Good.Continue manker...
Printable View
Good.Continue manker...
It's interesting how all the "heat" seems to have been taken off what happened at the Pentagon. Here's a snippet from Popular Mechanics, in their "debunking" of the theory that it wasn't a 757 which hit that building, with my comments in red.
I've seen a soft tallow candle fired at a group of concrete building blocks, it went straight through the first two and was embedded in the third. The hole in the first block was as neat as if it had been drilled. The impact speed was about 250mph, far slower than the impacts of 9/11. Is this guy really expecting people to believe that hardened aluminium is going to fold up like butter while a candle with a consistency not unlike butter acts like hardened metal?Quote:
Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. Strange, because if you look at the impact of the planes into WTC 1 & 2 that's exactly what happened. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns the load bearing columns are inside the building, how would this affect the size of the hole made on the outside of the building?, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. Sozen seems to be suggesting that under impact conditions solids behave more like liquids. On the contrary, under high speed impact liquids actually behave more like solids since they can't flow out of the way. What he is suggesting is just nonsense. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen." Well, he actually got that bit right, it didn't happen
He is trying to tell us that the nose hit first, but rather than that part of the aircraft slowing down, it is the wings which haven't yet hit anything which just fold back of their own accord. Obviously, being the Pentagon, it must be shielded by invisible metal bending rays.
If that's the best that PM can come up with regarding what happened at the Pentagon, it casts doubt on anything they come up with in respect to the events of 9/11.
Snopes has got an article on the "Pentagon impact not a 757" conspiracy theory (Verdict - False), but oddly enough there is nothing (yet) on the WTC7 theory...
...which surprises me.. Snopes doesn't usually let me down... :unsure:
i think lynx detective work pwns that rebuttle. it would have punched a hole or splatted on the wall, meaning there was some left outside. where's the wing that sheered off anyway?Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbarossa
You have the nerve to ask about a wing???Quote:
Originally Posted by GepperRankins
Fine. In the other scenario, the one in which a 757 DIDN'T hit the Pentagon, I'm going to ask "Where's the fucking plane??"
At 8:20 AM, American Airlines flight 77 took off from Dulles International Airport with 64 people on board. If it didn't crash into the Pentagon - Where did it go?? :ermm:
Careful Dave, you seem to be assuming that just because the explanation is rubbish, then the opposite viewpoint must be true, but that's not the case.
If it was a 757 but it had been damaged beforehand that could explain why there was a missing wing and also why the hole was not as large as might be expected. Or course, if it was damaged in such a way that would open the question as to how the damage had occurred, and that might be just as embarrassing to the US government.
Edit: I would add one comment though.
Why would you ask a structural engineer (who by definition deals with static structures) to comment on high speed impacts, a subject totally outside his field of expertise?
After a somewhat mysterious sequence of events, they crashed on what appeared to be a deserted island. The chance of being found and rescued were fairly small, so the survivors had to cope with a set of challenges. They had to learn to survive on the island, a mysterious place with enough dangers on it's own. Also, they had to learn to live with each other if any success was to be expected. And finally, they had to live with themselves and their pasts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbarossa
Lost. Coming soon to Channel Four.
Very comprehensive, impartial site here, if anyone is still interested...
http://911research.com/
In the "Conspiracies" series, they decided that a 757 did hit the Pentagon, so that conspiracy theory was crap.
They couldnt debunk the WTC conspiracies, as there were just too many coincidences plus the fact the twin towers was designed to survive multiple crashes of that sort etc etc.. however, they couldnt support the Governmnet version either, so they had a "Jury still out" verdict.
The 4th plane they decided was almost certainly shot down, and the conspiracy theorists were right.
The thing about that 4th one for me is... why the hell cover it up? I dont think anyone, under the circumstances, would question the decision to shoot the thing down.. the only thing gained by covering it up, is to open more questions into the other planes. :unsure:
Unfortunatly, i cant recall offhand all the arguments used in the program for and against the conspiracy theories.. but meh, im sure other Brits watch the program.
To claim a 757 didn't crash into the Pentagon is utter crap, People saw it, bits of it were found, if it didn't crash, where the fuck is it? Also, this is no ordinary building, this is the Pentagon. Aeroplanes are very weak, if they were built to be any stronger they wouldn't fly, ask anyone who has ever sat by a window and watched the wings flex and move about. Crashing into the Pentagon at that speed would, and did, leave a very small hole, around 15 feet across, the size of the fuselage.
For those who believe no bits of aircraft were found, you're wrong, they found heaps, have a look here, for example >> Bits of the 757
Conspiracy theories are good for a laugh, and that's what most of them are, laughable, especially this one.
There are other questions though..
Why aim for a virtually vacant section of the building undergoing refurbishment, meaning you have to virtually double back in the direction the plane was going (I think they had to turn 270 Degrees or something like that). If they'd just crashed in the original direction there would have been 1000's of fatalities, possibly including Rumsfeld...
How can you be so accurate as to get a bullseye on the only occupied part of that vacant section... virtually wiping out Naval Intelligence. (Maybe they just REALLY hated the Navy? :P )
Why suppress the video footage of the crash taken by business in the area, and only release a few stills?
Its almost like they wanted to fuel the stupid conspiracy theory re: it wasnt a plane.. Go Figure.. :lol:
Yeah you know what's up man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Robs
It WAS a staged event. The evidence is all there
and the government STILL hasent gove a Offical/true explanation for the events.
You need to be skooled if you think otherwise, you need to tape :shutup: ya mouth shut if your following the lies. get the fuck outta here.. you played
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbarossa
http://www.reopen911.org/
^^ another site.
I should begin by pointing out that the link you referred to itself continually refers to the work done by Perdue University. I'm sure some of it is very valid in building design, but when you examine the credentials of those involved not one has any acknowledged experience of high speed impacts. Their aim was to produce an animation of what they believed might have happened, and for them (abovetopsecret) to subsequently produce this as evidence of what actually happened is disgraceful.Quote:
Originally Posted by RioDeLeo
Actually, it left a hole 75 feet across in the outer wall. The smaller hole was in Ring C, in other words after going through the outer and inner walls of the Ring E and Ring D at the very least, I don't think anyone would seriously expect that the full aircraft would get so far. But if you want to knock down a theory, what better way than to misrepresent it?
You are wrong about aircraft being weak, the wings are designed to flex, it is part of what gives the aircraft it's stability in turbulent air. If the wings were so weak as you claim, how could they able to support the full weight of the aircraft, at maximum takeoff weight 123.6 tonnes (not the out of date 115.7 tonnes stated in your link)? By comparison, it is the fuselage which is relatively weak, yet this is supposedly the part which has punched through the walls but left the wings behind.
The guy who wrote that report (Mete Sozen) assumed that metal will bend, just as it does in an automobile accident. But at the speeds involved there's one slight problem with that assumption. The metal simply does not have time to bend. But that's what you get when you ask an expert on static structures to explain the effect of a high speed impact. Unless of course you want the wrong conclusion to be drawn.
At best the wing will shear off. And if it shears off then there is nothing to draw it into the hole made by the fuselage, instead it will keep going in a straight line and therefore must either make its own hole or be left outside. There is no evidence it did either, so the correct assumption is that either it wasn't a 757, or that part or all of the wing was absent at the time of impact.
Another point, the aircraft fuel is held in the wings. What happened to 25 tonnes of jet fuel? If the wings were left outside there would have been a massive fireball visible over a great distance, but no-one reported any such thing. If the wings were drawn into the Pentagon the fire inside would have massively more intense and there would have been a lot more casualties.
Now I'm not saying that it wasn't a 757, I'm suggesting it wasn't a complete 757. The missing frames on the Pentagon video have been held up as "evidence" that there is a cover up, and that the plane wasn't a 757. But it could just as easily be that they are hiding damage on the 757. If they were avoiding jet fighters it could also explain why they missed the Pentagon and had to "go around".
I am pleased to report I have absolutely no idea what that means.Quote:
Originally Posted by neon
Can someone translate, or is it worth the bother.
Sorry, dont speak gobbledegook or double dutch :lookarounQuote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
Flight 77 Debris
CLAIM: Conspiracy theorists insist there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon. "In reality, a Boeing 757 was never found," claims pentagonstrike.co.uk, which asks the question, "What hit the Pentagon on 9/11?"
FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"
I guess we all think differently on this. To me a structural engineer can definitely have areas of expertise.
And on the WTC7 building.........I decided against the conspiracy theories when I realized this Larry Silverstein has never owned this building. A 99 year lease from the New York Port Authority by Silverstein Properties, Inc. doesn't constitute ownership to me. And that being the case......what right would he have to even think of demolishing?
As far as his remark about 'pulling and standing back and watching the building demolish?' Firefighters always talk about pulling. In their terms, it means not fighting the fire.....pulling away from.........letting it go...letting the fire do the pulling down.
I guess we all have to go with our own common sense....what makes sense to us.
"pull out" might mean leave the fires to burn. "pull it" doesn't sound right.
i wonder what "the fires were out" and "there was definately a second explosion" mean in firemans speak :unsure:
Oft times firemen think the fires were out, Gepper. Many times they are called back to a fire after many hours of such thinking. I have seen it happen more than once myself and this could cause another explosion, imo.
Unloke you, of course, who no doubt studied this at uni?Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
This conspiracy nonsense is a joke, a 757 flew into the Pentagon -- full stop. People saw it, they found the plane, and the black box, and the passengers and crew.
This is schoolboy stuff.
people also saw cruise missiles, hercules militery planes, light aircraft, and unmanned dronesQuote:
Originally Posted by whypikonme
"I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box."Quote:
Originally Posted by Everose
First of all, there are 2 "black boxes", the Flight Data Recorder and the Cockpit Voice Recorder, and he didn't find either of them, they were recovered by members of the Fairfax county search and rescue team. Secondly, how did he hold the tail section in his hand? It weighs several tonnes.
Now for his second (or is it his third) lie.
He claimed he had he arrived around noon. But in actual fact his arrival was documented by PBS news, and he didn't arrive until much later in the afternoon. He had been requested to go to the Pentagon by Walker Evey, the Pentagon renovation project manager. However, Evey himself didn't hear about the crash until shortly before noon. After that, Kilsheimer had to drive as close as he could to the Pentagon, then make a two hour walk to get to the crash site.
There are other anomolies in his statements, but I think I've discredited him enough for one post.
You'll notice I'm still not claiming that it wasn't a 757, but I'm astonished at how many "experts" are wheeled out to contradict these theories, yet they are so easily caught out in their lies and half-truths.
Evading the point again, I see.Quote:
Originally Posted by whypikonme
I'm not the one making claims about what happened there.
They are the ones apparently making the claims, but they have no expertise in the field.
But it turns out they didn't actually need any expertise, since the study they were carrying out was not intended to show directly what happened in the crash. What they were trying to do was show that it was possible to produce an animated simulation of what they believed happened. To this end they even got an animated model of a 757 from a games company, FFS.
I'm pretty sure your "abovetopsecret" site didn't bother to check what they were referring to, and neither did you. Next time, when you've googled something to "prove" your case, I suggest you find out what your source is actually talking about.
Sorry guys missunderstood the quote that was suppose to be here... :lookaroun
Misrepresenting people again l see. You seem to make quite a habit of it ... l posted that site for the photos of bits of the plane, not the opinions of the site, even if they do make a lot more sense than you do.Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
this is gonna sound wacky, but is it not possible that the heavy bits within the pentagon were already there, and the shreds of sheet steel outside could be planted or even projected from within the building?
straight away many people say they saw a small aircraft, cruise missile or unmanned drone. only later after the official story was released did the eye-witnesses say it was a 747.
i remember seeing something on tv about an experiment at loch ness. a tour guide was at lochside giving a talk about the loch ness monster. then a guy hidden in a bush pulled on a rope that lifted a plane old piece of 2 by 4 out of the water for a few seconds then dropped it back in. the witnesses were then asked to draw what they saw. all of them drew nessies head, some in detail, some just a blob(small head) on a stick(neck), none looked like a piece of 2 by 4.
So where are these people? And where is the 757? While you're at it, where are all the people who supposedly died inside the Pentagon, were they all made up too?Quote:
Originally Posted by GepperRankins
i'm sorry i can't remember anyone disputing that anyone died. luckily the part that was hit was almost empty though. for all we know the plane could be back up in the air, along with the hijackers. i don't know where the people are, it was just the people the media reached first.
so far everose is the only person who's managed to make me cast doubt on the conspiracy theories :unsure:
It'd be running short on fuel about now, don't you think?Quote:
Originally Posted by GepperRankins
Ah, I see. You just wanted to use the blurred photo's, the majority of which aren't actually clear enough to show anything useful.Quote:
Originally Posted by whypikonme
How stupid of me, I should have realised you were disassociating yourself from any written content on the site you linked to. Would I be right in assuming that you think their comments about the photographs are suspect?
Let's just examine the photographic "evidence".
Two small pieces, a smashed wheel and a nose strut are probably just what they say they are. Except that there's no reference in the shot to show where these photos were taken. Note the comment about "note how charred the area around it is", they are trying to convince us it was taken at the Pentagon. I would have taken it on face value without that comment.
The next photo claims another rim and a piece of aircraft bulkhead. In fact all that can truthfully be said is that there's something round and what could just as easily be part of an office ceiling or partition. But they placed the idea that a wheel rim was found and this one looks vaguely similar so why not include it. No need for objectivity.
Next there are the pieces with "Boeing green primer". So it's a good job we've established that nothing else in the world can be painted green. Hang on though, what happened to the soot and charring all round the impact hole? Ah well, there's a bit at the top of the picture, I suppose they think that will do.
Now there's a very clear shot of an amorphous mass. Oops, sorry, that should properly be described as "a tire with the same pattern as ones used on a 757".
Now the picture of the engine part. Ok, so maybe it's not part of a AE 3007H. There are plenty of others. They suggest it is a Honeywell APU. So why link to a picture that they've already said it can't be. Why not link to a picture of a Honeywell APU? And it is interesting that after almost 4 years that piece of debris has still not been officially identified. If it was so obviously part of a Honeywell APU that should be easy enough.
More engine parts, with a reference shot of an RB211 engine. Quite frankly the debris is so badly mangled and the photos so poor that I doubt whether an expert on Rolls Royce engines could identify that. Its just a shame they didn't have one to prove me wrong. Oh, wait, they did. And he didn't.
Next: "Evidence of the right engine impact on the side of the building is evident on the large pillar being sprayed with fire retardant." I think what they mean is that something damaged the wall, it is impossible to say what caused it.
Now comes evidence that some collateral damage was done. Well whoop-di-doo. Did anyone suggest that if it was something else than there would be no collateral damage?
The debris field. A couple of pictures of pieces so small they could have come from anything.
Now six photos of just about the only part which might be identifiable as part of an aircraft skin. Six photos. Presumably just in case we missed five of them. They really were getting desperate.
A photo of damage "obviously" made by the right engine. Obviously.
Then damage to a generator also made by that engine. Mind you, that engine certainly gets about a bit. If you look at the path supposedly taken by the generator that engine must have taken a quick trip out to the wingtip in order for it to have made the initial impact. It then dragged the generator back with it as it resumed it's normal position (and all this in about a microsecond) before finally knocking it out of the way.
Finally, the gate camera. Which curiously doen't have a picture of an aircraft. Hey, don't worry, those nice people from abovetopsecret can get a completely different shot, then paint one in for you so that it fits perfectly. One small problem though. Look where the tail fin is on the painted image. Then look at the actual shot. The whole of the area at that height is clear - there is no tail fin.
Now let's review their "review the facts"
# Size of 757 matches the initial size of hole in the building - somewhere between 13 and 16 feet (757 is 13 feet wide/high)
The initial hole was about 75 feet.
# Rims found in building match those of a 757
They match any commercial airplane wheel
# Small turbine engine outside is an APU
That has never been established
# Same engine has been clearly stated to not match a Global Hawk engine
There are dozens of other engines that have not been ruled out
# Blue seats from 757 laying on ground in photos
Blue upholstery laying on ground in photos
# Part of "American" fuselage logo visible in more than 1 photo
SAME part of some fuselage logo in more than 1 photo
# Engine parts photographed inside match a Rolls-Royce RB211
That was not established by Rolls-Royce's own expert
# Structural components photographed in wreckage match Boeing paint primer schemes
Green and yellow paint found
# Large deisel generator in front of building hit by a large heavy object
Large deisel generator was not in the flight path
# Large deisel engine outside is spun towards the building - could not be result of bomb blast or missile explosion
Large deisel generator was not in the flight path
# Multiple eye witnesses say they saw an airliner
Multiple eye witnesses say they saw a missile/small plane
# Multiple eye witnesses say they saw an airliner hit the Pentagon
Multiple eye witnesses say they saw a missile/small plane hit the Pentagon
# 60+ bodies, matching the passenger list and flight crew roster identified and returned to families from Pentagon wreckage
This is the best of the lot. The fire burned for about 60 hours. For the first 3 and a half hours it was so intense that fire crews could not get close enough to get water on it. Yet they expect us to believe that they found and identified over 60 bodies. But at the same time other sites tell us that the reason so little of the plane was found is because it burnt up in the intense heat. We should be grateful that the human body is so much more resiliant than an airframe.
You make me laugh, where are you .. Yorkshire or somewhere? Did you go to the Pentagon immediately after the crash? Of course not, you just have some magical fountain of indisputable knowledge, the problem is, you fail to point to it, as usual. Talk about flimsy. It seems you hold yourself up as an expert on everything, even aeroplanes crashing into buildings, maybe your statistical knowledge points to it?Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
This conspiracy theory is crap, so where do you get your info from? Instead of rubbishing everyone else, come up with your evidence, show us your sources, seeing as you have no first hand knowledge of what happened.
Are you some sort of dickhead? Don't you ever read anything before you post?Quote:
Originally Posted by whypikonme
I've consistently said I'm making no claims. I think most of the conspiracy theories are bunk. You wrote earlier about misrepresentation, yet that's all you and the links you make ever do. You never produce any hard incontrovertible evidence.
Your problem is you respond to the theories with links to sites which contain an equal amount of crap. These sites put themselves forwards as fountains of truth, and you latch on to them as if they contained messages from your god. Are you suggesting we should just meekly accept your "truth".
You clearly haven't checked out your sources, it is only right that someone should. And when I tear your flimsy evidence to shreds you have the cheek to say I'm the one who needs to produce evidence. Evidence of what? I'm making no claims, merely showing that your's aren't valid.
Showing my what aren't valid? A plane crashed into the Pentagon, that isn't MY claim, it's the claim of everyone who KNOWS anything about it, and you haven't shown that all the evidence isn't valid at all. You just come up with a pile of half-arsed theories about the damage done by planes crashing into buildings. A 757 was hijacked, people phoned from the plane, it was seen crashing into the Pentagon by several people, bits were found, the black box was found, bodies were found, if you don't accept that, then you should have reasons you don't believe it, instead, you rubbish people. Where is the plane and all the passengers if it didn't hit the Pentagon? If it was a set-up, what about the ones that crashed into the WTC? Or is that just a coincidence?Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
This is your 'evidence' ..
So you're an expert on high speed impacts are you? Another string to your astonishing bow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynx
Let's not forget this little gem as well,
Quote:
"If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen." Well, he actually got that bit right, it didn't happen
Welcome to this week's edition of "When People Don't Read Posts Properly".:rolleyes:
You really have lost the plot haven't you. And once again you haven't read what I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by whypikonme
You stated the conspiracy theories were crap. Do you want to dispute that as being different from a claim? Anyway, maybe they are crap. You won't find anywhere that I've said anything to the contrary. The problem comes with the way you try to back up your statements. I am simply pointing out that the evidence you presented is as crap as the theories they purport to disprove.
Blurred images, pictures whose location at the crash site is extremely dubious, pictures which they admit have been doctored, presentation of theory as "obvious fact" and "impacts" which simply could not have happened. If you can do better than that, why didn't you? You presented that site as some sort of proof, are you now claiming it is unimpeachable?
Are you disputing that the fire burnt for 60 hours?
Are you claiming that only Boeing use green and yellow paint?
Are you saying that abovetopsecret's Rolls-Royce expert identified an RB211 engine?
I haven't said that the conspiracy theories were true, despite your attempts to infer the opposite. What I've done is to thoroughly discredit your evidence. There may well be evidence out there which will comprehensively back up your statement that the conspiracy theories are nonsense. If you want to produce evidence like that I will be happy to accept it. I'm just saying that the evidence you've "produced" so far doesn't do it.
http://immortal-technique.com/forums...showtopic=4020
9/11 Movies, truth and opinions.
any opinions? check it. ^^^^^ ?
I have to agree I can't think of a single legal reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Everose
However, he was paying out $3.2 billion over 99 years, but he expected insurance policies to cover him and his company for around $9.2 billion. That's 6 billion illegal reasons. Unfortunately for him he didn't get $3.5 billion of that money. My heart bleeds for him.
Yeah, I read about the insurance policies, too, Lynx. But would someone admit to demolishing a building in this way when it would negate his collecting insurance. Insurance claims adjusters on this big of a claim would be tough.
And as far as the structural engineer, I only read that he was the first structural engineer on the site.
I think a lot of confusion has been based on the surreal demand for literal interpretations of investigators, and others words..........some taken right after dealing with the aftermath of this horrendous disaster, some taken down the road a bit when just being asked about it brings back the horror of the situation.
I have seen a lot of 'it could have been this, too,' but I haven't seen much proof to discount facts as they were best able to report them.
I can only imagine the horror of the moment and dealing with the after effects. I don't feel like this is taken into account when people.s statements are being literally taken apart and analyzed word by word. I am by no means perfect, but saying I held a wing in my own hands after dealing with this horror, is very possible. I don't know if my mind could be very good at thinking I needed to get the exact proper adjective in my statement. I would hope people would understand human nature and use their common sense to understand what I meant....I could in no way hold a whole 757's wing, tail section, or whatever.
I may be wrong here, but after reading what I have read.......here and elsewhere.........about the bodies found afterwards at the pentagon. With such an impact, I doubt all body parts remained in the immediate area of the fire. It seems feasible that parts were flung about, and it also seems feasible to me that a large part of them would be flung about. I have even gone so far to think that even though bones burn....do teeth? Comparing passenger lists against remains would be a tedious task. But I also imagine those sixty passengers had loved ones that wanted proof, and I haven't seen one single family member dispute the proof given them.
What I have seen is a tremendous amount of credence and space given to websites, mostly based in other countries, disputing this. After reviewing them last evening, I can only ask what is up with that?
To demolish a building in the center of manhattan in the middle of a national crisis = Power (aka - networking - do you have this power?)
According to close architect buddies of mine - the world trade centers could easily collapse after their necks where removed and the top collapsed after a sidewards impulse wack from a plane
I am pro "Less Architecture"
unless lives are taken
@Everose, I totally agree with your sentiments, though I am perhaps a little more cynical about the motives of the men in positions of influence/power. I haven't actually seen what Larry Silverstein is supposed to have said, and even if I had I'm pretty sure it would have been out of context. I was merely countering your position that he had no legal right/reason for demolishing World Trade Building 7 with the suggestion that he had a lot of illegal reasons.
I also completely agree that some of the statements by Kilsheimer were obviously taken out of context, but I was simply quoting those statements. I wasn't the one who removed the context element, that was done by those who were trying to misuse them to prove an alternative viewpoint. And that's largely been my whole point throughout, that just as much effort has been put in to misrepresenting evidence to counter conspiracy theories as has been used to promote them.
Does fire destroy teeth? I'm no expert but as far as I'm aware teeth are simply modified bone material so they should be affected by heat in much the same way. Are teeth regularly found in the ashes produced from a cremation? I've only seen the results twice and I can't say I studied them too closely so I don't atually know, but that process certainly doesn't produce temperatures anything like those reported at the Pentagon.
As you say, the loved ones of the passengers may have wanted some sort of proof. But what sort of proof could they have been given? Even if they were really shown teeth and bones there is no way that they could have independently matched these to their own family members. Only a DNA analysis would be of use, and if there was a cover-up I feel pretty certain there would be plans in place to meet that possibility.
One other small point that has occured to me. It doesn't prove anything about conspiracies, it simply questions some of the unofficial "evidence". I'm referring to the theory of the "liquidized" aeroplane. It is compared to what happens in an avalanche where solids behave as liquids.
The thing about avalanches is that the solid material is composed of relatively small pieces which roll over one another. For the same thing to happen to these aircraft they would have to have shattered into small fragments. I can't think of any reason why that should have happened, It has never been suggested to have happened in any other air crahs, and I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that it did in this instance either.
But let's assume that there was some condition in the impacts on the towers which did cause the aircraft to shatter. The crash at the Pentagon did not nearly match the conditions in the tower impacts, so why would we get the same effect?
Another piece of dodgy "evidence" disposed of, I think.