Human Remains at Pentagon

[MarcoPolo]

I just recently saw the chart (Thanks Gravy!) with all the blue ovals showing where the human remains were found in the Pentagon.

My question is, how do the CTers explain that?

It seems to me you can't argue that. How many people were searching for bodies? How many times did they stop once they found some remains to make sure they handled it all properly? How many people would have to be in on this conspiracy?

It boggles my mind.

[jhunter1163]

The mind-boggling thing about this to me is, the remains of ALL of the passengers on Flight 77 (except one infant) were found IN THE PENTAGON. How can any sane person conclude anything other than that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon?

Lyte goes on about chain of custody for the DNA, yada yada yada.. how many more people would faking the DNA results add to the already Impossibly Vast Conspiracy? (apologies to Pomeroo)

[Devil's Advocate]

I just recently saw the chart (Thanks Gravy!) with all the blue ovals showing where the human remains were found in the Pentagon.

My question is, how do the CTers explain that?

It seems to me you can't argue that. How many people were searching for bodies? How many times did they stop once they found some remains to make sure they handled it all properly? How many people would have to be in on this conspiracy?

It boggles my mind.

Well, to play off my forum name....
Most of the bodies I've seen were people that were already in the Pentagon.
(One I recall even has a badge you can clearly see on his left chest.)

Ok, so you get the list of passenger names, call up family members for blood samples to be used for DNA matching. Take a blood sample of the family member, drop some of their blood into 'unknown sample vile #1', and what do you know...it matches!
I doubt there would be any record of the samples or DNA matching process that would not be text based only. So how would you ever know if there was not a cover up or manipulation of evidence?

Of course that opens up a lot more questions, like "why not just fly the plane into the building in the first place?".... but that was not your question.

[Gravy]

Well, to play off my forum name....
Most of the bodies I've seen were people that were already in the Pentagon.
(One I recall even has a badge you can clearly see on his left chest.)Please keep in mind, though, that reality does not equal the sum of the photos you've seen.

"When Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their seats. The stench of charred flesh overwhelmed him.

'It was the worst thing you can imagine,' said Williams, whose squad from Fort Belvoir, Va., entered the building, less than four hours after the terrorist attack. 'I wanted to cry from the minute I walked in. But I have soldiers under me and I had to put my feelings aside.'
Rescue Commander U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Mark Williams

"I did see airplane seats and a corpse still strapped to one of the seats."
Capt. Jim Ingledue , Virginia Beach Fire Dept



Ok, so you get the list of passenger names, call up family members for blood samples to be used for DNA matching. Take a blood sample of the family member, drop some of their blood into 'unknown sample vile #1', and what do you know...it matches!
I doubt there would be any record of the samples or DNA matching process that would not be text based only. So how would you ever know if there was not a cover up or manipulation of evidence?

Of course that opens up a lot more questions, like "why not just fly the plane into the building in the first place?".... but that was not your question.No, you couldn't do that, and this time I'm not going to tell you why. If you're interested in learning about the forensics of 9/11, you'll find many resources at the forensics section of my site, linked in my signature.

[Anti-sophist]

and who collected those samples?!? THE FBI@??? AND THEY HAVE _NEVER_ LIED BEFORE HAVE THEY??

lol!!!!

---------

I bring up the passenger DNA problem to the truthers all the time when they want to talk flight 77 and they always have some variation on this particular line of circular logic. You need to assume a conspiracy exists a priori in order to be able to selectively remove evidence you don't like when trying to prove the conspiracy.

[beachnut]

Well, to play off my forum name....
Most of the bodies I've seen were people that were already in the Pentagon.
(One I recall even has a badge you can clearly see on his left chest.)

Ok, so you get the list of passenger names, call up family members for blood samples to be used for DNA matching. Take a blood sample of the family member, drop some of their blood into 'unknown sample vile #1', and what do you know...it matches!
I doubt there would be any record of the samples or DNA matching process that would not be text based only. So how would you ever know if there was not a cover up or manipulation of evidence?

Of course that opens up a lot more questions, like "why not just fly the plane into the building in the first place?".... but that was not your question.
Sad questions only a truther would find merit in. Sad event, disrespectful idoits and how did the education system fail, how can the few become so dumb? What is up?

[Alt+F4]

Linky: http://www.afip.org/Departments/legalmed/legmed2002/kelly.htm

A multi-disciplinary team of more than 50 forensic specialists, scientists and support personnel from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) played a major role in one of the most comprehensive forensic investigations in United States history following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack at the Pentagon in Virginia, just outside Washington, DC.

Code-named "Operation Noble Eagle," AFIP’s team of forensic pathologists, odontologists, a forensic anthropologist, DNA experts, investigators and support personnel worked for over two weeks at the Dover Air Force Base Port Mortuary at Dover, Delaware to identify the 188 victims of the attack. "Our staff represented every branch of the service," said AFIP Director Glenn N. Wagner, CAPT, MC, USN, who served as senior officer during the operation.


Why don't the conspiracy liars just contact a few of the folks mentioned in this report? Why not drop by any Metro D.C. fire house and interview a few of the firefighter that saw the bodies?

As for the FBI, why are they lying when they say they saw AA77 passenger bodies at the Pentagon but telling the truth when know the "real reasons" OBL isn't on the most wanted list?

[T.A.M.]

MarcoPolo:

What do you do when confronted with the body locations...

RATIONAL SANE PERSON:

FBI collected info, Processed by coroner and others with expertese in DNA, confirming the passengers and other victims.

IRRATIONAL (All of them) CTIST:

The bodies, if they even existed, were planted, after they were killed elsewhere. Or, all the info is fabricated as part of the NWO cover up.

Take your pick of which you believe.

TAM:)

[Pardalis]

My question is, how do the CTers explain that?

They don't. They just avoid it altogether. I've never seen a Twoofer answer that question.

[JamesB]

I made a post on this months ago at SLC, but I have never got a direct response from a conspiracy theorist on the matter. They are very good at shutting up when the evidence is inconvenient.

[Rahne Everson]

The mind-boggling thing about this to me is, the remains of ALL of the passengers on Flight 77 (except one infant) were found IN THE PENTAGON. How can any sane person conclude anything other than that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon?

Lyte goes on about chain of custody for the DNA, yada yada yada.. how many more people would faking the DNA results add to the already Impossibly Vast Conspiracy? (apologies to Pomeroo)

Merc and Lyte seem to believe that the only evidence of people on the Flight 77 was the passenger manifest. In my conversatins with them they don't even talk about the human remains. Hell I've seen the picures of them, c'mon.

Of course, Merc thinks the photos of plane wreckage aren't real, so why not the ones of body parts.

[T.A.M.]

If you can't find it on a google search, it must be planted or fabricated by the USG...right...right?

lol

TAM:)

[Arus808]

well lyte and merc both seem to dont care anyway. no amount of evidence will convince those frauds of anything.

they are still continuing to push their lies on the myspace forums. rearing their ugly heads to bump old threads in the News & Politics forums to promote their fraud film. just today they bumped a thread there that was "dead" from march of this year.


all they are , as has been demonstrated over and over by their insensitive antics, are attention seeking disturbed individuals. unfortunatley myspace is a meeting ground for the ignorant.


and Merc and Lyte have both stated that a list of names isn't evidence. Yes, that is their answer when you ask "What about the DNA evidence found".

[T.A.M.]

like i said, these morons seem to think that the coroner should invite them in, teach them about PCR and DNA analysis, and then show them the results confirming the dead...otherwise, as far as they are concerned, it is falsified and planted...lame idiots.

TAM:)

[Arus808]

yup Lyte/Merc just replied to a post at Myspace (http://forum.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=messageboard.viewThread&groupID=0&page=11&EntryID=2343599&CategoryID=69&get=1&adTopicId=16&keyword=politics&xargstringp=&xargstringn=&lastpagesent=0&Mytoken=6DB9720B-73C1-4F48-BC904284E0838D081066201) concerning the DNA evidence:


Again, an article about DNA collection is not proof of anything. All "8000" of those people were easily fooled at the time, not complicit.

They never address the DNA found; they only address anything WRITTEN about the DNA found at the pentagon.

[T.A.M.]

these little twirps are so egotistical as to think that they have the right to see DNA, or have the coroner call them and invite them over to see it...F&*King insane arrogant obnoxious idiots.

TAM

[Arus808]

these little twirps are so egotistical as to think that they have the right to see DNA, or have the coroner call them and invite them over to see it...F&*King insane arrogant obnoxious idiots.

TAM

by their obtuse logic, they should be contesting EVERY court case that uses DNA evidence to prove or support what happened in a crime.

since all DNA reports are on paper and given to the court; the actual DNA is never presented.


their double standards is truly mind numbing.


funny how these reports were enough to help convict Moussaoui; yet not enough for lyte and merc.

[T.A.M.]

yes, but they also believe the judges, and all those concerned in that matter were "In on it".

TAM:)

[parky76]

CTist asks "how is that human remains survived the crash but most steel and aluminum parts of the plane did not?"

[Devil's Advocate]

Please keep in mind, though, that reality does not equal the sum of the photos you've seen.
No, you couldn't do that, and this time I'm not going to tell you why. If you're interested in learning about the forensics of 9/11, you'll find many resources at the forensics section of my site, linked in my signature.

Thanks for the link direction.
By the way, would you happen to know off hand how big the 'American' letters were on a 757? I've read 1.2 meters, but I only found one source, and it was questionable.

[Reality Believer]

Thanks for the link direction.
By the way, would you happen to know off hand how big the 'American' letters were on a 757? I've read 1.2 meters, but I only found one source, and it was questionable.

BZZZT! Inscrutable detail alert!

Are you suggesting that the American Airlines logo, that you believe is on a piece of debris, is slightly out of scale?

This is the rabbit hole that truthers try to lead people down. Inscrutable detail after inscrutable detail without considering the big picture. It can be endless.

Please consider the big picture.

[boloboffin]

Something I just thought about - the two videos released by the Pentagon (the security cameras) prove that no one was planting debris on the lawn. When combined with the other pictures of the day taken just after the explosion, they show that no one had any time to plant any evidence.

DA, that large piece of airplane facade had to come from whatever crashed into the Pentagon.

[Devil's Advocate]

Something I just thought about - the two videos released by the Pentagon (the security cameras) prove that no one was planting debris on the lawn. When combined with the other pictures of the day taken just after the explosion, they show that no one had any time to plant any evidence.

DA, that large piece of airplane facade had to come from whatever crashed into the Pentagon.

That is not the piece I was referring to. And I was not led to the observation by a 'truther' site. I made the observation in a link that Gravy provided.
(Flight 77 Pentagon section)
The only source of the size of the lettering led me to a truther site that is why I am asking for another source. (If there is one)

I wanted to know the scale of the letters because the 'C' against that wall looks only slightly bigger than a Ford Van's wheel. That seems odd to me.
I am not implying anything, but I would like to know the scale of the lettering.

[PhantomWolf]

Something I just thought about - the two videos released by the Pentagon (the security cameras) prove that no one was planting debris on the lawn. When combined with the other pictures of the day taken just after the explosion, they show that no one had any time to plant any evidence.

That's because they think there are just 4 frames and don't bother looking any further.

[Pardalis]

I am not implying anything, but I would like to know the scale of the lettering.

Why?

[Devil's Advocate]

Why?

Because if the scale is correct I can move on to other things in the research. I am not going to just bypass something that seems out of place. That would be foolish.

[Pardalis]

We call that "anomaly hunting".

[Devil's Advocate]

We call that "anomaly hunting".

Ok, so....:confused:

I did not 'hunt' it, it kind of jumped out at me as I was looking at the photographs on Gravy's site.
Am I supposed to ignore it? If so, why should I ignore it?

[PhantomWolf]

Pardalis, not all questions are asked with an ulterior motive.

[Pardalis]

Am I supposed to ignore it? If so, why should I ignore it?

Do as you please, waste your time for all I care. If you look closely, maybe you'll find craters on the moon suspicious (http://www.vgl.org/)... :rolleyes:

But remember that the forensic and physical evidence overwhelmingly shows that flight 77 did crash there.

[Devil's Advocate]

Do as you please, waste your time for all I care. If you look closely, maybe you'll find craters on the moon suspicious (http://www.vgl.org/)... :rolleyes:

But remember that the forensic and physical evidence overwhelmingly shows that flight 77 did crash there.


I am seriously at a loss for words.

[DGM]

Because if the scale is correct I can move on to other things in the research. I am not going to just bypass something that seems out of place. That would be foolish.
The problem with trying to scale from that photo is perspective. The "C" is farther from the camera and the piece is bent. Being a 2 dimensional view it becomes difficult to get an accurate scale of the object.

Also for it to be out of place it would have had to been place there in plain view of lots of people (and security camera).

[negativ]

Do as you please, waste your time for all I care. If you look closely, maybe you'll find craters on the moon suspicious (http://www.vgl.org/)... :rolleyes:

But remember that the forensic and physical evidence overwhelmingly shows that flight 77 did crash there.

Actually, a drunken Kennedy crashed a golf cart into it, but 9/11 was fabricated to cover it up.

I mean, which is more of a stretch, that a Kennedy got drunk and wrecked something, or that a bunch of cavemen flew Blue Angels-style aerobatic maneuvers to kill themselves on purpose? Not one witness reported seeing any Arabs on flying carpets. Case closed.

/CTer

[Devil's Advocate]

The problem with trying to scale from that photo is perspective. The "C" is farther from the camera and the piece is bent. Being a 2 dimensional view it becomes difficult to get an accurate scale of the object.

Also for it to be out of place it would have had to been place there in plain view of lots of people (and security camera).

Yes, I understand that. (Being a 2 dimensional view it becomes difficult to get an accurate scale of the object)
But it still seems like it is nowhere near the size it should be.
Three to three and a half feet or so? Not even close.
That is why I want to know the dimension's of the letters to see if I am off with the dimensions I have seen. (From a source that is pushing agenda)

Some may believe it to be unimportant, but it is bugging me, and I am the type that gets hung on something until it is resolved. OCD? :D

[apathoid]

I wanted to know the scale of the letters because the 'C' against that wall looks only slightly bigger than a Ford Van's wheel. That seems odd to me.
I am not implying anything, but I would like to know the scale of the lettering.

To my eyes, the "c" looks to be around 2.5-3 ft tall. Almost as tall as the door on the right is wide....

http://911myths.com/assets/images/db_images/db_Pentagon_Debris_171.jpg

Now let us off the hook and tell us you were joking.......please.

edit: just opened the above image in Photoshop and the "c" is around 5-10% wider than the door on the right, or about 35-40".

[DGM]

Yes, I understand that. (Being a 2 dimensional view it becomes difficult to get an accurate scale of the object)
But it still seems like it is nowhere near the size it should be.
Three to three and a half feet or so? Not even close.
That is why I want to know the dimension's of the letters to see if I am off with the dimensions I have seen. (From a source that is pushing agenda)

Some may believe it to be unimportant, but it is bugging me, and I am the type that gets hung on something until it is resolved. OCD? :D
Maybe compairing to pictures of other American (757)jets might help.

Is this the picture in question? the "c" looks nearly folded in half.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1707446964a356bf44.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=6988)

[Rahne Everson]

they are still continuing to push their lies on the myspace forums. rearing their ugly heads to bump old threads in the News & Politics forums to promote their fraud film. just today they bumped a thread there that was "dead" from march of this year.

Exactly, which is why I bumped the thread "Things that are better than another CT thread on the front page" ;)

But yes, they're bonkers. Merc needs some serious professional help, I'd be frightened to be in thesame room as him.

[Dave Rogers]

Maybe compairing to pictures of other American (757)jets might help.

Is this the picture in question? the "c" looks nearly folded in half.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1707446964a356bf44.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=6988)

I'm no expert on photo interpretation, but if you look at the angle of the wall behind the Ford, it's clear that there's a lot of foreshortening in this shot, and the debris is actually significantly further away than the truck. Maybe that accounts for the size discrepancy, if there is one.

Dave

[Devil's Advocate]

To my eyes, the "c" looks to be around 2.5-3 ft tall. Almost as tall as the door on the right is wide....

http://911myths.com/assets/images/db_images/db_Pentagon_Debris_171.jpg

Now let us off the hook and tell us you were joking.......please.

edit: just opened the above image in Photoshop and the "c" is around 5-10% wider than the door on the right, or about 35-40".

Yeah, see, that picture just makes it worse.
Let you off the hook? Not a chance. You will suffer as I do.
Wait a second....You're NWO! :eek: Moloch! :eek: I'm on to you!

:D

[twinstead]

But yes, they're bonkers. Merc needs some serious professional help, I'd be frightened to be in thesame room as him.

Well, when I first read your post thesame looked just like threesome, and I remember stopping right there and thinking to myself "yea, that would be frightening, but what a weird thing to say...".

Then I reread it; I feel much better now.

[BeAChooser]

I wanted to know the scale of the letters because the 'C' against that wall looks only slightly bigger than a Ford Van's wheel. That seems odd to me.

Here's a image that contrasts the C at the pentagon with a van's wheel:

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/images/152.jpg


Here's an image of an American Airlines Jet that suggests the C is indeed about that size:

http://www.airchive.com/airline%20pics/TULSA2006/AA%20757%20WIDE.jpg

Still think there is a problem?

[Rahne Everson]

Well, when I first read your post thesame looked just like threesome, and I remember stopping right there and thinking to myself "yea, that would be frightening, but what a weird thing to say...".

Then I reread it; I feel much better now.

Oh lord, hahahahahaha.

[Belz...]

Pardalis, not all questions are asked with an ulterior motive.

No, but let's just say it smells fishy. I share Pardalis' suspicions, for now.

[CurtC]

The fuselage diameter of a 757 is 12.33 feet. Here is a picture of the very plane that hit the Pentagon. (http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=0132973&size=L&width=999&height=664&sok=JURER%20%20%28%20cubgb_vq%20%3D%20%27194197%27 %20BE%20cubgb_vq%20%3D%20%27189062%27%20BE%20cubgb _vq%20%3D%20%27173445%27%20BE%20cubgb_vq%20%3D%20% 27132973%27%20BE%20cubgb_vq%20%3D%20%2790394%27%20 BE%20cubgb_vq%20%3D%20%2787718%27%29%20%20beqre%20 ol%20&photo_nr=4)

Scaling that image, it looks like the fuselage is about 79 pixels tall, and the letter "c" is 19 pixels tall. Scaling this gives an approximate height of the "c" (including the white border) of 32 inches.

[Devil's Advocate]

The fuselage diameter of a 757 is 12.33 feet. Here is a picture of the very plane that hit the Pentagon. (http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=0132973&size=L&width=999&height=664&sok=JURER%20%20%28%20cubgb_vq%20%3D%20%27194197%27 %20BE%20cubgb_vq%20%3D%20%27189062%27%20BE%20cubgb _vq%20%3D%20%27173445%27%20BE%20cubgb_vq%20%3D%20% 27132973%27%20BE%20cubgb_vq%20%3D%20%2790394%27%20 BE%20cubgb_vq%20%3D%20%2787718%27%29%20%20beqre%20 ol%20&photo_nr=4)

Scaling that image, it looks like the fuselage is about 79 pixels tall, and the letter "c" is 19 pixels tall. Scaling this gives an approximate height of the "c" (including the white border) of 32 inches.

Very cool! Thank you, Sir.
And might I add, you're a sexy beast of a man. Great picture.
:eye-poppi

[Pardalis]

Actually, a drunken Kennedy crashed a golf cart into it, but 9/11 was fabricated to cover it up.

I mean, which is more of a stretch, that a Kennedy got drunk and wrecked something, or that a bunch of cavemen flew Blue Angels-style aerobatic maneuvers to kill themselves on purpose? Not one witness reported seeing any Arabs on flying carpets. Case closed.

/CTer

Yes, I bet they planted that "C" at the Pentagon to take the attention away from that C moon rock fiasco...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8886469672f089eff.jpg

;)

[Devil's Advocate]

Yes, I bet they planted that "C" at the Pentagon to take the attention away from that C moon rock fiasco...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8886469672f089eff.jpg

;)

lol...ok, what is the story behind that picture?

[Pardalis]

lol...ok, what is the story behind that picture?

A hair. :)

[Gorgonian]

lol...ok, what is the story behind that picture?

There is no "C" on the rock. The originals show this. The "C" that you see is actually a hair that was on the scanner when this image was scanned into digital format.

[slingblade]

But moon-landing-hoax fans will say the C is actually a property master's mark, revealed by mistake on the set where the fake landing was filmed. :D

[A W Smith]

I'm no expert on photo interpretation, but if you look at the angle of the wall behind the Ford, it's clear that there's a lot of foreshortening in this shot, and the debris is actually significantly further away than the truck. Maybe that accounts for the size discrepancy, if there is one.

Dave


The steel door in the wall near the debris can be no narrower that 36 inches.

[PhantomWolf]

There is no "C" on the rock. The originals show this. The "C" that you see is actually a hair that was on the scanner when this image was scanned into digital format.

Actually I think that you'll find that the hair was actually in the photographic paper used to create that particular image from the original transparency (the Apollo photos were taken as transparencies, not negitives.) It has been around to long to have been done on a scanner. The photo was published and that published image has then been scanned and used by the HPs at a later date.

[A W Smith]

I dont even want to know how a pubic hair got on photographic paper. From now on only ONE person at a time allowed in the darkroom.

[Alareth]

I dont even want to know how a pubic hair got on photographic paper. From now on only ONE person at a time allowed in the darkroom.

The fact that you make the immeadiate jump from hair to pubic hair says something about your train of thought.

Perv :D

[Gorgonian]

Actually I think that you'll find that the hair was actually in the photographic paper used to create that particular image from the original transparency (the Apollo photos were taken as transparencies, not negitives.) It has been around to long to have been done on a scanner. The photo was published and that published image has then been scanned and used by the HPs at a later date.

My mistake. Thank you for the correction.

[PhantomWolf]

I dont even want to know how a pubic hair got on photographic paper. From now on only ONE person at a time allowed in the darkroom.

a) no one said anything about a pubic hair, it was more likely to have been simply a dark fibre rather than an actual hair anyway, it's just more understandable to call it a "hair" than to call it a "fibre".

b) It was in the actual paper so was likely to have been in the pulp or gotten in during the pressing of the pulp into the paper. If you have a look at a piece of cardboard or flick through a ream of paper or a notepad, you'll find that there are many similar dark fibres in the material itself.

[A W Smith]

a) no one said anything about a pubic hair, it was more likely to have been simply a dark fibre rather than an actual hair anyway, it's just more understandable to call it a "hair" than to call it a "fibre".

b) It was in the actual paper so was likely to have been in the pulp or gotten in during the pressing of the pulp into the paper. If you have a look at a piece of cardboard or flick through a ream of paper or a notepad, you'll find that there are many similar dark fibres in the material itself.

I think perhaps I should have used emoticons in my post,;) :D :o

[PhantomWolf]

I think perhaps I should have used emoticons in my post,;) :D :o

Nah, I knew you were being silly, it just gave me an oportunity to explain further. :)