FBI re-releases dozens of 9/11 Pentagon photos when a plane crashed into it: See pics

[jhungary]

Sometimes lost in all of the technical conspiracy debunking bouts is the epic failure of US intelligence and the breakdown of connectivity between the two big services and the DOJ.

To think that the breakdown in intelligence which was roughly costing $1 million in labor (give or take just as a guess) at the time, ended up costing over a $1 trillion and still rising along with all the uprooting and changes in the daily lives of US citizens and to some extent, millions of other people around the world. It certainly makes it appear that these scum achieved their objective in the end.

Considering the outcome and the monumental changes and costs incurred as a result of these attacks, not only can we begrudgingly say these filthy, subhuman cretins succeeded in the end, but the intelligence services were never really held accountable and essentially failed in the worst possible way.

The problem is not on the intelligence agency (or Alphabet agency like FBI, CIA, NSA, DSS and so on) but the inheritance of the method of dissimilation is a flaw and to the effect it flawed the intelligence gathering capacity of the general intelligence community as a whole, which mean while these agency would have or may have known what is going to happen, but basically, they were let down by what they can do with the intelligence at hand. Whatever they have at hand.

As a former Intelligence Officer, I can attested to a fact that the dissimilation process of intelligence article is flawed at least in the United States, because the question of dissimilation would mean you have to expose your agency's gathering capacity, and those senate hearing you will have as to "fact finding" would not help the intelligence agency one bit, because they want you to tell them everything you know, by if you tell them everything you know, then basically, every one will know where you get your information from, and how deep did you penetrate into your target.

Modern US intelligence framework was build on a need to know basis, that is the reason why intelligence process can be compartmentalize between different agency, the problem is, the sharing of intelligence is and always will go going against the way these intelligence agency operate, because the more your share, the more people know about your capability, and no one in the intelligence circle wanted anyone to know their base line. That is the problem not just with US intelligence circle itself, but also intelligence agency around the word.

Look at how MH370 disappear for example. There exist information that we can use to pin point the location of MH370, while I cannot agree on or denied the existence of such intelligence, but if such intelligence do exist, the reason we are not hearing about it is because by showing the world such pieces of intelligence exist, whoever that is showing that to the world, also showing their ability to capture intelligence to the world, and that is a big taboo around any intel agency in this world.

 

[Gomig-21]

The problem is not on the intelligence agency (or Alphabet agency like FBI, CIA, NSA, DSS and so on) but the inheritance of the method of dissimilation is a flaw and to the effect it flawed the intelligence gathering capacity of the general intelligence community as a whole, which mean while these agency would have or may have known what is going to happen, but basically, they were let down by what they can do with the intelligence at hand. Whatever they have at hand.

How is that possible? If I understand you correctly, you're saying that they can gather information but can't act on it. That's the whole purpose of intelligence, is to acquire vital information and use it to either prevent what it can cause or use it in any other manner. All of the intel services have their own enforcement task forces that act on the gathered information. So unless I misunderstood you, I don' think that's the case as for example, the FBI has quite the task force for raiding operations and even use SWAT teams and units of the sort. They get intel on a drug pin in the mountains of Minnesota, they're there in hours with 100 personnel taking down the culprit. Just like they did with the Uni-Bomber. They could've easily raided these quacks and foiled the entire operation.

As a former Intelligence Officer, I can attested to a fact that the dissimilation process of intelligence article is flawed at least in the United States, because the question of dissimilation would mean you have to expose your agency's gathering capacity, and those senate hearing you will have as to "fact finding" would not help the intelligence agency one bit, because they want you to tell them everything you know, by if you tell them everything you know, then basically, every one will know where you get your information from, and how deep did you penetrate into your target.

Senate hearings don't happen until after the fact by months, sometimes years. If any of these intelligence services had information that they needed to pass on to a separate law enforcement unit, they don't need to tell them anything about where or how they got their intel. That's the whole purpose of intelligence is to keep your sources and methods in house and they never have to reveal them. Even on much smaller local enforcement units like state police detectives or crime units or even the DEA, they have their sources and informants and all they have to do is cite the information acquired from an informant and act on it. No need to reveal any sources or how the information was squired.

Modern US intelligence framework was build on a need to know basis, that is the reason why intelligence process can be compartmentalize between different agency, the problem is, the sharing of intelligence is and always will go going against the way these intelligence agency operate, because the more your share, the more people know about your capability, and no one in the intelligence circle wanted anyone to know their base line. That is the problem not just with US intelligence circle itself, but also intelligence agency around the word.

And that was the biggest problem with 911 is that between the FBI, NSA and CIA, there was no open channels or even intel sharing or cooperation, which led to a lot of this information being directed in different directions instead of centralized so it can be acted upon. That has changed since then and yes, I'll give you that was a flaw. But still, it doesn't mean there couldn't have been a proper channeling of the intelligence that was gathered on these terrorist (which was plain as day and they knew almost every one of them was up to no good) and they could've easily acted independently and rounded them up and questioned them, possibly foiling the plan entirely. But they never did that and that's where they failed. They knew half these guys were connected to Al Qaeda.

Look at how MH370 disappear for example. There exist information that we can use to pin point the location of MH370, while I cannot agree on or denied the existence of such intelligence, but if such intelligence do exist, the reason we are not hearing about it is because by showing the world such pieces of intelligence exist, whoever that is showing that to the world, also showing their ability to capture intelligence to the world, and that is a big taboo around any Intel agency in this world.

Hungary, no one is asking any of these groups to reveal any of the methods of their intelligence gathering. We're asking them to do their jobs correctly and use that information and act on it. This is where they failed and failed in a very big way. They have 1 job to do, and they didn't do it because they didn't act on their intelligence and the way the system was set up, it created a division between them instead of having a unified procedure of sharing intelligence so that they can act on it quickly. But even with the division, the onus was on all three of those organisations to act on their own and they didn't. What happened was the information went only so far up chain of command and then it got blocked by red tape and silly bureaucratic nonsense. This was an epic intelligence failure.

 

[Suff Shikan]

Sure, right, no CCTV camera's.

Suggested reading: https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/10/07/bringing-closure-to-the-911-pentagon-debate/

Can Commercial airliner fly that much low? and with such bullseye accuracy?

 

[jhungary]

How is that possible? If I understand you correctly, you're saying that they can gather information but can't act on it. That's the whole purpose of intelligence, is to acquire vital information and use it to either prevent what it can cause or use it in any other manner. All of the intel services have their own enforcement task forces that act on the gathered information. So unless I misunderstood you, I don' think that's the case as for example, the FBI has quite the task force for raiding operations and even use SWAT teams and units of the sort. They get intel on a drug pin in the mountains of Minnesota, they're there in hours with 100 personnel taking down the culprit. Just like they did with the Uni-Bomber. They could've easily raided these quacks and foiled the entire operation.

You did not got me wrong, and yes, sometime, you can have intelligence but you cannot act on it, nor can you share it with other agency (sometime even other people within your own agency) That is the inherit flaw of the method of dissimilation. It's quite hard to explain, but I will try.

The problem associated is that say if you are my Confidential Informant (CI) who is working on a very high echelon within a terrorist organisation, if you tell me there is going to be an attack tomorrow at XXXX time at XXXX location. And if it is only you who are privy to this information, and I act on it (whether or not I use my own resource or resource from other agency), then it will directly blown your cover, as the people you are spying for (The terrorist organisation) would know because only you know this. And after this, you can no longer be working as my CI on this organisation, in the business, it's call burning your source.

Now, back in WW2, GCCS Bletchley park (the organisation that decoded the enigma machine) followed a 2 man rules, that is what it meant was they will only act on intel coming from Decoding the Enigma Machine unless the information they obtained via enigma can be reasonably obtained by other source (like you can pin it to the German submarine being spotted by bomber or such) in order to protect the fact that the UK have decoded the Enigma Machine, but if the Brits act without a second reasonable source, then the German would know the UK broke the code and change the Enigma Machine and render what the Brits have irreverent. And some time that mean even if the Brits intercept a communique between German U Boat to the Sub Base, but since there are no other secondary source (Such as no other shipping or too far from any Allied Airfield), they would have to let the sub attack merchant ship in order to protect the fact that the Bris had in fact decoded the Enigma Machine.

Senate hearings don't happen until after the fact by months, sometimes years. If any of these intelligence services had information that they needed to pass on to a separate law enforcement unit, they don't need to tell them anything about where or how they got their intel. That's the whole purpose of intelligence is to keep your sources and methods in house and they never have to reveal them. Even on much smaller local enforcement units like state police detectives or crime units or even the DEA, they have their sources and informants and all they have to do is cite the information acquired from an informant and act on it. No need to reveal any sources or how the information was squired.

The problem is, even the event is after the fact for several year, you will still have to tell the senate how and where you got the information from, and it does not really matter how people know you have the leak, but the existence of the leak itself is more than enough for anyone to plug the leak and make your task harder.

We are not talking about drug bust, but high level espionage, and the time to replace the leak would have been taken you years to plan and years to execute, drug dealer may trust a CI when they spend 2 or 3 months in jail, but if you are talking about other states and terrorist organisation, it take years to establish relationship, and if we told the senate or congress what had happened, even if we do not disclose the source, you still are saying you know something about it, and the organisation you are spying on will relocate or even cease to operate and the years of espionage work is gone.

Many in the intelligence community avoid talking to senate or congress hearing, that is because even it is totally secure, and all the people are vetted, that would still mean I know something about you and that knowledge itself is enough for your enemy (the one you are spying on) to dismantle the whole network and rebuild it, for them it would take months, for you, it would take years, if not more to re-infiltrate.

And that was the biggest problem with 911 is that between the FBI, NSA and CIA, there was no open channels or even intel sharing or cooperation, which led to a lot of this information being directed in different directions instead of centralized so it can be acted upon. That has changed since then and yes, I'll give you that was a flaw. But still, it doesn't mean there couldn't have been a proper channeling of the intelligence that was gathered on these terrorist (which was plain as day and they knew almost every one of them was up to no good) and they could've easily acted independently and rounded them up and questioned them, possibly foiling the plan entirely. But they never did that and that's where they failed. They knew half these guys were connected to Al Qaeda.

Although I cannot tell you whether or not what I am about to say is true or exist and if you ask for a confirmation, I will denied that and say I can neither admit or denied such work did exist, but let's just say it's easier to blame it on the "Lack of Open Channel" than have to give up my work on something than have other people to spoil it. Now, again, I cannot admit or denied there exist private cooperation between intelligence agency. But let just say the need to protect our source is greater than the need to communicate to each other.

In the intelligence business, unless that is the end piece of move you are getting there (so, afterward, there is nothing) otherwise, the little the people who know about it the better. There exist a term called "Association" to the fact, and the principle of intelligence is to compartmentalize it (which in short is everybody only know a fraction to knowledge you are supposed to know) so that it can protect the integrity of both the people behind it and the organisation behind it. But again, that would mean it would work against the intelligence gathering capability, either by design or by chance.

Hungary, no one is asking any of these groups to reveal any of the methods of their intelligence gathering. We're asking them to do their jobs correctly and use that information and act on it. This is where they failed and failed in a very big way. They have 1 job to do, and they didn't do it because they didn't act on their intelligence and the way the system was set up, it created a division between them instead of having a unified procedure of sharing intelligence so that they can act on it quickly. But even with the division, the onus was on all three of those organisations to act on their own and they didn't. What happened was the information went only so far up chain of command and then it got blocked by red tape and silly bureaucratic nonsense. This was an epic intelligence failure.

I do understand why you would think like that, it's very normal to think as an intelligence agency, all they need to do is to gather information, but what you do not know is the trick to tell people in a "good" way about these intel you collect. And due to the fact that the aftermath, the media all putting the pieces together and say "Why don't our alphabet agency did not do anything when The FBI have this, the CIA have that and the NSA have that...?"

The problem, for us, unless you have worked in the field, is much more complex, first of all, I only know a fraction of the information I want to know, the first problem is that, it's easy when the bomb exploded and you piece the information together and put it back into the event, but for us, without the event, all we got is information that may or may not be of substance. Contrary to many people believe, or watched on TV show, what you got from your source is very cryptic, and what you are doing is to supposedly put these cryptic information together and try to make sense of it. Which is quite hard if you do not have a full picture, unlike the public, because the attack already did happened, the full picture would have emerged, and then it's a lot easier to put the pieces together after the fact.

It's like I give you a 500 pieces of puzzle and without giving you the box that contain the picture on what it would look like after you have finished. You basically just have 500 pieces of puzzle, and you are asked to complete the puzzle without knowing what the puzzle looks like after it is finish, how hard it is to do that? I will let you be the judge.

Then it come the compartmentalize and dissimilating issue. Even if I can make sense of the intelligence I have on my hand, I still cannot do anything about that unless I have a sure fire way to tell people without burning my own resource, call us selfish or whatever, but sources for us is basically the only thing putting up the intelligence business afloat, and giving them up because you told people that piece of information is bad for business, basically in our circle, you are done, because other potential source will know what you did (Intelligence Community is not a big community) and they will refuse to work for you, and basically, once that happens, you are done.

 

[Panther 57]

These LOOK like an aircraft. This is exactly the kind of pic that would have satisfied all the questions regarding Pentagon attack. That is all i am saying.


Bro, a pilot trained hijacker and professional pilots with years of experience and rehearsals (as in case of the ones from those airshows). How can you compare them both?

This is just to answer the first 8 or 10 words of your post. Rest i will read and try to revert back later, leaving for home now.

No point arguing. I being an aviator still remains dissatisfied with the experience, debris and photographic evidence produced. It is not pentagon only, WTC is also part of 9/11. I would still maintain this is an inside job. there are so many questions which still needs an answer, US government is still justifying it even after so many years, each time with improvement. I am sure in next decade fool proof undeniable evidence will be ready.
Remember history is always recorded by the victors so it gives their side of story only.

 

[-blitzkrieg-]

the lamest part of the whole drama was building 7 collapsing because of fire.. what fire? a complete perfect symmetrical collapse of a 47 story building because of what? fire.

 

[gambit]

These LOOK like an aircraft. This is exactly the kind of pic that would have satisfied all the questions regarding Pentagon attack. That is all i am saying.

Why ?

First...The main reason why we try to find as much as possible the debris of the dead aircraft is to find out why, how, and final cause of the mishap. But for Sept 11, 2001, we know exactly what happened.

Second...Finding the debris and partially reassembling them into a semblance of an aircraft is actually a luxury. Many crashes do not make it so easy for investigators.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800

TWA 800 broke apart in flight and the debris were underwater. As you can see, not everything was recovered.

The point here is that asking for this kind of evidence is unrealistic and unreasonable for the aircrafts involved in 9/11.

Finally...If you are investigating a murder and found a piece of a jawbone, say the mandible, what would that tell you ? That a jawbone is always attached to a head.

Do you need any more to conclude that at the very least, something bad happened to a human being ? In fact, say your CSI team find a 'hammer'.

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/anatomy/ear/

The sound makes the eardrum vibrate, which in turn causes a series of three tiny bones (the hammer, the anvil, and the stirrup) in the middle ear to vibrate.

Do you really need anything else to -- at the very least -- suspect that something bad happened to a human being ? That bone is pretty small, ain't it ? But it told you so much.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unapproved_aircraft_part

In 1995, after American Airlines Flight 965 crashed into a mountain in Colombia, scavengers took cockpit avionics, engine thrust reversers, and other parts of the aircraft, and took the parts from the mountain by helicopter. The stolen parts appeared for sale in the Greater Miami area. In a response, the airline published a 14-page list stating all of the parts missing from the crashed aircraft, which included all of the parts' serial numbers.

http://dau.dodlive.mil/files/2012/04/Ferrer_ARJ62.pdf

When an aircraft component needs replacement of a serially controlled item, a maintenance officer in the U.S. Navy uses the Scheduled Removal Component (SRC) card to confirm the component’s life cycle, to verify that the part is ready-for-issue, and to verify how many flight-hours it still has left.

Note the highlighted.

Earlier in post 19 page 2, I mentioned parts that are serially controlled. Any component that is serially controlled mean its movement in the supply chain and latest ( not final ) installation is recorded.

You can bet your next yr's salary that the fuel pump that transfer fuel from the wing tanks to the main fuselage tanks is a serially controlled item. So if I find that pump or even parts of that pump, what else do I need to conclude with %99.999 certainty that a wing, therefore an aircraft, was in the disaster site ?

In the cockpit, all primary indicators, such as altitude and airspeed, are serially controlled. Backups are the round dial with needle instruments and usually they are not serially controlled. The control sticks/yokes are serially controlled. The seats are serially controlled.

In the avionics bay, all computers that has anything to do with flight are serially controlled.

All flight control surfaces hydraulic actuators are serially controlled. The flight control structures themselves, such as the ailerons or flaps, are serially controlled.

All parts have metal tags riveted to the bodies of the parts. The tags contains all the vital information about that part. So if I find a mashed up wing fuel tank transfer pump, a bent wing spar structure, an attitude display indicator ( ADI ), and a seat cushion, why can I not -- at the very least -- suspect that an airliner was involved in this disaster ?

As I move thru the disaster, I find other pieces that I know from experience could not come from an automobile, a locomotive, a ship, or a tank, but absolutely from an aircraft. What am I supposed to think ?

If I find an ulna, why can I not suspect that a human being was killed in this disaster ? An ulna is a forearm bone. In fact, I do not need to find enough human remains for a burial in order to conclude that someone died in this disaster.

Now we add in other items like flight records, that people whose relatives are no longer available after boarding those flights, and eyewitnesses, and it is pretty much indisputable that something very bad happened to an airliner on Sept 11, 2001.

So why do you need to see even a partially reassembled wing ?

No point arguing. I being an aviator still remains dissatisfied with the experience, debris and photographic evidence produced. It is not pentagon only, WTC is also part of 9/11. I would still maintain this is an inside job.

And I maintain that any aviator who insists that what happened on Sept 11, 2001, was an 'inside job' essentially betrayed his profession and that he let his biases overrode his technical education.

the lamest part of the whole drama was building 7 collapsing because of fire.. what fire? a complete perfect symmetrical collapse of a 47 story building because of what? fire.

Looky here...A fire collapsed a building...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/19/middleeast/iran-tehran-building-fire-collapse/index.html

But since no airplane hit it, the Iranian government must have been behind this 'inside job'.

"The building collapsed on itself (vertically) and did not damage the adjacent buildings," IRNA quoted Maleki as saying.

Say what...???

Only a controlled demolition could have done this. Must have been at 'free fall' speed.

 

[-blitzkrieg-]

Why ?

First...The main reason why we try to find as much as possible the debris of the dead aircraft is to find out why, how, and final cause of the mishap. But for Sept 11, 2001, we know exactly what happened.

Second...Finding the debris and partially reassembling them into a semblance of an aircraft is actually a luxury. Many crashes do not make it so easy for investigators.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800

TWA 800 broke apart in flight and the debris were underwater. As you can see, not everything was recovered.

The point here is that asking for this kind of evidence is unrealistic and unreasonable for the aircrafts involved in 9/11.

Finally...If you are investigating a murder and found a piece of a jawbone, say the mandible, what would that tell you ? That a jawbone is always attached to a head.

Do you need any more to conclude that at the very least, something bad happened to a human being ? In fact, say your CSI team find a 'hammer'.

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/anatomy/ear/

Do you really need anything else to -- at the very least -- suspect that something bad happened to a human being ? That bone is pretty small, ain't it ? But it told you so much.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unapproved_aircraft_part


http://dau.dodlive.mil/files/2012/04/Ferrer_ARJ62.pdf

Note the highlighted.

Earlier in post 19 page 2, I mentioned parts that are serially controlled. Any component that is serially controlled mean its movement in the supply chain and latest ( not final ) installation is recorded.

You can bet your next yr's salary that the fuel pump that transfer fuel from the wing tanks to the main fuselage tanks is a serially controlled item. So if I find that pump or even parts of that pump, what else do I need to conclude with %99.999 certainty that a wing, therefore an aircraft, was in the disaster site ?

In the cockpit, all primary indicators, such as altitude and airspeed, are serially controlled. Backups are the round dial with needle instruments and usually they are not serially controlled. The control sticks/yokes are serially controlled. The seats are serially controlled.

In the avionics bay, all computers that has anything to do with flight are serially controlled.

All flight control surfaces hydraulic actuators are serially controlled. The flight control structures themselves, such as the ailerons or flaps, are serially controlled.

All parts have metal tags riveted to the bodies of the parts. The tags contains all the vital information about that part. So if I find a mashed up wing fuel tank transfer pump, a bent wing spar structure, an attitude display indicator ( ADI ), and a seat cushion, why can I not -- at the very least -- suspect that an airliner was involved in this disaster ?

As I move thru the disaster, I find other pieces that I know from experience could not come from an automobile, a locomotive, a ship, or a tank, but absolutely from an aircraft. What am I supposed to think ?

If I find an ulna, why can I not suspect that a human being was killed in this disaster ? An ulna is a forearm bone. In fact, I do not need to find enough human remains for a burial in order to conclude that someone died in this disaster.

Now we add in other items like flight records, that people whose relatives are no longer available after boarding those flights, and eyewitnesses, and it is pretty much indisputable that something very bad happened to an airliner on Sept 11, 2001.

So why do you need to see even a partially reassembled wing ?


And I maintain that any aviator who insists that what happened on Sept 11, 2001, was an 'inside job' essentially betrayed his profession and that he let his biases overrode his technical education.


Looky here...A fire collapsed a building...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/19/middleeast/iran-tehran-building-fire-collapse/index.html

But since no airplane hit it, the Iranian government must have been behind this 'inside job'.


Say what...???

Only a controlled demolition could have done this. Must have been at 'free fall' speed.

i was talking about a modern steel framed building a building where dod c ia and secret service had their offices. not a ragtag mid 20th century concrete framed building from 1962 that was only 15 stories and never received repairs despite warnings.
this high-rise in Tehran was was in a pathetic state and could have fallen even before the fire for all the seismic activity it took over time and also it had three fire incidents in past and the building never received any repairs.Further the whole structure was supported only by “ perimeter-wall columns” at ground level, as the first 4 floors were a centrally empty patio/shopping center.,

Masoumeh Abad, a member of the Tehran City Council, said tenants of the building had been warned “at least 20 times” that maintenance was needed, the semiofficial news agency Fars reported. But local news outlets suggested that the municipality had been lax in carrying out safety regulations.



i actually believe it fell off due to structural fall out but a demolition cant be 100 percent ruled out.
It could be something as simple as insurance fraud. The owner needed a new building so he demolished the old one and blamed it on fire.

comparison
https://www.academia.edu/31095937/W...Fire-Induced_Structural_Failure?auto=download


another view
http://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/Plasco_Building_Report_2.20.17.pdf

 

[Arsalan]

No point arguing. I being an aviator still remains dissatisfied with the experience, debris and photographic evidence produced. It is not pentagon only, WTC is also part of 9/11. I would still maintain this is an inside job. there are so many questions which still needs an answer, US government is still justifying it even after so many years, each time with improvement. I am sure in next decade fool proof undeniable evidence will be ready.
Remember history is always recorded by the victors so it gives their side of story only.

Well i am not an expert but just being logical, i would say that if something is creating so much doubts and there is a simple solution available to put those all to rest then lack of effort to put forward it MAY suggest that the solution was never there. Again, i wont commit to the side of believers or non-believers because there is simple not enough evidence provided to decide. Things are being kept in the air. Purposely?

 

[jhungary]

Well i am not an expert but just being logical, i would say that if something is creating so much doubts and there is a simple solution available to put those all to rest then lack of effort to put forward it MAY suggest that the solution was never there. Again, i wont commit to the side of believers or non-believers because there is simple not enough evidence provided to decide. Things are being kept in the air. Purposely?

Before anything, I want to ask you a question.

If the Pentagon attack was an inside job and there were no plane, can you tell me what is the motive behind such attack when the Twin Tower was already hit? I mean, whether or not WTC attack was an inside job, it WAS the primary attack, and if WTC was attack by actual terrorist, that alone already deal enough Casus Belli to launch an invasion in Afghanistan, and if WTC attack was an inside job, then that can already serve as a false flag, why a duplicate false flag attack with Pentagon? In fact, why 4 flights for a false flag attack? Wouldn't it already be enough of casus belli with 2 or even 1??

In an investigator point of view, it wasn't like what you said at all, insufficient evidence just mean that, it does not mean or proof that something does not happen just because the prosecution cannot get enough evidence. To prove that the attack does not exist (or it is a false flag) you need to proof that it was a false flag, just because the government did not met the burden of proof does not mean that incident does not exist, just that you cannot proof beyond reasonable doubt, and that is the position of the law.

I am not trying to change your view or whatever, but in an investigator point of view, I do not need to have actual proof that a plane hit pentagon to say the attack did happened, in fact, actual proof that the attack in progress is extremely rare in all criminal case. Just because I have a jaw bone of the victim and does not have actual video footage of someone murdering the victim does not mean the crime did not happen.

In the legal point of view, there are 3 types of evidences. 1.) Physical Evidence 2.) Forensic Evidence 3.) Circumstantial Evidence, and in the case of Pentagon attack, there are plenty of all 3.

There are evidence that Aircraft parts was inside and outside the pentagon after the attacks (Physical Evidences), there are DNA evidence and body part belong to the flight 77 Passenger found inside the pentagon in fact, only 1 passenger was unidentified (Forensic Evidence), the black box was located inside the Pentagon on 9/14 (Physical Evidence) several witness testify seeing the aircraft crashing into the pentagon (Circumstantial Evidence), Radar track on Flight 77 (Circumstantial Evidence), bits and pieces that was knocked off across the street outside pentagon. (Circumstantial Evidence), and most important of all is that all these evidence were linked together, which supporting the fact that the plane did indeed hit the pentagon.

On the other hand, we have a confession from Osama Bin Laden, we have the connection of the people that was in the US that was connected with him, there are financial track that support overseas funding were used to support this attack.

But, as much as all these evidence, probably the most damning of all is the reason why Pentagon was attacked in the first place, it does not make sense as a false flag because the primary attack (the watershed event) on WTC have already occurred and cannot be denied that happened, whether or not WTC attack was a false flag is irreverent because if it was not, it has enough casus belli, if it is, it preceded and more than satisfied the requirement of false flag attack, which mean the pentagon attack was redundant, furthermore, the Pentagon is a high value target, if I wanted to do a false flag, I will probably choose a target that mean more but easier to attack and carry less damage, a hit in the pentagon will inhibit warfighting capability, which I would need if I know we are going to attack someone afterward (ie result of a false attack). It make no sense for me to destroy something that I am going to need afterward if this is all planned.

The fact to the matter is, conspiracy theory borne out of the doubt of an event existence, however, such doubt does not negate the actual existence of an event, whether or not it may or may not be able to show or proof that such attack actually did occur, that doubt, in itself is not a reason nor does it support the conspiracy theory. For example, even if we can proof beyond reasonable doubt that no plane ever hit the pentagon, that does not equal to we proof beyond reasonable doubt that the pentagon attack is a false flag, because that is a totally different accusation and in a court of law, the burden of proof lies on the accuser, not the defendant.

 

[gambit]

i was talking about a modern steel framed building a building where dod c ia and secret service had their offices. not a ragtag mid 20th century concrete framed building from 1962 that was only 15 stories and never received repairs despite warnings.
this high-rise in Tehran was was in a pathetic state and could have fallen even before the fire for all the seismic activity it took over time and also it had three fire incidents in past and the building never received any repairs.Further the whole structure was supported only by “ perimeter-wall columns” at ground level, as the first 4 floors were a centrally empty patio/shopping center.,

Nice try, but it is not going to work.

The issue is NOT how many warnings the Tehran building had but how it collapsed and that only fire was involved.

The Tehran building collapsed in the exact same manner as WTC 7. The way WTC 7 collapsed people like you said it could only come from a 'controlled demolition'.

 

[The Accountant]

FBI vault records.
https://vault.fbi.gov/9-11-attacks-investigation-and-related-materials/9-11-images
This is for all those who were and still indulging in conspiracy theories.

What it has to do with conspiracy ,,, even a dumb person can clearly see story is faulty ,,, What on the earth made WT7 to collapse which was far away and totally unrelated to the other two towers

 

[Arsalan]

Before anything, I want to ask you a question.

If the Pentagon attack was an inside job and there were no plane, can you tell me what is the motive behind such attack when the Twin Tower was already hit? I mean, whether or not WTC attack was an inside job, it WAS the primary attack, and if WTC was attack by actual terrorist, that alone already deal enough Casus Belli to launch an invasion in Afghanistan, and if WTC attack was an inside job, then that can already serve as a false flag, why a duplicate false flag attack with Pentagon? In fact, why 4 flights for a false flag attack? Wouldn't it already be enough of casus belli with 2 or even 1??

In an investigator point of view, it wasn't like what you said at all, insufficient evidence just mean that, it does not mean or proof that something does not happen just because the prosecution cannot get enough evidence. To prove that the attack does not exist (or it is a false flag) you need to proof that it was a false flag, just because the government did not met the burden of proof does not mean that incident does not exist, just that you cannot proof beyond reasonable doubt, and that is the position of the law.

I am not trying to change your view or whatever, but in an investigator point of view, I do not need to have actual proof that a plane hit pentagon to say the attack did happened, in fact, actual proof that the attack in progress is extremely rare in all criminal case. Just because I have a jaw bone of the victim and does not have actual video footage of someone murdering the victim does not mean the crime did not happen.

In the legal point of view, there are 3 types of evidences. 1.) Physical Evidence 2.) Forensic Evidence 3.) Circumstantial Evidence, and in the case of Pentagon attack, there are plenty of all 3.

There are evidence that Aircraft parts was inside and outside the pentagon after the attacks (Physical Evidences), there are DNA evidence and body part belong to the flight 77 Passenger found inside the pentagon in fact, only 1 passenger was unidentified (Forensic Evidence), the black box was located inside the Pentagon on 9/14 (Physical Evidence) several witness testify seeing the aircraft crashing into the pentagon (Circumstantial Evidence), Radar track on Flight 77 (Circumstantial Evidence), bits and pieces that was knocked off across the street outside pentagon. (Circumstantial Evidence), and most important of all is that all these evidence were linked together, which supporting the fact that the plane did indeed hit the pentagon.

On the other hand, we have a confession from Osama Bin Laden, we have the connection of the people that was in the US that was connected with him, there are financial track that support overseas funding were used to support this attack.

But, as much as all these evidence, probably the most damning of all is the reason why Pentagon was attacked in the first place, it does not make sense as a false flag because the primary attack (the watershed event) on WTC have already occurred and cannot be denied that happened, whether or not WTC attack was a false flag is irreverent because if it was not, it has enough casus belli, if it is, it preceded and more than satisfied the requirement of false flag attack, which mean the pentagon attack was redundant, furthermore, the Pentagon is a high value target, if I wanted to do a false flag, I will probably choose a target that mean more but easier to attack and carry less damage, a hit in the pentagon will inhibit warfighting capability, which I would need if I know we are going to attack someone afterward (ie result of a false attack). It make no sense for me to destroy something that I am going to need afterward if this is all planned.

The fact to the matter is, conspiracy theory borne out of the doubt of an event existence, however, such doubt does not negate the actual existence of an event, whether or not it may or may not be able to show or proof that such attack actually did occur, that doubt, in itself is not a reason nor does it support the conspiracy theory. For example, even if we can proof beyond reasonable doubt that no plane ever hit the pentagon, that does not equal to we proof beyond reasonable doubt that the pentagon attack is a false flag, because that is a totally different accusation and in a court of law, the burden of proof lies on the accuser, not the defendant.

Wait a moment. I am not saying it was an inside job. I am just saying what PEOPLE say and adding that the administration have not done enough to answer THOSE questions.

As for your question of the advantages of Pentagon hit (if it was an inside job) go when twin towers were already hit, well, THEY say that the whole thing was a setup. The twin tower attack was an inside job as well and the pentagon hit was just to destroy evidence of that exact thing. HOWEVER, i wont pay too much attention to what PEOPLE say. They say all they want to. My point is pretty simple. ALL THESE STUPID THINGS COULD HAVE BEEN PUT TO REST WITHOUT ANY TROUBLE but that is not being done. THIS is what makes it even more suspicious.

It is not about fancy terms, burden of proof and all. It is plain and simple. A question with a very simple answer have been asked for over a decade. A simple answer would surely end all debate related to an even that shaped the future of the world.

 

[jhungary]

Wait a moment. I am not saying it was an inside job. I am just saying what PEOPLE say and adding that the administration have not done enough to answer THOSE questions.

As for your question of the advantages of Pentagon hit (if it was an inside job) go when twin towers were already hit, well, THEY say that the whole thing was a setup. The twin tower attack was an inside job as well and the pentagon hit was just to destroy evidence of that exact thing. HOWEVER, i wont pay too much attention to what PEOPLE say. They say all they want to. My point is pretty simple. ALL THESE STUPID THINGS COULD HAVE BEEN PUT TO REST WITHOUT ANY TROUBLE but that is not being done. THIS is what makes it even more suspicious.

It is not about fancy terms, burden of proof and all. It is plain and simple. A question with a very simple answer have been asked for over a decade. A simple answer would surely end all debate related to an even that shaped the future of the world.

The thing is, Burden of Proof have to be provided by the accuser, not the defender.

US government provided numerous proof that related the attack to foreign entity, and a foreign entity have admit it was his doing, and also tons of evidence (Physical, Forensic and Circumstantial) are provided to relate a whole story, the only thing the prosecution did not provide is the actual photo or evidence that the aircraft crashed into the building. The problem, again, is that. Do we actually need a photo to prove an aircraft crashed into the Pen to say there is a plane inside the Pen? Again, bear in mind a damning evidence in such occasion is very rare, even the first plane that hit the twin tower, had Naudets not doing a doco on Ladder 7 of FDNY, such picture would actually not exist, even tho downtown NYC is probably one of the most surveyed city in the world, as the government did not release any CCTV footage on the crash with both Tower at all, as much as the one in the Pen.

It may be a simple answer to the question, but the question itself have many answer, whether or not to proof the incident exist is not or cannot be answer by a simplistic term, but that's beside the point, as I said, a photographic or video evidence on a hot crime (crime in procession) seldom exist, and is rarest of the rare, the question the people ask should not be Would US provide such evidence, but whether such evidence exist in the first place.

And as for the answer you provided to the question. If this is indeed an inside job, then just by eliminating Pentagon alone would not be enough. (even so, pentagon suffered minimize damage), inside job like this would have several hook point, one of which is the connection between the US government and the airline company in the job, which mean even if you say "Destroying the Pentagon to cover the inside job" it wouldn't actually do much.

 

[Arsalan]

The thing is, Burden of Proof have to be provided by the accuser, not the defender.

US government provided numerous proof that related the attack to foreign entity, and a foreign entity have admit it was his doing, and also tons of evidence (Physical, Forensic and Circumstantial) are provided to relate a whole story, the only thing the prosecution did not provide is the actual photo or evidence that the aircraft crashed into the building. The problem, again, is that. Do we actually need a photo to prove an aircraft crashed into the Pen to say there is a plane inside the Pen? Again, bear in mind a damning evidence in such occasion is very rare, even the first plane that hit the twin tower, had Naudets not doing a doco on Ladder 7 of FDNY, such picture would actually not exist, even tho downtown NYC is probably one of the most surveyed city in the world, as the government did not release any CCTV footage on the crash with both Tower at all, as much as the one in the Pen.

It may be a simple answer to the question, but the question itself have many answer, whether or not to proof the incident exist is not or cannot be answer by a simplistic term, but that's beside the point, as I said, a photographic or video evidence on a hot crime (crime in procession) seldom exist, and is rarest of the rare, the question the people ask should not be Would US provide such evidence, but whether such evidence exist in the first place.

And as for the answer you provided to the question. If this is indeed an inside job, then just by eliminating Pentagon alone would not be enough. (even so, pentagon suffered minimize damage), inside job like this would have several hook point, one of which is the connection between the US government and the airline company in the job, which mean even if you say "Destroying the Pentagon to cover the inside job" it wouldn't actually do much.

EXACTLY!
The accuser should provide proof that the plan was actually made and then executed exactly as reported by the Taliban/Al Qaeda.

Lolz, YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT DEAR SIR. It is not a court room, nor is this even a sensible argument here. All i am saying is "what could have been resolved so easily is dragged for over a decade and a half for no reason, OR is there a reason?"
Simple!

And as for the answer you provided to the question. If this is indeed an inside job, then just by eliminating Pentagon alone would not be enough. (even so, pentagon suffered minimize damage), inside job like this would have several hook point, one of which is the connection between the US government and the airline company in the job, which mean even if you say "Destroying the Pentagon to cover the inside job" it wouldn't actually do much.

And as i was saying, I DO NOT SAY THIS. All i am pointing out are the arguments, or shall i say, STUPID arguments made by those people for over a decade and some. ALL OF THOSE WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN PUT TO REST BY NOW BUT FOR THE LACK OF EFFORT.