Has anyone read the 9/11 commission's report? I would like to know what the commission's explanation was as to how the hijacked airplane that struck the Pentagon was able to do so without being preemptively destroyed by the US military since it flew into what amounts to be a no-fly zone.

Also, what was the commission's explanation as to how the plane still managed to strike the Pentagon even after a significant amount of time had elapsed after the attacks on the World Trade Centre.

I don't want to get into any of the conspiracy theories that contend that it wasn't actually a plane that struck the Pentagon. If that's what you believe you're certainly entitled to that belief though.

Thanks

Id also like to ask how it disentigrated when thats not possible. Id also like to hear how some say it hit the ground first but left no marks on it. And how the cameras that would have had footage of the plane had their survelience tapes seized, and have never been released.

Just a few more questions. If you can answer, I'd honestly be happy to hear them. Iv never bought into the conspiracy shit, but the more I read and see and hear the harder the official story is to believe...

Sorry, this is the best I can do:

(Richard) Clarke has been concerned about the danger posed by aircraft since at least the 1996 Atlanta Olympics. There he had tried to create an air defense plan using assets from the Treasury Department, after the Defense Department declined to contribute resources. The Secret Service continued to work on the problem of airborne threats to the Washington region. In 1998, Clark chaired an exercise designed to highlight the inadequacy of the solution. This paper exercise involved a scenario in which a group of terrorists comandeered a Learjet on the ground in Atlanta, loaded it with explosives, and flew it toward a target in Washington, D.C. Clarke asked officials from the Pentagon, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and Secret SErvice what they could do about the situation. Officials from the Pentagon said they could scramble aircract from Langley Air Force Base, but they would need to go to the President for rules of engagement, and there was no mechanism to do so. There was no clear resolution of the problem at the exercise.

The report goes on to mention that the thought that terrorists might use suicide planes had crossed the minds of those interested and that shooting down such planes was also a suggested solution, but basically we didn't formulate a policy to concentrate on either. Or a "when" or "how" do you do such a thing. It says that using suicide planes was a relatively unlikely method of attack in comparison the "thousands" of alternatives (therefore not warranting special attention) and that there were so many questions surrounding the shooting down of these suicide planes that a policy hadn't really formed.

I think the problem arising from the ultra-skeptical surrounding this issue is that they tend to forget that nothing like this ever happened before, and it's easy to say in hindsight what needed to be done. Never mind the confusion and uncertainty of what was going on, the moral and legal ramifications of the government shooting down a civilian airliner alone seems weighty enough to explain why such a thing did not happen. That, in addition to the novelty of the situation and the fact no such mechanism was in place to actually do it anyways is more than enough explanation for why it didn't happen.

http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showthread.php?t=88256

well..first off..you would have to hope there were "armed" jets available for a scramble to take down the Pentagon plane. i don't think i've read anywhere that we were exercising that capability.
second..there is a video out there showing an F4 fighter being crashed into a wall that totally disentergrates...
keep trying....all it does is keep your mind off of the actual threat...:|

i've read most of the 911 report...i've also read some of the Grimm Brother's..which was slightly more entertaining:p

werent there war games going on the same day? that could have contributed to the confusion right? One was a live fly exercise with an unarmed aircraft i believe.

Link to some related war games info including transcripts of testimony: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=GEO20051116&articleId=1268

there is a video out there showing an F4 fighter being crashed into a wall that totally disentergrates...
keep trying....|

Dude, you dont get it--Thats an F4 Fighter. This was a giant ****ing boeing, with far more steel and metal then the amount of fuel in the tank could have disentigrated. Using basic math you can come to this conclusion. As well as what I stated about tire/ground marks, and the fact that it punched a nice round hole into the building. THat it also didnt nock over any nearby trees or poles. Just a few things youd notice if you actually looked at a picture or thought about the scene.


i've read most of the 911 report...i've also read some of the Grimm Brother's..which was slightly more entertaining:p

THat it also didnt nock over any nearby trees or poles.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v292/boilermaker78/pole.jpg




I wonder what damaged this windshield?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v292/boilermaker78/pole2.jpg

Dude, you dont get it--Thats an F4 Fighter. This was a giant ****ing boeing, with far more steel and metal then the amount of fuel in the tank could have disentigrated. Using basic math you can come to this conclusion. As well as what I stated about tire/ground marks, and the fact that it punched a nice round hole into the building. THat it also didnt nock over any nearby trees or poles. Just a few things youd notice if you actually looked at a picture or thought about the scene.

Boeing passanger jets aren't made of steel. If they were, they couldn't fly. They're made mostly of aluminum, which does disintegrate on high speed impact into a dense, solid structure. There's plenty of video available that shows this to be true. There were also lots of parts recovered, and plenty of evidence exists to support this.

The reason some of the poles were standing is simple. The plane didn't hit them.

Also, all but two of the bodies were recovered and identified through DNA testing. The conspiracy theory is full of holes. It can be totally discredited in a few sentences.

In order for it to be true, there would had to have been thousands of people involved, and every single one would have had to keep quiet about it. We know how human nature is, and anyone can easily realize how impossible that would be.

Boeing passanger jets aren't made of steel. If they were, they couldn't fly. They're made mostly of aluminum, which does disintegrate on high speed impact into a dense, solid structure.

Actually, if you were to contact Boeing and ask them what they're made of, they would refuse to tell you because of security reasons since 9-11.

But we do know that the engines are made out of titanium alloy and steel, and they weight around 6 tons each. We also know that there was no damage on the pentagon where the engines would've hit. It's scientifically impossible that they could vaporize upon impact due to titaniums melting point and the fact that kerosene would've burned off immediately after impact.

If the 757 vaporized, it would be the first time in aviation history. There was no fuselage, no wing remains, no seats, no damage on the lawn, no engine remains...but there was a 16 foot wide hole in the pentagon - no damage done to the sides even though a 757 has a 124 foot wingspan - the windows remained completely intact on the sides of the hole...AND somehow it was able to penetrate through 9 feet of steel reinforced concrete 3 rings inside the pentagon, only to leave another 16 foot hole with no debris? Very interesting considering they say it vaporized upon impact...


There's plenty of video available that shows this to be true. There were also lots of parts recovered, and plenty of evidence exists to support this.

There were really 3 main pieces found. One was a turbojet piece about 3 feet in diameter, another was alledgedly a piece of the fuselage, and another was a difuser.

The turbojet piece was determined to be not found on any part of a Boeing 757 according to the manufacturer, Rolls Royce and Pratt & Whitney. Uh oh.

The supposed fuselage piece remained completely unsinged, how is that possible if the rest of the plane vaporized on impact?

The difuser case shows inconsistencies with a difuser case found on a 757 if you look at a side by side comparison. Lots of problems.

The crash was captured on at least 3 known cameras. 1 at a nearby gas station captured the whole thing, and another security camera at a nearby hotel. Both were confiscated within minutes by the FBI. They have never shown these to the public.

So what did the government release? About 5 frames from their security camera at the pentagon, and none show a 757...

The reason some of the poles were standing is simple. The plane didn't hit them.

Hmmm...

Also, all but two of the bodies were recovered and identified through DNA testing. The conspiracy theory is full of holes. It can be totally discredited in a few sentences.

Well, there isn't just one "theory." There's really just a bunch on unanswered questions based on logical impossibilities contained in the official report. Speaking of "holes" one is that the official report says that a plane made of various metals vaporized upon a 530 mph impact, yet miraculously they were still able to identify all but 2 passengers?

Seriously...I'm respectfully asking you to think about this.

In order for it to be true, there would had to have been thousands of people involved, and every single one would have had to keep quiet about it. We know how human nature is, and anyone can easily realize how impossible that would be.

How do you figure? It seems to me that only a few would need to know.

no engine remains...

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/conclusions/docs/mystery_engine_s.jpg


I wonder how the conspiracy theorists can explain the hundreds and hundreds of people who said they SAW A COMMERCIAL AIRLINER CRASH INTO THE PENTAGON......

:confused:

Erm, yo know, I remember watching the news, and i remember bits of plane scattered all over the lawn. Also if there wasn't a plane, what exactly smashed into the generator near the pentagon and moved it closer to the pentagon? and the reason most of it didn't lay around outside was because it kinda knocked a rather large hole in the side of the pentagon and carried on going ;)

hugs

lilnymph

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/conclusions/docs/mystery_engine_s.jpg


I wonder how the conspiracy theorists can explain the hundreds and hundreds of people who said they SAW A COMMERCIAL AIRLINER CRASH INTO THE PENTAGON......

:confused:

People have reasons for saying what they do sometimes... And, what I think is an even more compelling argument:

The crash was captured on at least 3 known cameras. 1 at a nearby gas station captured the whole thing, and another security camera at a nearby hotel. Both were confiscated within minutes by the FBI. They have never shown these to the public.

Interesting, no?

Actually, if you were to contact Boeing and ask them what they're made of, they would refuse to tell you because of security reasons since 9-11.

But we do know that the engines are made out of titanium alloy and steel, and they weight around 6 tons each. We also know that there was no damage on the pentagon where the engines would've hit. It's scientifically impossible that they could vaporize upon impact due to titaniums melting point and the fact that kerosene would've burned off immediately after impact.

If the 757 vaporized, it would be the first time in aviation history. There was no fuselage, no wing remains, no seats, no damage on the lawn, no engine remains...but there was a 16 foot wide hole in the pentagon - no damage done to the sides even though a 757 has a 124 foot wingspan - the windows remained completely intact on the sides of the hole...AND somehow it was able to penetrate through 9 feet of steel reinforced concrete 3 rings inside the pentagon, only to leave another 16 foot hole with no debris? Very interesting considering they say it vaporized upon impact...




There were really 3 main pieces found. One was a turbojet piece about 3 feet in diameter, another was alledgedly a piece of the fuselage, and another was a difuser.

The turbojet piece was determined to be not found on any part of a Boeing 757 according to the manufacturer, Rolls Royce and Pratt & Whitney. Uh oh.

The supposed fuselage piece remained completely unsinged, how is that possible if the rest of the plane vaporized on impact?

The difuser case shows inconsistencies with a difuser case found on a 757 if you look at a side by side comparison. Lots of problems.

The crash was captured on at least 3 known cameras. 1 at a nearby gas station captured the whole thing, and another security camera at a nearby hotel. Both were confiscated within minutes by the FBI. They have never shown these to the public.

So what did the government release? About 5 frames from their security camera at the pentagon, and none show a 757...



Hmmm...



Well, there isn't just one "theory." There's really just a bunch on unanswered questions based on logical impossibilities contained in the official report. Speaking of "holes" one is that the official report says that a plane made of various metals vaporized upon a 530 mph impact, yet miraculously they were still able to identify all but 2 passengers?

Seriously...I'm respectfully asking you to think about this.



How do you figure? It seems to me that only a few would need to know.



Okay, large portions of engine parts were recovered, and photos are readily available for anyone who wants to look at them, and acknowledge their existence and reality.

The reason the bodies had to be identified by DNA is because they were mutilated beyond recognition for the most part. Two bodies were never accounted for at all.



I googled the subject and there are tons of links, but I just pasted the first one I came across.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html

Here's a page from the Stae Dept. website about false stories, and it mentions the pentagon.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html

The photos are deceptive. For one reason, the hole in the wall is much bigger than it looks on TV. It wasn't a tiny hole at all. It was huge.

As for only a "few" people being needed to pull off such a hoax, think about it. We would need the cooperation of the airlines themselves, members of the military, a group of folks who supposedly wired the jets for remote control (which, by the way has never been done to large jets; ever).

We would need the entire group of firefighters, EMT's, hospital personell and coroners, the FBI, CIA, the administration, air trafic controllers, local police, D.C. police, construction company owners, crews and foremen, hundreds of folks in the media, every single eyewitness, and anyone they spoke to about what happened, the people who actually conceived the plan, aquired the "weapons or missle/s", those who actually carried it out, those who engineered and prosecuted the escape plan, those who planted, removed or covered up evidence, the group of people who supposedly downed the "real" plane (which no one witnessed, nor heard so much a sound of the "crashing plane"), recovered the debris and made it disappear, those who cleaned up the "real" crash site and made it look just as it had before the "crash" so no one would have so much as a hint of evidence, and who klnows who else.

If the building had been wired for detonation, another group would be involved. Those who aquired the explosives, those who transported them, those who wired them, and those who actually did the detonation. They would have to flee the scene, and somone would have been involved in that part of it as well.

The families of the victims would be investigating the whole thing viligantly too. Sooner or later, someone would have to come up with more than theories, and produce tangible, hard evidence.

When you really think about what this would take, and start adding up the numbers of individuals, it becomes quite obvious that the building was hit by a hijacked airliner. Youy also have to calculate the even broader conspiracy when you add the twin towers into the equation. In the end, it would have required thousands of people, and every single one of them would have to remain quiet for the rest of their lives. With human nature being what it is, that would be highly unlikely.

Once again, the US government can't cover up the president getting a BJ in a locked room, with no witnesses and armed guards on the door, but it can keep a conspiracy of this size secret? of course.......

hugs

lilnymph

Well no one really saw the object strike the Pentagon. My friend, my friend, my friend. I was watching the whole incident and remember EXACTLY as it was being reported. As the WTC buildings were shown burning from the airplanes, the MSNBC news reporter said it was just in that a "helicopter struck the landing pad" in D.C. I remeber that clear as day. You must realize that an airliner moves at 600 miles an hour. Now, the issue isn't was it a Jumbo jet or missile but was it a helicopter or missile.
You can't miss a 757 crashing near ground level. I lived next to the airport in San Diego and the shadow of those planes gives there presence away.
Secondly, the roaring engine would have made it's presence known as well if traveling at such speeds.
Thirdly, the plane wouldn't have exploded on impact but only if the gas was ignited which colud be momemts after impact just as in a car accident.
The U.S. did 9/11 on themselves with the help of Israel as an escuse to wreck havoc in the Middle East. There were no hijackers at all and the reports were from CIA agents not actual witnesses.

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/conclusions/docs/mystery_engine_s.jpg


I wonder how the conspiracy theorists can explain the hundreds and hundreds of people who said they SAW A COMMERCIAL AIRLINER CRASH INTO THE PENTAGON......

:confused:

Themistocles, can you please repost that pic again, it's a red x.

Was it really hundreds and hundreds? Not from the research I've done. Can you explain the various reports of eyewitnesses who heard a "high pitched sound" that appeared to "look like a missle or military aircraft?" The various reports that people say what they saw looked nothing like a commercial airliner?

Erm, yo know, I remember watching the news, and i remember bits of plane scattered all over the lawn. Also if there wasn't a plane, what exactly smashed into the generator near the pentagon and moved it closer to the pentagon? and the reason most of it didn't lay around outside was because it kinda knocked a rather large hole in the side of the pentagon and carried on going ;)

hugs

lilnymph

What generator are you referring to lil?

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/5.jpg
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/pentagon/docs/compmix2.jpg

First and foremost, is everyone in agreeance that the military should've been able to intercept the wayward plane that hit the Pentagon considering the circumstances? I've heard that this should've been the case, but of course what I heard could be wrong.

Yes. This is one of the biggest problems I have with the official report.

Optimus, what was the report's explanation regarding why the plane wasn't intercepted?

Opt,

I gotta go. I'll be back tomorrow.

I believe it was "unavailable" F-16's at Andrews air force base.

No, the offical report stated:


There was no existing policy to shoot down hijacked airplanes.
No mechanism existed to order military planes to shoot down commercial airliners.
To the extent the idea ever existed that the military may have to shoot down hijacked planes, the legality and morality of doing such a thing was ambiguous.


That's what the report stated.


Interesting, no?

Interesting that the government wanted to view the tape, no. That they haven't released it seems irrelevent for this discussion since the conspiracy theorists would inevitably argued any evidence of an airliner hitting the Pentagon would be "fixed". I mean, there are conspiracy theorists who believe that the WTC had been destroyed not by planes but bombs.

I do find it interesting that eye witness testimony would be dismissed casually but the "where's the confiscated video?" would amount to a closed case zinger for the "it wasn't a plane" conspiracy theory.

Interesting that the government wanted to view the tape, no.

Your right, thats not interesting. What is interesting is they knew that these cameras existed, and secured the tapes immidetly after the 'plane' hit, before anyone could view them--And still wont release it to the public.


I do find it interesting that eye witness testimony would be dismissed casually but the "where's the confiscated video?" would amount to a closed case zinger for the "it wasn't a plane" conspiracy theory.

There were also 'eye witnesses' who didnt see anything, and dont know what happend. There are those who helped with clean-up immidelty after the crash, and said they found amazingly little of the plane left.

Also, I admit Im not a example student in the laws of physics, but I find it hard to buy that a the little fuel that was left in the plane wouldv vaporized 98% of the plane, but leave most of the victims merely mutiliated, still traceable by DNA... And yet even though these bodies could be I.D.'d--The government never released them to family for funeral and burial rights.

I believe it was "unavailable" F-16's at Andrews air force base.

I have to clarify my comment. NORAD ordered fighter planes from Langley, which is 130 miles from Washington, rather than from Andrews air force base, which is only 10 miles away AND has the assignment to protect Washington.

Pentagon sources said that Andrews had "no fighters assigned to it." Not the 9-11 commission report.

It turns out that Andrews did indeed have fighters present, and they changed their web site the very next day.

No, the offical report stated:


There was no existing policy to shoot down hijacked airplanes.
No mechanism existed to order military planes to shoot down commercial airliners.
To the extent the idea ever existed that the military may have to shoot down hijacked planes, the legality and morality of doing such a thing was ambiguous.


That's what the report stated.

No, that is not what it stated at all. After re-reading their statements again they claim that the command center lost contact with flight 77 and assumed it was lost or possibly crashed, and that it was having serious electrical problems. They claim that the indianapolis controllers had no knowledge of the other two planes being hijacked, and they didn't start to realize a hijacking until later, and that NORAD did not know about the search for the missing flight 77. The report also says that they were unable to find a source for the FAA confusion and lack of communication. (LINK) (http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_17.pdf)

Now I'll address your nicely bulleted points, which look quite nice and organized but in reality are completely false.


FAA regulations state that fighter planes are to be scrambled to intercept a hijacked plane, and if that fails to take further action. (shoot down.)
Yes, mechanisms and standard operating protocol do exist, as filghts are routinely intercepted (not shot down) fairly often.
Not ambigious whatsoever. It is legal and part of standard protocol.


FAA regulations state:
"Consider that an aircraft emergency exists...when:...There is unexpected loss of radar contact and radio communications with any...aircraft...If...you are in doubt that a situation constitutes an emergency or potential emergency, handle it as though it were an emergency."

So, as soon as radio contact was lost flight controllers should have started emergency proceedures. According to a spokesperson for NORAD, from the time the FAA senses that something is wrong, "it takes about one minute" for it to contact NORAD, and then NORAD can scramble fighters "within a matter of minutes to anywhere in the United States."

Even if radio contact and the transponder's signal had not been lost,, the fact that the plane went radically off course at 8:20 would have led the FAA to notify the military. Every plane has a flight plan which has a sequence of geographic points or "fixes" and pilots are supposed to hit each fix with pinpoint accuracy. If a plane deviates by 15 degrees, or two miles from that course, the flight controllers will hit the panic button. They'll call the plane, saying, "you're deviating from course." It's considered a real emergency.

As far as what would happen upon interception. FAA says:

"[The interceptor military craft communicates by] Rocking wings from a position slightly above and ahead of, and normally to the left of, the intercepted aircraft... The action conveys the message: "You have been intercepted." The commercial jet is then supposed to respond by rocking its wings to indicate compliance, upon which the interceptor performs a "slow level turn, normally to the left, on to the desired heading [direction]." The commercial plane then responds by following the escort.(source - FAA Aeronautical Information Manual, "Interception Signals" www.faa.gov)

If any of the flights on that day had been intercepted but did not respond, it would according to standard procedures, have been shot down. Marine Corps Major Mike Snyder, a NORAD spokesman, after telling the Boston Globe that NORAD's "fighters routinely intercept aircraft," says, "When planes are intercepted, they typically are handled with graduated response. The approaching fighter may rock its wingtips to attract the pilot's attention, or make a pass in front of the aircraft. Eventually, it can fire tracer rounds in the airplane's path, or, under certain circumstances, down it with a missle." (source-Glen Johnson, "Facing Terror Attacks Aftermath," Boston Globe, September 15, 2001)


Interesting that the government wanted to view the tape, no. That they haven't released it seems irrelevent for this discussion since the conspiracy theorists would inevitably argued any evidence of an airliner hitting the Pentagon would be "fixed".

Not true at all. If the government had released all that footage to the public and it clearly showed a 757 crashing into the pentagon (instead of the 5 frames of ridiculousness they did release), there would be no question about it. If they have nothing to hide, why would they have confiscated them in the first place? It's obvious they didn't want the public to see what was on those tapes.

I mean, there are conspiracy theorists who believe that the WTC had been destroyed not by planes but bombs.

Yes. For example, the "conspiracy theorists" known as the NYC firefighters who were in the towers...

VIDEO (right click, save target as) (http://www.letsroll911.org/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg)

Those crazy firefighters in the actual building, what do they know?

Your right, thats not interesting. What is interesting is they knew that these cameras existed, and secured the tapes immidetly after the 'plane' hit, before anyone could view them--And still wont release it to the public.



There were also 'eye witnesses' who didnt see anything, and dont know what happend. There are those who helped with clean-up immidelty after the crash, and said they found amazingly little of the plane left.

Also, I admit Im not a example student in the laws of physics, but I find it hard to buy that a the little fuel that was left in the plane wouldv vaporized 98% of the plane, but leave most of the victims merely mutiliated, still traceable by DNA... And yet even though these bodies could be I.D.'d--The government never released them to family for funeral and burial rights.


DNA can be extracted from tooth and bone fragments, so it's not hard to believe that it was available after a fire for testing.

Also, jet fuel isn't like gasoline. It's like kerosene. It ignites more slowly, and burns longer, instead of exploding in one quick fireball. So, if the plane had a "littl" fuel, relatively speaking, it would still produce a long burning fire, along with whatever flammable material caught fire after the crash occurred.

Well no one really saw the object strike the Pentagon. My friend, my friend, my friend. I was watching the whole incident and remember EXACTLY as it was being reported. As the WTC buildings were shown burning from the airplanes, the MSNBC news reporter said it was just in that a "helicopter struck the landing pad" in D.C. I remeber that clear as day. You must realize that an airliner moves at 600 miles an hour. Now, the issue isn't was it a Jumbo jet or missile but was it a helicopter or missile.
You can't miss a 757 crashing near ground level. I lived next to the airport in San Diego and the shadow of those planes gives there presence away.
Secondly, the roaring engine would have made it's presence known as well if traveling at such speeds.
Thirdly, the plane wouldn't have exploded on impact but only if the gas was ignited which colud be momemts after impact just as in a car accident.
The U.S. did 9/11 on themselves with the help of Israel as an escuse to wreck havoc in the Middle East. There were no hijackers at all and the reports were from CIA agents not actual witnesses.


So where are all the passangers??? Are they locked away in a secret detention camp, or were they simply gunned down by covert government agents, who then disposed of the bodies, while other authorities who were also in on the "conspiracy" broke the sad news to their families, and the rest of the nation??

The conspiracy theory, if true, would be the single most complicated, widespread, intricate plan ever conceived by humans, and not one single, solitary person could ever talk about it, because they promised to keep it a secret.

That's a ridiculous concept. If this was a government plot, it would have been exposed within days. At least one person with an ounce of humanity and a conscience would have talked to somone, or at least leaked the truth to the press, and not an obscure, internet conspiracy site.

I believe it was "unavailable" F-16's at Andrews air force base.

But there were Air Defense Batteries. Ever heard of them? Ground installations that fires SAMs (Surface to Air Missiles) that'll swat that sonuvitch out of the sky.

And DC has a VERY strict no fly zone. I was wondering why they didn't use it on that day. :confused:

The No fly zone (that's a cache link and the relative parts should be highlighted):

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:2s745vOfO4kJ:www.aopa.org/whatsnew/air_traffic/adiz.html+%22Washington+DC%22+%22No+fly+zone%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=5

The 'no plane hit the pentagon' argument is false, but that is no reason to believe nothing fishy happened.

There was this documentary on the History channel about the attempted assassination of Nixon. This guy was going to hijack a plane and fly it into the White House. The documentary said if he was successful in hijacking the plane, it would have been destroyed by fighters or missiles that protect the White House (a hypothetical situation in the 70s).
I guess the Pentagon isn't as important?

Why is it so hard to believe that people didn't shoot down the planes? Firstly nothing like this had ever happened before, so there probably wasn't any system in place to dear with it. You then have to scramble the fighters, get them to the high jacked plane, and shoot it down. And remember, info is going to be very confusing while all this is going on. How can people be sure exactly whats going on? perhaps the terrorists aren't going to crash the plane, they just want to take hostages. in that case shooting it down means you have killed all the people on the plane for no reason. There are a whole host of other things to take into account. Yes, looking back, with all the facts, they should have been shot down. But people on the day didn't have all the facts, or the ability to sit down calmly and work things out.

Hugs

lilnymph

Why is it so hard to believe that people didn't shoot down the planes? Firstly nothing like this had ever happened before, so there probably wasn't any system in place to dear with it. You then have to scramble the fighters, get them to the high jacked plane, and shoot it down. And remember, info is going to be very confusing while all this is going on. How can people be sure exactly whats going on? perhaps the terrorists aren't going to crash the plane, they just want to take hostages. in that case shooting it down means you have killed all the people on the plane for no reason. There are a whole host of other things to take into account. Yes, looking back, with all the facts, they should have been shot down. But people on the day didn't have all the facts, or the ability to sit down calmly and work things out.

Hugs

lilnymph

Actually it has happen before during Clinton's presidency, although it was a piss-ant plane and it hit the Capitol building.

Again, there are SAM batteries around DC. You don't need jets.

And again, who wants to give the order to kill a plane full of civilians for possibly no reason?

hugs

lilnymph

Why is it so hard to believe that people didn't shoot down the planes? Firstly nothing like this had ever happened before, so there probably wasn't any system in place to dear with it. You then have to scramble the fighters, get them to the high jacked plane, and shoot it down. And remember, info is going to be very confusing while all this is going on. How can people be sure exactly whats going on? perhaps the terrorists aren't going to crash the plane, they just want to take hostages. in that case shooting it down means you have killed all the people on the plane for no reason. There are a whole host of other things to take into account. Yes, looking back, with all the facts, they should have been shot down. But people on the day didn't have all the facts, or the ability to sit down calmly and work things out.

Hugs

lilnymph

Why is it so hard to believe? Because the pentagon was hit nearly an hour and a half into the whole crisis. It only takes 2-5 minutes to scramble fighters, travel time would've been less than 2 minutes from Andrews.

There most certainly is a military system in place specifically for this purpose, as I outlined in my earlier post. I also have worked with a former top ranking Navy officer, and he was the first to explain to me the military protocol for emergency situations like hijackings. He told me the US military flat out did not follow standard operating procedure, and the fact that it took so freaking long suggests some form of complicity.

How can they be sure what is going on? They can't always. That's why FAA guidlines state to treat an unsure emergency situation as if it were a confirmed emergency.

As far as shooting a hijacked plane goes, when it comes to saving thousands of lives even if it means sacrificing a couple hundred, you unfortunately have to sacrifice the people on the plane for the greater number of people at risk.

But there were Air Defense Batteries. Ever heard of them? Ground installations that fires SAMs (Surface to Air Missiles) that'll swat that sonuvitch out of the sky.

And DC has a VERY strict no fly zone. I was wondering why they didn't use it on that day. :confused:

The No fly zone (that's a cache link and the relative parts should be highlighted):

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:2s745vOfO4kJ:www.aopa.org/whatsnew/air_traffic/adiz.html+%22Washington+DC%22+%22No+fly+zone%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=5

Yes I have actually, but I haven't seen much confirming them. Any links?

So where are all the passangers??? Are they locked away in a secret detention camp, or were they simply gunned down by covert government agents, who then disposed of the bodies, while other authorities who were also in on the "conspiracy" broke the sad news to their families, and the rest of the nation??

The conspiracy theory, if true, would be the single most complicated, widespread, intricate plan ever conceived by humans, and not one single, solitary person could ever talk about it, because they promised to keep it a secret.

That's a ridiculous concept. If this was a government plot, it would have been exposed within days. At least one person with an ounce of humanity and a conscience would have talked to somone, or at least leaked the truth to the press, and not an obscure, internet conspiracy site.

I've thought about that too. I mean, if the entire thing was orchestrated by the government, you're right, it would be the single most complicated plan ever conceived. I'll freely admitt that I do go back and forth on the whole plane crashing into the pentagon debate.

But, there's another angle to consider...

What if the government knew in advace about the terrorist hijackings (and there is a lot of evidence pointing to that as well) and simply decided to "allow" them to happen? Then it wouldn't be nearly as complicated. Less people would have to know, in fact, the less the better, and just feign "confusion" and "miscommunication" and "unprepared for this kind of attack" etc...

Yes I have actually, but I haven't seen much confirming them. Any links?

I know SAMs were added after 9-11, but it is doubtful they were there before

As far as the pentagon, ALL the evidence is consistent with getting hit with a 757, there are numerous photos of engine parts, landing gear, wheels etc that were recognisable after the crash.

http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon-photos.html

As far as shooting a hijacked plane goes, when it comes to saving thousands of lives even if it means sacrificing a couple hundred, you unfortunately have to sacrifice the people on the plane for the greater number of people at risk.

And you would have no trouble at all ordering it, when you didn't know if it was going to be necessary or not? You'd have no problem at all ordering the possibly pointless deaths of hundreds of innocent people?

hugs

lilnymph

And you would have no trouble at all ordering it, when you didn't know if it was going to be necessary or not? You'd have no problem at all ordering the possibly pointless deaths of hundreds of innocent people?

hugs

lilnymph

You would know if it was necessary, if the pilot in the F-16 was reporting that he wasn't getting any response, and that the 757 was on a direct path to the pentagon (or any other well populated landmark.)

It's a terrible position to be in. Obviously. Would I feel horrible for ordering the shooting? Yes I would, but if I knew it prevented thousands of other deaths, then perhaps that would help. If I did nothing I would feel worse knowing I could've prevented many more deaths.

Another thing---That was amazing air manaueving by someone iv only ever heard was a barely competent pilot.

what did he do?

Another thing---That was amazing air manaueving by someone iv only ever heard was a barely competent pilot.

Exactly.

Here is an aeronautical engineer on the absolute impossibility and utter absurdity of this feat. Everybody should listen to this.

MP3 (http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Greg/0511/20051122_Tue_Greg.m3u)


But staying on point, Sagadevan wanted to further illustrate the absurdity of a small, inexperienced 5'8"Arab terrorist, taking over the controls of the jetliner from a burly, well-trained former military pilot.

You mean to tell me, the supposed terrorist overpowered the pilot, who weighed more than 185 lbs and trained in the military. And then after that overpowered the co-pilot in the same manner, a person who also weighed upwards of 185 lbs, said Sagadevan, emphasizing experts aren't needed to explain the absurdity of this portion of the government story.

I am not sure if anyone has been in the cockpit of one of one of these big jets, but I will tell you there isn't much space. How in the world would one man pull out two big pilots in cramped quarters while, at the same time, maintaining control of the airliner. Again, it's just not going to happen.

In the beginning right after 9/11, like most people, I believed most of what I heard about 9/11, not really giving much thought to a government conspiracy. However, about a year ago when I began gathering information related to my expertise as an aeronautical engineer and pilot, I began to see clearly how the government story regarding the four flights, their paths and their pilots didn't make sense.

Now I am firmly convinced after looking at an enormous amount of evidence, as well as using well-establishing aviation principles, that something else crashed into the Pentagon since it couldn't have been a commercial jetliner.

Besides calling attention to the impossibility of a untrained pilot performing complex flight maneuvers and navigation, Sagadevan said the flight path taken near the Pentagon was also impossible for a large jetliner to perform without crashing before reaching the Pentagon.

First of all, the supposed pilot would have been overwhelmed just looking at the complexity of the cockpit controls, said Sagadevan. He would have had no idea what to do, but we are led to believe that he was able to turn the jet around, head back to Washington D.C. and then bank at high speeds and at a low altitude, hitting a target which would have looked as small as thimble from the air. Again, it's impossible and you don't really need an expert to make this final determination.

Sagadevan was quick to point out one of the main problems with the government story is the low trajectory of the airplane, flying at high speeds and roughly only 20 feet off the ground for a long distance, another impossibility defying the standard principles of aviation.

LINK (http://www.arcticbeacon.com/6-Dec-2005.html)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm


Hijack 'suspects' alive and well

Another of the men named by the FBI as a hijacker in the suicide attacks on Washington and New York has turned up alive and well.

The identities of four of the 19 suspects accused of having carried out the attacks are now in doubt.

Saudi Arabian pilot Waleed Al Shehri was one of five men that the FBI said had deliberately crashed American Airlines flight 11 into the World Trade Centre on 11 September.

His photograph was released, and has since appeared in newspapers and on television around the world.

Now he is protesting his innocence from Casablanca, Morocco.

He told journalists there that he had nothing to do with the attacks on New York and Washington, and had been in Morocco when they happened. He has contacted both the Saudi and American authorities, according to Saudi press reports.

He acknowledges that he attended flight training school at Daytona Beach in the United States, and is indeed the same Waleed Al Shehri to whom the FBI has been referring.

But, he says, he left the United States in September last year, became a pilot with Saudi Arabian airlines and is currently on a further training course in Morocco.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm



If some of the hijackers are still alive, then who flew those planes?

Just this one little thing throws the entire official story.

As if the unprecedented stand down of the American military wasn't enough, on just the very day Dick Cheney was oddly in charge of the war games taking place that day.:rolleyes:

If anybody thinks there aren't people in the government of this country capable of staging terrorist attacks on American soil or allowing a previously discovered plot from taking place to further an extreme agenda hasn'theard about the Northwoods plot. The difference between Northwoods and 9-11, is that Bush isn't John F. Kennedy.

People also need to take into account that the Bush administration is full of criminals and sinister people, and they've spent the last 5 years ruining the country and lying to the people at every turn. Bush's needless war in Iraq has killed almost as many American servicemen as civilians that died on 9-11, I don't know why anybody would put it past people with absolutely zero value for human life.

Check this out from ABC news on the Northwoods plot.

U.S. Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba

U.S. Military drafted plans to terrorize U.S. cities to provoke war with Cuba

N E W Y O R K, May 1, 2001 In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.

America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

Details of the plans are described in Body of Secrets (Doubleday), a new book by investigative reporter James Bamford about the history of America's largest spy agency, the National Security Agency. However, the plans were not connected to the agency, he notes.

The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy's defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in March 1962. But they apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership and have gone undisclosed for nearly 40 years.

"These were Joint Chiefs of Staff documents. The reason these were held secret for so long is the Joint Chiefs never wanted to give these up because they were so embarrassing," Bamford told ABCNEWS.com.

"The whole point of a democracy is to have leaders responding to the public will, and here this is the complete reverse, the military trying to trick the American people into a war that they want but that nobody else wants."

Gunning for War

The documents show "the Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up and approved plans for what may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government," writes Bamford.


http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1


Now here we find ourseves 4 decades later when the government holds a lock on information, we have a corporate owned subservient media that completely fails it's role as watchdog. And we are ruled by oil and military defense connnected neo-conservatives who are hell bent on ruling the world and they themselves thought it was only possible with a "Pearl Harbor" type event, in their own words. So they saw an opportunity for an endless war that give them a blank check to do whatever they wished, and they took it. They floated a cover story to the media and people ate it up, but once you actually examine the offiocial story, you see that it's so full of holes it looks like Swiss cheese, or Dick Cheney's hunting partner.

Exactly.

Here is an aeronautical engineer on the absolute impossibility and utter absurdity of this feat. Everybody should listen to this.

MP3 (http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Greg/0511/20051122_Tue_Greg.m3u)




LINK (http://www.arcticbeacon.com/6-Dec-2005.html)


Great info, it really makes no sense when standard procedures when their is a hijacking is to scramble fighter jets to intercept and follow the plane. When they saw the planes heading towards Manhatten or Washington D.C. they could have taken them out.

If there were no video of the twin towers being struck by jets, the conspiracy theorists would be claiming that it was a missle attack as well.

The same thing happened with flight 800. The FBI even conducted a covert dredging operation at the crash site in search of shouylder fired missle parts, but found nothing.



If people want to believe a conspiracy, they can't be convinced otherwise, even if the truth is staring them in the face. The litanny of "experts" who claim that the crash was an impossible aeronatic feat have been challenged repeatedly by other pilots, who have stated that the crash wasn't a difficult maneuver at all. There are lots of opinions out there, many of which can never be proven, and have to be taken on nothing more than blind faith.

Here are some actual photos of Airliner parts at the Pentagon, and explanations to go with them. The pictures don't lie, but the conspiracy buffs will claim that the parts were planted, and the photos are doctored.


http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

But that's just it, there IS video of the planes crashing into the towers, and there IS video of whatever it was crashing into the pentagon, yet it was confiscated. The mere fact that it was confiscated is indication of something suspect.

There are hundreds of physicists, professors, engineers who all agree that the manuevers claimed in the official account are impossible.

Tell you what Betrade, (Java Man I'd like your opinion as well) and anyone else who still believes the official account, do these two things and I will garauntee that you will 100% be convinced that the official account is not true.

1. Listen to this MP3 (http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Greg/0511/20051122_Tue_Greg.m3u)

2. Watch this VIDEO (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loose+change)

That's it. Do those 2 things, and you will think differently.

Wow. I got some reading (and some watching) to do. I'm still here though.

Ugh. Most of you guys are fools if you believe all the conspiracy theories.

Ugh. Most of you guys are fools if you believe all the conspiracy theories.

302--I used to argue against this conspiracy actually. However, since then Iv come to believe that perhaps something much bigger then what was presented was at work, and the more I read by both sides, the more I believe that it has to be true.

302--I used to argue against this conspiracy actually. However, since then Iv come to believe that perhaps something much bigger then what was presented was at work, and the more I read by both sides, the more I believe that it has to be true.

Until those theories are proven, they remain...theories.

How many of you were actually in Washington DC or New York at the time of the attacks? How many of you were witnesses to these events?

Article By Greg Szymanski

Lets look at it plain and simple, said Sagadevan in an extended telephone conference this week from his home near San Diego. ?The government wants us to believe that a person who couldn?t even solo a small Cessna took over the controls of a Boeing 757 jetliner and performed complicated maneuvers even myself or other experienced pilots could have never performed.

What exactly are these maneuvers , is he implying a 757 could not have performed them ?


But staying on point, Sagadevan wanted to further illustrate the absurdity of a small, inexperienced 5-8 Arab terrorist, taking over the controls of the jetliner from a burly, well-trained former military pilot.


You mean to tell me, the supposed terrorist overpowered the pilot, who weighed more than 185 lbs and trained in the military. And then after that overpowered the co-pilot in the same manner, a person who also weighed upwards of 185 lbs,? said Sagadevan, emphasizing experts aren?t needed to explain the absurdity of this portion of the government story.


I am not sure if anyone has been in the cockpit of one of one of these big jets, but I will tell you there isn?t much space. How in the world would one man pull out two big pilots in cramped quarters while, at the same time, maintaining control of the airliner. Again, it?s just not going to happen.

Simple Explanation .. he slashed his throat with a knife


Now I am firmly convinced after looking at an enormous amount of evidence, as well as using well-establishing aviation principles, that something else crashed into the Pentagon since it couldn?t have been a commercial jetliner.?

Besides calling attention to the impossibility of a untrained pilot performing complex flight maneuvers and navigation, Sagadevan said the flight path taken near the Pentagon was also impossible for a large jetliner to perform without crashing before reaching the Pentagon.

What were these 'impossible maneuvers'?

First of all, the supposed pilot would have been overwhelmed just looking at the complexity of the cockpit controls,? said Sagadevan.

After a few hours of training, one could understand the controls sufficiently to fly the plane

He would have had no idea what to do, but we are led to believe that he was able to turn the jet around, head back to Washington D.C. and then bank at high speeds and at a low altitude, hitting a target which would have looked as small as thimble from the air. Again, it?s impossible and you don?t really need an expert to make this final determination.?

Nonsense, all he would need to know is basic flight training to get close to DC , the pentagon is one of the worlds largest buildings, it can be seen for miles.


Sagadevan was quick to point out one of the main problems with the government story is the low trajectory of the airplane, flying at high speeds and roughly only 20 feet off the ground for a long distance, another impossibility defying the standard principles of aviation.

hogwash, basically he performed a landing maneuver into the building, this author thinks something that happens thousands of times a day is impossible ?


The evidence indicates that the airplane was flying low before it reached the Pentagon lawn since several light poles were sheared off several hundred yards away form the building,? explained Sagadevan. ?With that in mind, the plane was traveling at about 400 knots at about 20 feet off the ground for a long distance prior to hitting the Pentagon.

hmmm .. 400 knots is 225 yards per second ... he would only need to stay low for about 5 seconds to cover over 1000 yards ... basically a landing maneuver


This in itself is an impossibility since the airplane would have been kept from hitting the ground by a cushion of air termed 'ground effect.' No pilot in the world would have been able to control the plane while maintained that air speed at 20 feet off the ground for that long a distance. Again, it?s just impossible but here I will admit that an expert is needed in order to explain the standards of lift and drag associated with flying a large airliner.

funny ... i thought it hit a building ... not the ground. In either case, it is highly unlikely the hijacker had activated the flaps which provide low speed lift, the ground effect was probably small and probably could be overcome by the pitch authority of the plane.

From the beginning of the supposed hijacking of Flight 77 and to its eventual crash into the Pentagon wall, Sagadevan presents a compelling case, essentially crushing the official story. He also mentioned the what's also overlooked is the 'jet wash' from the airplane would have caused tremendous ground damage on the approach, something not evident in the aftermath of the Pentagon crash.

This dude knows nothing ... what did he expect ... the asphalt to be peeled off ?? sheesh. The dynamic pressure from a large turbofan engine is about 1,200 lb ft^2 ... and that is directly behind the engine at full throttle ... at 20 altitude it would not do much more than bend grass over certainly it would not cause "tremendous damage " to the ground

I really don?t understand how anyone could give the government?s story any credibility after seeing the original pictures taken of the small hole left in the Pentagon wall by whatever flew into it,? said Sagadevan. ?I am not totally sure what the military used but one thing for sure, it wasn?t a 757 jetliner.?

Sagadevan is referring to the tiny circumference of the hole left in the Pentagon wall, illustrated on pictures taken right after the crash scene, but immediately taken out of circulation and never widely distributed by the news media to the American people.

http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/0305911-pentagon-lg.jpg

I had to break into the top secret vault at area 51 to find this picture sshhh ! :rolleyes:

The landing gear poked this hole ... the other hole is closer to 50 feet wide

I think if someone just looks at the hole left and then looks at the size of 757, experts aren?t needed to determine it was an impossibility that a big jet hit the Pentagon wall, especially when there was very little wreckage visible after the crash,? added Sagadevan.

tons and tons of wreckage was carted off, most of the aluminum was torn into small pieces, heaver parts like engine rotors , gear and wheels were readily identifiable.

Regarding the Pentagon crash, as Sagadevan aptly points out, there are ?so many holes in the story? that it becomes, as the English say, rather a laughing matter, making one believe even the bungling Inspector Clouseau, made famous by Peter Sellers, could crack the case wide open if given half a chance.

haha punny ... holes ... what a clown

Has anyone heard of Occams Razor?

A philosophical principle traditionally attributed to William of Ockham (1285-1349) applied in areas of philosophy and science. Literally, the principle states that "Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity." Simply put, " All things being equal, the simplest explanation is the best one. "
www.apologetics.org/glossary.html

Java--Some eyewitnesses have claimed they the saw the plane land on the ground just before it ran into the building.

Java--Some eyewitnesses have claimed they the saw the plane land on the ground just before it ran into the building.

Some out of how many?

So if 20 people said that they saw an airplane crash into the pentagon and 2 said they saw the plane on the ground just before it ran into the building, you are going to believe the 2 people?

What does that mean when the plane was on the ground before it crashed into the building? How was the attack staged without anyone noticing? Dont you think more people would have come forward if they saw a 747 sitting infront of the Pentagon? Wouldnt that have been news? How did that plane get there in the first place? How was the plane launched into the pentagon?

Tell you what Betrade, (Java Man I'd like your opinion as well) and anyone else who still believes the official account, do these two things and I will garauntee that you will 100% be convinced that the official account is not true.



The mp3 link did not work but I watched the part of the video about the pentagon. All what was said was the plane did a 330 degree turn at 530 mph and descended 7,000 feet in 2 1/2 minutes ... I read a news story that said 270 degree turn.

an old CBS story

Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes. The steep turn was so smooth, the sources say, it's clear there was no fight for control going on. And the complex maneuver suggests the hijackers had better flying skills than many investigators first believed. The jetliner disappeared from radar at 9:37 and less than a minute later it clipped the tops of street lights and plowed into the Pentagon at 460 mph


I have not seen any data that has any better fidelity that that or any that would indicate the G load on the plane or the turning radius.

If the G load was low then there is no problem with an airliner doing any of this, every time a liner approaches an airport it does a similar turn coming into approach ... but at a very gentle rate

This site has many photos from the crash scene and some solid analysis

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html

MP3 link should work, just click it and it will open in windows media player or itunes, etc.

http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Greg/0511/20051122_Tue_Greg.m3u

It does take a few minutes for it to get into the interview part.

I don't believe in conspiracy theories that say that 19 Arabs who have trouble flying Cessna's and some of which are still alive did the impossible on 9-11.



I think the most anybody really knows is that we don't really know much of what happened that day except that we saw two planes make U-turns and crash into the WTC's, 1 turned around and crashed in PA and another supposedly hit the Pentagon.

We do know normal procedures for airline hijackings WERE NOT FOLLOWED, we've never had an explanation as to why. This was after numerous warnings pointed to an attack coming. We know Dick Cheney was mysteriously in charge of the war games going on on september 11th. Perfect cover these "terrorists" had, now why can't anybody respond to these points? and how did these Arab men know the secretive workings of our government and our military? Was their a mole? Somebody helping them on the inside? How can anybody be satisfied that none of these things have ever been investigated?
How could a fireball that vaporizes metals leave a passport unburned? Why were crazy suicidal Muslims out the night before their mission at a STRIP CLUB DRINKING? And if the government was so surprised, so un-aware of this plot, how in the hell did FBI agents manage to be at every location that caught film of the Pentagon crash within minutes??? It sure doesn't play into this lame story that they were caught off guard and there was chaos and confusion.


There must be hundreds, perhaps thousands of un-answered questions involving 9-11. Why are people afraid of examining these things?

If it was so cut and dry, crazy suicidal Muslim hijackers that just fooled everybody, why all the secrecy, threats, cover-ups? Why have whistleblowers been gagged by the white house? Why were FBI field agents that were actually doing their jobs stifled at every turn?

We've got plenty of questions, but no answers, can people be this naive? I mean, parts of the pane that crashed in PA were found miles away, indicating it was shot down, this is more evidence that is ignored, and if it was shot down, it opens a huge can O'worms. But hey, asking important questions us un-American, freedoms and truth from governments have always been easy to come by..:| :| :| :|

MP3 link should work, just click it and it will open in windows media player or itunes, etc.

http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Greg/0511/20051122_Tue_Greg.m3u

It does take a few minutes for it to get into the interview part.


crikey ! another hour long file :| ... where is the part about the aircraft ?

I don't believe in conspiracy theories that say that 19 Arabs who have trouble flying Cessna's and some of which are still alive did the impossible on 9-11.
1. Cessna's are much more difficult to fly, as they don't have modern avionics picking up the slack. They're just stick & rudder.

2. The ones that are alive, as the above article suggested, are the ones that didn't participate in the 9/11 plot. That does not imply that none of them participated or that they're all alive.

I think the most anybody really knows is that we don't really know much of what happened that day except that we saw two planes make U-turns and crash into the WTC's, 1 turned around and crashed in PA and another supposedly hit the Pentagon.
Actually, most knowledgable sources feel that we now have a wealth of information, if not everything we'd like to no.

We do know normal procedures for airline hijackings WERE NOT FOLLOWED
What normal procedures? When has this ever happened before on American soil? A civilian airliner hijacked & then flown into a national monument?

we've never had an explanation as to why.
Because NORAD was not on alert at the time, & the planes' transponders were turned off, making them difficult to track.

This was after numerous warnings pointed to an attack coming. We know Dick Cheney was mysteriously in charge of the war games going on on september 11th. Perfect cover these "terrorists" had, now why can't anybody respond to these points?
Why am I supposed to find it hard to believe that the military was running war games on September 11th, as if it would be any more or less likely than any other day?

and how did these Arab men know the secretive workings of our government and our military?
Who says they did?

How could a fireball that vaporizes metals leave a passport unburned?
Quite possibly, because the explosion caused depressurization which permitted a wallet or carry-on in a storage compartment to empty out in the air before it combusted.

Why were crazy suicidal Muslims out the night before their mission at a STRIP CLUB DRINKING?
What are they supposed to do on their last night on Earth instead? It just means they were GUYS.

And if the government was so surprised, so un-aware of this plot, how in the hell did FBI agents manage to be at every location that caught film of the Pentagon crash within minutes??? It sure doesn't play into this lame story that they were caught off guard and there was chaos and confusion.
What the heck do you mean? They had plenty of time to prepare between the WTC and Pentagon strikes, and the top secret military installations in Washington would be among their first priorities to protect.

If it was so cut and dry, crazy suicidal Muslim hijackers that just fooled everybody, why all the secrecy, threats, cover-ups? Why have whistleblowers been gagged by the white house? Why were FBI field agents that were actually doing their jobs stifled at every turn?
Because the information would create ongoing security threats, most likely.

We've got plenty of questions, but no answers, can people be this naive? I mean, parts of the pane that crashed in PA were found miles away, indicating it was shot down, this is more evidence that is ignored, and if it was shot down, it opens a huge can O'worms. But hey, asking important questions us un-American, freedoms and truth from governments have always been easy to come by..:| :| :| :|
How many times do canards like this have to be answered before conspiracy theorists give up on them?

No large debris was found miles away from the Flight 93 crash site - the engine was discovered a few hundred yards away from the impact, and small, lighter than air pieces of debris floated away.

2. The ones that are alive, as the above article suggested, are the ones that didn't participate in the 9/11 plot. That does not imply that none of them participated or that they're all alive.

However, it does make it seem that the government was quick to jump the gun on accusations, and could be wrong about certain things, or even lieing.



What normal procedures? When has this ever happened before on American soil? A civilian airliner hijacked & then flown into a national monument?

Iv read several times that normally any of the airliners should have been intercepted soon enough. The fact that after that, two more planes that were going off route and werent broadcasting a signal would seem to me warrent millitary jet interception.


Because NORAD was not on alert at the time, & the planes' transponders were turned off, making them difficult to track.

Cant say I'm familiar with this. Is that to say that if any plane turns off its transponder, there's just no way to track it?



Quite possibly, because the explosion caused depressurization which permitted a wallet or carry-on in a storage compartment to empty out in the air before it combusted

Possible. Just seems pretty unlikely that it would escape a blast radius of an explosion currently vaporizing a plane. Its only a passport.


What the heck do you mean? They had plenty of time to prepare between the WTC and Pentagon strikes, and the top secret military installations in Washington would be among their first priorities to protect.

Its odd that the government's main concern wasnt operating the many air defense systems that surround various washington government buildings, but was getting few tapes that would capture the exact sight of a plane heading towards the pentagon.


Because the information would create ongoing security threats, most likely.

...... Like what? I dont think that the US should suffer an attack like that, and then have the government pat us on the head and tell us not to worry about what happend. I think we deserve to know everything that happend that day, and why the government failed its primary duty so horribly. And whatever security threats exist in relation to that day should be examined and fixed most likely anyway. If there are things in place that would be a defense to us, they clearly failed horribly, and need to be revisted anyway. So let the people who are footing the bill know why exactly, a near 3 thousand of our fellow citizens got murdered.

I think the bottom line on this whole thing is that weird things can happen in a large explosion such as this. An airplane can disintegrate on impact, leaving no outline of the wings, while small pieces of paper escape unharmed. It's not neat and easily organized like we've come to expect from Saturday morning cartoons and dramas where everything is neatly wrapped up in an hour. Unfortunately, this uncertainty just feeds the conspiracy theories, as we invent ever more fanciful ideas to fill in the gaps in our knowledge. That's fine until we replace questions with accusations.

However, it does make it seem that the government was quick to jump the gun on accusations, and could be wrong about certain things, or even lieing.
It's hardly evident from this fact that the gov't is "lying" about what hundreds of eyewitnesses saw personally, including myself.

Iv read several times that normally any of the airliners should have been intercepted soon enough. The fact that after that, two more planes that were going off route and werent broadcasting a signal would seem to me warrent millitary jet interception.
There was no system in place for this, nor has there ever a case in history when a hijacked civilian airliner has ever been shot down by the US Air Force.

From Popular Mechanics's article:

On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. No computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of missing planes. "They [civilian Air Traffic Control, or ATC] had to pick up the phone and literally dial us," says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. Boston Center, one of 22 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regional ATC facilities, called NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) three times: at 8:37 am EST to inform NEADS that Flight 11 was hijacked; at 9:21 am to inform the agency, mistakenly, that Flight 11 was headed for Washington (the plane had hit the North Tower 35 minutes earlier); and at 9:41 am to (erroneously) identify Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 from Boston as a possible hijacking. The New York ATC called NEADS at 9:03 am to report that United Flight 175 had been hijacked--the same time the plane slammed into the South Tower. Within minutes of that first call from Boston Center, NEADS scrambled two F-15s from Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Mass., and three F-16s from Langley Air National Guard Base in Hampton, Va. None of the fighters got anywhere near the pirated planes.

Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors. And NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says. "There was no coverage in the middle." Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=3&c=y

Possible. Just seems pretty unlikely that it would escape a blast radius of an explosion currently vaporizing a plane. Its only a passport.
Not if it was packed away in luggage that vacated the plane itself before the fireball. The paper was lighter than air in the first place, most likely.

Its odd that the government's main concern wasnt operating the many air defense systems that surround various washington government buildings, but was getting few tapes that would capture the exact sight of a plane heading towards the pentagon.
What does one have to do with the other? The security surveillance set up around the building were 24 hours anyhow. They weren't clicked on just to capture the incident.

...... Like what? I dont think that the US should suffer an attack like that, and then have the government pat us on the head and tell us not to worry about what happend. I think we deserve to know everything that happend that day, and why the government failed its primary duty so horribly.
Spens, that makes little sense - the tapes could very well highlight security vulnerabilities that still exist. It's a matter of national security.

And whatever security threats exist in relation to that day should be examined and fixed most likely anyway. If there are things in place that would be a defense to us, they clearly failed horribly, and need to be revisted anyway. So let the people who are footing the bill know why exactly, a near 3 thousand of our fellow citizens got murdered.
You're making the assumption that everything CAN be "fixed," when, in fact, it might not be possible. There's simply no way to create a system without vulnerabilities. When you plug up one, you necessarily create another.

The conspiracy theory, if true, would be the single most complicated, widespread, intricate plan ever conceived by humans, and not one single, solitary person could ever talk about it, because they promised to keep it a secret. You're the only one finding it difficult.

That's a ridiculous concept. If this was a government plot, it would have been exposed within days. At least one person with an ounce of humanity and a conscience would have talked to somone, or at least leaked the truth to the press, and not an obscure, internet conspiracy site.
You just don't get it do ya? By the same token we would know the real culprit behind Kennedy's assassination.

You're the only one finding it difficult.
Uh, no - he's not. The vast majority of informed people also find it equally difficult.

Well they are simply in denial.

It's hardly evident from this fact that the gov't is "lying" about what hundreds of eyewitnesses saw personally, including myself.


There was no system in place for this, nor has there ever a case in history when a hijacked civilian airliner has ever been shot down by the US Air Force.

From Popular Mechanics's article:


http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=3&c=y

I read that article actually--Hence why I was a strong opponent of the other theories circulating. Then I found an article that quite bassicaly debunked a lot of what I read in the PM one, also citing that the main 'researcher' and 'writer' of the article is a well known Neoconservative. Not that that's relevent to the article, but it does certainly make you reconsider believing the article to just be a non-partisan observation of the situation. It obviously had an extreme motivation...

I'll see if I can find it for you by chance, the one that rebukes the PM one.


What does one have to do with the other? The security surveillance set up around the building were 24 hours anyhow. They weren't clicked on just to capture the incident.

So then what exactly was the point of securing them within minutes of the crash?


Spens, that makes little sense - the tapes could very well highlight security vulnerabilities that still exist. It's a matter of national security.

I was under the impression that somehow parts of the tapes were leaked--Before, and after the explosion. But no impact from them has been released.


You're making the assumption that everything CAN be "fixed," when, in fact, it might not be possible. There's simply no way to create a system without vulnerabilities. When you plug up one, you necessarily create another.

Of course systems may be vulnerable, but once they absolutly fail on a tragic level, I think its time to go with a different route. At which point you should explain why you failed so badly, even though you appearintly knew so much as our government wants us to believe. What I find truly odd was Bush's complete 180 on an investigation into the happenings of 9/11... Why would a man be horribly opposed to it, and then suddenly back it with all his heart like he never had a second thought about it?

Occam's Razor. For a long time I felt that the occams razar argument was a pretty compelling rebutal to other theories for 9-11. But now I realize, it's actually a far better argument against the official account, because all things are not equal. For example:

Consider this, on 9-06-01, 3150 put options were placed on United Airlines stock, more than 4 times it's daily average. On 9-07-01, 27,294 put options were placed on Boeing stock, more than 5 times the daily average. On 9-10-01, 4,516 put options were placed on American Airlines stock, almost 11 times it's daily average. (link) (http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/columnists/chi-0109190296sep19,0,3496437.story) Coincidence? If so, it would be the single most coincidental event in the history of the stock market. Simplest explanation...insider trading.

Newsweek reported that a group of top pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for september 11, 2001, apparently because of security concerns. San Fransisco mayor Willie Brown got a low-key warning not to fly on September 11th. Who gave him the warning? Why did a group of Pentagon officials suddenly decide to cancel travel plans for 9-11? Is the simplest explanation merely coincidence? Not likely, since it involves top level officials. A much more likely and simple explanation, is someone knew in advance that it would not be a good idea to travel on 9-11. Occams Razor.

Hani Hanjour allegedly executes a 330 degree turn at 530 mph and descended 7,000 feet in 2 1/2 minutes making a downward spiral. No pilot with the below average skills and minimal training that Hani Janjour had could've possibly executed this maneuver. Not only was he an amatuer, but he was an incompetent, below average student. A former employee said the considered him a very bad pilot, saying "he could not fly at all." In addition to that, managers at an Arizona flight school reported him at least five times to the FAA. Why? Because his english and flying skills were so terrible. They believed he shouldn't be able to keep his license. (link) (thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight77/claim.html) Couple that with the various eye witness accounts, and it paints a pretty different story.

"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane." -Danielle O'Brien tells ABC News

"...my colleagues saw a target moving quite fast from the northwest to the southeast. So she—we all started watching that target, and she notified the supervisor. However, nobody knew that was a commercial flight at the time. Nobody knew that was American 77. ... I thought it was a military flight. It was moving very fast, like a military aircraft might move at a low altitude.”
-Todd Lewis, flight controller at Dulles Airport

"...seemed to be able to hold eight or twelve persons...made a shrill noise like a fighter plane."
-Steve Patterson, eyewitness

"I was convinced it was a missile. It came in so fast it sounded nothing like an airplane."
-Lon Rains, eyewitnes

"We heard what sounded like a missile, then we heard a loud boom"
-Tom Seibert, network engineer at the pentagon

"It was like a cruise missle with wings."
-Mike Walters, eyewitness

Simple explanation? When you consider the incredible skill involved in achieving the difficult manuevers Hani Hanjour allegedly made, and take these eyewitness accounts into consideration, the most obvious explanation is that Hani Hanjour could NOT have been the pilot.


Then there's the news reports such as this (VIDEO) (http://thewebfairy.com/911/pentagon/27_1-mcintyre.swf)

From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. The only site, is the actual side of the building that's crashed in. And as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse. Even though if you look at the pictures of the Pentagon you see that the floors have all collapsed, that didn't happen immediately. It wasn't until almost about 45 minutes later that the structure was weakened enough that all of the floors collapsed." -CNN (09/11/01)

Damage to the Pentagon inconsistent with a Boeing 757. (VIDEO) (http://www.loosechange911.com/lc2e_hole.wmv)

Occams Razor...unusually high activity of put options on airlines in the days before 9-11, pentagon officials cancelling travelling plans on 9-11, mayor of San Fran warned not to fly, an incompetent pilot allegedly achieves mastery level of a boeing 757 taking it to new levels beyond the laws of physics, air traffic controllers think it's a military plane, eyewitness reports of something like a missle, various reports of no evidence of a plane crashing, no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, etc, following everything mentioned above: Draw your own conclusions.

Then there's in my mind the single biggest problem with the official account. Surveilance camera's captured the WHOLE THING. One from a nearby gas station, another from the Sheraton Hotel, and another from the Viginia Department of Transportation. The FBI confiscated all 3 of these tapes, never to be shown to the public. Why? If it was a Boeing 757 hijacked by terrorists, and the tapes clearly show that, then the government would have nothing to hide. Right? Simplest explanation - the government DOES have something to hide, and that something was contained on those tapes. (link) (http://www.flight77.info/) All attempts to have these videos released have been DENIED. Occams Razor.

Another twist to this whole mess, is why were the first reports of what crashed into the Pentagon, a helicopter?

"There are reports that a helicopter has crashed into the Pentagon.
An eyewitness said that they saw the helicopter circle the building and after it disappeared behind it, an explosion occured." -TCM Breaking News (9/11/01)

Paul Begala, a Democratic consultant, said he witnessed a explosion near the Pentagon shortly after two planes crashed into World Trade Centre.
"It was a huge fireball, a huge, orange fireball,’’ Begala said. He said another witness told him a helicopter exploded." -TCM Breaking News (9/11/01)

Excerpts from an interview with Captain William B. Durm, USN, who was Commander of the Pentagon’s Triservice Dental Clinic.
"Still, I did not know a plane hit us. As I got close, somebody said a helicopter had hit the other side of the building. - Soldiers to the Rescue/Responding in the Pentagon

Very interesting.

The WTC Towers.

The south tower collapses in approximately 10 seconds. 29 minutes later, the north tower collapses in approximately 10 seconds. Later, WTC 7 collapses in abot 6 seconds. The official explanation is that falling debris from the Twin Towers created an internal fire which ignited several fuel tanks inside the building. If this is true, then it would be the third building in history to collapse because of a fire. The first two would be the Twin Towers. (VIDEO) (http://www.loosechange911.com/lc2e_highrises.wmv)

Now, the Twin Towers were composed of 200,000 tons of steel, 425,000 cubic yards of concrete, 103 elevators, 43,600 windows, 60,000 tons of cooling equipment, and a 360 foot television antenna. The core of each Tower was 87 by 133 feet, comprised of 47 box columns 36 by 16 inches thick.(link) (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html)

Galileio’s Law of Falling Bodies calculates the time in which an object will travel a certain distance in complete freefall.
(VIDEO) (http://www.loosechange911.com/lc2e_galileo.wmv)

+

Reports of explosions:
(VIDEO) (http://www.loosechange911.com/lc2e_explosions.wmv)

Firefighters reports of explosions:
(VIDEO) (http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/discussion%20in%20firehouse.mpg)(right click, save target as)

Silverstein orders to "pull" WT7
(VIDEO) (http://66.111.201.132/video/cte_04_lo.mov) (right click, save target as)

"We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck. I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building." (link) (http://www.prisonplanet.com/louie_cacchioli.htm)

=

(VIDEO) (http://www.loosechange911.com/lc2e_herehere.wmv)

Unfortunately, we can't examine the remains of the towers to figure out what happend because Guiliani began shipping remains off to recycling yards overseas before investigators could examine it. Thanks Rudy. Now, how often do you hear about evidence in a crime scene being immediately discarded before a proper investigation can begin? Funny how whatever evidence remained at the pentagon was immediately picked up by officials, and the evidence was discarded at the WTC as well...and funny how the only ones allowed on ground zero was controlled demolition...Occams razor? Anyone?

There's a reason why this debate rages on. The simplest explanation is that, the offical account just plain old doesn't make sense to thousands of people on both sides of the political spectrum. And if it were so easy to explain the official account, all the government would have to do is answer a few questions and release a few videotapes. The mere fact that they refuse to do this, is enough of a reason to question the entire account as far as I'm concerned.

Quite simply, these myths have been debunked numerous times, including on this very forum - Java's experience as an engineer far trumps my two years of school, so I'll let him do the honors.

They continue to be circulated by persons with an agenda for exactly that purpose - to further their agenda. The number of times they're debunked is irrelevant; they're never laid to rest as long as there are gullible individuals around.

I read that article actually--Hence why I was a strong opponent of the other theories circulating. Then I found an article that quite bassicaly debunked a lot of what I read in the PM one, also citing that the main 'researcher' and 'writer' of the article is a well known Neoconservative. Not that that's relevent to the article, but it does certainly make you reconsider believing the article to just be a non-partisan observation of the situation. It obviously had an extreme motivation...
AKA "the Ad Hominem fallacy." Spens - you're a smart kid. You know that attacking an author's politics doesn't refute their factual arguments, especially when they relied on hundreds of experts.

I'll see if I can find it for you by chance, the one that rebukes the PM one.
I've seen it online - it "rebukes" nothing.

So then what exactly was the point of securing them within minutes of the crash?
They were 24 hr cameras - they didn't need to be "secured."

I was under the impression that somehow parts of the tapes were leaked--Before, and after the explosion. But no impact from them has been released.
Whatever was declassified.

Of course systems may be vulnerable, but once they absolutly fail on a tragic level, I think its time to go with a different route. At which point you should explain why you failed so badly, even though you appearintly knew so much as our government wants us to believe.
There was no real system in place to deal with the specific threat that was executed, as it wasn't believed to be credible and had no precendent.

Other elements of national security are probably compromised by material on those tapes.

What I find truly odd was Bush's complete 180 on an investigation into the happenings of 9/11... Why would a man be horribly opposed to it, and then suddenly back it with all his heart like he never had a second thought about it?
Obvious answer: because he's an idiot.

Well they are simply in denial.
Based on the nonsense the conspiracists bring to the table, they're simply rational.

Unfortunately, we can't examine the remains of the towers to figure out what happend because Guiliani began shipping remains off to recycling yards overseas before investigators could examine it. Thanks Rudy. Now, how often do you hear about evidence in a crime scene being immediately discarded before a proper investigation can begin? Funny how whatever evidence remained at the pentagon was immediately picked up by officials, and the evidence was discarded at the WTC as well...and funny how the only ones allowed on ground zero was controlled demolition...Occams razor? Anyone?

There's a reason why this debate rages on. The simplest explanation is that, the offical account just plain old doesn't make sense to thousands of people on both sides of the political spectrum. And if it were so easy to explain the official account, all the government would have to do is answer a few questions and release a few videotapes. The mere fact that they refuse to do this, is enough of a reason to question the entire account as far as I'm concerned.

100% Wrong optimus... The remains of the WTC were shipped of to the Fresh Kills landfil in Staten Island were everything was processed for evidence then sold off for scrap metal. It wasnt just sold off. And I think Giuliani had no control of what was done with the remains of the WTC. Which proves to me that you really dont care about the facts. Remember, Giuiliani was only the mayor. The Port Authority of NY & NJ owned and controlled the WTC site before and after the attacks.

I knew people who worked there sifting through the debris looking for human remains. Even parts of the airplanes that hit the towers were at the landfill.

As for the rest of your post, its not even worth refuting. Its drivel.

Occam's Razor. For a long time I felt that the occams razar argument was a pretty compelling rebutal to other theories for 9-11. But now I realize, it's actually a far better argument against the official account, because all things are not equal. For example:

Consider this, on 9-06-01, 3150 put options were placed on United Airlines stock, more than 4 times it's daily average. On 9-07-01, 27,294 put options were placed on Boeing stock, more than 5 times the daily average. On 9-10-01, 4,516 put options were placed on American Airlines stock, almost 11 times it's daily average. (link) (http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/columnists/chi-0109190296sep19,0,3496437.story) Coincidence? If so, it would be the single most coincidental event in the history of the stock market. Simplest explanation...insider trading.

Newsweek reported that a group of top pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for september 11, 2001, apparently because of security concerns. San Fransisco mayor Willie Brown got a low-key warning not to fly on September 11th. Who gave him the warning? Why did a group of Pentagon officials suddenly decide to cancel travel plans for 9-11? Is the simplest explanation merely coincidence? Not likely, since it involves top level officials. A much more likely and simple explanation, is someone knew in advance that it would not be a good idea to travel on 9-11. Occams Razor.

Hani Hanjour allegedly executes a 330 degree turn at 530 mph and descended 7,000 feet in 2 1/2 minutes making a downward spiral. No pilot with the below average skills and minimal training that Hani Janjour had could've possibly executed this maneuver. Not only was he an amatuer, but he was an incompetent, below average student. A former employee said the considered him a very bad pilot, saying "he could not fly at all." In addition to that, managers at an Arizona flight school reported him at least five times to the FAA. Why? Because his english and flying skills were so terrible. They believed he shouldn't be able to keep his license. (link) (thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight77/claim.html) Couple that with the various eye witness accounts, and it paints a pretty different story.



Simple explanation? When you consider the incredible skill involved in achieving the difficult manuevers Hani Hanjour allegedly made, and take these eyewitness accounts into consideration, the most obvious explanation is that Hani Hanjour could NOT have been the pilot.


Then there's the news reports such as this (VIDEO) (http://thewebfairy.com/911/pentagon/27_1-mcintyre.swf)



Damage to the Pentagon inconsistent with a Boeing 757. (VIDEO) (http://www.loosechange911.com/lc2e_hole.wmv)

Occams Razor...unusually high activity of put options on airlines in the days before 9-11, pentagon officials cancelling travelling plans on 9-11, mayor of San Fran warned not to fly, an incompetent pilot allegedly achieves mastery level of a boeing 757 taking it to new levels beyond the laws of physics, air traffic controllers think it's a military plane, eyewitness reports of something like a missle, various reports of no evidence of a plane crashing, no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, etc, following everything mentioned above: Draw your own conclusions.

Then there's in my mind the single biggest problem with the official account. Surveilance camera's captured the WHOLE THING. One from a nearby gas station, another from the Sheraton Hotel, and another from the Viginia Department of Transportation. The FBI confiscated all 3 of these tapes, never to be shown to the public. Why? If it was a Boeing 757 hijacked by terrorists, and the tapes clearly show that, then the government would have nothing to hide. Right? Simplest explanation - the government DOES have something to hide, and that something was contained on those tapes. (link) (http://www.flight77.info/) All attempts to have these videos released have been DENIED. Occams Razor.

Another twist to this whole mess, is why were the first reports of what crashed into the Pentagon, a helicopter?



Very interesting.


Very interesting indeed, with all this kind of information you have to wonder why some people will not consider anythig other than the official BS that has been fed to us all by the media.

I find it hard to believe that your willing to validate your case using certain eyewitness accounts, but refer to several others as bunk. Its quite a double standard. CP, Im undecided on what happend on 9/11, but I have to say that there is a lot of information that works against the official report, and maybe the 'conspiracy' isnt accurate, but I feel that all the evidence that can be placed against the official report makes a pretty strong case against the notion that we have everything accurate.

I find it hard to believe that your willing to validate your case using certain eyewitness accounts, but refer to several others as bunk. Its quite a double standard. CP, Im undecided on what happend on 9/11, but I have to say that there is a lot of information that works against the official report, and maybe the 'conspiracy' isnt accurate, but I feel that all the evidence that can be placed against the official report makes a pretty strong case against the notion that we have everything accurate.

There are certian pieces of information that will probably never be made public about 911. There are national security issues, and I have no doubt that there is more classified information about 911 than we can even conceive. That could be one reason for some of the discrepancies.

The government is quite adept at releasing selective information, and disinformation as well. That doesn't make the conspiracy theories true, but does add to the speculation.

They did the same thing with the whole UFO issue for years, in order to keep many of the black projects they were developing off of the radar screen, and for other reasons. Creatures and vehicles from outer space were a great diversion, and I have no doubt whatsover that we're not seeing a bit of the same regarding 911.

When it comes to national security and war, the government doesn't want to raise any eyebrows, or tip their hat in any way that would be detrimental to the whole operation.

I'll never believe that 911 was an attack by our government on it's own citizens. I've heard of contingency plans in the past that pointed in that direction, but I don't know of any that were actually carried out, and the idea of the government carrying out something as big as 911 is inconceivable. If it's true (which I don't believe), then America is over.

100% Wrong optimus... The remains of the WTC were shipped of to the Fresh Kills landfil in Staten Island were everything was processed for evidence then sold off for scrap metal. It wasnt just sold off. And I think Giuliani had no control of what was done with the remains of the WTC. Which proves to me that you really dont care about the facts. Remember, Giuiliani was only the mayor. The Port Authority of NY & NJ owned and controlled the WTC site before and after the attacks.

Nope. While much of it was RECYCLED in America, it was never processed for evidence. An additional seventy thousand tons of WTC steel was sold to Metals Management, where the unexamined steel was then turned around and shipped to China and India for recycling.

"A respected firefighting trade magazine with ties to the city Fire Department is calling for a "full-throttle, fully resourced" investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center. A signed editorial in the January issue of Fire Engineering magazine says the current investigation is "a half-baked farce." The piece by Bill Manning, editor of the 125-year-old monthly that frequently publishes technical studies of major fires, also says the steel from the site should be preserved so investigators can examine what caused the collapse. "Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happy Land social club fire? ... That's what they're doing at the World Trade Center," the editorial says. "The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately." Fire Engineering counted FDNY Deputy Chief Raymond Downey, the department's chief structural expert, among its senior advisers. Downey was killed in the Sept. 11 attack. John Jay College's fire engineering expert, Prof. Glenn Corbett, serves as the magazine's technical editor." (link) (http://www.rense.com/general18/firefighter.htm)

And Guiliani had nothing to do with it? Then why did he refuse to give any information when questioned about who decided to recycle the steel? What is he hiding?

"Officials in the mayor's office declined to reply to written and oral requests for comment over a three- day period about who decided to recycle the steel and the concern that the decision might be handicapping the investigation..." (link) (http://www.rense.com/general18/firefighter.htm)

I knew people who worked there sifting through the debris looking for human remains. Even parts of the airplanes that hit the towers were at the landfill.

And all of those parts should've been kept.

As for the rest of your post, its not even worth refuting. Its drivel.

Your opinion is noted.

1. Cessna's are much more difficult to fly, as they don't have modern avionics picking up the slack. They're just stick & rudder.


I've never flown a passenger jet, as most people haven't, but those that have say the planes that were hijacked are some of the most difficult to fly.

And it's one thing to hop in the seat and just hold it steady and straight, but another to do the sharp banked turns over D.C. and slam perfectly into the Pentagon at 500mph.

I'm sorry, but I want evidence that the supposed hijacker really carried this out. Is evidence too much to ask for?



2. The ones that are alive, as the above article suggested, are the ones that didn't participate in the 9/11 plot. That does not imply that none of them participated or that they're all alive.


What? Did you read the same article I did?

It said: "Saudi Arabian pilot Waleed Al Shehri was one of five men that the FBI said had deliberately crashed American Airlines flight 11 into the World Trade Centre on 11 September.

His photograph was released, and has since appeared in newspapers and on television around the world.

Now he is protesting his innocence from Casablanca, Morocco."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm


Ok, so if Waleed Al Shehri was one of the hijackers on flight 11 which crashed into the World Trade center, he's not only the lone survivor, he also managed to escape the burning building before it collapsed, and fled the country.

Truly amazing. :eek7:


Actually, most knowledgable sources feel that we now have a wealth of information, if not everything we'd like to no.


Yet there's still a zillion holes in the story, all kinds of inconsistencies, logical flaws, impossible happenings?

I don't buy it just like I don't buy the ridiculous notion that Iraq could threaten the U.S.


What normal procedures?


Normal hijacking procedures.

The FAA has procedures which are to be followed whenever there is a hijacking.

"It has been standard operating procedures for decades to immediately intercept off-course planes that do not respond to communications from air traffic controllers. When the Air Force 'scrambles' a fighter plane to intercept, they usually reach the plane in question in minutes."

" From Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols 462 times, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001, Martin said.

In June, Air Force jets scrambled three times to intercept small private planes that had wandered into restricted airspace around the White House and around Camp David, the presidential retreat.

Jet fighters approaching a suspicious plane might radio the pilot, tip their wings or simply identify the aircraft and break off, Martin said. No one has been shot out of the sky since Sept. 11, he said; for that, an order must come from President Bush or Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld."

http://www.wanttoknow.info/020812ap

Let's look at this.. In June 2001 alone, Air Force jets were scrambled 3 times and intercepted small private planes around the White house and camp David. But when 4 jumbo jets are simultaneously hijacked and steered towards the number 1 and 2 targets in this nation, fighters are unable to make the intercept. Now this is also at a time when ths exact kind of hijacking scenario
was known about by the FAA, the military, and the Bush administration. There is simply no excuse for them to not be prepared or to at least follow normal procedures which could have saved many lives that day. This is why we need a real investigation, the people who were criminally negligent at best on that day need to be held responsible, not given medals of freedom or promotions.:nonono:

Bush Team Tried to Suppress Pre-9/11 Report Into al-Qa'ida

Federal officials were repeatedly warned in the months before the 11 September 2001 terror attacks that Osama bin Laden and al-Qa'ida were planning aircraft hijackings and suicide attacks, according to a new report that the Bush administration has been suppressing.

Critics say the new information undermines the government's claim that intelligence about al-Qa'ida's ambitions was "historical" in nature.

The independent commission investigating the attacks on New York and Washington concluded that while officials at the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) did receive warnings, they were "lulled into a false sense of security". As a result, "intelligence that indicated a real and growing threat leading up to 9/11 did not stimulate significant increases in security procedures".

The report, withheld from the public for months, says the FAA was primarily focused on the likelihood of an incident overseas. However, in spring 2001, it warned US airports that if "the intent of the hijacker is not to exchange hostages for prisoners but to commit suicide in a spectacular explosion, a domestic hijacking would probably be preferable".


http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0211-12.htm


More suppression, why?