Pentagon Vid.No Plane in Sight / Unreal Video/You Have Got To See This!/Pentagon Vid

[prezhorusin04]

No wreckage at the Pentagon-No plane-All lies

Check out the flash video footage:
http://www.black-tactics.com/penta.swf

[VegasRonin]

Cool video Prez. So we get our Representatives to subpoena these confiscated video tapes. Start a petition Prez. I'll sign it.

[prezhorusin04]

Dang Vero. You must have a fast connection. That vid took me about 10-15 minutes to open, but it's worth it..

Good to know you'd sign the petition Ronin. I'll try and work one out, but i'd only be happy with atleast a few thousand names.But it's gotta start somewhere.!

Looks like a missle strike to me..What do you think? There are many reports that the flight in Pennsylvania was downed my a missle as well..

The only thing that adds up is a massive amount of lies.. :burnin:

[Rage_Garden]

Good idea for a petition. Ill sign it if you start one. Its not likely they will listen though, the FBI and CIA dont seem to have any obligation to listen to what you have to say, or let you know of what they are up to for that matter. I found a Save Hubble petition by the way, it had a few thousand signatures already, I think its on Art Bells website.

[Strife]

Whoa, I didn't know this video is spreading so fast!

Hey if theres a petition count me in!

[Marajadex]

Too bad this video and others of it's type won't be taken seriously by those in power. They are the ones who have confiscated most if not all of the other video's that actually show what happened. Talk about cover up and conspiracy! :devsmoke:

All these lies...
All these cover ups...
And still no one is being held accountable.

If there is a petition I'd sure sign it.

[dabears1020]

ok great, but one thing? what happened to my neighbor? who was on that flight. she wasn't right next door to me, but she lived a couple blocks away from me, and was on that flight. What would the government have done with the airplane. What COULD they have dont without anyone noticing? Surely, someone would witness it be shot down over West Virginia or wherever they chose to do this, and escape the FBI break the news to the world before ther were "brainwashed". Who nows, the whole conspiracy could be true, but i doubt it. That evidence is a bit disturbing, so you never know, but im just saying...

[Strife]

Alright I got a few questions.

From this video, what hit the pentagon?
If it wasn't a passanger plane, then what happened to the passanger plane?
Was there ever a passanger plane?
And by dabears response, what happened to the people?

[Strife]

http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911/Eastman/m18h05.html

Check out also the 'distraction' link, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-demonstrative-evidence-of-frameup/message/38

[stewey]

Fortunately, physics explains what happened at the Pentagon crash. I recommend checking these links:

http://paulboutin.weblogger.com/2002/03/14 (Written by a physicist and engineer)

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html (computer simulation)

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm (explains the damage details and lack of a craft, read the whole thing)

http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/gpentagon/frame.htm (another good site)

And finally, http://ourworld-top.cs.com/mikegriffith1/refute.htm (lots of links)

[MetalMilitia]

Protesters Allege 9/11 Terror Attacks Were Government Conspiracy

On the final day of the Republican National Convention, protesters gathered where the World Trade Center once stood to allege a massive government conspiracy and cover-up regarding the terror attacks of September 11, 2001.

The protest, which was part of the official "counter convention calendar" of events, alleged that the U.S. government needed an excuse to seize power in America, and it either allowed the terror attacks to happen or was actively involved in them.

The afternoon event, sponsored by 911truth.org, was called "Vigil For Truth at Ground Zero."

"[9/11] was an inside job, a fraud, a scam, equivalent of the [burning] of the Reichstag that led to a reign of terror across Nazi Europe. And it seems like that's what is happening now," protestor David Hylander told CNSNews.com.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200409\NAT2004 0903a.html

----

This isn't just for internet sites and conspiracy hang outs - it's a fairly mainstream idea. Just ask those "whacky" Canadians or those lovable Germans what they think of 9/11

[prezhorusin04]

Exactly Metal, good post..This isn't just about some French mans book Stewey, this same question is asked by hundreds of millions, if not a billion citizens of this planet..

Where is the real proof of any visible wreckage at the Pentagon? They can find a "terrorist" passport in the WTC rubble, but no real plane wreckage at the Pentagon?

Why no video evidence? They played the trade towers footage a million times, why no Pentagon footage if ANY was available, which was before it 3was confiscated..

Why all the Bush/Cheney connections to Haliburton and the Carlyle group which are making a fortune off of pipelines and business deals in Iraq? Why the Bush family connection to the Bin Laden family?

Why are both Bush and Kerry members of Skull and Bones? Why are Bush and Cheney members of Bohemian Grove? Why all the Freemasonry among their ranks?Why the strong ties with Israel and Zionism?

Why are their family connections between Prescot Bush and the funding of Nazi Germany? Why does the German Thule society branch off and become the American Skull and Bones in 1832, which holds Bush AND Kerry?

WHY?WHY?WHY? And the answers don't lie in more lies and propaganda that helps to hide the Elites and the plan for the New World Order...The New World Order which both Bush SR, and Jr, have announced many, many times..

I looked at all of your sites Stew, i could provide just as many, or more, who are not convinced with the "official" version of 911, or HISTORY..-Show me a plane, show me MAJOR plane wreckage, and i might believe the "official" story..But i doubt it..

[humanhybrid]

OK Prez, Why the big coverup at the pentagon. What purpose does the fake plane crash serve? What motive! good day!

[prezhorusin04]

Hybrid. I don't really have the answer for that. I know a plane, and people dissapeared that day, but from what i see, and the damage done at the Pentagon, it looks like a missle strike to me..

There should have been numerous, and massive pieces of wreckage at the Pentagon, not to mention scattered human remains..Yet we see/have none of this?!?

There is no video footage of the plane that day, yet there is a camera RIGHT ON the Pentagon crash site, that shows no plane?(Other then a military jet that possibly passed by at the time!)

I'm not a evil genius mastermind..I don't know why a missle was used at the Pentagon instead of a plane..Other then the fact that they can get away with it..I don't know what really hppened to the Pentagon plane and the people on board..

I've got questions and answers just like everyone else..I'm just saying that i don't accept the official version of what transpired on 911. Nor should anyone who observes the evidence logically...It's like saying that we should acccept that Kennedy was killed by a lone gunman, when there is overwhelming evidence that prooves a coverup..

[Marajadex]

I suppose that if the powers that be who knew about the pending attack on WTC felt that they needed a bigger threat. What could be a bigger threat than an attack on the nations capital. What better place than the center of the military. Especially if as is alluded to the area hit was known to be mostly empty. As to the planes and those booked on the flights... how about the government relocating them and setting them up with a new identity in another country. Not a bad deal to shut the heck up and live comfortable and anonymously for the rest of their lives... Hmmmm... Makes you wonder... I mean this did hit pretty close to home for me as my Dad was booked on the flight that went down in Pennsylvania. He luckily took a flight a day earlier.

Just my ramblings... :devsmoke:

[Zach]

I think you guys are probably right. I mean, looking at the hole, there is no way a 747 could make a perfect hole like that.

For the people, they probably landed the plane somewhere else and had like the FBI or some other govenment agency meet the people as they got off the flight and either offered to move them to another country or "brainwashed them". I mean, just using like geometry, you can tell that a 747 couldnt have made a hole like that. I think you guys are on to something.

[Zach]

Actually, i take that back. There still is some evidence that proves that it could be false. I mean you guys may be on to something but there was someone i know who worked in the Pentagon who was killed and they really are dead. I dont think the government would kill their own people. So, i no longer know what to think.

[Strife]

You never know Zach. Out of all respect, I don't mean to say this intentionally to any lives lost that day. But maybe the government no longer had use of those who worked in that section of the pentagon. Perhaps there were already different individuals ready to be installled into their spots.

Didn't really felt like saying that, but its just a possibility.

[Marajadex]

Is the term something like...
"Acceptable Casualties"?
:devsmoke:

[blahblahblah]

This stuff has long been put to rest. Take a look at the article in Snopes (full article here, with pictures: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm):

The notion that the Pentagon was not damaged by terrorists who hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 (a Boeing 757) and crashed it into the military office complex, but that the whole affair was staged by the U.S. government, has been promulgated by French author Thierry Meyssan in his book, The Frightening Fraud. Meyssan offers no real explanation for what did cause the extensive damage to the Pentagon, asserting only that Flight 77 did not exist, no plane crashed into the Pengaton, and that "the American government is lying."

Unfortunately, the appeal of conspiracy theories has resulted in widespread dissemination of Meyssan's "theory" in France and the USA, particularly in web sites that mirror his work. As Le Nouvel Observateur noted: "This theory suits everyone - there are no Islamic extremists and everyone is happy. It eliminates reality."

The text cited in the example above comes from a Hunt the Boeing! And test your perceptions! web site, one of the English-language mirrors of Meyssan's claims, where readers are invited to ponder a series of questions about why photographs of the damaged Pentagon seemingly show no evidence of a crashed airplane. The answers to the questions are:


1) Can you explain how a Boeing 757-200, weighing nearly 100 tons and travelling at a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour only damaged the outside of the Pentagon?
Despite the appearances of exterior photographs, the Boeing 757-200 did not "only damage the outside of the Pentagon." It caused damage to all five rings (not just the outermost one) after penetrating a reinforced, 24-inch-thick outer wall. As 60 Minutes II reported in their "Miracle of the Pentagon" episode on 28 November 2001, the section of the Pentagon into which the hijacked airliner was flown had just been reinforced during a renovation project:


"We made several modifications to the building as part of that renovation that we think helped save people's lives," says Lee Evey, who runs a billion-dollar project to renovate the Pentagon. They’ve been working on it since 1993. The first section was five days from being finished when the terrorists hit it with the plane.
The renovation project built strength into the 60-year-old limestone exterior with a web of steel beams and columns.

"You have these steel tubes and, again, they go from the first floor and go all the way to the fifth floor," says Evey. "We have everything bolted together in a strong steel matrix. It supports and encases the windows and provides tremendous additional strength to the wall."

When the plane hit at 350 miles an hour, the limestone layer shattered. But inside, those shards of stone were caught by a shield of cloth that lines the entire section of the building.

It is a special cloth that helps prevent masonry from fragmenting and turning into shrapnel. The cloth is also used to make bullet-resistant vests.

All of this, especially the steel, held up the third, fourth and fifth floors. They stayed up for 35 minutes. You can see them through the smoke, suspended over the hole gouged by the jet. Only after the evacuation did the heat melt the new steel away. Evey says that without the reconstruction, the floors might have collapsed immediately.

Exterior photographs are misleading because they show only the intact roof structures of the outer rings and don't reveal that the plane penetrated all the way to the ground floor of the third ring. As a U.S. Army press release noted back on 26 September 2001, one engine of the aircraft punched a 12-foot hole through the wall of the second ring:


On the inside wall of the second ring of the Pentagon, a nearly circular hole, about 12-feet wide, allows light to pour into the building from an internal service alley. An aircraft engine punched the hole out on its last flight after being broken loose from its moorings on the plane. The result became a huge vent for the subsequent explosion and fire. Signs of fire and black smoke now ring the outside of the jagged-edged hole.
Recall that when the first airliner was flown into a World Trade Center tower on September 11 — before it was known that the "accident" was really part of a deliberate terrorist attack — newscasters were speculating that a small plane had accidentally flown into the side of the tower, because the visible exterior damage didn't seem as extensive as what people thought a large airliner would cause. Even though the two airplanes flown into the World Trade Center towers were travelling faster at the time of impact than the Pentagon plane was (400 MPH vs. 350 MPH), hit aluminum-and-glass buildings rather than reinforced concrete walls, and didn't dissipate much of their energy striking the ground first (as the Pentagon plane did), they still barely penetrated all the way through the WTC towers.

Below is a recent (11 March 2002) photograph of the the rebuilding effort underway at the Pentagon, demonstrating that far more than just the "outside" of the building was damaged and needed to be repaired:




2) Can you explain how a Boeing 14.9 yards high, 51.7 yards long, with a wingspan of 41.6 yards and a cockpit 3.8 yards high, could crash into just the ground floor of this building?
As eyewitnesses described and photographs demonstrate, the hijacked airliner dived so low as it approached the Pentagon that it actually hit the ground first, thereby dissipating much of the energy that might otherwise have caused more extensive damage to the building; nonetheless, as described by The New York Times, the plane still hit not "just the ground floor" but between the first and second floors:


The Boeing 757 crashed into the outer edge of the building between the first and second floors, "at full power," Mr. Rumsfeld said. It penetrated three of the five concentric rings of the building.
Another account of the crash described:


The plane banked sharply and came in so low that it clipped light poles. It slammed into the side of the Pentagon at an estimated 350 miles per hour after first hitting the helipad. The plane penetrated the outer three rings of the building. The jet fuel exploded, which sent a fireball outward from the impact point. About 30 minutes after the crash, a cross-section of the building collapsed, but only after enough time had elapsed for rescue workers to evacuate all injured employees.
The fire was so hot that firefighters could not approach the impact point itself until approximately 1 P.M. The collapse and roof fires left the inner courtyard visible from outside through a gaping hole. The area hit by the plane was newly renovated and reinforced, while the areas surrounding the impact zone were closed in preparation for renovation, so the death toll could have been much higher if another area had been hit.

Next question:


3) You'll remember that the aircraft only hit the ground floor of the Pentagon's first ring. Can you find debris of a Boeing 757-200 in this photograph?
You'll recall from the discussions above that the hijacked airliner did not "only hit the ground floor of the Pentagon's first ring" — it struck the Pentagon between the first and second floors and blasted all the way through to the third ring. Because the plane disappeared into the building's interior after penetrating the outer ring, it was not visible in photographs taken from outside the Pentagon. Moreover, since the airliner was full of jet fuel and was flown into thick, reinforced concrete walls at high speed, exploding in a fireball, any pieces of wreckage large enough to be identifiable in after-the-fact photographs taken from a few hundred feet away burned up in the intense fire that followed the crash (just as the planes flown into the World Trade Center towers burned up, and the intensity of their jet-fuel fires caused both towers to collapse).

Small pieces of airplane debris were plainly visible on the Pentagon lawn in other photographs, however, such as the one below:


--4 cut because of post size restrictions, see the link

5) Can you explain what happened to the wings of the aircraft and why they caused no damage?
As the front of the Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, the outer portions of the wings likely snapped during the initial impact, then were pushed inward towards the fuselage and carried into the building's interior; the inner portions of the wings probably penetrated the Pentagon walls with the rest of the plane. Any sizable portions of the wings were destroyed in the explosion or the subsequent fire. Nonetheless, damage to the building caused by the plane's wings is plainly visible in photographs, such as the one below (note the blackened sections on both sides of the impact site):



--ditto 6--

7) Can you find the aircraft's point of impact?
Immediately after Flight 77 smashed into the Pentagon, the impact was obscured by a huge fireball, explosions, fire, smoke, and water from firefighting efforts. Within a half hour, the upper stories of the building collapsed, thereby permanently obscuring the impact site. It simply wasn't possible for photographs to capture a clear view of the impact site during that brief interval between the crash and the collapse.

In photographs like the one provided (below left), the impact site is obscured by water from firefighters' hoses and smoke. A two-story high impact hole does exist right behind the fireman in the photograph, but it's covered over by water issuing from the fire truck.

By the time the smoke and water cleared, additional portions of the building had collapsed (below right), further obscuring the impact point.

[prezhorusin04]

Blahblah, that's the same post that Stewey made a few days ago..I read it then, and it's funny how so many words can answer NO questions...All i hear from that is a bunch of double talk BS!

[Strife]

True, this still wont answer no questions. I'm still waiting for an answer to the confiscations of all the cameras that may have captured this 757 if it did indeed crash into the pentagon.


Is the term something like...
"Acceptable Casualties"?

That summarizes right there what I had to say.
:bread: <--(the meaning of this??)

[VegasRonin]

I'm still waiting for an answer to the confiscations of all the cameras that may have captured this 757 if it did indeed crash into the pentagon. Yep, that's all I want as well. My thoughts on the whole thing is as yet, undecided. Get the film footage out, and put a rest to all the doubters, once and for all. Easy solution but it won't happen without a lot of pressure; after all, the Govt. won't release the footage of the Oklahoma bombing either.

[Saint Massacre]

ye ye, w.e, what happened to the wreckage of the plane.>?? the plane crashed and the ppl died so if it didnt crash into the pentagon then sum1 would have seen the plane crash somewhere else........idc wat ne1 else says......its jus obvious that the plane had to go sumwhere

[RightWingNutJob]

Don't be so quick to believe everything you hear, especially conspiracy theories from the internet.

Here's some points to consider:

Point 1

http://911review.org/images/photorotor.jpg

This is a turbine with missing blades. Turbine blades are small on the biggest engines, they return power to the fan. Considering the blades were made out of titanium, carbon fiber, and other more exotic alloys which can melt at various temperature, doesn't take much of conspiracy theorist to realize these blades could have easily evaporated in temps upwards of 1,500 degrees, which a 757 loaded with jet fuel could have generated.

[RightWingNutJob]

Point 2

Is it not conceivable that the plane could have hit the building without touching ground? I don't find that too far-fetched?

Point 3

http://amigaphil.planetinternet.be/pic/Pentagon091107.jpg

What's that? Looks like plane wreckage to me and didn't take much googling to find it either. And it's not much of a stretch to paste that bit of wreckage onto an American Airlines plane, is it?

[RightWingNutJob]

Point 4

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/pentagondebris.jpg

This is debris from inside the Pentagon, not typical office furniture, is it? And considering the Pentagon walls and just been reinforced a few months before, one might imagine that the plane itself could have imploded. Ha, ha, I'm using physics and I flunked in high school. My teacher would be so proud. When two objects impact one or the other or both have to give. Given the Pentagon was heavily reinforced, could a plane made of lighter material have imploded?

[RightWingNutJob]

Point 5

http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/blhelo.jpg

They didn't show this piece of footage in the film. Probably because it shows a huge impact and that would poke holes in the little conspiracy theory, wouldn't it?

Point 6

This is a quote from a witness who was actually at the Pentagon on 9/11....and a very credible source I might add.



One individual wrote:

>>4. One guy said he smelled cordite. When was the last time cordite was used in a warhead? Wasn't it mostly used as large rifle propellent?<<

Don't know where that guy was but 75 yards from the point of impact during the rescue and recovery operation, the predominent smell was jet fuel (mixed with smoke, burning wood (the roof and trees adjacent to the helo control tower) and dead bodies). That's MY account - not "some guy."


Sorry folks. I'm not usually this windy. I swear.

[prezhorusin04]

Yeah, don't believe conspiracy from the internet..! People only know what they are talking about when they work with USA today, or ABC news..Their paycheck doesn't make them biased at all!!!!

[prezhorusin04]

All Good:

http://www.rense.com/general49/no911.htm

http://www.rense.com/general26/penta.htm

http://www.letsroll911.org/

http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm

http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911/

http://www.911-strike.com/pentagon.htm

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread77558/pg1

[dutchie]

Eehrmm, maybe this is a strange question, but....

Did Al Quaida not CLAIM the attack on the Pentagon to be theirs?

If there hadn't been a plane, and it was a US setup, wouldn't Al Quaida have UNDERSTOOD this (they're not daft) and DENIED connection with this attack?

[Bushnell]

Good points, and pictures Rightwingnutjob, and I have to go along with dutchie also,
Eehrmm, maybe this is a strange question, but....

Did Al Quaida not CLAIM the attack on the Pentagon to be theirs?

If there hadn't been a plane, and it was a US setup, wouldn't Al Quaida have UNDERSTOOD this (they're not daft) and DENIED connection with this attack? At 1,500 degrees, which a 757 loaded with jet fuel could have generated. Would melt the medal of the 757 down to all most nothing, and burn all the the people inside to ash. I can understand a cover up by the Gov, If killing one or two people ( Like JFK ) but to kill over 3000 people, and 4 planes, No way in hell is it a coverup!! And if it was a coverup, there would have to be to many people involved. Somebody would come forward and say something!! The past week the History Channel has been run a whole lot about 9/11 allot of good info! If flight 77 did not hit the pentagon, It would be hard to hide a plane and all the people aboard flight 77. A bad and sad day was 9/11. But a coverup no way!

[Bushnell]

I do see a coverup, on the part of the goverment, before 9/11. They had good info, that something Big was going to happen. Did they let it happen, That is the only coverup I see, In regards to 9/11.

[lotrfan55345]

The debunking sites seem to fail to show the "narrow tube" pictures of the Pentagon.

I've rode a 757 before and I'm sure it's wider than 7-8 "no parking" signs. It's 3-3 seating and all, I'm sure the seats were more than the width of the "no parking" sign.

http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/exit2.jpg

Did Boeing make a special, more smaller 757 with no wings?

I wonder how comfortable the flights were...

[VegasRonin]

There are good points on both sides, that's why I'm for the Govt. releasing the confiscated video tapes. Everyone has a theory. I 'd rather see the tapes and make up my own mind.

[Strife]

Very good points by everyone. Too bad I don't have something interesting to add. :uh:

True, I'm with VR on this one.

[Emerald_Dragon]

>What's that? Looks like plane wreckage to me and didn't take much googling to find it either.
>And it's not much of a stretch to paste that bit of wreckage onto an American Airlines plane, is it?


its also not difficult to reproduce with Photoshop. Could also be interepreted as a ripped up Pepsi can. :grin

And if it is parts of the 757, wouldn't there been more debris? I think a smaller plane actually hit. As for the original, alleged plane with all the passengers, where did they go? I think they might still have been on the planes. After all, there were few people on those flights, relative to the capacity of a Boeing 757. Its no wonder airliners go bankrupt, they use the largest planes for the fewest passengers. :grin


>They didn't show this piece of footage in the film.
>Probably because it shows a huge impact and that would poke holes in the little conspiracy theory, wouldn't it?

Thats the aftermath. The impact was much smaller. If anything, your photo encourages the conspiracy. How could 5300 gallons (?) of jet fuel, not singe and stain the internal concrete as it weakened the structure, eventually causing it to collapse? Notice the white walls of the exposed rooms around the area of impact. The exterior had more smoke damage. Unless you believe a flying aluminum can filled with fuel, would not leave smoke stains to everything around it after impact?


>This is a quote from a witness who was actually at the Pentagon on 9/11....
>and a very credible source I might add.

even Donald Rumsfeld said on TV that the Pentagon was hit with a missile. Is he credible? He was there.


>Did Al Quaida not CLAIM the attack on the Pentagon to be theirs?

i don't remember reading any such bit. The closest I've heard to that thought, is that OBL claimed credit for the attacks. But depending on who translates what he said, you might of heard that he praised the attacks vs. he masterminded the attacks. I don't know, I don't speak Arabic.


>No way in hell is it a coverup!!
>And if it was a coverup, there would have to be to many people involved.

IMO, you wouldn't need alot of people. Just the guy who remote controlled the planes into their targets. The passengers wouldn't know. All you need are hijackers...who don't appear on the passenger manifests as released by CNN, some who are still alive (7), and were seen/filmed boarding the same flights a week before. I'm not sure there were hijackers on all the planes involved. I believe that there were hijackers, just not 19.

It would take a few years to "clean up". After the JFK assassination, it took about 2 years before most of the witnesses (18?) around the Grassy Knoll died of natural occurrences. Even when the HCA in 1976 went to re-investigate, another 100 or so died looking into it. Not until 1993 was it somewhat safe to talk about it and learn of the CIA's heavy involvement [National Archives]. But LBJ's notes are still locked up.

It won't be in our lifetime that the truth about 911, will come out, mainstream. Accept it.


> I 'd rather see the tapes and make up my own mind.

yeah I agree, it would restore my faith in my government if those tapes were made available. someone should have them and put them on the Internet to quell doubts.

with whatall has occurred in Iraq, Afghanistan, WTC 911, Waco, OK City, WTC 93...I'm beginning to have serious doubts about what's happening to our country.

[prezhorusin04]

Good points Ronin, Strife and Ed..That looks like a crumpled Pepsi can to me too..There is NO WAY that there would be no wreckage, and no way that there is NO video footage of a jet..It doesn't take physics, it takes TWO EYES to see that something isn't right with this situation..Again, they can find a supposed terrorist passport in the wreckage at WTC, but there is no plane wreckage at the Pentagon?..With that much jet fuel, the Pentagon should have been a raging inferno, yet the damage appears in a relatively clean and precise round whole:?


http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/images/avion-incrustation.jpg
The photographs in Question 5 show representations of a Boeing 757-200 superimposed on the section of the building that was hit.


Can you explain what happened to the wings of the aircraft and why they caused no damage? There is clear wing damage at the impact site of both towers, yet we are supposed to believe that an entire plane totally disentegrated at the Pentagon, and there were no human remains??

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero14/missile/temoins_en.htm
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm

The footage hasn't come out, and doesn't, because THEY ARE LYING AND HIDING SOMETHING..

[knac1055]

Do planes fly at MPH or KPH?
Here let me answer for you its KPH
Next
What does 1 KPH = in MPH?

1.15 mph.

so if the news says a plane is going 587mph what they really meant to say is 587kph which = 675.05 mph. now let's take a plane made of mostly aluminum and plastic with a steel frame fly it into a building made of concert and steel

[prezhorusin04]

Edited py Prezhorus for angry content..Sorry all..

[knac1055]

Hey knac, go fuck yourself with your Bush Cheney bullshit you ignorant numb bitch. Fucking twat! :fu:

That's how i would have answered you if i was an asshole like you..Instead i'll say, why don't you supply some kind of factual evidence or proof other then your over compensating opinions when your obviously clueless with your Bush Cheney propaganda..Or your subconsciously a racist satanist and that's why you stick by Bush and Cheney??

Either way, whatever!!-Can somebody mod this jerk?


.. :Bday: :birthdayg

[lotrfan55345]

so if the news says a plane is going 587mph what they really meant to say is 587kph which = 675.05 mph. now let's take a plane made of mostly aluminum and plastic with a steel frame fly it into a building made of concert and steel

Yes and?

Elaborate.


You want evidence go look it up like I did you dumb fuck head

So I’m satanic? Actually I’m agnostic you motherfucker

By the way how was your mother last night?

Usually, in a forum, you post what you look up. ;)



+-------------------+ .:\:\:/:/:.
| PLEASE DO NOT | :.:\:\:/:/:.:
| FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=:
| | '=(\ 9 9 /)='
| Thank you, | ( (_) )
| Management | /`-vvv-'\
+-------------------+ / \
| | @@@ / /|,,,,,|\ \
| | @@@ /_// /^\ \\_\
@x@@x@ | | |/ WW( ( ) )WW
\||||/ | | \| __\,,\ /,,/__
\||/ | | | (______Y______)
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
================================================== ================

[knac1055]

Elaborate, please.



the WTC's where made of mostly glass and steel not very much concert that is why when the planes hit them you could make out where the wings impacted and entered, the planes actually went through the building sure the two building where designed to withstand a impact from a 707 but not at top speed


the pentagon, the area that got impacted had just been rehabbed and brought up to modern standards sure it could withstand a impact from a plane but that plane was going almost 700 miles per-hour that is why when you look at the video from the security booth it is a blur also that plane had a few 1000 pounds of high octane fuel and plenty of sparks from the impact with a hard target to ignite it.

[prezhorusin04]

Dude, i am looking it up, and have been looking it up since 911..Unlike you, i just don't buy the simple and "official" versions of that day..Either at the Pentagon, or WTC, and there is such overwhelming evidence that shows cover-ups on multiple levels...And a notable one coming in Bush/Cheney oil and business relations to the Saudies and Bin Laden family going back decades....

Not to mention the Bush relation to the Skull and Bones, as well as John Kerry who is a member, and a COUSIN to Bush..And go ahead and throw in Bush sr, and jr's, many refrences to the New World Order..

i just hate it, when you make about 10 posts in this thread, with links, pics, and the VIDEO that is the FIRST POST here (that i'm sure Knac didn't watch), and yet somebody thinks they can come in and make 3 sentences in one post, and start calling people fucking idiots....Like their one post has put an end to the whole case..

Anyway, on with the thread...

[knac1055]

I have watched it because it is floating all over the web
I just do not beleive it because there was evadence that a plane did hit

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/pentagon_20020316.html

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/witnesses/

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/03/07/gen.pentagon.pictures/

http://urbanlegends.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://paulboutin.weblogger.com/2002/03/14

http://urbanlegends.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/14%5FAPboxes.html

http://urbanlegends.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.dcmilitary.com/army/stripe/6%5F48/national%5Fnews/12279%2D1.html

http://urbanlegends.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://paulboutin.weblogger.com/2002/03/14

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77.htm

http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/refute.htm

[humanhybrid]

Knac, Im sorry, I clicked all the links and my basic instinct and common sense just does not let me beleive that there shouldnt have been more wreckage. Think in this way Knac if in fact a black box and remmenants of people are to be recovered and identified, wouldnt more of the wreckage be visable, especially considering the size of the plane? good day! or night

[Zach]

Correct me if i am wrong, but uh, 747's cant fly at almost 700 miles per hour.

By the way, i am gonna have to stay neutral on this.

[DontBeAfraid]

knac US reporters report the speeds in MPH because that is how its measured in the US. No need to do any conversions. oh and a kilometer is much shorter than a mile, so 800 kph is ONLY 500 mph, this is because 1 mile is equal to 1.6 kilometers, not the other way around. If you ran track you would know this.

Hell, if you have a car you would know this, sinse most have both on the speedometer.... 80kph = 50mph..... Most reporters are a little bit smarter than to make the STUPID mistake you claim of them.

[knac1055]

1 knot = 1 nautical mile per hour = 6076 feet per hour
1 mph =1 mile per hour = 5280 feet per hour
Ok I screwed up
I should have said nautical miles per hour

And airspeed is measured in knots not miles

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/WindTunnel/Activities/knots_vs_mph.html

[Zach]

Ok, i do believe that there was an attack on the Pentagon, but i still have a question. For the part of the plane in the picture from Rightwing. I havent been on American Airlines for a while so...does that part of the plane look like it is from American Airlines or another thing. I only ask because they confirmed that the terrorists only used American Airline planes.

[knac1055]

at sea level the 757 maximum speed is before the plane will start to break appart is mach .86 which is 655.32 mph
567.6 knots
1051.78 km/h

[bbbv3.5]

I am not too sure witht his pentagon thing after the video or after the 6 pics and reasons why is not a fraud.....but there is fact that planes were hijacked on 9/11.

Last year we had a memorial service for 9/11 at my local LI church. Our Bishop was with a lady who lost her husband in the 9/11 attacks. But her husband died in the pennsytlvania attacks. She got up to the podium and told us her story. Her husband called her from the plane and said the plane has been hijacked. Then he told her to pray (reason why it was in the memorial service) to mary for everything to be better. She calls her whole family. Tells them to pray. The phone rings. Second phone call from her husband. "We have a plan, we are bring the plane down" he said. "Pray for us that we suceed". She said her goodbyes and prayed. The plane goes down and thye saved maybe another 1,000 lives or maybe they were headed towards Air Force 1. The point was because they prayed everything was better.

But that was in the memorial service. Now on AO the point is the plane was hijacked. So if that was hijacked why wouldnt the other three be hijacked as well.

Oh and VR the people who did the OK bombing we found and were electrecuted. :Bdevil: Saw a special on discovery channel about it. IOts a memeorial now.


P.S KNAC! What are you doing!!!! Cursing at everyone because you have nothing to say. you have cursed at dn...you have cursed at prez and i bet you cursed at many more people. SO STOP!

[Bushnell]

The video is good and make some good points! But there a couple of thing's in that video,that bring down the credibility of the video. :uh: Ist) Point being is the picture with the No Parking sign and a round hole about 12ft + 12ft! In the frist part of the video you see What Ever hit the pentagon, made a big firer ball, which would char the out side of the building black ( Because of the red fire ) plus the firerfighters standing next to a section of building that is about to collapsed in 20min, ( were is all the water, if they are putting out a fire, so that picture is B.S. 2nd) Point the hijackers or hijacker did not know how to fly a plane, when a plane is airborne, it is very easy to fly ( If you can drive a car you can fly 757 ) all you have to know is how to go up&down, left&right, fast&slow, and read a compass, a couple hours in flight training will teach you that. 3rd) Point if you look at the end of the video, were it shows something ( I think plane ) hit the pentagon, you can see the red letters on the tail wing! 4th) Point the video over looking the freeway, the plane would still be a couple hundred feet above that. P.S. I like everybody else would like to see the other 3 or 4 videos, that the FBI took!!

[knac1055]

specs for a Boeing 757 on the shockwave file they claim that there was 5300 gallons of feul in that I do not know what the conversion is for aircraft fuel gallons to weight

but anyways the boeing 757-200 holds something like 43000 lbs. of fuel

link
http://www.flybernhard.de/ueb_eng.htm?http://www.flybernhard.de/b757_e.htm

P.S.

by the way last night I was a little high on pain killer's do to some major pain in my left foot and I am sorry if I offended anyone

[DontBeAfraid]

Thank you for pointing out my mistake knac. Sorry.

[bbbv3.5]

First let me say that I am using this signon as a friend of the logger. I was reading the posts and felt it imperative to make certain statements to all.

First, I live in New York and witnessed the horror. My sister barely got out of the tragedy. My boyfirend, a firefighter died along with many friends. There was no conspiracy on that day. A real coverup happened more than 4 years before. Read the public records surrounding TWA Flight 800 that went down less than 10 miles from my home. The book "Cover Up" may help you as well. A conspiracy and a coverup are worlds apart from eachother but yet after the 93 bombing of the WTC and three years later the TWA crash should have been sufficient to secure cockpits and take the threats seriously but yet they were not.

Furthermore, I am beside myself that you would rather blame our country rather than those who were truly to blame. While I am a college grad with an MBA I would never put myself in the position to know more than my Commanfer in Chief who deals with the complexities of foreign policies. I doubt any one of you are anymore qualified than I am.

It also would benefit all of you to realize that September 11 changed everything and the fact is that whether you agree with our position with Iraq, the elimination of Saddam Hussein was necessary. He himslf was a weapon of mass destruction. I am foreign born and have also witnessed the horror of a secret police removing neighbors and murdering them on the street because the government believed them to be subversives (people who chose to speak freely). I know of many who disappeared (women, men, young, old) in the middle of the night in the hands of a dictator.

I stand behind this administration. Their strength is the difference between New York and Chechnya today. It is not fear that the administration is trying to force on us all, it is the reality. And whether you chose to listen to me or to dismiss it as rhetoric, do not deny me the fact that I witnessed it and God help me if I live to see those horrors realize themselves in my country. GOd Bless you all and the United States of America

[DontBeAfraid]

Wrong thread, this is about the pentagon not the trade center.......

[Thor]

You could have a film of a plane crashing into the World Trade Center, and there are those would say that was fabricated garbage...just as some claim that there were explosives detonated causing the WTC to collapse...it doesn't matter what the issue is, there will always be conspiracy mongers saying it didn't happen that way.

[VegasRonin]

Oh and VR the people who did the OK bombing we found and were electrecuted. Saw a special on discovery channel about it. IOts a memeorial now. I know who got caught and punished for the OK. bombing bbb. :nono: Do you know that there's confiscated video tape (From a building across the street) that shows the truck being parked in front of the Federal Building? The Govt. won't release the tape. They say its a matter of Natl. Security. If we've already caught and punished those involved, then why is the tape still a matter of Natl. Security. :nudge:

[Thor]

VR, where did you get the info about the tape, I'd like to check it out.

[Emerald_Dragon]

>the WTC's where made of mostly glass and steel...

:grin have you ever known a building to collapse due to fire? that weakened its 200,000 tons of steel? During the 50's, a B-17 Bomber crashed into the Empire State building, did it collapse?

If you were to lookup the 1993 Bombing and find out what the Port Authority decided to do as a preventative measure in case something like that were to happen again, you'll have an idea why they both collapsed. The information is available, if only someone would look it up. I read about it over a year ago, should have kept the link.


>the pentagon, the area that got impacted had just been rehabbed and brought up to modern standards

it was being renovated. you've obviously seen the available footage. have you noticed how it differs from eyewitness testimony? where they said it hit at a 45 degree angle? where it hit the ground and slid into the building? howbout the crack pilot Hani Hanjoor who had the plane flying towards the White House then did a 270 degree turning descent to instead hit the Pentagon, a maneuver even the best pilots have a difficult time doing, as observed by Air Traffic controllers in DC and veteran pilots that reviewed it in the UK.



>I just do not beleive it because there was evadence that a plane did hit

knac, or should i call u PNAC, a plane did hit. just not a Boeing 757. Look up Global Hawk, it will clear things up a bit. i believe 'about.com' is trying to keep the status quo, to alleviate the doubts about 911 to prevent people from learning the truth. Its got lots of information, but some of it is disinformation. In the end, its up to you to decide if the information it conveys is adequate. I believe it was that site, where I read about the 45 degree angle crash and the sliding on grass before impact BS. Which clearly, is not what happened, given the available photographic evidence.



>does that part of the plane look like it is from American Airlines or another thing.

yes it does. AA has red, white, and blue paint on a silver background.



>I only ask because they confirmed that the terrorists only used American Airline planes.

I thought they used 2 airlines? United and American?


>Now on AO the point is the plane was hijacked.
>So if that was hijacked why wouldnt the other three be hijacked as well.

I don't think we are disagreeing that they were hijacked. I think we are disagreeing on the details of how and why. You're referring to Flight 93 over Pennsylvania. Its the "Let's Roll" flight. When you do more digging, you'll find out that its debris was spread out over 8 miles. The ground witnesses heard an explosion minutes before it allegedly hit the ground. Even a Vietnam war vet claims that he heard a missile launch before the explosion.

IMO, I believe the passengers knew that they were hijacked and tried to stop what was going on, to save lives, because the WTC crashes and Pentagon crash had already occurred, hours before. The black box that was recovered from this flight had a looping tape that had 30 seconds missing from it. And an FOIA request did not include the hijackers names for the flight, but did list an additional name, not already listed among the dead. What it all means, is open to speculation. The media won't tell you what they don't want you to conclude, in cases like this.


>that bring down the credibility of the video.

that it was alleged to be a hoax? because its shadows were photoshopped? That's what i've read/heard.


>Ist) Point being is the picture with the No Parking sign and a round hole about 12ft + 12ft!

What do you think, a Missile or Boeing 757 Impact?


>( were is all the water, if they are putting out a fire, so that picture is B.S.

one could argue that it has seeped into the ground. but i thought they used foam?


>2nd) Point the hijackers or hijacker did not know how to fly a plane,
>when a plane is airborne, it is very easy to fly

no offense, :grin but i don't think you've seen the instrument panel for a Boeing. Its much different from a Cessna, the plane that Hani Hanjoor took flight lessons in, that his trainer felt he was not qualified to fly.
He was a Patsy.

[Its like saying LHO could hit JFK 3 times in 6 seconds, with a tree in the way, with a mail-ordered Italian rifle, alone.]


>but anyways the boeing 757-200 holds something like 43000 lbs. of fuel

probably true, i don't know, but the Flight 77 plane had already flown over West Virginia and U-turned before
http://www.public-action.com/911/4flights.html
it disappeared from radar and crashed into the Pentagon. hence the 5300 lb. guesstimation of how much fuel was involved with the Pentagon crash.



>If we've already caught and punished those involved,
>then why is the tape still a matter of Natl. Security.

*lol* you're talking about John Doe number 2 and McVeigh blinking/breathing after he was electrocute/executed. *lol*


>I would never put myself in the position to know more than my Commanfer in Chief
>who deals with the complexities of foreign policies.

well, our C-in-C didn't exactly attend let-alone-graduate grad school, nor did he attend his Nat'l Guard enlistment much, ahead of other qualified candidates. Have you read "The Fortunate Son" by James Hatfield? Check it out on Amazon.com, I doubt its available anywhere else in the US.


>And whether you chose to listen to me or to dismiss it as rhetoric,

On the contrary, yours is a very good point. At least in this great country of ours, I could/would be allowed to voice my questions and doubts about my country, without the fear of being hauled off and shut up. For that, I'm grateful. Cuz, you know, if it were a dictatorship, i'd prolly be dead for thinking what I do. Instead, I have the freedom to chose another leader. Problem is, the new leader could be as bad as the old leader. They don't differ much right now. One is known to lie, the other, doesn't know if he should or not.


>...it doesn't matter what the issue is,
>there will always be conspiracy mongers saying it didn't happen that way.

sure it matters. Just like the "Official" story released for public consumption, there is always an unofficial story that isn't told, to keep the peace/status quo. The "for entertainment" story to anesthetize the masses and the "censored history" retained for eventual release in history books when all are safely deceased of old age. Or when its politically safe to profess it. For now, have a tall cold one and be aware of it :toast:

[Bushnell]

You are right, the looks like a missile, But what about the( red flames ) you see in the video, and the 12ft+2ft hole has very little black char, with all that fire, there would be alot more black char, and the firefighter are just looking around no foam or water dripping down ? and it was about to colllapse in at most 20min. Plus ( I had my pilots license / not instrument rated, I trained in a Cessna 172) and know 1 pilot that fly's for Southwest, and 1 pilot that fly's for Fed-X, Also met 7 or 8 pilots on the golf course ( alot of pilots play golf on lay overs! ) And I have asked all of them the same question, ( Is it easy to fly a big plane ! ) They all ansewer much the same way, if you can drive a car or a bus, when the plane is airbourne and day light. they are easy to fly! :schizo:

[Emerald_Dragon]

>...12ft+2ft hole has very little black char, ...
>firefighter are just looking around no foam or water dripping down

ohh...you're talking about the 12x12 hole, that was found in the 3rd ring.
There was no "fire" there. There was a blaze created (?) from the impact in the outer ring, the 5th ring.

I don't believe a missile hit the Pentagon, but that would explain how parts of a plane could penetrate
3 Buildings worth reinforced concrete. That would also explain why Rummy thought a missile hit it.

[speculation] but if a missile was used, it prolly was used to weaken the impact zone enough for a flying aluminum can with 5300lbs of JP-7 jet fuel to penetrate. If you look closer at the photos, you find that the windows to the offices in the 4th ring, are intact.

IMO, a smaller plane was used. The 12x12 hole in ring 3 was prolly the titanium turbines that penetrated due to inertia. A Boeing 757 has 3 large turbines, if 1 penetrated 3 layers, where are the other 2 12ftx12ft holes??
It would also explain why the rooms exposed by the eventual collapse, didn't get smoke and fire damage, 5300lbs of jet fuel weren't disbursed at the impact zone.

There were many witnesses, they all saw a "Boeing". I think it was a Boeing, whichever 1 with 1 engine. Prolly a similar one to the one that hit the 1st Tower. [rhetorical] Can you tell the difference between a 727 and a 757?


>( Is it easy to fly a big plane ! )

i agree that it's easy to fly a plane, if its your job and what you've wanted to do/been doing, for years. I've asked around also. I've heard that flying a plane is very easy, especially if its already programmed for you, to take off and land. [Global Hawk]. One doesn't need to take flight school to learn to fly, when planes can be flown by remote control, or programmed by an untrained pilot with basic instructions. If you were to keep digging, you'll find that there is little-to-no physical evidence, to prove those 19 hijackers were actually on the planes. If Flight 93 and the FOIAs involved with it are any indication, no hijackers will be found in your research.

All we have is that the FBI says there were 19, showed their pictures on TV and on their website, then subsequently took it down after it learned that 7 of the faces were still alive. If their identities were "stolen" who were the hijackers? How did we know who they were? How come their bodies weren't found in the Pentagon crash? The PA crash? The tower crashes, we all understand, that we're unlikely to recover anything but their passports *chuckles* to show that they were on the flight. Whats more humorous, was that the passport allegedly belonged to Mohammed Atta, whose father claims to have spoken to him after 9/11/01 and said he was okay. 7 Others are at large in the ME.


>they are easy to fly

i believe you. But they are not easy to fly, for me. Esp if I didn't pass my Cessna Flight exam, like Hani Hanjoor. Here's a direct question for ya. You know how to fly a Cessna 172, would you know how to fly a Boeing 757? Assuming you said "Yes", would you feel comfortable with making a 270 degree turn while descending a couple thousand feet in a matter of seconds, in order to properly line up your plane for a suicide run on the Pentagon? Without assistance? Given only 1 shot with only Cessna training under your belt? That's what Hani is credited with doing.

[VegasRonin]

VR, where did you get the info about the tape, I'd like to check it out. Saw a special on the History Channel. The Defense wanted to have the tape released but The Govt. said it was a matter of National Security and the video could not be released.
*lol* you're talking about John Doe number 2 and McVeigh blinking/breathing after he was electrocute/executed. *lol* ED, I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Bushnell]

I do not think, the 3rd ring had a no parking sign inside the 3rd ring.
i believe you. But they are not easy to fly, for me. Esp if I didn't pass my Cessna Flight exam, like Hani Hanjoor. Here's a direct question for ya. You know how to fly a Cessna 172, would you know how to fly a Boeing 757? Assuming you said "Yes", would you feel comfortable with making a 270 degree turn while descending a couple thousand feet in a matter of seconds, in order to properly line up your plane for a suicide run on the Pentagon? Without assistance? Given only 1 shot with only Cessna training under your belt? That's what Hani is credited with doing. Yes I would feel ok with fighting if it was airbourne, and NO I would not feel comfortable with making a 270 degree! But if I was planing ( suicide mission ) and knowing I was going to die! I would give it a shot! :52:

[knac1055]

I guess you could always let the autopilot do the flying for you as long as the altimeter is set correctly so you don’t hit the ground before you get to your target.


Erased aircraft auto pilot directions. What are you trying to do? Show off? Don't post knowledge like that here. You don't know who is viewing this site, and what they would do with the knowledge you posted.

[knac1055]

I guess you could always let the autopilot do the flying for you as long as the altimeter is set correctly so you don’t hit the ground before you get to your target.


Erased aircraft auto pilot directions. What are you trying to do? Show off? Don't post knowledge like that here. You don't know who is viewing this site, and what they would do with the knowledge you posted.

Sorry about that

I was most likly wrong in my direction considering I have never took or read a book about flying

the closes I have gotten to flying is Microsoft Flight sim 2004

[Thor]

Saw a special on the History Channel. The Defense wanted to have the tape released but The Govt. said it was a matter of National Security and the video could not be released. ED, I have no idea what you're talking about.

the biggest problem I have with the Government or anybody else is that they have "something" that cannot be released, why TF not? I want to see for my own self what I think is on the tape, not what "THEY" think.

History Channel, Discovery, etc. they're all the same, let ME decide from what I see, not someone else,..am I wrong?

[Emerald_Dragon]

>>*lol* you're talking about John Doe number 2 ...
>ED, I have no idea what you're talking about.


whoops. thought you were talking about the photos sneaked out from the articles that talked about the unreleased FBI videos, which allegedly showed McVeigh leaving the Ryder truck outside the Murrah building along with a John Doe 1, while another John Doe 2, which got into the truck, did whatever, and then left; all occurring before the fertilizer truck went kaboom. Or that the FBI later came on site to remove 4 undetonated bombs. Or that a former General said that a fertilizer bomb could not have done that damage after canvassing the site.

then after McVeigh's execution, a reporter noted that it looked like he was still breathing after the doctor said he was dead. I think I read it on Alex Jone's site when it referenced some local news article.

Why would McVeigh bomb it in retribution for Waco, when the evidence supporting the cover-up at Waco, was stored there? It would be something like, Jack Ruby, killing LHO, to spare Jackie O. from having to come back to Dallas for the trial. BS. Spin, to hide a truth.

What happened there, IMO, was a psy-op. a Delphi technique. a dirty trick. [emphasis] Of course the tape is withheld for National Security. If it were shown that McVeigh was a patsy, it would invalidate the whole case. And we'd all look for the real culprit. Stop the snooping and present someone to blame. Case closed.



>I do not think, the 3rd ring had a no parking sign inside the 3rd ring.

the Pentagon is a fairly large complex. Between each ring, there's open space.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/graphics/attack/pentagon_7.html

to get from one side to the other, I would imagine golf carts are used, if not Smart cars. At its center, is a large open area with space for roads.

I'll try and find an aerial perspective of where that 12x12 hole was found in ring 3. I remember seeing one. It wasn't found at the impact site. We all know what it looked like there, at least afterwards anyway.



>let ME decide from what I see, not someone else,..

...and if i decided what you were allowed to see, can I not decide what I want you to conclude?

conversely, if i don't allow you to see certain things, can i also decide what you conclude?

[bbbv3.5]

Jesus christ! I knew i shoudlnt have went on AO at school. And my password was remembered on that. Worst of all i forgot which computer i used.....i am so damn irresponsible.....hopefully this "user'wont use my sn anymore....

[DontBeAfraid]

If I had to guess I would say it was a female teacher or possibly librarian that used your sn, but not a friend of yours i take it.

[Zach]

Thor, now you know why i dont like the government officials that much. They dont tell me squat or they cover it up with something. Sure i love the freedom and all our rights and such but i just hate how they keep so much from us. I hate it when they tell me what to believe and keep info from me so i cant decide if i want to believe it or not.

[Thor]

Yep, Zach, and the worst part is that NO MATTER who is in office, GOP or Dems, the same thing goes on. While some secrecy is necessary to protect our best interests and safety, there is way too much withheld on just about every issue you can think of. Most people can handle the truth, as hard as it may be to accept, but all the withholding information on every little thing just leads to all the conspiracy theories and general distrust by a country's citizenry.

[bbbv3.5]

Nope DBA defnitly not...hehe...my friends are probably wasted right now....

[humanhybrid]

Yep, Zach, and the worst part is that NO MATTER who is in office, GOP or Dems, the same thing goes on. While some secrecy is necessary to protect our best interests and safety, there is way too much withheld on just about every issue you can think of. Most people can handle the truth, as hard as it may be to accept, but all the withholding information on every little thing just leads to all the conspiracy theories and general distrust by a country's citizenry.
_________________Thats why we should vote KERRY!

[WoOp_De_DoO]

Well i found this video some of you may have already seen it but some of you may not have.
It is very intersting about the Pentagon attacks. IT is a 1-2 min video.

Please watch it then give me your responses to it.
http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php#Main

Once you click on the link go down a little and wait for the movie to play dont leave that link. Or it takes you to a way different site.

[Zach]

dont we have this movie clip or another one like it in another thread. I think the thread is called "no plane is sight"?

[WoOp_De_DoO]

Yea i saw it after i made this. But i cant delete my post only mods can i think. So when ever a mod sees this go ahead and delete it plz.

[stewey]

I have been busy lately, and cannot really say why, but trust me, it was not a missile that hit the Pentagon.

A missile would have easily been noticed, as the difference in appearence, speed, size, and the explosion type would have easily been noticed. The physics of a plane crashing into the Pentagon adds up correctly (according to my physics professor friend) and the 911 physics conspiracy sites actually "don't know their asses from page 2". The FBI confisgates the video for every event such as that, so it is no suprise they did for 911 also.

[Emerald_Dragon]

>I have been busy lately, and cannot really say why, but trust me,
> it was not a missile that hit the Pentagon.

you must have a reading comprehension problem....
its no wonder you rely on others to tell you what to think.

[MoonlapseV]

One of the only questions im left with after watching that video is: What happened to the supposed 50 something people on-board flight 77 if it didnt hit the Pentagon? because right now, they are all missing if not dead.

[voxpopulisuxx]

THIS IS THE BEST DEBUNKER OF THE GOVT STORY ON THE PENTAGON ATTACK IVE EVER SEEN...MAYBE WE COULD COLLECT OUR PENNIES AND BUY AD TIME DURING THE NEXT BIG SPORTS EVENT!
http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/pentagon.htm

[Strife]

We've seen this before, but its good for me to refresh myself on this once in a while. Plenty of strong points in there to convince me without a doubt that this was all a setup.

[Bigsky770]

. . .And already explained as well HERE:

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

. . .Great site, great for debunking b.s. . . .

Joe (Bigsky770) :vbroll:

[Strife]

They should of tried harder BigSky. Heres why I'm still not convinced..the very important points that have me gripping towards conspiracy.

Turbulance?

We are given only one film shot of the incident...but there were others that witnessed the 'plane' on its route to the pentagon. The F.B.I. immediatly confiscated the other videos, why exactly?

[Bigsky770]

. . .As usually with comprehensive investigations, any/all film footage that is relevant to the investigation is commandeered. At any rate, some photographs existed and are posted at that site that I gave reference to, reposting HERE: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

. . .Which if you scroll-down it's easy enough to locate a section of aluminum aircraft fusalage. People seem to not comprehend that, irregardless of the mass of the plane and weight, this is still a(n) light aluminum aircraft and very few parts of which are made of anything of heavier alloys to even begin to be able to survive an impact with a structure made of reinforced concrete and steel. If it were that aircraft were comprised of the same materials as the buildings they impacted, they would not then be aircraft, as an engine does not exist that could propel an aircraft built as such in order for it to become lighter-than-air and vanquish the effects of gravity.

. . .In some cases YES, parts and larger pieces of aircraft can strike surfaces and in some instances survive nearly intact; but one must consider all the factors involved in HOW the impacts occured to be able to ascertain as to how these pieces remained intact. In every instance on 9/11, you have an aircraft constructed to be 'lighter-than-air' with minimal effort by on-board jet-engines that is plowed nearly always at a straight-angle into structures comprised of steel, concrete, limestone and glass, and you are doing what? shaking your heads in disbelief that not more of the aircraft had survived? Please realize the absurdity of your expectation.

. . .Even still, some pieces of the aircraft DID survive, as engines are one of the few things that ARE constructed of heavier alloys such as titanium and can survive as noted here:


On the inside wall of the second ring of the Pentagon, a nearly circular hole, about 12-feet wide, allows light to pour into the building from an internal service alley. An aircraft engine punched the hole out on its last flight after being broken loose from its moorings on the plane. The result became a huge vent for the subsequent explosion and fire. Signs of fire and black smoke now ring the outside of the jagged-edged hole.

. . .The last part of which I would like to address is an experience of my own back in the 1980's. This might help some understand that it is indeed possible for a(n) heavily oxygen fed-fire with the addition of fuel can cause incredible damage, melting and weakening of both steel and glass and even fusing these materials into something resembling clumps of cinder, and that which is still intact to varying degrees can still be horribly bent and distorted and lose all tensile strength; It was in a fuel-tanker that had overturned and exploded in a highway tunnel, so no, it's not outside of the realm of reason as I've seen this happen.

. . .Even with this I would expect that people will believe what they want to believe, all that I am aware of is what I had seen and experienced that day. The events @ the "Pentagon" needn't have been the straw that broke the proverbial camal's back, as in my view, the events at the WTC were more than adequete for our engagement of "Al~Queda" as we did and I have noted here in this forum elsewhere. The terrorists DID TRY back in '93 to do this to the WTC with bombs though failed, and further they had admitted this act; Why so difficult to believe NOW as it's a certainty their "method-of-operation" had not changed? Sadly, it just moved into a grander scale. . .

Joe (Bigsky770)

[voxpopulisuxx]

Sorry not buying it. Nice try as condescending as it was...especially the part about the video being confiscated.....if it at all vindicated the Govt story you most assuredly would be seeing it released. I fear Americans have lost their sense of Liberty and their healthy mistrust of power...they are being led by the nose by their addictions to technology.

[Bigsky770]

. . .As I've said before:


. . .Even with this I would expect that people will believe what they want to believe

. . .I would add further here that if there exists a preponderance of individuals who do not believe that there are in this world extremists who exist who have voiced numerous proclamations as to their intentions upon eradicating all of we 'infidels' from the planet earth in order that they can live in a world that they have determined as more conducive to the eradication of free-speech and also the subjugation of women everywhere, let that stand with yourselves as well. As for myself, the battle continues. And if it should comfort them that all of these conspiratorial designs exist, let them think as they will. I just happen to believe that sites such as "Snopes" are more objective in their analysis, for they have much to lose along the lines of credibility IF proven otherwise. To date, I've not known of any instance where they could be challenged further. Please forgive me if my tone APPEARED as condecsending, for that was not my intent.

. . .Perhaps you are all correct. The murder of "Theo Van Gogh" was probably the doings of the American Gov't as well. . .(sic.) Hate to keep throwing that up, but the memory of him and what he stood for will not allow me rest anytime soon. I'll let it go at that.

Joe (Bigsky770) :vbroll:

[Strife]

My aplogies aswell for bringing up my own opinion. I remain still.

P.S. I don't wish to believe things the way I want it. Its just the way that things seem form my belief.

[Brewloc]

This was a nice flash, even if it is kinda old. Brings up some good points. Snopes tries to do what I feel the US government should have done and that is address these questions head on. Instead, they just ignore the question or flip it into a question of patriotism. Trusting any one source for your information is like putting all your chips on black, you win some, you lose some.


. . .Perhaps you are all correct. The murder of "Theo Van Gogh" was probably the doings of the American Gov't as well. . .(sic.) Hate to keep throwing that up, but the memory of him and what he stood for will not allow me rest anytime soon. I'll let it go at that.

This is the logic that...well anyway. Holy wars it is. One god versus the other, let the bodies hit the floor. What a joke. Religion has fucked so many things up in this world.

[Bigsky770]

. . .And you can wave your flag upon that, for all the better it should make you feel. What gets me in all this is you have a group of people, who believing as they do, issue statements of 'intent' upon their future plans, and then when the time comes that these same people carry-out same threats, you have that faction of individuals who, (in disbelief) are shaking their collective heads in stupidity and choosing to believe that:

A. - - -It never really happened

B. - - -They didn't mean it

C. - - -All too convenient of a plot by our Gov't who contrived the entire mess, even though there are still these items below keeping the newswires hot. . .

“warning and an invitation to the American people to change the policy of its Government before pain is inflicted upon them as a result of their silence and their approval of the crimes committed by their Government. This would be the last or penultimate message, after which they will endure the pain that will fall upon them, and they must choose between their lives and the Crusader-Zionist project that will only bring them destruction, poverty, fear and death.”

. . .And more HERE:

“As for America’s allies, they will be targeted by the assassination of the heads of the regimes, security officers, a number of presidents, and kings; this is in addition to the assassination of security officials such as intelligence officers who will be forming in their country a kind of a mafia….”

. . .Message closes with:

The message warns that the Palestinians “must make up their minds and choose between Allâh, His Prophet, Islam, and Palestine, and those criminal traitors, be they Palestinians or Arabs.”

http://www.siteinstitute.org/bin/articles.cgi?ID=publications19805&Category=publications&Subcategory=0

. . .Further still:

The eyes of al Qaeda on these two oil-producing countries, Nigeria and Angola, are looking beyond the replacement of existing governments with Islamic states. If al Qaeda can triumph in Nigeria and Angola, seizing the national patrimony of both states, it can continue its plan to wage economic warfare against the West. It also will have seized a major income-producing resource for its own ends. African security services and multilateral organisations must be on alert to thwart al-Qaeda plans to terrorise the continent, to divide its people and to seize its resources.

From this LINK:
http://allafrica.com/stories/200501311197.html

. . .And taking credit for acts like these:

In the recording, he stated “al-Qaeda was responsible for the bombing of the 11 commuter trains” – the most deadly terrorist attack Spain has ever
seen, which killed 191 people and injured more than 1,500.

From this LINK:
http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=48&story_id=16506&name=Suspected+Al+Qaeda+spokesman+arrested+in+Brus sels+raid

. . .So, while you are in that field of daisies plucking the blooms from flowers muttering to yourself, "To be an infidel (or) not to be" and putting-aside your funds for a prayer-mat, don't be too discouraged if I choose not to join you.

. . .Like I said, no hard feeling here. We all are called to make our choices, and I've made mine.

Joe (Bigsky770) :vbroll:

[voxpopulisuxx]

Ive always felt since the begining of this war on "terror" (verb,noun,??) That if it was indeed a war against religious fanaticism then we would most assuredly lose in standard ground conflict simply because the religous instinct is a much more powerfull motivator then anything th US could tell its soldiers. Be it a false religion or not. So in order to "win" we will have to use wmds ourselves to the great detremit of all humanity. Again only Because our Soldiers can not bring to bare a counter motivator, (democracy is no god of the battle field) the use of WMDs will be unavoidable.


Secondly I need to remind my fellow so called conservatives that we are supposed to be A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. So Unless the president could come up with a more distinctive threat then the totally ambigious term Terror...he has no authority under the constitution, because one cannot declare war on a verb,noun,concept....


thirdly Our Boys(and girls!) blood and our economy is being spent to defend the security of Isreal and for no other reason....Now please try to tell me Isreal does not factor in this and I will see your not as couragous in you clarity as you claim.


Do you perceive a time when this war on Terror will end? Will it be till the last terrorists stop threating us with their words? SInce according to you words are terror..ie they make threats, so there just doing what they say their Going to do.

What price are you willing to pay for "security".
Because it is all ready costing us
LIBERTY
SONS AND DAUGHTERS
OUR ECONOMY

Pretty soon were gonna run out of the first (if theres any left)
Unfourtunatly the govt wont let us run out of the second (conscription)
and if the third goes we will be back to having no security at all.

Im sorry to see you have very little suspicion of power. Our founding fathers were not so ummmmmm....comfortable.

[Brewloc]

Are there Muslim extremists causing major problems in this world? YES
Are there Christian extremists causing major problems in this world? YES
Are there extreme governments in this world causing major problems? YES

Because I question the events of 9/11 does not mean that I do not acknowledge these statements. Hell yes extremists of any nature should be dealt with. Going to war over it just causes both sides' extremists to multiply over time. No real fix there.

And futhermore, it is not my burden to to explain (theorize) what happened on 9/11, that burden lies on the US government. I read the 9/11 commission report, its still sitting in my bathroom. I have also read many other articles, websites, and opinions of what happened. None of them really have the answer right imo. The US government could easily, I say again easily release more photos of the pentagon attack, but they choose not too. It just does not jive with me. And lets talk about WTC7. And lets not forget about the last major attach on our soil, the OKC bombing. Detach your emotions from these issues and re-evaluate them. Look at the whole picture not just one single event. Lots of bad things are happening, my guess is its just a natural flaw we humans have.

Some always just believed that the world was flat, others needed proof.

:jamn:

[voxpopulisuxx]

well said and well put

[Bigsky770]

. . .Posted in a thread you started in the "Armageddon & Disasters" section of the forum, named 3rd world war scenario(totally plausable right now) HERE:

http://forums.armageddononline.org/showthread.php?t=4089

. . .You posted on 02-16-2005 the following:



Originally posted by voxpopulisuxx
who is al queda? where is al queda? b4 911 ever hear of them? When did they admit it? please give me a source for these confessions.

. . .Whereas I replied by giving you numerous different resources and links to information you'd probably never seen before. Your reply, (if read correctly) is that you accept this as a ruse, irregardless of where the information comes from.

. . .Just imagine what you'll know (and summarily ignore) a week from now. . . :grin

Joe (Bigsky770) :vbroll:

[voxpopulisuxx]

I dont ignore it, I just question it, just think what agitprop youll swallow uncritically next time.
ps You didnt answer the the Constitutional question, by what authority does the pres wage war against a Verb/noun?(Terror)
I know the constitution is just a peice of toilet paper. at least to some....

[stewey]

Why would the government use a missile to hit the Pentagon while using remote control planes for the other buildings?

Rotten library debunks it best.
http://www.rotten.com/library/conspiracy/september_11_conspiracy_theories/

You know how much coverup would be needed to keep a 9/11 conspiracy secret? It would involve hundreds, if not thousands, of people. Good luck silencing that many.

[voxpopulisuxx]

Why would the government use a missile to hit the Pentagon while using remote control planes for the other buildings?

Rotten library debunks it best.
http://www.rotten.com/library/conspiracy/september_11_conspiracy_theories/

You know how much coverup would be needed to keep a 9/11 conspiracy secret? It would involve hundreds, if not thousands, of people. Good luck silencing that many.
Stewy I like your questions I just wish you would look for other sources then rotten.com...it is an obscene porn site that shows pictures of children getting hit by trains and corpes of children tortured by south american death squads...for no other reason then to get a thrill(sicko)...yes Ive been there ,(fool me once)
so your questions are good your sources are shite.

[Bigsky770]

. . .Although doubtless you'll find fault with this as well. . .

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=2&c=y

. . .As I have an almost undying faith in your reasoning abilities. . . :grin

Joe (Bigsky770) :vbroll:

[Brewloc]

I would like to address this:


Many people have questioned the collapse of WTC7, an adjacent building in the World Trade Center complex that housed a CIA station, among other things. Most of these theories are accompanied by the usual kinds of specious analysis that the building "couldn't possibly" have collapsed due to the apparently insignificant stresses caused by the total collapse of the world's two tallest buildings just a few hundred yards away. Some have proposed that the building was bombed, others cite police transmissions that seem to indicate the building was demolished by emergency crews. These unresolved questions are more credible than the Pentagon missile theory, but no solid evidence has yet emerged to prove foul play.

The video of WTC7 falling is suspect to me as being foul play. It fell like it was demo-ed. This statement is of certain question.


Most of these theories are accompanied by the usual kinds of specious analysis that the building "couldn't possibly" have collapsed due to the apparently insignificant stresses caused by the total collapse of the world's two tallest buildings just a few hundred yards away.

I will agree that having those 'worlds tallest building' falling would cause a lot of problems to the surrounding area. I also think that the effect of it would happen much sooner. The building stood for some time. And when it did fall, I think it would not look as it did. My guess would be something like only part of the building falling over or in towards WTC1&2. It fell right onto itself. Well go watch the video and see how it falls, there is even one where Dan Rather questions what just happened.

This along with Larry Silverstein saying this in a PBS special (http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/):


I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.

I have no clue of what happened, but some things about it just don't seem right. For that building's foundation and structure to snap at just the right time as to mimic a perfectly demo-ed building, well I guess its just hard for me to take.

Many things have changed since this day. Prior knowledge, at any level, is the monkey wrench they don't want to see come up.

[Brewloc]

Joe, your link to the popular mechanics debunk does address the WTC7 question and I will look into that explanation. Thanks for that link! I will continue to search for this prior knowledge issue. Hopefully its not there.

[Bigsky770]

. . .On page 5 of the "Popular Mechanics" LINK in my last post;

Seismic Spikes
CLAIM: Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded the events of 9/11. "The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before falling debris struck the earth," reports the Web site WhatReallyHappened.com.

A columnist on Prisonplanet.com, a Web site run by radio talk show host Alex Jones, claims the seismic spikes (boxed area on Graph 1) are "indisputable proof that massive explosions brought down" the towers. The Web site says its findings are supported by two seismologists at the observatory, Won-Young Kim and Arthur Lerner-Lam. Each "sharp spike of short duration," says Prisonplanet.com, was consistent with a "demolition-style implosion."

FACT: "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.

On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear--misleadingly--as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves--blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower--start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs.

WTC 7 Collapse
CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

Joe (Bigsky770)

[Brewloc]

I am still wondering what Larry S. meant by pull it?

[Bigsky770]

. . .Within the 'gist' of the conversation was instead of having said:


"We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched

. . .He MAY HAVE meant to say:
"We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull 'OUT". And we made that decision to pull [our men out] and we watched

. . .Slips of the tongue/abbreviated statements are not unknown here, and as well, the first statement doesn't 'ring true' to one concerned with the saving of lives. Fire-fighters and rescuers would not have destroyed a structure whilst lives could be hanging in the balance, this just doesn't equate to their fundamental credo to the saving of lives. Under the 'heat of the moment', It's not unreasonable to allow for a verbal exchange to go slightly awry in WHAT was stated, for IF that line of thought were to carry any credence, one must also offer conjecture that the firemen and rescuers were co-conspirators which is an idea I refuse to entertain. One must UNDERSTAND the men, and further, their MISSION. I don't doubt that Larry Silverstein was any less concerned than the men he had conversed with, in that he had full understanding of the risks involved.

. . .In closing all I can say is that I would hope that this issue be finally put to rest in order that we may better focus upon the common enemy we all now face, and are better prepared in the future so that nothing like this tragedy may ever take place again.


Joe (Bigsky770)

[2cool4stats]

. . .Perhaps you are all correct. The murder of "Theo Van Gogh" was probably the doings of the American Gov't as well. . .(sic.) Hate to keep throwing that up, but the memory of him and what he stood for will not allow me rest anytime soon. I'll let it go at that.

Since you're open to the prospect that Theo Van Gogh was murdered by your governmental leaders then I will see to it that these next extractions [below] can be directed towards them as well.



. . .I would add further here that if there exists a preponderance of individuals who do not believe that there are in this world extremists who exist who have voiced numerous proclamations as to their intentions upon eradicating all of we 'infidels' from the planet earth in order that they can live in a world that they have determined as more conducive to the eradication of free-speech and also the subjugation of women everywhere, let that stand with yourselves as well. As for myself, the battle continues. And if it should comfort them that all of these conspiratorial designs exist, let them think as they will.


. . .In closing all I can say is that I would hope that this issue be finally put to rest in order that we may better focus upon the common enemy we all now face, and are better prepared in the future so that nothing like this tragedy may ever take place again.

I would also like to comment on this next extraction:



I just happen to believe that sites such as "Snopes" are more objective in their analysis, for they have much to lose along the lines of credibility IF proven otherwise. To date, I've not known of any instance where they could be challenged further. Please forgive me if my tone APPEARED as condecsending, for that was not my intent.

The objectivity of sources aren't in question here. It's whether the analysts of those sources are able to make an impartial assessment for themselves without attachment to the reputation of their sources of choice. I for one don't question people's sources as much as I am open to the concept that there exist natural biases in all degrees and that these inclinations more or less create axioms which affect receptiveness -- receptivity towards opposing standpoints. This is usually the reason why debates and discussions consist of unbreakable differences. Nobody will concede because their receptions have been explicitly limited to their own likings above wide-angled balanced logical reviews [which in the real world exist with the combined logics of more sides than 1, or even 2]. Seriously, there is more realism in grey areas than there is in mere "black" and "white" subjective presentations.

Let me clarify that as open-minded as I am, I cannot discount the potential that Theo Van Gogh was wiped out by the United States government. Likewise, I won't discredit the notion that he was killed by non-U.S. "terrorists" as well -- even if it were to directly oppose my personal standpoint; knowing that it's one's own responsibility to practice nonpartisanship at all times, especially when it comes to the pursuit of truth.



Holy Wars? Well yeah, (If it's a question of "Freedom" vs. "Extremist-Fundi-Muslim")

. . .And you can wave your flag upon that, for all the better it should make you feel. What gets me in all this is you have a group of people, who believing as they do, issue statements of 'intent' upon their future plans, and then when the time comes that these same people carry-out same threats, you have that faction of individuals who, (in disbelief) are shaking their collective heads in stupidity and choosing to believe that:

A. - - -It never really happened

B. - - -They didn't mean it

C. - - -All too convenient of a plot by our Gov't who contrived the entire mess, even though there are still these items below keeping the newswires hot. . .
.

. . .Like I said, no hard feeling here. We all are called to make our choices, and I've made mine.

Joe (Bigsky770)

I seriously highly doubt that this war is as simple as "Freedom" versus "Extremist-Fundi-Muslim". We should be open to the possibility that such things as "Freedom" and "Allah" are only being used for corrupt political power motives. We can notice as well that this A-B-C observation that you present can be aimed at your government's current condition and loyalty following with pinpoint accuracy. Afterall, in the eyes of the world, America is continuing to lose respect and credibility no question. Really, it has developed into an unfortunate mentality of "us" versus "them" and sadly, the truth behind this condition is the doings of simplistic vigorous propaganda.

[Brewloc]

"There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says.

There was nothing to pull out. The building was evacuated of all civilians, at the same time as the towers I think. This quote points to not even fire fighters being there for some time. Larry did get a call from the police chief, I guess Larry had someone on-site who said, 'its about to fall, or its unstable and could fall at any minute?'


. . .In closing all I can say is that I would hope that this issue be finally put to rest in order that we may better focus upon the common enemy we all now face, and are better prepared in the future so that nothing like this tragedy may ever take place again.

I agree that we should be prepared moving forward! I also would like to point out that ensuring no prior knowledge is one way of doing it.

[Bigsky770]

. . .I understand where it is that you are coming from. If I read you correctly, what it is you are saying is that those that have a propensity to believe that there exists a 'conspiracy of sorts' in this entire affair, nothing will move them. In the face of all evidence and analysis, it would be as a crumpled-ball of paper upon a wasteheap. Conversely, those that would be 'apt' to believe the 'pro-government' line on the issue, would be as much the same; unmovable.
. . .Voxpopulisuxx has made it clear, as many others have where their respective stances upon this issue lay; I found it difficult to fathom that a one such as this person only 5 years my junior should have never known of "Al~Queda" (or) the threat they represented prior to 9/11; As I have a driving need to 'know' that which goes on in the world around me, I've known about them for long before that. Whenever I post a story or a newsreport, I post a link also. This is real, This is world-wide, This is "WAR". On that day of 9/11, they only succeeded in doing what they had failed at so miserably in '93, upon that very-same target. Better funded, a larger enrollment and more organized, they made their mark in history.
. . .As for my reference to "Theo VanGogh", perhaps you missed that, but the (sic.) was my use of sardonic sarcasm. The United States had nothing more to do with Theo's murder than his own mother. Theo had simply BECOME a target because of his scathing diatribes and documentaries that highlighted the treatment of woman under "Islam". The threats against his life were well known, and he was made an 'example' of to the rest of the world. What point
"Extremist-Fundi-Muslims" who did this to him were trying to make was that if you speak-out against us, you're as good as dead.
. . .Theo believed in the same thing that You and I believe in. Freedom of speech. And he died for it. That's NOT the kind of world I want to live in. I am one that you will find that I do not have to necessarily AGREE with you on every point to call you "FRIEND". Matter of fact, I could disagree with you on 90% of every issue, and still TRUST YOU to know deep in your heart what is right when it comes to grips.
. . .Can you not witness for yourself the greatness that IS this "Forum" whereas such 'polar opposites' in opinion and belief can be exchanged, discussed, fought over, argued, and then 'flip that switch' casually upon this freedom that we have come to know and share as it is nothing? Such as this is an 'unknown' in many countries, perhaps you should delineate more cautiously before you consider that "America" is your enemy as opposed to being your friend. I have had friends from some of these countries, what we discuss so freely and casually here would be as pain of death to them dare they utter it; THAT is the DIFFERENCE.
. . .One thing life has taught me, "take nothing for granted, for you will not know when you will lose it".

Joe (Bigsky770) :vbroll:

[voxpopulisuxx]

. . .I understand where it is that you are coming from. If I read you correctly, what it is you are saying is that those that have a propensity to believe that there exists a 'conspiracy of sorts' in this entire affair, nothing will move them. In the face of all evidence and analysis, it would be as a crumpled-ball of paper upon a wasteheap. Conversely, those that would be 'apt' to believe the 'pro-government' line on the issue, would be as much the same; unmovable.
. . .Voxpopulisuxx has made it clear, as many others have where their respective stances upon this issue lay; I found it difficult to fathom that a one such as this person only 5 years my junior should have never known of "Al~Queda" (or) the threat they represented prior to 9/11; As I have a driving need to 'know' that which goes on in the world around me, I've known about them for long before that. Whenever I post a story or a newsreport, I post a link also. This is real, This is world-wide, This is "WAR". On that day of 9/11, they only succeeded in doing what they had failed at so miserably in '93, upon that very-same target. Better funded, a larger enrollment and more organized, they made their mark in history.
. . .As for my reference to "Theo VanGogh", perhaps you missed that, but the (sic.) was my use of sardonic sarcasm. The United States had nothing more to do with Theo's murder than his own mother. Theo had simply BECOME a target because of his scathing diatribes and documentaries that highlighted the treatment of woman under "Islam". The threats against his life were well known, and he was made an 'example' of to the rest of the world. What point
"Extremist-Fundi-Muslims" who did this to him were trying to make was that if you speak-out against us, you're as good as dead.
. . .Theo believed in the same thing that You and I believe in. Freedom of speech. And he died for it. That's NOT the kind of world I want to live in. I am one that you will find that I do not have to necessarily AGREE with you on every point to call you "FRIEND". Matter of fact, I could disagree with you on 90% of every issue, and still TRUST YOU to know deep in your heart what is right when it comes to grips.
. . .Can you not witness for yourself the greatness that IS this "Forum" whereas such 'polar opposites' in opinion and belief can be exchanged, discussed, fought over, argued, and then 'flip that switch' casually upon this freedom that we have come to know and share as it is nothing? Such as this is an 'unknown' in many countries, perhaps you should delineate more cautiously before you consider that "America" is your enemy as opposed to being your friend. I have had friends from some of these countries, what we discuss so freely and casually here would be as pain of death to them dare they utter it; THAT is the DIFFERENCE.
. . .One thing life has taught me, "take nothing for granted, for you will not know when you will lose it".

Joe (Bigsky770) :vbroll:
I'm glad to see this thread getting less personal and more a debate....
I never said I never heard of Al quida, nor did I say it doesn't exist...I said a large portion of the populace had never heard of it b4 911(you cant possibly dispute that can you)....yes al quida exists,,,but Red China does too, and it is of greater threat to us then a vagabon group of anti american zealots...as for the pop science debunk...Hearst Publication...ever hear of the Spanish American War? So Yes I reject pop science as an interested gov.t source

And there are a huge and growing number of Americans who reject or are skeptical of the Government story not because their a bunch of looney retards but because:
A) Their Americans and it is absoultly essental to always and in all things be wary of the Government...its why we have a constitution to protect our God Given free speech.(do you dispute the need for eternal vigalance to protect our Liberty)
B) They have eyeballs and Brains connected to them.
c) The US government has done this type of operation before (albeit on smaller scale) and even openly planned these type of false flag operations before as has our so called ally Israel in even more brazen ways. (USS LIberty,LaVonne Affair)

And on a final note I reject the notion THAT I WANT TO BELIVE MY GOVERNMENT has done this horrid act. I absolutely would LOVE to BE shown my fears are unwarranted (my fears are for my 5 young children and thier future)....but there are too many unanswered questions Big Sky...too many. A step in the right direction would be for the govt to release any video pertinent to the pentagon event.

[Bigsky770]

. . .For you have your views and as well, I have mine. Long ago I had learned that two people can look at the same subject, and see, feel and experience different thoughts and attitudes, for it is subjective to them and their perspectives, and no amount of argument can change that.
. . .I would close this as before by stating that this is what makes us great; NO, NOT JUST AMERICA, but the greater part of the 'free world' that values this discourse that we can engage and debate and argue, and should ALWAYS be free to do so WITHOUT fear of injury and death.
. . .What I fear the most, Vox, is those that would still their voices for fear of what either their respective governments would do (or) any religous organization; to this effect, I have seen none on the one hand in opposition to MUCH on the other, otherwise this debate we are presently engaged in could not exist. The reports that I delve through daily I would also counter that it's not possible by a long-shot for "America" to control ALL the world's media outlets; it's just not enabled with that kind of reach, otherwise, (again) this form of debate could not continue.
. . .Through the 90's when Bill Clinton was in office (mind you, I LIKED the guy!) I read the hearings, pages-upon-pages of documented witness testimony reports, those who had fled from Iraq for fear of their lives through simple dissent (or) because they had witnessed horrific acts beyond your wildest nightmarish imaginings you would not want to fathom. Not "propaganda", mind you, but ACTUAL WITNESS TESTIMONIES. These things happened, and are a part of public record.
. . .Many would ask WHY the war had to travel from Afghanistan to Iraq, if only for the fact that it is that Al~Queda HAS factions that are indeed, operating in Iraq as I post this; THERE IS A CONNECTION, an entire, pervasive world-wide network replete with all the necessary fronts to conduct its' worldwide endeavors, Would it be that one were not to believe that which they have time and again stated? If even Al~Jazeera cares enough to tell you the same, would you not then believe it?

. . .I'll put it this way: For what YOU STATE HERE, you do so of your own free-will, upon this tool known as the internet, (either pro-or-con) and what, indeed has changed in your life? Have the MIB (or) Police come to arrest you? Of course not.

. . .On the other hand, I KNEW IRANIANS that had to leave for fear for their lives; What we speak of so freely and without a second thought, all of their words are as measured, STILL IN FEAR for what they knew, saw, and experienced.

. . .Obviously the conclusion here would seem that ONE form of Government has less to fear than the other; that's just common sense speaking. Take comfort in the knowledge that the truth will not forever remain hidden. In that you can rely.

Joe (Bigsky770) :vbroll:

[voxpopulisuxx]

Granted that evil and dangerous govt people and ideas exist, and that some other countries mean us no good...where in the constitution does any president find the authority to wage war on a verb/noun? terror? (And yes there is a chill on free speech in the usa and its getting colder). The fact that the president flouts the constitution to wage this war proves all our libertys are threatened. Glorius as the rights God gave us are Government is under no obligation to respect them if the people let them ignore the protections there-of because of hysteria over real or perceived threats. Better to live in beseiged Liberty then oppressed security. To paraphrase Franklin..those who would give up Liberty for peace and security deserve neither.

[Bigsky770]

. . .How DOES a 'president' wage a 'war' on a noun/verb, (or) that definition of what "terror" implies? And this is the SCARY part; for in all of history, we have never fought a war like this, NOT EVER. So, what do we do? What's the best course of action here? How can we enjoy the fruits of freedom and what they have come to mean to us, w/o the SACRIFICE of those freedoms like coming and going as we please? Without the sacrifice of having to carry papers everywhere proclaiming in the end-all that we are citizens in good standing? How far can a war such as we had never seen before drive us? Fact that we are besieged as never before on all fronts:

[Reuters] ALGERIA - Algeria says 150,000 killed in Islamic rebel violence
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L23300284.htm

[India Daily] RUSSIA / BANGLADESH - Al-Queda moved its training centers to Chechnya and Bangladesh
http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/1694.asp

[Reuters] INDIA - Gunmen storm office in Indian Kashmir, 3 dead
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/DEL179219.htm

[SIFY] PAKISTAN - Al-Qaeda bomb, CD factories smashed: Musharraf
http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=13679077

[NDTV.com] INDIA - Bomb explosion in Bihar on poll day
http://www.ndtv.com/template/template.asp?template=Assemblypolls2005&slug=Bomb+explosion+in+Bihar+on+poll+day&id=68946&callid=1&category=National

[Expatica News] NETHERLANDS - AIVD keeps watch on six suspicious Islamic groups
http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=19&story_id=17281&name=AIVD+keeps+watch+on+sixsuspicious+Islamic+gro ups

[Xinhuanet] ITALY - Italy smashes smuggling ring linking with Al Qaeda
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-01/21/content_2488731.htm

[AFP] YEMEN - Yemen arrests five Al-Qaeda suspects
http://www.turkishpress.com/world/news.asp?id=050216112120.byeii89q.xml

[The Philippine Star] Abu suspects planned to bomb Metro malls
http://www.philstar.com/philstar/News200502240401.htm

[China View] Islamic Jihad behind Tel Aviv bombing
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-02/27/content_2624306.htm

. . .I don't make this stuff up, it's real, it's happening, and it's NOW. Vox, what I'm trying to say here is, that war has evolved. It's evolved to a stage where now as never before, your enemy can be everywhere and yet nowhere at the same time. In Benjamin Franklin's day, "WAR" was against "NATIONS", whereas NOW it's against "RELIGOUS IDEOLOGIES" or the idea by some that we are infidels only good for burning in hell; (sorta sounds like the crusades all-over again eh? Remember, WE ARE THE ONES who have been for years preaching "Religous Tolerance?") To counter what Benjamin Franklin had said I would remark (humbly) that in Benjamin Franklin's day in revoulutionary America we had neither LIBERTY (as we were subjects of England), PEACE (as your home could be raided/property seized if it were suspected of aiding and abetting those against the Royal Crown), nor SECURITY (as to your life nor limb). In THIS WAR, my friend, the grim realization is that we could soon find ourselves fighting for all three, and surprisingly to some, not so from the government you fear that you feel may oppress, but instead, a hideous religous fanaticism that wishes to vanquish you.

Joe (Bigsky770)

[voxpopulisuxx]

But to paraphrase I think Hamilton...Liberty cannot survive a continuous state of war...
and still what about the constitution? should we scrap it as anachronistic now that "war" has evolved...I take your point and concur this is like nothing weve ever seen all the more reason to be MORE suspicious and vigilant.....

[Bigsky770]

. . .I HATE "WAR". It's a dirty, nasty, foul thing, miserable and insiduous. The most terrible irony of all? Is that sometimes "WAR" happens to be necessary when there are those that believe so-strongly in their forms of religious-extremism that you have no-choice but to convert or die. Mankind could have advanced thousands of years beyond the point where we are now had it been that we would never have known it, one day, I would hope that all of mankind could learn to live in peace. Why is it, that for all that mankind has achieved up to this point, we've not learned a damned thing as to how to effect peace and tolerance? I HATE RACISM, SEXISM, RELIGIOUS FANATICISM, ALL the "ISMS" etc. you can think of that 'negate' what mankind working together could create. . .
. . .We cannot dispense with the Constitution, it is a most beautifully written piece of handiwork I cherish dearly, it is timeless, not an anachronism, it is as relevant today as it was yesterday, and I would hope it will be as relevent tomorrow. Forgive me for arguing as passionatly as I do at times, understand there is no offense intended, what I've seen, what I've lived, sometimes this just comes through. What more to say?

Joe (Bigsky770)

[voxpopulisuxx]

Then fight the idea that offensive war is of any use. Do not support any war that does not have a clear and defined threat and enemy. (Im sorry Al quida is no clearly defined entity, it is a loose nit confederation of criminals, no better then an LA street Gang)Terrorism has always been a threat and always will be, dont buy the fanatical war mongering....The solution is a Strong and unified moral American Culture...a foreign policy that Puts America before the UN or Israel...a foreign policy that resists the temptaion to nation build...a policy that absolutly refuses to violate either the spirit or the Letter of the Constitution. Stand and Be free, and if the world embraces tyranny, then we will be an Island of free people impervious to their intimidation or provocation....read Washingtons farewell address...that is a winning foreign Policy.
I love my Country, I despise the political body in DC that pretends to have its peoples best interest at heart. I too hate war...but only because it has become detached from its humanity and responsability through the lethal combination of radical secularism, and technological detachment. Wars are necessary only in the case of invasion...or attack by a recognised foreign power. We must suffer terrorism because it is the cost of liberty. As our forefathers suffered indian attack, wild animals, and disease.

[stewey]

rotten.com is pretty sick, I agree. The library, however, is pretty interesting and has some really cool information. Just don't click on a topic that may disgust you (ie don't click on the entry on Max Hardcore). The one on the WTC and terrorist ones are very insightful.

Library url is http://www.rotten.com/library

[stewey]

Here is the entry on conspiracy theories about 9/11


September 11 Conspiracy Theories
To our American readers:
You would think that everyone would be able to agree on the details of an event viewed live on television by millions of people as it happened. Fat chance. The September 11 attack was pulled off by everybody except al Qaeda, and it was accomplished using everything except airplanes. Why? Because that would be too easy. Whether you blame the Mossad or George W Bush, a bomb, a missile, the devil or a UFO, one thing is painfully clear: We're all a bunch of gullible chumps who will believe just about anything we see with our own eyes. Sucker!

To our readers around the globe:

You would think that the American people would have learned a little skepticism by now. They've seen 40 years of CIA wrongdoing, including ridiculously implausible plots like assassinating Fidel Castro with a cigar and the Kennedy Assassinations. They've seen unlikely government conspiracies proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, plots like Watergate and the MKULTRA mind control experiments. For God's sake, the U.S. government has even confessed to feeding radioactive mush to retarded children -- just to see what would happen. The real question isn't "Why would you believe the U.S. government was behind September 11?" Rather, the question is "Why wouldn't you?"

As you may have gathered, not everyone agrees on the credibility of the "official story" of the September 11 attacks on the United States. And why should they? Virtually everything the U.S. government has ever done regarding the al Qaeda terrorism network is shrouded in secrecy and full of what appears to be rampant speculation.

Nevertheless, some skeptical viewpoints are healthier than others. In the wake of the most spectacular terrorist attack in history, an assortment of nuts stepped forward with their alternate histories of the event, including several that popped up within weeks of the actual event itself.

The notion of investigative reporting as instantly gratifying speculation is fostered by the 21st century media revolution, in which bloggers are accorded the same social status as Dan Rather. Most, if not all, of these conspiracy theories are the product of many long laborious minutes of sweat devoted to dreaming them up. There are a few unanswered questions that may give even the sanest individual pause, but these quibbles are nearly irrelevant compared to the magnitude of the allegations made by the loudest and looniest.

The September 11 theories break down into two simple categories: "Whodunnit?" and "How did they do it?" Within this binary question, however, many planets of weirdness can be found orbiting.


Intelligence Run Amuck
If you live in the United States, you might be surprised at just how many people around the world believe that the CIA was behind September 11. Although the usual suspects (David Icke and the like) began concocting the usual fairy tales within hours of the event, the global conspiracy machine has really kicked into overdrive since.
The CIA theory is most popular in France. Within a month of the September 11 attack, French author Thierry Meyssan began promulgating a theory that culminated in the book titled L'Effroyable imposture, or the which roughly translates as "Appalling Fraud." It was called 9/11: The Big Lie in its American edition.

Meyssan, who is not a journalist no matter how hard he tries, was drawn to the case when he noticed that the images of the jet that crashed into the Pentagon just didn't look right. It's unclear how he reached this conclusion, since a jet had never crashed into the Pentagon before, leaving no comparative basis for a proper evaluation. His theory was based primarily on the fact that you couldn't see the wreckage of the plane anywhere.

Funny thing is, you couldn't see the wreckage of the planes that hit the World Trade Center towers either. That's because they were, as the scientists like to say, "blowed up". Unperturbed by the fact that two planes were obliterated in fiery crashes on live television the very same day, Meyssan parlayed his vision into a book that was a bestseller in France and around the globe, and not a bad seller in the U.S. either.

According to Meyssan, who was a respected French intellectual prior to 9/11, the U.S. government wanted people to think the Pentagon was a plane crash instead of a truck bombing or a missile attack. He also claims the planes that hit the World Trade Center were piloted by remote control and not hijacked. All this, he claims, was done not by al Qaeda but by the U.S. government.

In conspiracy theory parlance, this is known as a "false-flag operation" -- a type of intelligence campaign which, according to the tinfoil hat crowd, involves pulling off a covert action and blaming it on someone else.

The only part of Meyssan's premise that is really compelling is the motive -- to provide a rationale for the U.S. to invade Afghanistan and Iraq and steal their oil.

Everything else in Meyssan's theory contradicts the notion that the conspirators possessed even the a shred of common sense. If the U.S. was really behind the attack, wouldn't it make sense for them to just hijack the planes themselves?

Come on! Why in God's name would they undertake a massive plot using sci-fi technology costing probably billions of dollars, when they could just hijack the planes themselves for only the cost of life insurance? For that matter, if they remote-controlled two jets to crash into the WTC, why not just do the same thing at the Pentagon, instead of hitting it with a missile and then pretending it was a plane?

How could the conspirators be such morons and yet execute the most successful cover-up in human history? (OK, maybe the second most successful.) The obvious answer is probably also the correct answer: They can't, they didn't, and this whole line of thought is even less worthy of your consideration than the secret of Area 51.


The Usual Suspects
While Meyssan's rantings are pretty far beyond the pale of reason, the general idea that the attacks were sponsored by the CIA or the Israeli intelligence service, the Mossad, is extraordinarily widespread, particularly in the Arab world. Variations on this idea have been published in Egypt's government-run newspapers and aired on Arab television all over the region. Even the king of Saudi Arabia has hinted as much, recently blaming a spate of al Qaeda-linked terrorist attacks on "Zionists."
One variation on Meyssan's theories also embraces the logic-challenged notion of remote controlled planes, but argues they were controlled by the Mossad instead of the CIA, in order to goad the U.S. into attacking Israel's enemies. Although this theory still suffers from being terminally elaborate, the Mossad is at least a slightly better suspect than the CIA, which couldn't even kill Castro, let alone 3,000 people in a synchronized attack on live TV.

The main problem with all this speculation is that it's based on the idea that al Qaeda was not responsible for the attacks. This flies in the face of a mountain of evidence. Even if we grant that evidence presented after the fact by U.S. government officials is automatically suspect, there is ample documentation to support al Qaeda's role in the attacks.

The most obvious example: Khalid Shaikh Mohammed admitted to planning the attacks in an interview with Arab media. al Qaeda documents reported by al Jazeera also confessed the attack. Hundreds of al Qaeda-linked propaganda pieces celebrate the attacks. The hijackers left suicide videos which were subsequently circulated by al Qaeda-linked Web sites around the world.

Furthermore, the historical record clearly indicates that al Qaeda had long been planning exactly this kind of attack, including copious material in the public record long before 9/11 ever happened. Ramzi Yousef was planning to crash airliners into U.S. landmarks, including the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, and that plot was reported years before 9/11 ever happened. al Qaeda-linked terrorists were looking at ways to crash airplanes into U.S. buildings as early as 1993, when the FBI and the Egyptian government were clued into a plot to steal an airplane and crash it into the U.S. embassy.

And while you can't always trust what the government tells you, the sheer volume of U.S. documentation released after the 9/11 attacks is staggering. In addition to the extremely improbable scenarios under which the CIA or the Mossad would actually have executed the attacks, an entire agency of the U.S. government would be needed just to handle the hundreds of thousands of pages of document forgeries now in circulation supporting most elements of the official story.

In addition, the mythical conspirators seem to have carefully planted a series of whistleblowers who would inexplicably pop up to blame the government for its mind-blowing but strictly bureaucratic failures to prevent the attack. Just for verisimilitude? It boggles the mind.

[stewey]

The conspiracy theorists do have one explanation which makes all of the above problems go away: Everyone in the media is working for the Mossad. Including this author.

OK, Fine. But Still...
Of course, a 9/11 conspiracy doesn't have to involve remote control planes, false flags and Jewish spies infiltrating Rotten.com. There are a number of more modest proposals in circulation.
Many conspiracy theorists argue that the U.S. had advanced warning of the attack, but allowed it to proceed anyway. Let's just get one thing straight right up front: This is a much easier case to make.

That doesn't mean it's right, of course. But you don't have to skip your medication in order to wonder.

A favorite among Americans on the far right and far left, this theory usually proposes that the U.S. allowed the 9/11 attacks to take place so that the Bush administration could revoke the constitution, declare martial law, conquer the Middle East and cancel the elections.

A problem with this plan, so far, is its obvious failure. After all, the Constitution hasn't been revoked (just severely diluted). And the Middle East hasn't been successfully conquered (though not for lack of trying). Martial law hasn't been declared (although thousands have been rounded up with no charge and detained without legal counsel). And the elections weren't canceled (though there's the usual debate as to the validity of their results). Um, did we say "obvious" failure? Let's move on.

The idea that the American government would allow a massive attack on its homeland for political purposes isn't new. For decades, rumors have swirled that government was warned of the attack on Pearl Harbor, but allowed it to take place anyway, in order to catapult the U.S. into WWII. And it's a lot easier to cover up an ignored warning than to cover up remote controlled planes and false-flag hoodoo.

Even within the official story, there are several examples of actual warnings that were missed, but none of them were completely specific. The infamous Phoenix memo warned that Osama bin Laden was training terrorists to fly airplanes. Zacarias Moussaoui's laptop computer wasn't searched in time to uncover contact information for other members of the hijacking plot.

Ramzi Yousef's earlier plane crash plot had vanished into the dusty pages of history. Several intercepted electronic communications warning of the attack were not translated by the National Security Agency until the day after the attack. The CIA knew the names of two hijackers but failed to put them on a watchlist that would have kept them out of the country.

The list of officially "missed" warnings is rather long, but none of the cited examples said anything like "On September 11, 2001, al Qaeda will hijack four airplanes and crash them into U.S. buildings."

Or at least, that's what they want you to believe.


Some Credible Conspiracies
There are a number of stories in circulation about specific warnings prior to 9/11, as well as numerous questions about how and why things blew up or fell down the way they did. Some have been covered in the mainstream press, others are perennial e-mail forwards. The most credible claims include:
Sibel Edmonds, an FBI translator hired after 9/11, was appalled to discover that a giant stack of documents the FBI possessed prior to September 11 indicated very clearly that a major attack was coming, and that it involved airplanes. Edmonds was subsequently told to work slower -- because she was making her colleagues in the department look bad. She was then fired for reporting a security breach by one of her colleagues. Sadly, this story is completely true and was confirmed by the Justice Department, which then retroactively classified its confirmations so that Edmonds couldn't use them in a civil suit over her termination.

In July 2001, a moderate Taliban minister warned the U.S. that al Qaeda was planning a "massive attack." Shortly thereafter, Egyptian intelligence warned the CIA that al Qaeda had recently sent 20 operatives to the United States, and that some of them had trained as pilots.

San Francisco Mayor Wille Brown received a call from someone identified only as his "airport security" on September 10, 2001, warning him in a nonspecific manner about air travel, as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle. Some follow-up articles, reported by random non-journalists on the Internet, claim that the call came from Condoleezza Rice, but those reports are apparently based on nothing. (Editor's Note: Please don't e-mail us to tell us what those reports are based on. Really.)

Many people have questioned the collapse of WTC7, an adjacent building in the World Trade Center complex that housed a CIA station, among other things. Most of these theories are accompanied by the usual kinds of specious analysis that the building "couldn't possibly" have collapsed due to the apparently insignificant stresses caused by the total collapse of the world's two tallest buildings just a few hundred yards away. Some have proposed that the building was bombed, others cite police transmissions that seem to indicate the building was demolished by emergency crews. These unresolved questions are more credible than the Pentagon missile theory, but no solid evidence has yet emerged to prove foul play.

The official lore of September 11 has it that United Flight 93 crashed after the passengers stormed the cockpit in an effort to retake control of the plane from its hijackers. (Whether they made it into the cockpit is not clear.) But there have been persistent and credible suggestions that the flight may have been shot down by the U.S. military. In the confusion of 9/11, there were several points at which internal government communications indicated there may have been a shootdown, and Flight 93 was apparently headed for the White House. Vice President Dick Cheney ordered the military to shoot down any hijacked planes approaching the White House, and in a conversation with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld a few minutes later, official transcripts quote Cheney as saying, "It's my understanding they've already taken a couple of aircraft out." Rumsfeld responded that he could not confirm that statement. The official story is "there was no shootdown," but a reasonable person can wonder.


Somewhat Less Credible Conspiracies
After these examples, the stories get hairier and the documentation gets dicier. Among the fringe claims of pre-9/11 warnings:
David Schippers (the lawyer who impeached Bill Clinton) claimed to the press that FBI agents told him they knew an attack was coming on lower Manhattan, and that they knew the names of the hijackers in advance. Schippers additionally claimed he tried to call Attorney General John Ashcroft a month before the attack to warn him. The mainstream media has not confirmed any of these claims. It may be unfair to lump Schippers in with the following claims, but after he explains the above story, he tends to launch into an uber-terrorist conspiracy rant that undercuts the credibility of his relatively simple claim of forewarning.

Delmart "Mike" Vreeland was sitting in a Canadian prison in mid-August 2001 when, for reasons unknown, he passed guards a piece of paper. It sat in a locker until after September 11. Vreeland, a con man charged with credit fraud, had written a page full of mostly incoherent notes which fortuitously included the words "Pentagon," "White House" and "World Trade Center" (as well as "Sears Tower," "World Bank," "Royal Bank" and others). After 9/11, Vreeland claimed he was a U.S. intelligence agent who had learned of the attack in Russia. He also claimed to have invented the Star Wars missile defense system... You know, the one that doesn't technically exist. As it turned out, Vreeland has a mile-long rap sheet for various frauds and scams. While parts of his story still raise significant questions, you wouldn't want to buy a bridge from the guy.

Needless to say, the Illuminati trackers are all over this story. According to some theories, the September 11 attack was part of an evil mind control plot to implant the number "11" into the minds of Americans. In addition to the date, one of the flights was numbered 11 and the towers themselves looked like one giant eleven.This number-planting somehow leads invariably to creating an Illuminati army of zombie minions, or something like that. You will be shocked, shocked to hear that the mainstream media has once again been unable to verify the existence of this plot.

Don't think the UFO lobby is sitting this one out either. The September 11 attack is just the first wave in a conspiracy to destabilize American society in order to prepare people's minds for the arrival of extraterrestrial visitors. These theories are often accompanied by "mathematical proofs" that a jetliner could not possibly destroy the World Trade Center. The UFO lobby has itself benefitted from the 9/11 attack, because everyone is paying a lot more attention to what's in the skies these days.


http://www.rotten.com/library/conspiracy/september_11_conspiracy_theories/

[stewey]

And finally:



No survey of kooky 9/11 conspiracy theories would be complete without a visit to the weird wonderland inhabited by David Icke, conspiracy theorist extraordinaire. Like many others, Icke theorizes that September 11 was a massive global conspiracy designed to kick off the long-awaited New World Order on behalf of the aforementioned Illuminati, whose members include Dubya, his dad, Clinton and Saddam Hussein, among many, many others.

According to Icke:


Bin Laden, deeply misguided as he may be, is no more responsible for what happened this week than I am. His name was introduced with the most obvious co-ordination immediately after the disaster unfolded in the same way that the background to Lee Harvey Oswald was being circulated BEFORE President Kennedy was even dead.
The idea that this guy from the mountains of Afghanistan with far more mouth than substance could be the "Mr. Big" of this enormous operation is utterly insulting to anyone of even basic intelligence.

So what explanation would not be utterly insulting to anyone of even basic intelligence?

...the agenda from the death and destruction in New York and Washington [was] co-ordinated by forces within U.S. borders. Those responsible are possessed by non-human entities and have no regard for human life any more than most humans have regard for the death and suffering of cattle.


See? I think we can all agree you'd have to be some kind of idiot to think that September 11 had anything to do with al Qaeda.

[Danzaman123]

Woah, only just saw that. Thats weird. Im thinking that it could of been a bomb.

Watch this, in this it looks like a plane:
http://www.montalk.net/four_per_second.gif

[Mezurashi]

Dec. 7th, 1941, is also still in question. Did the U.S. Gov't deliberately Allow an attack to give them the leverage needed to convince the populace that War was a necessary endeavour?

Most of human history is cluttered with 'after the fact' revelations where the true motivations of those who affected world events is revealed. Usually it takes a generation or two (or three) for these 'truths' to come out. But those who have engineered the 'revelation' often are revising history for their own benefit.

Reducing the situation that led to 9/11 and it's sequelae to a simple matter of opposing religious viewpoints removes the largest factor in the whole mess, Control of Petroleum Production and Distribution for the next century. Even religious fanatics are bankrolled by someone and those someone's usually have a pretty heavy stake in some aspect of who the fanatics are attacking.

The answers to the questions won't be found on the Net or through third party revelations, those are all part of the grand cover up (also known as Onion Skin Security and/or Deceptive Tactics). EVERYTHING currently out there is all part of the grand cover up and everyone who buys into any single aspect of it is serving those who would use obfuscation to protect themselves from Revelation.

If you think you know what happened based on what others have told you, consider yourself fooled. And consider that the CIA has admitted it paid militant groups in the 60's (like the Weather Underground) to cause domestic problems so that the public would then demand increased security and more police on the streets. Consider that putting an obvious fall guy like Dubya on the Big Chair allows way more freedom of action for those who tell Dubya what to say - if their schemes screw up big time, why they'll just let the doofus take the heat.

The easiest way to hide the truth is to give three people slightly different, equally inflammatory verisons of it. Then let them get on the Net and watch the flames grow.

[Mac]

watch this. now.

has quotes, and a cool vid of the pentagon plane 'crash'

turn your sound on has cool music.

f*** the american government

[Mac]

opps forget to add link.


here it is:

http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon121.swf

[tranz]

is good.. But I still have to say I am not convinced. This kinda over-simplfies it in my mind..

Don't get me wrong I belive 9/11 was an Inside Job.. I just have to wonder if we are barking up the wrong tree with no plane at pentagon..

Although the offical story on the pentagon is utter crap too.. So at least I know it is a big lie..

[RHINO]

This supports some of the opinions expressed by some of you members regarding the Pentagon attack.For those of you who haven't seen this,I recommend you check it out.
http://www.neiu.edu/~ayjamess/hmmm.htm#Main

[RHINO]

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/images/sozen.pentagon.jpeg

Seems to me,it should've made a much larger hole in the Pentagon.The wings and tail should also have sheared off and landed on the ground outside of the Pentagon.

[bbbv3.5]

Havent you ever heard of the 911 everything goes here thread..lol..

[RHINO]

No,I'm a n00b.Sorry.

[Defiant Noquisi]

Welcome to AO Rhino and thanks for the links. Ill get this moved to the right thread. Please enjoy and I am looking forward to reading more of your posts!

[bbbv3.5]

Yeah, sorry for kinda the rude reply! Hope you stay along m8 and enjoy the ride of AO.

[bbbv3.5]

Who did the super merge? This all goes into 911 here thread, Im so confused!

LOL!

[stewey]

I realize this will be merged, but here is a nice writeup I did at another board.



Let us analyze the evidence here. There are three parts to this post, all either written by me, Stewey, or from another documented source.

The three base claims I shall debunk:
1. Witnesses claimed to hear/see a missile.
2. The damage could not have possibly been done by a plane
3. The engines found were not of a Boeing 757

First of all, let us see the dimensions of a Boeing 757 (taken from the Boeing website):
The 757-200 dimensions:
Tail Height: 44 ft 6 in (13.6m)
Length: 155 ft 3 in (47.32m)
Wingspan: 124 ft 10 in (38.05m)
Body Exterior Width: 12 ft 4 in (3.7m)
Fuel Capacity: 11,489 us gal (43,490l / 43,490kg)
Maximum Takeoff weight: 255,000lb (115,680kg)
Typical Cruise Speed: 0.80 Mach (573.6mph / 956kmh)
Engines used on a 757: Two 166.4kN (37,400lb) Rolls-Royce RB211-535C turbofans, or 178.8kN (40,200lb) RB211-535E4s, or 193.5kN (43,500lb) RB211-535E4-Bs, or 162.8kN (36,600lb) Pratt & Whitney PW2037s, or two 178.4kN (40,100lb) PW2040s, or 189.5kN (42,600lb) PW2043s.
Auxiliary Power Unit: Honeywell GTCP331-200

This was taken from:
http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=101
http://www.flybernhard.de/ueb_eng.htm?http://www.flybernhard.de/b757_e.htm
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757family/technical.html

Now, let us look at the Pentagon building.
http://69.57.144.30/ats/pentagon757/pentagon-757.jpg


The length of the outside wall on any side of the pentagon is 921 feet.
This would allow roughly 7.4 plane widths into the wall of the Pentagon (921/125) 125 = width of a Boeing (see above)


Given the size of the 757, and the size of the Pentagon, the damaged area fits in peftectly with the dimensions of both the aircraft and the building.


Now let us look at the Pentagon damage:
http://69.57.144.30/ats/pentagon757/Pentagon3.jpg

The hole was reported to be between 16-20 feet. The plane's body is roughly 13 feet across in diameter. Now, seeing that the body of the plane is roughly 13 feet, 16-20 feet is definately within the appropriate size. The reason there was no 40 foot hole is because a 40 foot object did not hit the Pentagon, but a 13 foot object did.

----------

Now look at the engine parts recovered at the Pentagon (all links, im at my max of images):
http://69.57.144.30/ats/pentagon757/Shoring8.jpg
http://69.57.144.30/ats/pentagon757/Damage9.jpg
http://69.57.144.30/ats/pentagon757/planeparts-1.jpg

Now, look at a Rolls Royce engine (top row, right most one).
http://www.rolls-royce.com/media/gallery/civil/lrg_civfam.htm (large image)

Here is an image of an engine imprinted into the building (being sprayed)
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/4.jpg (large image)

Obviously the engine is a correct Boeing 757 engine and hit the building.

----------

Eye witness testimony.. Ahh yes.

First of all, the majority of witnesses claim to have seen a plane.

here is one such quote:


"It was no more than 30 feet off the ground, and it was screaming. It was just screaming. It was nothing more than a guided missile at that point," said Creed.


Notice he said it was "nothing more than", as in, it was as if it was a guided missile. I do not have time to look up more quotes (most of which are also taken out of context), but you get the picture.

Also, bodies of passengers from that flight were recovered from the crash site, which would be impossible if it were a missile.

EDIT: fixed a quote (other board doesnt allow quotes to be quoted)

[bbbv3.5]

Im not sure if you guys realize this but the twin towers whole was about 50 feet and can anyone guess how much the pentagon is....around that. Why didnt it mess up the ground? Because the it didnt hit the ground! It went right into the building.

[stewey]

Im not sure if you guys realize this but the twin towers whole was about 50 feet and can anyone guess how much the pentagon is....around that. Why didnt it mess up the ground? Because the it didnt hit the ground! It went right into the building.
Yep, I want to know who carried the bodies into the rubble so that the rescue workers could find them.

[NightWolf]

Im not sure if you guys realize this but the twin towers whole was about 50 feet and can anyone guess how much the pentagon is....around that. Why didnt it mess up the ground? Because the it didnt hit the ground! It went right into the building.


There has been reports that it did hit the ground. Second of all, how hard is it to fly a big plane like that 5 feet from the ground. Thats almost impossible. Third of all why did we only get the bootlegged video where we cant see anything. There are at least 5 cameras pointing to where the plane hit. We only got a bad video where we can't see anything.

[bbbv3.5]

They found plane engines, it was a plane.

[NightWolf]

I never said it wasn't a plane. All i know is that it isn't a Boeing. Those engines were confirmed by experts, as non Boeing engines.

[bbbv3.5]

You got that information from your ass.

[VegasRonin]

You got that information from your ass. Now now bbbv2.0, there's no reason to take things in that direction. :devsmoke:

[NightWolf]

You got that information from your ass.

Wow very mature. If you can't backup your statements, I suggest you shut up. :2thumbs:

[bbbv3.5]

Because your information doesnt exsist. Backup what you said!

[NightWolf]

Here you go
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/turbofans.html
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1075

Here is something you should also read http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/witnesses.html
http://www.911review.org/Wiki/PentagonPlaneRotor.shtml



BTW, I also watched a documentary about the Pentagon and it stated that they weren't the right engines

[bbbv3.5]

You must understand something man. These arent credible sources and if these sources are true this would have been reported worldwide. Planes just dont disappear also. Airports would see something funny if they saw a huge boeing on their radar with no idea where its going and not reporting it especially when two planes just hit the twin towers and just recently a plane which was detected as a boeing just hit the pentagon.. So unlesss the governement kept 100s of employess shut up, and not one leak was let up in 4 years, then yes a conspiracy is possble.

[NightWolf]

I feel that anything is possible. Some things may not be but a lot of them are. You see how the government doesn't even talk about it. They don't show the other videos they conficdated that show what hit the Pentagon. There is a reason for it. If they didn't want to hide anything, they would show all the videos. Yet they aren't for a reason. A reason that I doubt people will find out

[Coolio]

If it was a plane, then how come they dont show any of the videos?

[NightWolf]

If it was a plane, then how come they dont show any of the videos?

Thats one of my questions. It's simple but yet it's a mystery

[bbbv3.5]

We all know it was a plane, its the question of how big it was.

[stewey]

There has been reports that it did hit the ground. Second of all, how hard is it to fly a big plane like that 5 feet from the ground. Thats almost impossible. Third of all why did we only get the bootlegged video where we cant see anything. There are at least 5 cameras pointing to where the plane hit. We only got a bad video where we can't see anything.

The plane didnt fly 5 feet off the ground...

It went at a diagonal down into the Pentagon.

The engines found were correct for that type. I did a writeup at http://www.wincoast.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14036

[NightWolf]

Once again I read and watched a documentary and it said the plane was 5 ft off the ground. There are many theories. I might be wrong or you might be wrong. Understand, that if the government wasn't hiding anything,as soon as they heard this theory about it not being a Boeing they would show more videos and evidence that it was. Yet,they are ignoring the conspiracy because they are hiding something. Once again, what you say may be true, but there is a possibility that mine is true too.


We all know it was a plane, its the question of how big it was.

There has been reports that it was a communter jet carrying maybe about 8-12 people. Also it's been said that some of the parts come from a Global Hawk Drone.
You can check on google what a Global Hawk Drone is if you dont know.

[stewey]

Once again I read and watched a documentary and it said the plane was 5 ft off the ground. There are many theories. I might be wrong or you might be wrong. Understand, that if the government wasn't hiding anything,as soon as they heard this theory about it not being a Boeing they would show more videos and evidence that it was. Yet,they are ignoring the conspiracy because they are hiding something. Once again, what you say may be true, but there is a possibility that mine is true too.



There has been reports that it was a communter jet carrying maybe about 8-12 people. Also it's been said that some of the parts come from a Global Hawk Drone.
You can check on google what a Global Hawk Drone is if you dont know.

The big question is, if the government was behind it, why would they even bother crashing a plane into the pentagon? The damage was already done with the WTC, and everyone knows that if youre going to do something like that, you don't get greedy. Or why wouldn't they use one of the jets that hit the WTC?

The best debunking of those "documentaries" I have seen is this site: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html

The "five feet off the ground" claim is impossible. There are far too many variables involved (like wind, humidity, etc) to robot a plane (or missile for that matter) only five feet off the ground without it hitting the ground. Especially when you take into account plane wings up and down fluctuation while they fly. Also, good luck maneuvering it around downtown washington dc in morning traffic without anyone noticing it.

[NightWolf]

The big question is, if the government was behind it, why would they even bother crashing a plane into the pentagon? The damage was already done with the WTC, and everyone knows that if youre going to do something like that, you don't get greedy.

I have to admit i have been asking myself that question for a lomg time. To be honest, I have no idea.


The "five feet off the ground" claim is impossible. There are far too many variables involved (like wind, humidity, etc) to robot a plane (or missile for that matter) only five feet off the ground without it hitting the ground. Especially when you take into account plane wings up and down fluctuation while they fly. Also, good luck maneuvering it around downtown washington dc in morning traffic without anyone noticing it.

I know its highly impossible but it's just what I keep hearing everywhere.
Also in that one video we have of something hit the Pentagon are you goin to tell me that plane is close to the ground. It shows it coming straight across the lawn.

Heres something else http://www.u-r-next.com/no757.gif

[stewey]

I know its highly impossible but it's just what I keep hearing everywhere.
Also in that one video we have of something hit the Pentagon are you goin to tell me that plane is close to the ground. It shows it coming straight across the lawn.



Well, the angle in which it hit the ground could make it appear to have been flying 5 feet off the ground. A plane flying 500 mph trying to hit a building would probably be required to pull up at the last second, and supposed the plane did actually hit the ground before the pentagon wall, which means the ground took the brunt of the damage, which also implies it was more of a high angle than straight.




Heres something else http://www.u-r-next.com/no757.gif

If I were the conspiracy theorist behind that, I would mention the grainyness of the photo and not the size of the Boeing (the scale of the background is near impossible to tell, and his photoshoping in of another Boeing is ambiguous).

[NightWolf]

There is no point to this. You and I have different opnions and are able to support them with articles and pictures. Im interested in what other people have to say too. I think you and I had a great debate though.