A Critical Review of WTC 'No-Plane' Theories

by **Starman** » Thu Oct 27, 2005 2:28 pm

"Honestly, how many more threads along this line do you think you can afford to abandon? You're going to wear out your retrenching tool like that." What the Hell, Robert? Doesn't that respone get damn close to a personal swipe? What are you in such a snoot about? Nobody wanna play with ya? Reliable information on such 'sensitive' issues as the Pentagon attack is already so confounded by a paranoid, secretive bureaucracy and a compromised, co-opted press that even minimal courtoom standards of evidence can't be met. As I see it, the burden isn't to conclusively prove what DID happen, but to analyze what the available information shows most likely couldn't have happened (according to the 'official' explanation, etc.) Whatever many threads, along this line or others, I can "afford" to abandon is really NONE of yer concern. As should be self-evident and according to simple civil courtesy, I'll respond when, if and as I have time, energy and interest. I'm not esp. trying to convince anyone of anything here in particular -- I weighed in to share my opinion, most notably acknowledging the difficulty in finally coming to terms with the conclusion of an utterly appalling degree of crime, treason, abuse of power, fraud and corruption etc. that the present government and PTB are involved in, and as evidenced by their apparant complicity in 911 -- a point which several folks such as AL made, and which I could relate to. My personal observations re: about how improbable it is for a huge airliner with several hundred foot wingspan and 40 ft. tail essentially disappearing into a 20 foot hole (the wings and tail supposedly politely folding-up and following the fussilage in) -- the distance between the underslung left and right engines greater than 20 ft also, and the entire plane mostly (and conveniently) burning-up while sufficient human remains allowed for almost all victims to be accounted for by DNA testing -- along with the complete failure of officialdom to release corraborating video evidence, contradictory witness statements about what they actually 'saw', lack of debris on the lawn/helo pad outside the Pentagon, and odd anomalies re: 'parts' actually identified -- puts sufficient doubt in my mind that flight 77 actually hit the Pentagon -- perhaps something like 40-60 percent against. I don't completely dismiss that Flt. 77 MIGHT have hit the Pentagon -- I'm just not absolutely convinced it did. My doubt that whatever hit the Pentagon was actually piloted by Islamic Arabic Terrorist extremists is closer to 90 or 95+ percent. The 'story' just doesn't add up. BUT: In perspective, I fail to see what benefit there is to obsessing over this issue. Perhaps a year or two ago when the event was more topical and I had more time to devote to online discussions I might have acceeded to your 'request' for debate -- But my attention has since shifted -- my opinion on particular details doesn't esp. bear on the bigger issue of some high degree of compartmentalized official/military culpability w/r/t what seems most likely an inside job, as reflected in the defensive non-response, the convenient multiple war-gaming that provided cover (and which has never been officially acknowledged), and subsequent 911 Commission whitewash/cover-up in which everyone in a position of responsibility was effectively exonnerated -- with revised and contradictory timelines, 'lost' flight controller's transcripts, and other manufactured and/or recontextualized 'evidence' etc., thereby inducing or compelling degrees of complicity by those in a position to refute the official findings -- AND which event provided the necessary catalyst pretext for attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan (the latter already pre-planned and announced to various International 'allies' in the summer of '01). To reiterate -- I merely asked for some feedback on how well-known it was that the Pentagon was undergoing renovation, since I hadn't seen that particular topic addressed. To the extent that any Terrorists SHOULD have known and planned their attack more carefully, this argues against the official thesis that Arabs were piloting whatever hit the Pentagon. Thanks for the answer. Starman

by **michael meiring** » Thu Oct 27, 2005 2:39 pm

robertdreed. Quote, ''I'm still waiting for the "no-planers" to argue facts, instead of spinning hypothetical analogies, mischaracterizing the views of their opponents with false dichotomies, and persisting in their transparent evasions. I will not engage in conspiracy theory peddling, i am here to hear facts instead of ''spinning hyperthetical analogies' Can you therefore explain to me how 9 of the alleged 19 'saudi' hijackers have turned up alive and well? How do YOU know they were saudi? you must be peddling hyperthetical analogies as even robert mueller (head of fbi) stated that in all likelihood the 'hijackers' used stolen ID's, given that you exept everything from the official conspirathists, who where they? How can YOU except that the jet fuel brought the towers down? The debris was blocked from investigation and shipped to the far east? YOU have no evidence to support your outlandish claims and analogies supporting your jet fuel hypothisicies? Quote robertdreed, '''''Anyone attempting to honestly and competently construct a historical narrative needs to expect the inevitability of challenges to the version of events that they present, and to be prepared to defend their claims with as much logical coherence and evidential support as they can pull together.'''' ONE WONDERS WHEN CHALLENGED TO THE EVENTS PEDDLED BY OFFICIALDOM, THAT THEY KEEP BLOCKING INVESTIGATIONS BY INDEPENDANTS. WHY HAS THE CIA BLOCKED INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE PUT OPTIONS? they dont seem to prepared to stand up to the challenges for investigations rather than blockings into put options. Quote robertdreed '''No amount of high moral dudgeon, polemical rhetoric, or thundering condemnations of villainy and treachery is capable of adding a single iota of credibility to a set of allegations that lacks a logically consistent framework, or to a narrative of events woven of fantasy and supposition rather than a foundation of facts.'' Excatly, couldant have put it better myself. ie, 19 saudis did 9/11, er um, er, 9 have since turned up alive and well. the whole official explanation is riddled with events woven of fantasy and supposition rather than a foundation of facts. Just run through for me the official vesrsion of fantasy and supposition regarding the collapse of WTC7 again would you old chap?

by **robertdreed** » Thu Oct 27, 2005 5:19 pm

First: Starman, I wasn't singling you out with my last comment...just addressing a mentality, is all. It's a whole lot easier to fix on a few little details that don't seem right about Flight 77 than it is to construct a plausible narrative of how a different aircraft got substituted for it. For one thing, that scenario, you have to account for two aircraft, not one. For another, ascribing to the No-planer hypothesis implicitly entails telling hundreds of people who witnessed the event that they saw something completely different than what they saw, because you read an argument on a computer monitor and squinted at a few selected photographic reproductions that are prone to all sorts of optical illusions, notably foreshortening of the far-field. I've seen the same photos too. Having been to the Pentagon on several occasions, I can tell you that the photos don't do it justice. It's a uniquely huge building that facilitates optical illusions in a way that works similarly to the specially constructed eye-fooling rooms in some interactive museums. All I can say is, F=MA. Those wings still had a lot of fuel in them. That plane hit head-on into a massive reinforced masonry wall at an estimated 20% over its rated top speed- something like 500mph. Big planes get off the ground for a reason, they're mostly hollow and made out of aluminum. And the reason the bodies were left in identifiable condition is 1) they were in the most protected part of the plane; and 2) the standard for "positively identifiable" human remains these days has benefitted remarkably from DNA sampling. A little bit of humanburger is sufficient. As for michael meiring: I see you've displaced the focus of your arguments to another set of events besides Flight 77. Those are all different cases. I'm still monitoring the data on them. I'm awaiting something like a quorum of expert and professional opinion on some of those events. I know better than to demand or expect a consensus. But a few people who know what they're looking at and won't be told off will make all the difference in several of those cases, if there's some funny business going on. But I can't be talked into concluding anything without hearing the experts debating and dialoguing, and maybe asking a very occasional question. I think the weakest discrepancy you brought up this time around was the "9 hijackers still alive." Of course there was ID theft, of course there are a zillion people named Yaser Hamdi, or whoever, you know, Yassir Hamdei, from Casablanca to Manila to Vancouver. I'd expect no less... Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 10/27/05 3:52 pm

by **Iroquois** » Thu Oct 27, 2005 6:24 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Reliable information on such 'sensitive' issues as the Pentagon attack is already so confounded by a paranoid, secretive bureaucracy and a compromised, co-opted press that even minimal courtoom standards of evidence can't be met.<hr></blockquote> Well put, Starman. I'll even take that one further if I may, that the evidence does not meet the minimal standards battlefield intelligence (Not that I'd know from firsthand experience, but I infer they are much lower.) would need to draw any firm conclusions other than the official story is likely not the whole story. I agree too, the most unavoidable evidence for that is that the attack was on the newly upgraded wedge and the maneuver that used to hit it. I certainly would not want to discourage anyone else from investigating this issue further, but I'm resigned to say that They did too good a job of obfuscating this one, not unlikely because it was in their own house. And, this is from someone who'll happily argue controlled demolition 'til the cows come home.

by **robertdreed** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 12:02 am

figuring out who's zoomin' who on that Pentagon attack would be to order an investigation into the sequestering of the video records, on up the chain of command. Because it does sound to me as if that happened- and to me, that's an indication that someone isn't dealing for real. If usable video footage exists, do I think that there's anything on there that will show anything different other than Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon? No. But- there may be close-ups of the cockpit, showing the face of the person piloting the plane. That in turn might show a close-up of the facial expressions of those in the cockpit, perhaps giving a clear indication of whether they're controlling the plane or whether the plane is controlling them. It may even show that there's nobody awake at the wheel, so to speak. Such evidence may in fact confirm the dramatic but relatively mundane, naturalistic Official Version. Even given that case, that leads to another question- why work people? What's the purpose of allowing speculation to run rampant in the absence of verifiable information, if conclusive evidence is available to lay suspicions to rest? On another trail of inquiry- who was on the ground, collecting/confiscating the video evidence? Who told them to do it? Was there multi-agency cooperation? For that matter, where did the buck stop? Who ultimately ordered that course of action? Was it a snap decision? Why the insistence on "faith-based" acceptance of the Government-Sourced Mass Media Consensus by the American public at large, as if we were all children requiring no more of an explanation than "because I said so?" These people are supposed to be public servants. It's supposed to be a noble calling, not a hierachy of bureaucratic fiefdoms run by petty tyrants. Anyone in American public office who thinks itheir job routine necessitates treating their fellow adults like children is subverting the social contract of government. And if historical experience is any guide, their character is criminally corrupt. If there's a conspiratorial plot surrounding the 9-11 Pentagon attack, the thread that needs to be unravelled is the who/what/where/when/why of an organized effort to hide video evidence by the government that's supposed to be working on out behalf.

by **michael meiring** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 10:00 am

robertdreed Registered Member Posts: 698 (10/27/05 3:19 pm) Reply QUOTE ''''I think the weakest discrepancy you brought up this time around was the "9 hijackers still alive." Of course there was ID theft, of course there are a zillion people named Yaser Hamdi, or whoever, you know, Yassir Hamdei, from Casablanca to Manila to Vancouver. I'd expect no less... ''''' Within hours of the attacks, a photofit ID was flashed on TV screens around the world (it seemed every 10 minutes for weeks on end), i cannot seriously believe that you never saw the photo's on any TV or newspaper. When the 9 alive 'hijackers' saw their profiles as hijackers then the scam was blown open. It seeems you are implying that millions of 'john smiths' thought it was them and stepped forward to say they did not do it. If for example robertdreed was named as a hijacker and it had your PHOTO and ID on the list, and that photo was flashed on every tv and newspaper, you dont think other robertdreed's would come forward do you if it wasant their image on the worlds most evil list? Are you saying you have NEVER EVER seen the photos produced within hours of the attacks of the hijackers by the FBI? IF thats my weakest descrepency as you state, its no wonder you do not address the other descepencies. robertdreed Registered Member Posts: 703 (10/27/05 10:02 pm) Reply QUOTE, ''''''''''''''If usable video footage exists, do I think that there's anything on there that will show anything different other than Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon? No. But- there may be close-ups of the cockpit, showing the face of the person piloting the plane. That in turn might show a close-up of the facial expressions of those in the cockpit, perhaps giving a clear indication of whether they're controlling the plane or whether the plane is controlling them. It may even show that there's nobody awake at the wheel, so to speak.''''''''''''''''''''''' Robert, It has been pointed out to you numerous times that the FBI went around and confiscated all cctv footage, from gas stations to grocery stores. If such footage proves the flight 77 official conspiracy theory, why are they confiscating it? Our opinions on the events are so far apart, you seem to be clinging to all officildoms interpretations of events, no matter how ridiculous and fantasy riddled they are, despite hundreds of anomalous evidence to the contrary. I prefer to look at it with an open mind, ie The PHOTO fit ID released of the named 'perpetrators' released by the FBI. I see 9 turned up alive and well, so theres a resonable doubt that the named saudis is a hoax. You cling to the fantasy of theres millions of 'atta's' despite it not being there PHOTO IN THE OFFICIAL ID RELEASE OF NAMED HIJACKERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I look at the 6 foot hole in the pentagon directly after impact and think' how can a plane fit through there at 500mph? you take the officialdom 'sausage skin and black pudding' theory view of events. I ask where did all the bodies and body parts go? You seem to take the evaporated into thin air stance!!!! I ask how did the black box evaporate into thin air? I ask where did the wreckage go? It seems reasonable doubt that a hijacker with a few hours at flight school could produce aviation 'sukaharas' and flying 5 feet above the lawn before impact, iask for the cctv footage, but thats been confiscated. I ask where was the defence in the 45 minutes after the attacks on the towers, and then the explosion at the pentagon. the usa is under attack, two buildings down, and i am led to believe nothing is scrambled ( oh the scrambled eggs officialdom theory now), and then 45 minutes later a plane goes into the pentagon, i mean come on man, wake up. There are hundreds more anomilies/discepencies with officialdoms conspiracy theory reg 9/11. Remember these people have started a war on lies many times before, do you think they could lie over somthing like this?

by **robertdreed** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 12:16 pm

If it helps to clarify matters- I don't own a television, MM. Actually, I bought one at the thrift store a couple of months ago, but the plug still hasn't quite made it to the AC outlet in my apartment. Nice little TV- a screen about the size of a postcard. So 9 of the FBIs photo-dentified hijackers have since turned up alive, eh? I'm surprised none of them have a book out. And no speaking tours, either. You know MM, I was attempting to indicate in my earlier message that as for most of the other "alternative hypotheses" floating around in regard to the 9-11 attacks- remotely controlled jetliners, planted explosives in the WTC, Flight 93 shoot-down, etc.- I don't find those notions to be nearly as preposterous as the "no-planer" rumors that persist in making the rounds. I haven't screened enough info to grant those posited scenarios anything like a full measure of credence- in regard to the technical questions in particular, I'm still scoring the debates- but I'm still willing to consider the validity of the hypotheses, and keep the brief open in anticipation of new findings and testimony. So jeez, can I get a break? Or is your continued chiding tone an indication that you'll only be reassured of my integrity and sound judgement if I grant my wilingness to buy into every last dissenting hypothesis presented as an alternative to the official narrative of events? ( Unless I'm misreading you, your personal position is that you haven't yet found an explanation clashing with the Official Version that you don't grant full credence. ) Because I think the no-planer stuff is rubbish. Think of me what you will, for asserting that judgement. Over to you, michael meiring: "If such footage proves the flight 77 official conspiracy theory, why are they confiscating it?" Because they like a good food fight?

by **robertdreed** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 12:30 pm

"If such footage proves the flight 77 official conspiracy theory, why are they confiscating it?" I think the explanation below provides a well-articulated set of plausible answers to your question: The "no plane" theories discredit 9/11 skepticism and distract from evidence of complicity. "No plane at the Pentagon" has been the most popular hoax, and has been promoted the longest (since a few weeks after 9/11). The eyewitness testimony and the physical evidence disproves the "Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon" claims. Hundreds of people saw the plane from numerous vantage points. Photos of the impact zone show how the plane struck the first and second floors of the building. There are photos of plane debris in the wreckage. Some websites try to make the issue of official complicity dependent on the "no plane" myth (some state there was complicity, others oppose the idea), but this is a red herring tactic. It is a big clue that the media efforts to discredit 9/11 skeptics focus on this claim (the absence of Flight 77) while ignoring evidence proven beyond reasonable doubt. Some probable disinformation efforts promoting hoaxes allegedly proving complicity focus on "no plane" and ignore other claims that actually have solid evidence (why the trillion dollar Air Force did not defend its headquarters). None of the "no Boeing" theorists have explained why the perpetrators would have risked certain exposure by a bystander capturing video of something that wasn't a Boeing 757. Video footage from nearby surveillance cameras was immediately seized by the FBI. Workers at a nearby hotel did get to see their film (prior to its impoundment) and did not report seeing anything other than a plane hitting the Pentagon. Keeping the film footage secret allows extreme speculation to flourish, which serves the interests of the plotters. A growing number of 9/11 skeptics have realized the "no 757" story was spread to discredit / distract us. It's a tempting theory in some ways, but if you trace the story back, there's no reality to it. Photoshopped images, claims by anonymous people on the web, a blatant disregard of all of the evidence -- these and more mental gymnastics are necessary to believe "no 757." No judge, newspaper editor or political activist can use this sort of non-existent evidence to justify any of the "no plane" theories. "No Planes" has been the most effective means to discredit issues of complicity inside the Beltway, both for the overwhelming majority who vote against Bush and the high level military and civilian officials who had too much personal experience with plane parts -- or friends who saw the plane and/or plane parts -- to buy this hoax. There will never be complete agreement in the 9/11 truth movement given the widely varying quality of standards used by different people, the complete lack of peer review, and the presence of hoaxers trying to keep people off balance. It's more productive to persuade people outside the "truth movement" about the best evidence, and caution them about the hoaxes. There is zero evidence for any of the "no planes" claims for the Pentagon. All of the publications, websites, etc that argue for this use crappy sources and / or distortions of the evidence. This hoax shows the limitations of doing research on the web about highly controversial topics with enormous political stakes. While the internet, and search engines, are an incredible invention that allows access to a huge collection of knowledge, they are also imperfect means of discovering the truth due to the ease that fake websites can be created and the reality that not all of human experience is archived in google.com With the Pentagon crash, some of the witnesses did tell the media that they saw the plane, but many more were not interviewed. Therefore, instant experts writing about this issue from several time zones away who ignore the need for some on-the-ground investigation (and ignore the fact that all of the photos do indeed show a 757 sized impact zone on the outside of the Pentagon) are likely to make serious mistakes. But even just using the media quoted comments, the fact of the plane crash becomes obvious and irrefutable. Some of those promoting the no plane stories insult the eyewitnesses by claiming they are unreliable, had a poor view of the events, or are in great disagreement (when they were not). It is interesting that there weren't any witnesses who saw a truck bomb, a missile, a global hawk, an F-15 or a flying saucer piloted by giant lizards. Some people got a very good view of it, others had a brief glimpse. The no Boeing stories imply that the witnesses across Arlington County, especially those on the roads nearby the Pentagon, were part of the coverup, which is a great technique for alienating people in the Washington region. The people who saw the plane told their families, friends, co-workers, etc about the fact they'd seen a major, shocking, historical event (wouldn't you if you saw something like that?). The"no plane" claims distract from evidence of complicity that is "hidden in plain sight" -- the Pentagon was struck in the nearly empty, recently reconstructed and strengthened sector. The alleged hijacker flunked out of flight school and even an expert pilot would not have chosen to fly the plane in a 270 degree spiral to hit the side of the least populated part of the Pentagon. Why would al-Qaida perform this bizarre flight maneuver to reduce damage the building. Who would have chosen to fly in a spiral around the building to hit the one place that would minimize casualties while maximizing the "shock and awe" of the event? Was the plane guided by remote control technology (which is commercially available)? Why did the Trillion Dollar Air Force not defend its own headquarters, even after the second plane crash into the World Trade Center? The fighter planes that were scrambled from the Norfolk Virginia area after the WTC was hit, before the Pentagon strike, flew east over the Atlantic Ocean instead of northwest toward DC -- an "error" that has not been explained but could be related to "wargames" that apparently inserted fake blips into radar screens. Perhaps a future, authentic, independent investigation with subpoena power will examine the role of the war game exercises in confusing the military response to the hijackings. What or Where? redirecting the 9/11 truth movement The "no 757" story has been effective at discrediting 9/11 skepticism, especially in the DC area. It is not a coincidence that the defenders of the official "surprise attack" claim focus mostly on the "no plane at the Pentagon" story in their quest to discredit 9/11 skeptics. Many sites that debunk the "no plane" claims make the issue of complicity dependent on whether the "no plane" claim is true or false. This is a false dichotomy -- that evidence for a large jet at the Pentagon therefore exonerates the government of complicity -- that avoids the issues of the NORAD, et al wargames, the failure to defend DC, the way the plane targeted the nearly empty part of the building. The no-plane claims have distracted from what is 100% provable -- WHERE the Pentagon was hit: the nearly empty, recently reconstructed and strengthened sector. If the plane had hit any other part, thousands would probably have been killed instead of a little over 100 on the ground. This fact is accepted by the media, and is a clue "hidden in plain sight" as to the level of complicity within the Bush administration. WHERE the Pentagon was hit is strong evidence for official complicity. , since a flight school drop out would not have chosen (nor been able) to fly a plane into the mostly empty sector of the Pentagon. Hani Hanjour, a flight school drop out, clearly could not have performed this extremely difficult flying maneuver. While it is possible that a Saudi or Egyptian air force expert pilot could have been substituted for Mr. Hanjour, a terrorist would not have chosen to hit the Pentagon in the one way that minimized damage and casualties. This fact suggests that 9/11 was an "inside job," arranged by a faction in the US military. Those who are inclined to invent a statistic to explain this surreal "coincidence" should realize that the odds were not one in five -- but virtually impossible (and beyond statistical explanations). Dov Zakheim, the PNAC member who was Pentagon Comptroller (the money man) from 2001 through early 2004, came from a military contractor that developed remote control systems for planes (System Planning Co.) The purpose of "no planes" is to protect the plotters Lots of military people saw the plane and wreckage, and making the conspiracy dependent on the no plane hoax gets Bush and Cheney off the hook. The issue is not what the peons (us) think about these issues -- the real issue is what the military and civilian leadership in DC think about these issues. No plane speculations and hoaxes steer people away from real evidence of complicity such as how the plane was steered into the nearly empty part of the Pentagon and the role of the wargames in paralyzing the defense of Washington. Cui bono - who benefits? How long would Cheney and Bush be in office if the rest of the military thought that the PNAC gang allowed 9/11 to happen -- or deliberately flew Flight 77 into the Pentagon via some form of remote control? The fact that "No Plane" is the cudgel being used against the 9/11 truth movement proves it is a counterproductive strategy for exposing real evidence of complicity. Whether these hoaxes are coming from deliberate disinformation agents, the aggressively naive, the gullible or the sloppy is not relevant, since the ONLY evidence for "no plane" is altered and misleading perspective photos. There is NO evidence that even comes close to the standard of proof needed to convince a newspaper editor or a judge. No planes anywhere on 9/11? Due to the success of the "no plane at Pentagon" claim, several successor claims of "no planes" were floated, but none were as popular as the original. These efforts include the "webfairy" theory that there wasn't a plane at the World Trade Center north tower (even though the photos of the hole in the tower clearly show the impact of the wings), that the plane that hit the South Tower was some sort of military plane with "pods" that were firing missiles at the building (the only evidence for the "missile" claim is blurry low resolution video that could easily have been altered with software), and even a claim that there wasn't a plane crash in Pennsylvania. The "no plane at the towers" campaign didn't fly, partially because the idea for the missile masked by a King Kong sized hologram of a plane at the North Tower is ridiculous. So the next version of "no plane" was a claim that the plane that hit the South Tower was swapped in mid-flight with military plane that crashed into the tower, carrying a "pod" under the plane that fired a missile at the building just before crashing into it. Variations on the "pod" is that it was a bomb or perhaps a remote controlled flight system. (Of course, none of the pod people can explain why the military conspirators wouldn't have merely placed these devices in the plane itself, or why the plane would be unable to penetrate the towers without first firing a missile. It is amazing how much time can be spent refuting this endless flood of nonsense, which is probabaly the purpose behind this propaganda.) The "pod" plane claims have not had substantial impact, since they are strange, based on fuzzy pictures and have been clearly refuted by the 9/11 truth movement - the pod is merely a carefully chosen photo of the normal "fairing" bulge between the wing and the fuselage. (It would not be surprising to see "no building" theories as part of this information warfare attack.) Some of these claims are probably disinformation to smother actual evidence with distracting nonsense, but some are possibly created (or at least echoed) by people without fact-checking abilities. These increasingly wilder stories make truth seeking far more difficult. These smokescreens obscure public examination of a large body of incriminating evidence that is proven beyond reasonable doubt plus other evidence that has good standards but is not totally proven... Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 10/28/05 2:00 pm

by **nomo** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 1:09 pm

"This hoax shows the limitations of doing research on the web about highly controversial topics with enormous political stakes. While the internet, and search engines, are an incredible invention that allows access to a huge collection of knowledge, they are also imperfect means of discovering the truth due to the ease that fake websites can be created and the reality that not all of human experience is archived in google.com." Amen. -- When all else fails... panic.

by **michael meiring** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 2:30 pm

Robert, At least we have cleared up your confusion regarding 'millions' of aftabs coming forward to say they did not do it. It pleases me that you have not had a tv, or read newspapers. Still it seems you doubt that 9 have turned up alive and well, why, because they have not had a book out!!! or been on a speaking tour!!!!? It seems we do agree on one thing, alternative conspiracy theories, it bothers me not one iota if it was a missile, a piece of cheese, or a gust of wind with sausage skins which caused the pentagon damage. All i am bothered with is the official version of events. If officialdom says these are the 19 hijackers, and 9 are alive and well, its no point me going of speculating, theorising who they were, i dont know. The same with the is it a plane, is it a bird or is it a missile claptrap. Officialdom is telling me its flight 77, so i, along with millions of others are saying, wheres your evidence? wheres the bodies, wheres all the cctv images gone and why, wheres the wreckage, wheres the black box? etc etc etc, its no use me fantasysing about, well the black box developed the same consistensy as a black pudding and the heat caused it to change shape and become a gust of wind, and it blew away. I dont need other explanations, i am only concerened with the evidence, or rather lack of it, put out by official conspiracy theorists. If someone says a crime was done this way, well wheres the evidence and does it stand up to scrutiny. nowhere in courts of law do defense lawyers, or lawyers who know what they are doing ever start to hypothersice about alternant methods of a crime. If the government says i knifed mrs jones to death, then i would expect to see a knife wound. If theres no wounds i would not have to explain oh i think it was posioning because of this, or i think it was a heart attack, or i think the government gamma rayed her, its ridiculous to expect so. They have confiscated all cctv coverage because they like a good fight?!!!!!!!! are you serious, we have some atm footage with two dates of atta, released 'lonking' him to 9/11? we have hazy images from luton on a mythical train linking the 7/7 bombers. why release this and not hold that back for a good fight? We had police 'witnesses' saying de mendez had a big thick coat on, we had the police issuing statements that menzes hurdled the ticket barriers, guess what, no cctv footage released to back up these lies, lol. They cannot release things that did not happen. I happen to agree with you that all these other was it a bird, was it a plane, was it a missile are all intentionally done to confuse and muddy the waters. We should all just concentrate on the official version of fantasy and fairystory reg 9/11, and ask to see the facts/evidence. If the evidence turns into a sausage skin, black pudding, pancaked syrup or scrambled eggs explanation then it needs challenging, thats all im doing. regards, michael.

by **robertdreed** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 3:43 pm

You're confusing cases again, Michael. The valid points you may be able to raise about one case don't add any support to your claims about a different case. They have confiscated all cctv coverage because they like a good fight?!!!!!!!!  Yes, quite right. Although I think it would please them even more if there was no fight at all, due to everyone in the 9-11 truth movement falling for the patently ludicrous claims of the no-planers. But, failing that result, they're no doubt amused by the schisms in the movement resulting from an argument built largely from imaginative suppositions attempting to stand in for the absence of evidence- adebate that could be settled conclusively by video footage that they have, but won't release. Please consider the points made in the lengthy message I cut and pasted into my previous post. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 10/28/05 2:50 pm

by **michael meiring** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 3:58 pm

robert it claims in that article that there is photos of wreckage. I notice there is an absence of a link to go with this claim. As i have been and no doubt millions of others too for such pictures, is it possible to supply the link to the photos, if its the usual pepsi can photo please dont bother linking it, many thanks in advance, michael. With regards, that article seems like a lot of hot air, maybe the link with the aforementioned photos of 'wreckage' will convince me and 253 members on this board otherwise.

by **robertdreed** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 4:37 pm

Michael, I'll get you the complete article with the photos. However, I'd like to make two points in advance: 1) I don't think that the photos are critical to refuting the no-plane allegations. The crucial evidence is found in the abundant record of firsthand eyewitness testimony, some of which is also recorded on the page that I'll link. 2) In contrast to the misleading tight shots taken with telephoto lenses that are featured on the no-planer websites, the collection of photos included in the link is the biggest I've seen, and it provides the widest range of views, and the best panoramic photos. But even that collection of photos still don't do justice to the scale of the building. Having actually been to the Pentagon on several occasions- my Dad used to work there, 32 years ago- I've walked across the same area depicted in the photos. I have a firsthand recollection of roughly how huge the Pentagon actually is- the largest office building in the world. None of the photos that I've seen provide an accurate idea of the sheer size of the building. Therefore, I don't think that it's possible to get an accurate idea of the size of either the Pentagon wall or the size of the hole in its side, simply from looking at photos. No matter how long you look. Measurements were taken of the impact hole in the Pentagon wall. They're given in the text portion of the site. Lastly, I think that anyone who browses a selection of photo links depicting the impact hole and crash damage on the Pentagon wall and then pronounces themselves qualified to contradict the detailed testimonies provided by the firsthand eyewitnesses to the crash has owls in their attic. link: <a href="http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html#jokes">www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html#jokes</a> more photos- <a href="http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/bluehi.html">911research.wtc7.net/pent...luehi.html</a> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 10/28/05 3:10 pm

by **michael meiring** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 5:55 pm

Robert, the article to the link says it all for me, oilempire joke html. why are you peddling me spittle from a robinowitz site? we covered this fraudster a few days ago. Where are the plane parts? seats? bodies/parts etc? i dont want to see photos of a building smoking and full of foam. wheres the impact marks from the wings of the plane? i guess i'll have to wait for the declassification in 2170 eh? I see a perfect lawn, i see 4 wheels, and i see smoke and foam of a building on fire? i dont see wreckage of seats, and large plane parts, or bodies or limbs etc, there seems to be an absence of luggage from the passengers, i mean its almost as though someones put 4 wheels on the lawn and said heres the wreckage from a plane. And i am expected to believe a black box could not survive that. please dont send me any more disinfo from robinowitz and his ilk or his oil empire jokes sites in future when responding to serious requests for information.

by **proldic** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 7:45 pm

Featuring investigator William Grosshandler <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"> <a href="http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf">wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1C...Towers.pdf</a>

A Critical Review of WTC 'No-Plane' Theories

RobertDreed sed ...

okay here we go.

reply

Re: Starman said...

the key to the Pentagon mystery...

Where have you been Robert?

Re: Where have you been Robert?

To expand on that notion..

Re: To expand on that notion..

cleared up

on having ones ducks in a row

photos please

Re: photos please

a joke

NIST Report

Who is online