT!

It gets even worse for Bush defenders. Two security guards --considered until recently 'good witnesses' in support of the 757 theory could NOT have seen what they claim or what they believe they saw --namely, a 757 in the air and heading for the Pentagon just seconds before the crash.

The official flight data released by NTSB [FOIA] proves Flight 77 could not have knocked over or damaged light poles on either side of the motorway beside the Pentagon. Flight 77 data indicates that the flight was at the wrong angle of approach and much to high. The lowest altitude recorded after takeoff is 273 feet. The light poles are about 40 feet high.

Not only was Flight 77 much too high to damage a forty foot pole, its path varies by some 20 degrees from a path necessary to have inflicted damage to the poles.

Moreover, if whatever struck the poles also struck the Pentagon, the two famous security guards COULD NOT HAVE SEEN IT. Anything striking the poles would have been BEHIND them and in a direction OPPOSITE the direction that the guards had indicated they were facing at the time of the alleged airliner sighting.

Clearly --something struck both the Pentagon AND the poles. But whatever it was it was NOT Flight 77 which flight data indicates never dropped below 273 feet and was, in fact, on the wrong trajectory to have struck the poles. And whatever it was, it was NOT seen by the two security guards.

Something ELSE struck the poles. And whatever struck the poles is most probably what struck the Pentagon.

It was NOT Flight 77.

A Global Hawk, perhaps? Certtainly, the ONLY rotor that was recovered from among the wreckage was about one third the size of each of two rotors found on the wings of a 757. 

Now --had Bush NOT ordered the forensic evidence carted off and destroyed [destruction of evidence is a crime!] we might have determined precisely the origin of the ONLY rotoer, the SINGLE rotor that was found and photographed on the Pentagon lawn.

I will not be surprised when an expert analysis of that photograph demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that its origin is that of a Global Hawk. 

What are the implications of that? 

Simply this: if it was a Global Hawk that crashed into the Pentagon, causing the deaths of some  125 Pentagon employees, then it is simply impossible NOT to conclude that the operation was carried out under the direction of the US government itself.

That makes 911 a case of mass murder and high treason. People have been hanged for less.

At last --whoever has overtly worked to quashed investigations, ordered the destruction of evidence most certainly guilty of having conspired at the very highest levels of the US government to perpetrate the crime of mass murder and high treason upon the people of the United States.  

Add your name to a petition that is demanding George W. Bush be prosecuted for High Treason and Complicity in the Attacks of 911. 

BTW --'white shirted' Pentagon employees (presumably) were photographed obviously planting 'evidence' that does not exist in some of the photographs, presumably taken before evidence could have been planted but AFTER the crash. The fatal flaw is that a 757 is weighs about 100 tons. If ALL the debris 'recovered' at the Pentagon were weighed, it would have been a small fraction of that amount. I've covered crashed, some at higher speeds than those attributed to Flight 77! In EVERY instance, there was wreckage that was equal in weight (minus spent fuel, of course) to the aircraft prior to crash. 

Bush screwed up! His administration assumed absolute power but they DO NOT have the power to REPEAL the laws of the conservation of matter and energy. 

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Friday, Sep 5, 2008 at 4:50:53 AM

  (0+)

Alan, no one has said that NO ONE died at the Pentagon.

Obviously people died at the Pentagon! That's why this is a case of mass murder and whomever was the ring leader of it ought to be charged wih capital crimes, arrested, tried, and when found guilty --executed. 

 NOT EVEN THE FBI BELIEVES THAT PERSON TO BE BIN LADEN. 

  The 'official autopsy list' WAS released in response to an FOIA request!

1) Hani Hanjour's name is NOT on it. Nor the names of any 'SAID' hijakcers whatsoever. 

2) Official flight data released by the NTSB in response to an FOIA request indicates that after take-off, Flight 77 NEVER descended below 273 feet. 

Show me an OFFICIAL AUTOPSY list with a single arab name on it! 

SHOW ME SOME 100 TONS OF 757 WRECKAGE! 

 It's Bush's theory --NOT mine! It's up to Bush and his ill-informed and illogical defenders to prove their bullshit. 

 If the KNOWN evidence does not add up...that's Bush's problem! If Bush's OFFICIAL CONSPIRACY THEORY does not explain official and observed facts, that's a PROBLEM with Bush's theory! 

I don't have a theory! I have a DEMAND...a DEMAND that 911 be fully invesgtigated. 

If an airliner had really crashed into the Pentagon, I suspect Bush would have been the first one to release EVERY PHOTOGRAPH that had been taken of the Pentagon that day. 

 Sigh....he didn't do that. It has been my experience --personal and professional --that ONLY GUILTY PEOPLE HAVE A COMPELLING MOTIVE TO COVER UP THEIR CRIMES. Bush has overtly covered up the crime of 911 --ordering the destruction of evidence, lying about 911 after the fact, using a false interpretation of 911 to start wars of naked aggression upon pretexts that were themselves bald-faced lies. 

THERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE NOW TO INDICT GEORGE W. BUSH FOR MASS MURDER AND HIGH TREASON IN CONNECTION WITH 911! 

In my experience, covering murder trials, I have NEVER, EVER seen an innocent person cover up a crime. Conversely, only GUILTY people are sufficiently motivated to cover up a crime.

Covering up crimes and quashing investigations is what GUILTY people do. In my opinion, Bush's continued cover up, his overt actions to quash and destroy evidence amount to probable cause to charge him, arrest him, and investigate him. 

I am confident that a COMPLETE and THOROUGH investigation will answer all your questions and more Alan. 

Have patience! The Truth movement is working to bringing that about. 

 With ANY luck all questions will be answered and all mass murderers will find themselves charged and sitting in a dock awaiting the bad news. 

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Friday, Sep 5, 2008 at 2:18:02 AM

  (0+)

Show me that you've interviewed someone, anyone directly involved in the rescue/recovery effort. Most people, and all responsible journalists, would do that, that is if they are really interested in what really happened. You've demonstrated quite clearly that you aren't.

by Alan Williams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 858 comments) on Friday, Sep 5, 2008 at 2:51:16 AM

  (0+)

Show me that you've interviewed someone, anyone directly involved in the rescue/recovery effort. Most people, and all responsible journalists, would do that, that is if they are really interested in what really happened.

I don't have to show you shit! You are defending a bogus theory for which there is NOT A SHRED of evidence. Nor can you produce any! In fact, you have FAILED to produce a shred of evidence to support your bias. 

The burden of proof is on you!

You interview them! 

And while you're at it ---gather up some 100 tons of debris and trace it back to a 757, specifically, the SAME 757 that NTSB flight data says NEVER DROPPED BELOW 273 FEET AFTER IT TOOK OFF! 

Had there been a COMPLETE AND THOROUGH INVESTIGATION of 911, the interviews would have been done as a matter of course. 

Clue: it is NOT my job to round up and track down at my own expense and air fare WITNESSES  who should have been interviewed as a matter of course and routine in the very investigation that GEORGE W. BUSH QUASHED!!!!!!! 

Now ---put up or shut up!

Show me some 100 tons of wreckage and trace it to Flight 77 which NTSB data says NEVER descended below 273 feet after takeoff!

Show me the name of a single Arab on the official Autopsy report!

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Friday, Sep 5, 2008 at 3:10:58 AM

  (0+)

This article title is extremely misleading.
Taxpayer funded FBI  agents were complicit in the planning, carrying out, and most important , cover-up of the 911 attacks. They were the perps of 911.Some FBI  agents were the terrorists.
You don't want to hear that about your bodyguards.
That is the real issue here. Your bodyguards creating 911 with other members of the US Government.
Because you and your species have relied on protection from your bodyguards for so long
you have forgotten how to protect yourself.
You have been "BLACKWATERIZED'
One way to change this is for your species to start policing their own communities.
You and the community go out on patrol. You and the community make the arrests.You and the community decide on how you want the crime resolved.
You and the community decide to police themselves because you and the community are cognizant of the fact that institutions created by the community shape the psychological evolution of the community.
Is the community ready to police itself?
Is the community ready for restorative justice?

for a partial list of crimes committed by FBI  agents over 400 pages long see

campusactivism.org

click on home

click on forum

scroll down to FBI WATCH 

by mssarnhatt (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 46 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Sep 5, 2008 at 9:00:02 AM

  (0+)

This article title is extremely misleading.

There is absolutely NOTHING misleading about this article. It is, however, carefully parsed. As it should be. 

I think you may have mis-interpreted it. Secondly, you have obviously not read the additional articles that are linked to from within the above artible. 

 Taken as a whole --ALL indict the US Govt, the Bush admin specifically, and every other bureacracy in the US government that may have had an active role in 911 or, perhaps, in some cases, they just winked and looked the other way.

Don't jump to conlucions about my position. This is a complicated issue. Above is just one article of HUNDREDS that I've written and many of them have been run or linked to by some of the leading news sites and blogs on the internet. 

But --I would not be surprised to learn that the FBI was complicit from the get go! 

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Friday, Sep 5, 2008 at 4:25:03 PM

  (0+)

No Len -- There are mountains of evidence to confirm AA77 hit the Pentagon -- you just refuse to either accept that it exists, or if you feel you can't trust the obvious conclusion that's been drawn based upon it, to go to the relevant sources to confirm it. Have you read the book I suggested to you long ago and once again above, the one written by someone who was actually there, and whose account would be subject to scrutiny by others who were also there? It seems that if you're so concerned with this issue, and are presumably concerned with the truth -- it would be required reading. It's too much trouble to make a few clicks on Amazon? 15- 20 bucks beyond your budget? You don't seem to comprehend that actual testimony from people intimately involved with the aftermath completely trumps far-removed speculation that the hole wasn't big enough, or that there wasn't enough wreckage. Show me the interview. In fact, I've given you an opportunity for essentially that -- for the cost of a K-Mart cowboy hat.

by Alan Williams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 858 comments) on Friday, Sep 5, 2008 at 7:22:12 PM

  (0+)

No Len -- There are mountains of evidence to confirm AA77 hit the Pentagon -- you just refuse to either accept that it exists, or if you feel you can't trust the obvious conclusion that's been drawn based upon it, to go to the relevant sources to confirm it.

Then cite it! And I am not talking about your goddamned book! I can write a book that proves the world is flat --but that doesn't make it so.

By supporting Bush's stupid theory, you have assumed the burden of proof!

That INCLUDES explaining the seemingly endless anomolies -- the FACT that there are NO ARAB NAMES on the official autopsy list released in resonse to an FOIA request, for example.

EXPLAIN THAT! 

EXPLAIN the fact that NTSB data indicates that after take off Flight 77 NEVER DROPPED BELOW 273 feet! 

You have yet to provide  a SHRED of verifiable evidence to indicate that some 100 tons of debris was EVER --at any time --recovered from the Pentagon.

You have  YET to explain the fact that the BBC interviewed many of the 'alledged' hijackers after the official theorists had claimed they all died in the crashes. How did they survive and the Pentagon employees did not? 

You have yet to explain  WHY the FBI has said that they have insufficient or NO evidence that Bin Laden was EVER connectioned with ANY of the events of 911! 

In fact, Alan, you have BOUGHT into a sh*t theory because you are GULLIBLE. Face it, you were SUCKERED!!!!!  LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL 

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Saturday, Sep 6, 2008 at 12:00:40 PM

  (0+)

According to BTS Official records, route AA77
was not actually scheduled to be flown on 9-11-01

[You'll have to check the actual websites on
www.waybackmachine.com as present records
were doctored some time AFTER 9-11.]

The plane that you say crashed into the Pentagon,
in fact never even left the ground: BTS said so.

We've actually checked the facts, on the official website.

It's not our job to explain why body bits and plane parts

were said to have been found on site: any rookie cop

knows all about planting evidence.

No good abusing us: that's completely blown your disinfo cover, Alan.

by hommedespoir (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 87 comments [55 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Sep 6, 2008 at 2:23:58 AM

  (0+)

AA77 didn't even fly on 9-11-01

Even it if had, Flight 77 COULD NOT have struck the Pentagon. 

Interestingly, only ONE rotor was photographed on the Pentagon lawn and it was NOT a 757 rotor the diameter of which is about three times that of the ONLY rotor that was photographed beside a man whose height can be credibly estimated at between 5 foot 9 or about 6 foot 3 or so. 

Several facts make this significant: 

1) If ANY rotor could have survived such a crash, a 757 rotor should have but was not found!

2) If ANY rotor survived the Pentagon crash BOTH rotors of a 757 should have. In fact NO rotor traceable to a 757 was found! 

3) At about one third the size of a 757 rotor, the SINGLE rotor found might be determined upon an expert analysis of the photo to have been from a Global Hawk. 

The Global Hawk has quite a wing span --enough, I dare sa, to account for the POLE DAMAGE that, according to NTSB official flight data, COULD NOT have been caused by Flight 77 because 1) it was was the WRONG trajectory; 2) it was at an altitude of not less than 273 feet when the 40 ft poles were damaged! 

To sum up: FLIGHT 77 DID NOT STRIKE THE PENTAGON. 

If FLIGHT 77 DID NOT STRIKE THE PENTAGON, then Bush's theory should be discarded entirely. There is, in fact, no logical or scientific support for ANY PART  of it!

The flaws in Bush's theory are fatal flaws and reveal Bush and his complicit associates throughout his administration are bald faced liars and --quite possibly --mass murderers. 

I have cited MUCH, MUCH more than mere probable cause, the legal standard by which a police officer may make an arrest, conduct a personal or property search, or to obtain a warrant for arrest.  Probable cause is the standard required of a grand jury to return an indictment for a crime committed. And --make no mistake --911 was and remains among the most heinous crimes ever committed. The term probable cause is found in the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution. It reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

--US Constitution, Fourth Amendment 

A Federal Grand Jury in White Plains New York is, in fact, investigating 911, specifically Bush's cover up and the PROBABLE CAUSE that Bush and high level members of his administration, key Pentagon personnel (Rumsfeld??) et al have not only obstructed justice and destroyed material evidence, they were involved in planning and coordinating the crime itself. 

The death penalty anyone convicted following a trial stemming from these indictments is too kind! Then again, the mass murder of some 3,000 innocent American citizens for purely political purposes and exploitation must be addressed and answered. Justice MUST be served or this is simply no longer justice to be found in the United States. 

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Saturday, Sep 6, 2008 at 12:35:04 PM

  (0+)

"You have  YET to explain the fact that the BBC interviewed many of the 'alledged' hijackers after the official theorists had claimed they all died in the crashes. How did they survive and the Pentagon employees did not?" -- Len

Right.  I noticed you didn't provide a transcript or video of said interviews.  Because interviews with the men said by the FBI to have carried out 9/11 don't exist subsequent to 9/11, except in your mind apparently.

"You have yet" to demonstrate any interest in actually talking to people who are in a position to actually know things.  The book "Firefight" is only one small opportunity for this.  Instead, you insist on clinging to notions and concepts put forth by people who are not.

by Alan Williams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 858 comments) on Saturday, Sep 6, 2008 at 2:51:24 PM

  (0+)

I noticed you didn't provide a transcript or video of said interviews.  Because interviews with the men said by the FBI to have carried out 9/11 don't exist subsequent to 9/11, except in your mind apparently.

I posted this LONG AGO ....where was your head?

This link is SO FAMOUS, the BBC tried to apologize for having told the truth. The story you see still kicks the official bullshit theory in the nuts:

BBC: Hijack 'suspects' alive and well

"You have yet" to demonstrate any interest in actually talking to people who are in a position to actually know things

So what? What relevance do my interests have in anything? My interest is something does not --in itself --make it true or not! That's a stupid red herring and doesn't even address the issues: 

Show me 100 tons of wreckage! 

Show me HOW Flight 77 managed to crash into the Pentagon while reocrding an altitude of 273 feet. Clue: the height of the Pentagon is 71 feet. 

Show me HOW Flight 77 managed to knock over 40 foot poles from an altitude of 273 feet while on a trajectory that differed from WHATEVER hit the poles by some 20 degrees! 

You still have not shown an interest in 1) elementary logic 2) the laws of physics 3) buden of proof 

Some advise: stop trying to shift the burden of proof. Here's how it works: those who assert must prove. Bush ASSERTED a THEORY. 

Your probably is that by defending Bush, his tar baby is stuck on you. If you wish to defend Bush and his stupid theory, you are tasked with proving it! 

You cannot prove it because there is not a shred of evidence in support of it. 

You can start by producing some 100 tons of debris! 

Until you do that, I don't even take you seriously. 

Another link: 

 The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Saturday, Sep 6, 2008 at 3:46:20 PM

  (0+)

No, sorry Len. That's not a link to a transcript or interview of one of the men identified by the FBI as carrying out the attacks of 9/11. It's merely an account of someone with a similar common Arab name trying to clear his name. You're really offering a speculative report done during the first confusing days after 9/11, that was later corrected, as proof that hijackers are still alive? Does the concept of gaining more information and correcting/updating the record occupy any real estate within your mind? Has every report you've ever written been in no need of correction or updating? Are you ..... perfect? Can you .... predict the future? You really think that some large-scale crime carried out by a bunch of American Smiths and Jones wouldn't produce similar accounts of what turned out to be mis-identifications? Really?

Surely if one of the men on the FBI list was really still alive today, we'd have seen him on Arab TV somewhere, sometime since 9/11. How desirable would it be for him to clear his name, not to mention the opportunity to taunt the hated U.S. He'd be the biggest hero in town. But alas, there are no interviews, no pictures, no video of any of the men on the FBI list post-9/11, and I think you very well know it.

So, produce an interview, picture or video of one of the men on the FBI's list, and/or testimony from someone directly involved in the rescue/recovery of the Pentagon confirming there was no AA wreckage or bodies in seats, and I'll take YOU seriously.

As is, someone so allergic to simple logic may be able to seduce a relative handful of fellow deniers on the Internet, but that's as far as it will ever go. Just so you know, and I think you do, and I think you're just fine with that. You don't really want your politically motivated fantasy to ever be publicly crushed in the big bad legitimate journalistic world beyond the safe backwaters of the Internet fringe.

by Alan Williams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 858 comments) on Sunday, Sep 7, 2008 at 1:13:52 AM

  (0+)

No, sorry Len. That's not a link to a transcript or interview of one of the men identified by the FBI as carrying out the attacks of 9/11.

I never promised a transcript!

Mevertheless, the BBC interview shoots a big hole in the official story WHICH STILL lists living hijackers among those who DIED in 911. Obviously, Bush officialdom doesn't believe that they were merely 'mis-identified'. Bush officialdom STIILL believes that the 'said' hijackers were on the Flight and died --though there is NO EVIDENT TO SUPPORT THAT FAIRY TALE.

Moreover, the BBC story is consistent with the FACT that none of the 'SAID' hijackers were autopsied. The best explanation for that is: they were NOT ON THE PLANE TO BEGIN WITH.

That every hijacker said to have been on Flight 77 may still be alive is consistent with the FACT that NTBS data indicates that Flight 77 NEVER dropped below 273 feet.

Moreover, Flight 77 was not only too high to have crashed the Pentagon, it was on the WRONG TRAJECTORY to have damaged the poles which officialdom says were damaged by Flight 77. Official is either wrong or lying or both!

Here is a list of the 'suspected' hijackers according to the official, outlandish conspiracy theory:

Flight 175: Marwan Al-Shehhi, Fayez Ahmed, Mohald Alshehri, Hamza Alghamdi and Ahmed Alghamdi
Flight 11: Waleed M Alshehri, Wail Alshehri, Mohamed Atta, Abdulaziz Alomari and Satam Al Suqami
Flight 77: Khalid Al-Midhar, Majed Moqed, Nawaq Alhamzi, Salem Alhamzi and Hani Hanjour
Flight 93: Ahmed Alhaznawi, Ahmed Alnami, Ziad Jarrahi and Saeed Alghamdi

NOT ONE OF THOSE NAMES APPEAR ON THE OFFICIAL AUTOPSY LIST!

Therefore, there is no evidence that they died. There is NO EVIDENCE that they were ever on the flight to begin with. There is no evidence that the plane was hijacked.

There is, in fact, ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE to the contrary i.e, that Flight 77 did not and COULD NOT have crashed into the Pentagon. NTSB Flight Data is unmistakeable:Flight 77NEVER dropped below 273 after take off.

A Saudi Arabian aircraft pilot who was named as one of five suspects on board one of the planes that crashed into the World Trade Centre, has turned up alive and well in Morocco. The man, Waleed Al-Shehri, has told Saudi journalists in Casablanca that he had nothing to do with the attacks on New York and Washington, and had been in Morocco at the time. --Dead Saudi Hijack Suspect Resurfaces, Denies Involvement, The Daily Trust, September 24, 2001

The burden of proof is upon Bush to PROVE THAT THE 'SAID' HIJACKERS ARE DEAD! Fact is --Bush officialdom has never produced any evidence whatsoever that there were ever at any time hijackers on board Flight 77.

It's a pernicious, evil myth.

As I have challenged before:

Show me 100 tons of wreckage.

Show me an official autopsy report.

Explain how Flight 77 managed to strike the Pentagon from two directions at the same time without ever having descended below 273 feet after take off.

Surely if one of the men on the FBI list was really still alive today, we'd have seen him on Arab TV somewhere, sometime since 9/11. How desirable would it be for him to clear his name

What living hijacker DON'T do with their time now doesn't prove anything one way or the other. I suggest you take a remedial logic course.

In the meantime:

Show me an official autopsy report!

Show me HARD EVIDENCE that ANY arab died from the crash of an airliner that NEVER descended below 273 feet after take off.

I've even told you how to refute me. You don't listen. You're a slow learner. You flunk Elementary debate 101. 

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Sunday, Sep 7, 2008 at 1:59:30 AM

  (0+)

Bush officialdom told us that the 19 arab hijackers were coordinated by Bin Laden.

Again --Bush officialdom just pukes up sh*t and never backs it up. We are expected to swallow it. 

The FBI page states: "Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world."

Rex Tomb, the FBI's Chief of Investigative Publicity, is reported to have said, "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."

Another BIG HOLE in Bush's bullshit theory for which there is not a shred of evidence. 

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Sunday, Sep 7, 2008 at 2:12:45 AM

  (0+)

Well I guess any day now we'll be seeing this story or a similar one in the Times, or the Post or the Journal or on 60 mins. There's so much solid evidence and the case is quite compelling.  There might be a small issue with sourcing, but nothing we can't iron out.  What is it anyhow with those people who were there?  So what?  They were there.  Everybody's gotta be somewhere, and they happened to be there. 

Then no doubt a trial will be soon to follow.  

It's just a matter of time. 

by Alan Williams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 858 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 12:37:30 AM

  (0+)

Well I guess any day now we'll be seeing this story or a similar one in the Times, or the Post or the Journal or on 60 mins.

When I took my very first course in logic, that was the VERY FIRST FALLACY that was taught.

It was called (in that course) the APPEAL TO AUTHORITY!  The APPEAL TO AUTHORITY is often the FIRST refuge of fools and the LAST refuge of soundrels. Which one are you?

Indeed, much EVIL has been done in this world because IDIOTS believed everything that was printed in big newspapers with big presses and fancy offices.

Even more evil (it would appear) has been done because idiots BELIEVE whatever is told them by PAID AND PROFESSIONAL liars at networks that are completely compromised by advertising monies.

Yep! "Son, if it's printed in the New York Times, it must be true!" I think that sentence was current about 1900!

Lots of people were similarly fooled by the Hearst papers whose owner said: "You give me the pictures, and I'll give you the war!"

Alan ---if the big papers say its's true, then I guess, by God, I should just check my brains and the door, kiss their sorry asses and pay obeisance!  

No, thanks! 

I would like to thank you, Alan, for revealing to this forum the SOURCE of your idiocy and your persistence.

Your belief in lies, myths and propganda is now completley understandable. You got it from the 'LIBERAL MEDIA' which was for some fifty years or more demonized by the right wing only to be celebrated and CITED --under Bush --as if they were the new Ministry of Truth. I don't buy it! 

There's so much solid evidence and the case is quite compelling.

You didn't cite any of it.  But, in the end, your case, as you say, comes down to this: if FOX NEWS says it's true, then BY GOD, it's true!

There might be a small issue with sourcing, but nothing we can't iron out.

A copmuter print out of an airliner altiude at near infinitestimal 'instances' throughout the flight from take off to end and released by the NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD in response to an FOIA request is most SURELY to be discounted IF FOX, LIMBAUGH and other big media sources say is NOT official. 

But --I have a problem with that! Who made the 'media' official if the NTSB if  the OFFICIAL CORONERS REPORT IS NOT?

WHO??  WHO made that decision? Was that decision 'official'? Did Bush decree it? Was tjat decree made law?

In the meantime, Alan: read an elementary book on logic. I suspect that --in that book --you might learn a basic rule called the "principle of contradiction", basically two contradictory statements cannot both be true at the same time.

An example: Flight 77 could not possibly crash into the Pentagon and --at the same time --record an altitude of 273 feet. Impossible.

Another example: Flight 77 could not possibly knock over poles and be on a completely different trajectory and location at the same time!

Another example: Flight 77 could not possibly have been photographed (the teeny, grainy, inclusive GIF that was released) crashing into the Pentagon when --at the time --it was recorded (officially) some 273 feet up in the air AND on a completely different trajectory.

But I was SUPPOSED to believe that the grainy gif was a 757. I never believed that. It was that pic, rather, that confirmed by skepticism about 911! Whatever is in that pic, it is NOT a 757. 

I won't go into the MYRIAD of other contradictions, impossibilities and just plain bullshit that has gotten into what you consider to be the INFALLIBLE MASS MEDIA except to say that a 757 (including 77) had two engines with rotors both of which were some 9 feet or more in diameter.

TWO of them.

Now --only one rotor was recovered. It was about 3 feet in diameter. ONLY ONE!!!

Two problems: 1) it's too small to be 757'; 2) even if it were big enough, where's the OTHER rotor? 

If one believes the OFFICIAL LIE, then one would have to EXPLAIN: 

1) how one rotor dissapeared entirely. (David Copperfield, Houdini, the NYT? maybe)

2) how the remaining rotor, the rotor escaping the magic wand of Copperfield, managed to SHRINK to one third its original size!

NOW ---if you can give me a RATIONAL and CREDIBLE explanation for that, I might start taking you seriously. I might consider revising my opinion that you are among the most gullible folk I've ever met.

What is it anyhow with those people who were there?

If you are referring to 'passengers', I suggest that if Bush's THEORY cannot address that issue, the problem is with Bush's theory!

READ MY LIPS: it is the job of a theory to EXPLAIN ---NOT raise more unexplainable issues.

That's why Bush's official conspiracy is bullshit! It explained absolutley nothing and raised infinitely more questions than it explained or addressed. IT'S UTTER BULLSHIT AND CRAP!

Everybody's gotta be somewhere, and they happened to be there.

And Bush's theory does not account for them!

Then no doubt a trial will be soon to follow.

I am working to bring that about! I could prosecute this one myself. I would prefer Bugliosi do it! 

In fact, a Federal Grand Jury was convened for the purpose of investigating the capital crime of mass murders called 911. Stay tuned! Millions like me are working to put Bush himself in the dock.

It's just a matter of time.

One hopes.

by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 3:33:28 AM

  (0+)

This guy's lecturing me on logic.  Priceless!!

And he wants me to pick up a book about it, presumably one written by someone who is qualified to write about it.

But he refuses to himself pick up a book written by people who know first-hand what exactly hit the Pentagon.

Absolutely priceless.  

by Alan Williams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 858 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 12:17:46 PM

  (0+)