tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11167814.post116416253554666120..comments2023-10-16T05:38:22.472-04:00Comments on Sufi Amanesis: The Pentagon and 9-11 -- Did you know? A Sufi PerspectiveAnab Whitehousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09349433166342161304noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11167814.post-61712877491184553222007-12-19T00:38:00.000-05:002007-12-19T00:38:00.000-05:00Dear quaheedus, To say that "there are many things...Dear quaheedus, <BR/><BR/>To say that "there are many things in most of your [i.e., my] 'Did You Know' comments which just are not true" is an assertion devoid of substantive data. If there are things which you believe to be untrue, then, by all means state what they are and we can get into specifics rather than empty generalizations, but I trust that whatever considerations you may offer in the future will be of more compelling quality than what is expressed in your current comment. <BR/><BR/>For example, although I appreciate your posting links to the photos of the Pentagon, this doesn't offer anything with which I am not already familiar. Nobody disputes that the generator trailer caught fire ... rather, the issue is what caused the fire? <BR/><BR/>The fact of the matter is that the generator does not appear to have been hit by a 200,000 pound plane going 400-plus miles an hour, and if the generator had been hit by such an dynamic bundle of kinetic energy, there would have been considerably less of the generator than is the observable case, and, as well, there would have a great deal more Boeing debris on the outside of the building than anyone apparently found ... although whether there was, or wasn't such debris, we may never know because whatever was there has been taken away and kept out of public sight and analysis ... a matter of national security I am sure. <BR/><BR/>Also, as several of your photos clearly show, there are a number of 6 foot cable spools in the pictures, and it doesn't look to me like they have been hit by a 200,000 pound jet flying at around 400 miles per hour despite the fact that the spools are in the alleged flight plan of the hypothesized Boeing 757 and despite the fact that if one is to accept the Pentagon Building Performance report as accurate on this point, then one must explain how a Boeing 757 jet can hit the first floor without touching the lawn and without either the body of the jet or the jet engines touching those spools ... and if they had been 'touched' by a 200,000 pound jet, they would not just have been upset a little so that a spool merely was turned on its side or dented a little ... they would have been substantially displaced and more than a little dented, but neither of these factors was the case. <BR/><BR/>Similarly, although the chain fence in the pictures for which you provide the links is damaged, it doesn't appear to me -- nor to lots of other individuals -- that the chain fence was hit by a 200,000 pound Boeing flying at 400 miles per hour. <BR/><BR/>You have shown a generator trailer on fire and have assumed that a Boeing 757 did that. You have shown some cable spools which are banged up a litte and one which is turned over on its side, and you have assumed that a Boeing 757 did that. You have shown a damaged chain link fence, and you have assumed that a Boeing 757 did that. <BR/><BR/>However, in all of these ssumptions there is a problem with the believability or plausibility of the supposition being made in each instance ... namely, that one should believe that a 200,000 pound aircraft flying at 400 miles an hour could proceed through the area occupied by the generator, cable spools, and chain link fence and leave behind so little evidence of impact by such a very large source of kinetic energy. The first floor -- three rings deep -- of the recently, dramatically rebuilt and reinforced Pentagon would be decimated, yet, somehow, cable spools, a generator trailer and a chain link fence don't look all that much the worse for wear ... although there is fire damage to the trailer and the chain fence is ragged in places, and one of the spools has a dent in it and another is lying on its side, and so on.<BR/><BR/>Of course, one could take all of the foregoing and say something akin to the following: you see the glass of evidence as being half full with respect to the theory that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon on September 11th, 2001, whereas I see the glass of evidence as being half empty with respect to that same theory, and the truth of the matter is that both of us are merely generating a hermeutical framework to interpret the photographic evidence which is available. However, given the evidence displayed in your photos, I do not think that your 'evidence' lends a sense of overwhelming conclusiveness [in fact, I find the data to be underwhelming] to the idea that a 200,000 pound Boeing 757 flying at 400 miles an hour went through the space occupied by the spools, generator trailer, and link fence and, yet, did not do more damage to those objects and did not leave any substantial parts of itself behind [outside the Pentagon] after allegedly making contact with those objects. <BR/><BR/>Furthermore, in none of my 'Did You Knows' did I come to any final conclusions about what went on during 9/11 at the Pentagon ... or anywhere else for that matter. Rather, I raised, by implication, a variety of questions concerning anomalous data that remain unanswered if one accepts the so-called 'official theory' concerning what hit the Pentagon. I don't find the Pentagon's explanation of what transpired on 9/11 to be plausible, and I do not find your citing of photographic evidence constituting anything which I would consider to be compelling evidence in support of the idea that a 757 Boeing crashed into the Pentagon. There are still too many unanswered questions. <BR/><BR/>The FBI confiscated video tape from the Virginia Department of Transportation, a hotel rooftop video, and a gasoline station which had a clear view of the West facade of the Pentagon. Previously, they have claimed that they cannot release such tapes because of the on-going trial of Moussaoui. Well, that trial is over now, and, yet, the FBI still has not released any of the video or returned the material to the respective owners. <BR/><BR/>If the FBI has definitive video proof of what crashed into the Pentagon, then, why not release that material stop all the discussion? If there is nothing on the tapes, then, why not release the tapes? Why does the FBI continue to resist FOI requests for the release of that material?<BR/><BR/>But, in many ways all of the foregoing issues and points are beside the point. I'll give you three more 'Did You Knows' that no matter how one interprets the photographic evidence which you cite, the information in these 'Did You Knows' completely negates the perspective which you seem to be championing: <BR/><BR/>--------------- <BR/><BR/>(1) Did you know that if Flight 77 -- the Boeing 757 jet which is alleged by some to have crashed into the Pentagon on September 11th, 2001 -– were to have been flown, as estimated by the Pentagon Performance Report, at around 400 miles per hour less than 20 feet above the ground [which would have been necessary if the plane were to have hit the first floor of the Pentagon as claimed], then such aerodynamic factors as downwash reaction, ground effect energy, jetblast effects, vortex compression, and wake turbulence would have come into play, and such forces would have made accomplishing such a feat [that is, crashing into the first floor of the Pentagon at an angle which was roughly parallel with the lawn in front of the Pentagon] impossible to do? <BR/><BR/>--------------------<BR/><BR/>(2) Did you know that forces such as tip vortices, downwash sheet, and the compressibility effect which would be created by a 200,000 pound commercial jet flying close to the ground at approximately 400 miles per hour [the claimed speed of the Flight 77 when it allegedly hit the Pentagon] would prevent such an aircraft from getting any closer to the ground than about 60 feet, or roughly half the distance of the commercial aircraft’s wingspan? <BR/><BR/>--------------------<BR/><BR/>(3) Did you know that due to the foregoing set of aerodynamic forces, a commercial jet the size of Flight 77 could not possibly have crashed into the first floor of the Pentagon as claimed by the Pentagon officials unless there were a substantial reduction [of more than several hundred miles per hour] in the 400 mile per hour speed of a commercial 757 aircraft, and, yet, the Pentagon Performance Report insists that Flight 77 struck the Pentagon on the first floor while traveling at a speed of around 400 miles per hour? <BR/><BR/>--------------- <BR/><BR/>Thanks quaheedus for your interest in the issues. <BR/><BR/>Bill WhitehouseAnab Whitehousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09349433166342161304noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11167814.post-54285470571824273012007-12-18T22:12:00.000-05:002007-12-18T22:12:00.000-05:00There are many things in most of your"Did you Know...There are many things in most of your"Did you Know" comments that just are not true.. maybe you have changed your view about some of the comments you have made.. I do not know?. If you have you should post them. Here is just one thing you have said, that is clearly not true- <BR/> "Did you know that although a number of lamp standards near the Pentagon were knocked down because they were allegedly in the flight path of the Boeing 757, there were other objects (for example, a construction site surrounded by a high chain link fence, a large generator, and tall spools of wire) in the same projected flight path of the Boeing 757 that were untouched?"<BR/> Clearly this is not true!... below are many images of the destroyed generator on fire and after...the fence is destroyed and some of the spools moved.. at least one spool is on its side and bent(these are steel spools weighing thousands of pounds)..others are leaning over.<BR/><BR/>http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/6.jpg <BR/>http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/8.jpg<BR/>Generator On fire below<BR/>http://www.pentagonresearch.com/033.html<BR/>Generator and fence image, close up and smashed<BR/>http://www.earth-citizens.net/damage/moteurDroit-l.jpgAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11167814.post-18578697790249876822007-05-26T12:59:00.000-04:002007-05-26T12:59:00.000-04:00To the brave anonymous dude:As Anatole France once...To the brave anonymous dude:<BR/><BR/>As Anatole France once said, "If fifty million people believe a foolish thing, this does not make it any less foolish." The fact that many people in America believe what they have been told to believe by their masters and keepers only demonstrates that people are still susceptible to the techniques of undue influence which were practiced by Hitler's minister of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, some seventy years, or so, ago. <BR/><BR/>The purpose of the 'Did You Know' series was intended not as a protest but as a gentle nudge to disturb the sleep of those who may still be caught up in a delusional dream that they actually understand what went on prior to, on ,or following 9/11 -- despite the fact that most of these 'dreamers' have never read The 9/11 Commission Report, the NIST report, the FEMA report, the Underwriters Laboratory report, or the wealth of books which have been written on 9/11.<BR/><BR/>Your advice to chill out is resonant with the advice of people who are deeply enthralled by their addiction and seem to be totally oblivious to the fact that their indifference to the destructive effect which their addiction is having on everyone around them is one of the biggest allies of the pushers who are feeding them with a constant supply of addictive ignorance. <BR/><BR/>Keep on dreaming your delusional dreams dude. Enjoy your condition. Ignorance is surely bliss.Anab Whitehousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09349433166342161304noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11167814.post-61914903063588128382007-05-26T09:04:00.000-04:002007-05-26T09:04:00.000-04:00And how are you liking Magnolia?And how are you liking Magnolia?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11167814.post-32663289913674240162007-05-26T01:54:00.000-04:002007-05-26T01:54:00.000-04:00dude you sound like you against everything that th...dude you sound like you against everything that the majority believes. i think you pretending that you some hot shot protestor. we dont need protestin dumbass. go read a mad mag or somethin. chillout!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11167814.post-1171418504517200872007-02-13T21:01:00.000-05:002007-02-13T21:01:00.000-05:00Dear Jack,I have a bit of problem knowing what to ...Dear Jack,<BR/><BR/>I have a bit of problem knowing what to make of your comment. My problem is this.<BR/><BR/>There are quite a few other people who also have given direct 'I-was-there' testimony concerning the events at the Pentagon on 9/11, and their testimony tells a different story than you do.<BR/><BR/>I don't know you, Jack, and I don't know those people. But, this I do know, someone is not telling the truth -- either intentionally or due to the sort of unintentional errors that occur everyday in courts all over the country with respect to eye-witness testimony.<BR/><BR/>Some of the people who have given direct testimony were war veterans who knew the difference between the smell of cordite and the smell of burning jet fuel. These were people who were near those portions of the Pentagon that were damaged at the time of the 'incident' [or, possibly, incidents since there is some evidence that several explosions may have taken place rather than just one], and these people said they smelled cordite not jet fuel.<BR/><BR/>In addition, although the video which was released by the Pentagon concerning the 5 frames that, allegedly, showed part of what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11 did not show any trace of either a commercial jet liner or any other kind of rocket and/or plane, nonetheless, the flames in those frames have been analyzed by an explosives expert who says the shape, color, and rate of expansion of the fire ball were all consistent with a high-yield explosive device, and not consistent with the sort of explosion one gets from a plane crash in which jet fuel ignites.<BR/><BR/>In addition, there is a lot of further contradictory evidence concerning the Pentagon event. Some people say one thing, and other people say something else.<BR/><BR/>So, the problem remains ... whose testimony does one believe? This is the sort of issue which should have been openly and rigorously explored in hearings concerning 9/11, but, unfortunately, this is just one of many things which should have happened in that regard but did not.<BR/><BR/>Moreover, even if one were to agree that Flight 77 flew into the Pentagon, there is still a huge problem surrounding the issue of whether Hani Hanjour could have flown that plane in the way that it was supposedly observed to fly by flight traffic controllers at Dulles. Your alleged eye-witness testimony does absolutely nothing to clear up that problem -- and this issue remains a huge matter of contention because if Hani Hanjour did not fly the vehicle that hit the Pentagon, then, the question becomes: Who did fly it? If someone besides Hanjour flew it, then, this leaves open the possibility that there may be more people involved in the events of 9/11 than the 19 who were identified by the FBI.<BR/><BR/>If it makes you feel better, you are perfectly welcome to refer to someone like me as an "idiot", but you should know that there are many people who lost people on 9/11 -- both at the Pentagon as well as elsewhere -- and these people are interested in finding out the answer to some of the same questions and issues that are being raised here and which have not, to date, been adequately answered by anyone. So, I take it that by referring to someone like me -- who simply has asked a few questions -- as an idiot, then, by implication, you also are referring to those people who lost loved ones on 9/11 as idiots as well, and if you are, then, you should be ashamed of yourself.<BR/><BR/>You are not the only one who had something about which to grieve on 9/11. Moreover, your point of view is not the only one in existence that was based on 'I-was-there' considerations concerning the events of 9/11 involving the Pentagon.Anab Whitehousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09349433166342161304noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11167814.post-1171060121957409382007-02-09T17:28:00.000-05:002007-02-09T17:28:00.000-05:00AS AN ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY EMPLOYEE I COULD...AS AN ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY EMPLOYEE I COULD LOOK ACROSS THE STREET AT THE PLANE THAT HAD CRASHED INTO THE PENTAGON FOR DAYS. ON THE DAY OF THE CRASH, EVERYONE SAW THE PLANE AS IT BURNED. WE COULD SMELL THE FIRE. SOME OF THE EMPLOYEES ACTUALLY SAW THE PLANE CRASH. THEY HIT THE GROUND BECAUSE THE PLANE WAS SO CLOSE THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE GOING TO GET HIT. I HAVE PICTURES. AMERICA A PLANE CRASHED INTO THE PENTAGON ON SEPTEMBER 11.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11167814.post-1170884703759625002007-02-07T16:45:00.000-05:002007-02-07T16:45:00.000-05:00Did you know---That I worked in an office building...Did you know---That I worked in an office building at 1655 Fort Myer Drive on the 10th floor and was sitting at my desk and actually saw a 757 or 767 hit the Pentagon--saw the fire ball and lost a friend on the flight?? You are an idiot!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11167814.post-1170884690359851172007-02-07T16:44:00.000-05:002007-02-07T16:44:00.000-05:00Did you know---That I worked in an office building...Did you know---That I worked in an office building at 1655 Fort Myer Drive on the 10th floor and was sitting at my desk and actually saw a 757 or 767 hit the Pentagon--saw the fire ball and lost a friend on the flight?? You are an idiot!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11167814.post-1164287038858529502006-11-23T08:03:00.000-05:002006-11-23T08:03:00.000-05:00I suggest a new bumper sticker:"Where's the Boeing...I suggest a new bumper sticker:<BR/><BR/>"Where's the Boeing?"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11167814.post-1164224805360200372006-11-22T14:46:00.000-05:002006-11-22T14:46:00.000-05:00I am always amused by individuals who so bravely, ...I am always amused by individuals who so bravely, but anonymously, go into name-calling diatriabes about other human beings whom they do not know and, yet, about whom they have formed biases, prejudices and assumptions which are so firmly rooted in nothing but declarative sentences devoid of any evidence. You claim that every single one of the factoids which appear in the recent posting to Sufi Amanesis have been debunked, but you offer absolutely nothing in the way of proof or argumentation or logic or persuasive reasoning or even any reference to a work of scholarship within the framework of your diatribe that would corroborate what you are claiming.<BR/><BR/>Apparently, everyone should accept what you say because you have proclaimed yourself to be the "Conspiracy Smasher". I wonder if your self-appointed title comes with an appropriate superhero outfit -- perhaps with CS on the chest as well as a secret decoder ring which permits one to invent cryptic codes as ways of translating and distorting that which has not been said in posts which you wish to reject because they are are inconsistent with one's own dogmatism.<BR/><BR/>More specifically, if you bothered to read the recent posting which has so unnerved you that you feel it necessary to give expression to incivility -- and your remarks make it very clear that you have not read much, if anything, of what was said in my posting with very much reflective care or judicious deliberation -- then, you would have noted that at no point did I either try to blame anyone -- whether Muslim or non-Muslim or excuse anyone from consideration with respect to the tragic events of 9-11. Instead, I asked a lengthy number of questions which are informed by a substantial amount of research which suggests that whatever you -- and others who think like you -- may believe, the full truth of 9-11 is something other than it has been depicted to be by people -- in the government, the media, or academia -- who ought to know better.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps, you are subscriber to Scientific American or Popular Mechanics who both came out with woeful attempts to debunk what they label as myths concerning the 9-11 truth movement. In reality, all they managed to do is to demonstrate that some people who purport to be scientists or who are influenced by the scientific method are not very rigorous or objective in their alleged search for the truth of a matter, and that like some of the so-called scientists who sometimes represent certain pharmaceutical companies, or who lobby the FDA or the EPA or who work for tobacco companies or the chemical industry, all their debunking activities do is to embarrass themselves as well as betray their own integrity as human beings with its concomitant duty of care which they owe to others.<BR/><BR/>You have done yourself proud. I am sure there may be some who find what you are doing heroic, but I don't see much value in the way you have substituted bombast for intelligent conversation and dialogue.<BR/><BR/>If you want to have a real debate about 9-11 issues, then, let us argue the facts, and this means that you will have to stop hiding behind name calling and do something more than allude to alleged facts and proofs which remain completely unspecified.Anab Whitehousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09349433166342161304noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11167814.post-1164201835292379012006-11-22T08:23:00.000-05:002006-11-22T08:23:00.000-05:00I'm not surprised that another muslim scumbag want...I'm not surprised that another muslim scumbag wants to blame someone other than his co-religionists for this massacre, but you at least need to get your facts correct.<BR/><BR/>Every single on of your factoids has been debunked. Every one.<BR/><BR/>http://911conspiracysmasher.blogspot.com/<BR/><BR/>http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/<BR/><BR/>http://911myths.com/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com