63 versus 11

How were the remains of so many passengers able to be recovered as claimed, but so few pieces of plane debris are seen inside?

More...

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2005/12/63-versus-11.html

passengers didn't. (One pictures brave technicians rushing into the
flames with tweezers and evidence bags.)

you believe in miracles?

that really doesn't make much sense.

is if the plane melted, where are the pools of melted metal?

than a big chunk of meat. It is not the temperature as much is it the amount of time.

and how come not one photograph of any of the more than 200 seats on the plane?

I haven't read any accounts of the responders so I don't know what they saw. As for the pictures, do you really think that every picture taken on scene is on the internet?

and funny that tons of pics were taken inside the building and no pools of molten metal are seen, so few pieces of what may be plane debris seen and yet 63 passengers bodies were said to be recovered!

The "official" story is SO ABSURD!!! How can you believe it???

I personally know someone who was working at the Pentagon and say the aircraft hit. He is a naval aviator and I trust what he says.

The simple fact of the the matter is the vast majority of the witnesses saw an airliner.

then the witnesses and your friend would have thought they'd seen an airliner.

Btw, has your "friend" been interviewed anywhere about the crash?

"The simple fact of the the matter is the vast majority of the witnesses saw an airliner."

WTF? What is your source for this statement? I don't think we know that at all.

please tell me exactly what happened please.

then that proves Flight 77 crashed at the Pentagon?

explain what happened - which certainly leaves open the possibility that you simply don't understand what you are looking at.

The eyewitnesses are key to me - explain away the eyewitnesses.

yet who got convicted and is on death row right now?

Go look at my Flight 77 witnesses and theories page.

would seem to support the official story - certainly the vast majority of the accounts would lead one to belief that a boeing 757 hit the building.
Certainly no reports of missiles or A3's or global hawks. You convinced me.

Stop evading the point - at least the Peterson prosecutors presented a reasonable theory as to how the murder was committed. You are obviously unwilling to even attempt even that. It raises an interesting question - how is it that the evidence is so conclusive that the official story is wrong yet at the same time so inconclusive that you are unable to determine what happened? Perhaps you don't understand what you are looking at?

witness testimony is the least reliable. Why do you put so much stock in it? My Penta-Lawn 2000! page makes fun of some of the witness accounts! I mean if you believe so much in eyewitnesses, the you must believe in UFO's, Bigfoot, and the Lockness Monster, right?

Go back and read the witness accounts, very few of them actually describe that they saw an AA 757 and it's only logical to assume that if the gov't faked the plane crash, they'd have their own witnesses out there telling everybody what they saw. I mean one witness says he saw the faces of the passengers in through the windows of a plane said to be traveling at 530mph! Boy, that witness has great eyes!!!

If you had a global hawk painted to look like an AA plane going past you at 530 mph, do you think you could recognize it? What if you saw a hologram, would you know it was a hologram and not a real plane?

I don't know what really crashed there, but physics tells me what didn't.

To convict the BFEE don't you need some evidence to charge them with? Why do you bother if the question is unanswerable?

what evidence do I not have to charge them with?

then how can you prove that the BFEE attacked the Pentagon? What crime are you going to charge them with? What you are saying is that you have questions about the official account but nothing to prove what really happened. If this is the case, what does Bush have to worry about?

If it's proven Flight 77 didn't crash there, that's enough to charge them with treason, wouldn't you agree?

They would simply say that the investigators were incompetent and they have no idea what happened. Can you prove that the investigators did a white wash on the explicit orders of the White House? I didn't think so.

Our gov't said Flight 77 crash there and even spent taxpayer money on a report explaining what happened to the Pentagon after it crashed there and even told us they found Flight 77's black boxes and passengers there. Are you trying to tell me that if we prove Flight 77 didn't crash there that doesn't implicate our same gov't with this conspiracy???

hit the Pentagon, you will never be able to prove conspiracy? Unless you prove that it was not flight77 there will lots of room for doubt. Because no matter what you say there is plenty of evidence that the official story could be correct: eye witness accounts, the light poles, human remains, 757 engines and landing gear inside the building to name but a few. Government witnesses would include the eyewitnesses, first responders and the ASCE engineers that examined the building - what do you have to counter all that? A handful of ambiguous statements from eyewitnesses and a lot of amateur analysis by internet "experts". Not a single professional engineering and scientific organization questions the official story. Look at all the past threads in this forum and try to imagine such evidence in a court of law. You need a true smoking gun and you don't have one.

1) Eye witnesses are the least reliable evidence, such as the ones the say the plane hit the ground before the building!

2) Some light poles were knocked down the WRONG WAY! And it's suspicious that wings that flew in at 530 mph would slice the top off AND then knock down the whole pole. The Poles where most likely rigged.

3) Human remains??? Did you not read my blog and the start of this thread?

4) Engines? EnginE at best. Even if those parts are from a 757 engine, they were small enough to easily be plantable.

5) You need to prove to me that landing gear pic was taken at the Pentagon.

Listen to yourself. Metal melts faster than meat.

For fucks sake, contribute something snd stop trying to retard the people who are actually putting an effort in to prove the culpability of 911 one way or the other.

You may think them misguided or 'harming the cause', but every little bit counts. Every person, however loopy who does not believe the official story is a tiny brick in the wall. Every way-out theory could influence some nutter. That nutter might vote.

Stop taking a myopic, short term view.Be prepared to sit back and wait for the whatevers to come home to roost.(Can't think for the life of me which birds they were) Stop trying to play the devil's advocate, cos you are not good at it. Above all, every voice of dissent over the offical 911 theory is valuable. Don't try to silence them.

PS. No insincere 'Welcome to DU's tolerated'.

if you (or in this case the OP) had taken the time to do some basic research, it becomes very clear how hard it is to burn a human body into nothingness. Take a look at the time and temperatures required for cremation as a start.

But as the rest of your post indicates, research and facts are not the issue here, are they? The properer attitude and bias are all that is needed to be welcomed into the community of 9/11 doubters. If you can't even articulate what really happened well no big deal - we all know it was the BFEE and the rest is just inconvenient details.

My world is not faith based like yours - I need more than a conviction "that of course Bush did it!"

Here is your opportunity to add something positive - tell me what happened at the Pentagon at 9/11. It can't be that hard - if the evidence so clearly shows that the official story is wrong then it must also clearly show what did happen. Why is it that all these experts who can divine internet pictures and videos to conclusively prove that the official story is wrong are unable to use their prodigious talents to articulate the truth?

but what constitutes "remains" in your opinion? How much has to be left?

No, just kidding!

>>but what constitutes "remains" in your opinion? How much has to be left?<<

The littlest speck that contains DNA.

(ok, I know you're setting me up for your next question, let's hear it.)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

if I remember correctly

the rest are from the outside. Even the two in the C Ring are considered outside of the building.

Funny such few plane debris inside, yet so many passenger bodies recovered inside as claimed!

plane part inside?

you would know.

The problem is simple, you can't seem to count past eleven.

Do you really expect people to buy into there are only eleven plane part visible in the photos you posted. Please. Thanks for the giggles. Bye

before you post stuff that my blog ALREADY answers.

The whole premise is ridiculous. You have no clue how many plane parts were actually in the Pentagon, so the ratio could be 63 to 10,000 for all you know.

posting anymore about this.

with the Sandia video is that it stops short of actually showing us what happened after the flighter jet hit the block of concrete.
It does clearly show the wings and vertical stabilizer going foward though.

because even some 9/11 skeptics have even used it to try to explain why there is no 757 at the Pentagon.

and how in the heck did this survive:




Over 200 seats in a Boeing 757 and not one has been photographed at the Pentagon, yet 63 passengers were supposedly covered. Hmmmm.

The perspective is good because it doesn't have the vagaries of; video questions, plane questions, missile question, generator questions.


It simply highlights a completely logical inconsistency.

;-)

See, even the gov't doesn't know!!!