What caused the damage at the Pentagon on 9/11?

[Abe Linkman]

If you hadn't been told by the Government that AA FL77 had crashed at the Pentagon, would you think a 757 (with Hani Hanjour at the controls) was the culprit?

If you were shown photos of the Pentagon that were taken before that one section collapsed, and if you then saw photos taken shortly thereafter, woud you think the damage was caused by a 757?

If you saw photos of the pristine lawn in front of the building taken shortly after the building sustained damage by a (then) unknown cause, would you think a 757 had crashed there?

If you saw the images taken from the parking lot security camera, would you think: "Oh - that's a 757, no doubt about it".

If you had seen all of the above, and THEN were told that a 757 had crashed at the Pentagon, would you believe it?

If you then took a closer look at the available photographs and did NOT see any MUSH, no wings, no bodies (or body parts) - or even what appeared to be human remains covered with sheets, no large aircraft parts or debris, no large jet engines etc., would you think: "FL 77 obviously crashed at the Pentagon"?

If you found out that FBI agents confiscated videtapes from surrounding buildings that might have shown what had happened at the Pentagon, but the Government refused to release them and refused to release any images from Pentagon security cameras, would you STILL say: "The most logical explanation for what happened at the Pentagon is that a B757 (AA FL77) crashed there"?

[whistle]

1. A missile with an explosive warhead, but there is no way....

...that this can be proven because the Pentagon has removed all available evidence.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

51. We do have Rumsfeld's words on record that it was a missile, before

he corrected himself. He always seems to screw up and let the truth come out.....

[hack89]

78. What kind of warhead?

Has anyone every determined just how big a warhead was needed to inflict the damage to the Pentagon?

[meppie-meppie not]

85. it's been posited by Thierry Meyssan that it could have been the latest

generation of AGM type missile with a "hollow charge and a depleted uranium BLU tip". I think in lay terms it's a bunker busting missile.

[The Magistrate]

86. That Would Be An Interesting Weapon, Sir

Shaped-charge and depleted uranium are both useful means of breaching hard targets, but work on completely different principles, that would seem to make their combination incompatible.

A shaped-charge weapon focuses explosive energy on a particular point, from a position a distance away from the surface being assailed. If the distance is not correct, the effect is much lessened. This is why one style of armor protection against such weapons is a light outer plate, with an air gap behind it, over the main plate; this sets the charge off too far from the main plate for it to have its full effect. If the charge is set off too near the surface being assailed, the diminishment of effectiveness is as great. Therefore, shaped-charge weapons usually have a low velocity, so that the weapon will not be moving very much while the charge explodes, which simplifies the problem of getting the stand-off distance right. The fact that a shaped charge weapon derives no part of its effectiveness from high velocity makes it the preferred war-head for shoulder fired weapons, and missiles, which generally move much slower than cannon shells.

Depleted uranium has replaced earlier hard heavy metals such as tungsten as the preferred kinetic energy round. These weapons depend on high velocities for their effectiveness; by travelling very very fast, their dense mass is enabled to deliver shattering force to a very small impact point, and even if what the round strikes is harder than it is, it may still shatter through it, like an ordinary copper=jacketted lead slug at close range may pierce a thin sheet of steel, though that is harder than either metal in the bullet.

Since one of these things depends on very high velocities, and the other is most compatible with low velocities, and likely to be rendered mush less effective at higher velocities, combining the two things into a single war-head would seem a difficult task.

[meppie-meppie not]

89. well ma'am I was only answering the question by what some have posited

I can't support or refute what you have said above because after 3 readings it still comes out like gobbidy-goop to me, sorry.

[The Magistrate]

90. As You Wish, Sir

But if you honestly cannot understand a simple, non-technical description of how certain classes of weaponry function, perhaps you would do better to abstain from discussions involving weaponry altogether....

[meppie-meppie not]

91. we learn by engaging. The material that you provided in your earlier

post where exactly did you get this information from? hack89 asked a question and I answered and cited the source from where I derived the answer. I didn't know that one had to be an "expert" to answer on this thread. To you your previous post was simple but to me it wasn't.

[The Magistrate]

93. It Is Common Knowledge, Sir

Even the most casual acquaintance with military matters should contain it. Shaped charge weapons have been in routine use for over sixty years, and the principle, originally known as the "Munro effect" was known for several decades previous. The breaking of armor by high speed behind a narrow contact point is far more ancient: swung pole-arms of the medieval period work on that principle, as do "bodkin point" arrows and bolts. Shooting something very hard as fast as possible at armor was the first method employed against both ship's armor and armor vehicles in the modern era.

[Sweet Pea]

99. LOL.....

Sorry, but I have seen one two many posts here from people who have abso-FREAKIN-lutely no idea what the bejesus they are talking about.

Asking someone to stick within their area of expertise here is like asking a pig to stay away from mud.

Not to worry in any event, Magistrate....people seem to think they are rocket scientists here when all they have is the results of a google search of a fart.

[seatnineb]

94. Indeed it would be an interesting weapon...

.....in fact Magistrate......

When it comes to Depleted Uranium talk......

I'll take the eminent Dr Rokke over you anytime:

http://www.interactorg.com/Dr.%20Douge%20Rokke.htm.

....and with regards to the Pentagon.....

Here is what Dr Rokke had to say......

DR: What I will state: Unless I'm wrong, the radiological contamination at the Pentagon and some distance from the Pentagon was absolutely confirmed, real radiacs, after the impacts on 9/11. Is that correct, ma'am?

Anon.: Yes.

DR: Yes ma'am, it is. Thank you very much

http://www.libertythink.com/2004_01_11_archives.html.

Question for you Maggy........

If Boeing claim that only their 747's contained DU as a counterweight.....

Then answer me 2 very simple questions:

1)When did Boeing phase out DU in the construction of their 747's?

2)In which year was N644AA(also known as Flight 77) built?

3)Was N644AA a 757 or 747.

Answer it.....if you can....

[The Magistrate]

112. Many Thanks, Sir

One of your fellows has entered in this forum lately a plaintive appeal for suggestions on how to take this niche interest of yours over into the mainstream of political discussion, and you have here provided an excellent illustration of why that is unlikely ever to occur. For your comment has not engaged my remarks above in the slightest, but only sought to change direction in a cloud of squid's ink from the point made, that it is vanishingly unlikely any weapons designer would seek to attempt to combine a shaped charge with depleted uranium into a single round for penetrating hard material. It seems clear enough that a purported authority claiming such a weapon exists is no authority at all, but rather a mere grifter preying on the lamentable, but profitable, ignorance of many.

No portion of Col. Rokke's comments bear on that question; they deal with the toxicity of depleted uranium, which is quite irrelevant to the question of how it penetrates a resisting surface, and how efficatiously it does so. That it is a toxic material is undoubted in any quarter, though it is clear most of its toxicity resides in its character as a heavy metal, which have long been known to be poisonous. The fine particulates created by its penetration of a resisting surface, or by its ignition, give this great play, and probably also give greater play than many would like to argue to its very small radioactive properties, since these microscopic particles, lodged in lung or other tissues, are in an ideal situation to cause harm by even small levels of radioactivity.

What you seem to be driving at, though you do not come straight out and say it, is to claim that depleted uranium was present at the Pentagon site, and that therefore, since the airliner involved did not use this, some other weapon must have been used to strike that building. But there seems no clear evidence that depleted uranium was present at the site. There do not even seem to be any un-ambiguous reports of elevated radiation levels there. One un-named person may have told Col. Rokke there were, but that hardly constitutes evidence, for anyone may say that, and Col. Rokke's medical and other technical expertise hardly translates into an uncanny sense of whether a person is telling him the truth, particularly when that person will not stand publicly behind the statement he has made. There seem to be some fragmentary newspaper reports of elevated radiation levels noted in later days some distance from the building, and an indication that a leading E.P.A. official expressed concern over such reports. A bureaucrat expressing "concern" is not indicating belief, but covering his rear in an uncertain situation, and indicating a willingness to busy some subordinates with writing up a few reports, and that is all.

"They don't take chocolate money out in the big world, Arthur."

[seatnineb]

120. Wrong.

On the contrary.........

I'll believe what you say.

A plane crashed into the pentagon.

What I am asking is ...........did it contain DU as a counterweight.

If it did........

Which year was that plane built?

Let me give you a little hint as to when boeing phased out the use of DU in the construction of their planes.......

DU has also been used in aircraft to make counterweights in the tailplane. A Boeing spokesman told BBC News Online: "The company began using DU in the early 1960s.

Boeing replaced it with tungsten in the early 1980s, on grounds of cost and availability. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/sci/tech/568234.stm

And now I will ask you the question for the second time.

When was the plane that is said to have crashed into the Pentagon built......

Here is the n-number......and it's serial number.......

N644AA Serial 24602

Now go surf ,Maggy........

And when you get back ,you can tell all and sundry which year the plane that crashed into the Pentagon was built.

As for making claims that Dr Rokke is talking crap...........

I don't want to be harsh on you Maggy.......

But you should show more respect:

On Sept. 11, I called a medical doctor who lives 7 miles from the Pentagon and warned her
that DU could have burned in the hijacked jets that crashed (up to 3000 pounds were used in 747's). She turned on her gamma meter - radiation levels were 8 times higher than normal inside her house. She informed the Nuclear Information ResourceService in Washington DC, and the EPA, FBI, HazMat and other emergency response gencies went to the Pentagon to investigate.
A pile of rubble from the crash was radioactive, but the EPA rep said "oh... it's probably depleted uranium... it's not a health hazard unless you breathe it". Firefighters, Pentagon personel, and communities nearby DID BREATHE IT. There was no followup investigation, and what about the World Trade Center in NY? Radiation almost never gets into the media. It is a taboo subject.
of http://www.xs4all.nl/~stgvisie/VISIE/radioactive-NewYork.html


As I said.......I'll take Dr Rokke and his colleagues over you .......anytime.

[John Doe II]

121. Good question!

The question is simple and clear.
I'd be very interested to hear any answers, too.

[vincent_vega_lives]

131. So you vouch for these people?

Nice sources, emails from who knows? Talk about selective vetting. So if I start an email thread claiming to be a Physicist will you then trust me?

According to this web site Dr.H.D.Sharma is an associate professor of Industrial Engineering & Management at the G.B.Pant University of Agriculture and Technology. So she is an engineer, not a Physicist.

Also DU is not so mildly radioactive that it would elevate radioactivity levels 7 miles from a site where it was burned, so your whole scary premise is dubious at best. You have to do better. And your poster is wrong, early 747s did NOT carry 3,000 lbs of DU. Nice source.

Early model 747s have more than seven hundred pounds (300 kg) of depleted uranium molded into the engine nacelles. Its purpose is as ballast to prevent the wing from fluttering.

[seatnineb]

134. Nice trick.

But....

DU is mildly radioactive.........

Any substance with a half life of 4 billion years is hardly going to be very radioactive........at least compared to other radioactive substances....

Hence the only slight increase above normal background radiation recorded by our anonymouse informant.......there was no scary story......

The real question should be.......

If it was a 747......

Then of the probable 1500 kg of depleted uranium contained in the the plane,how much of it burned to form Uranium oxide?

And you are wrong about early 747's not containing DU.....

"1.6.6.1 Depleted Uranium
HL-7451 was typical of early Boeing 747 aircraft in that Depleted Uranium (DU) mass balance weights were fitted in the outboard elevators and upper rudder ……..
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_avsafety/documents/page/dft_avsafety_023258.hcsp

Happy reading........

As I said......I'll take Dr Rokke over you ....anytime.......

[vincent_vega_lives]

135. Why should I bother posting responses to you

If you don't read my posts.

I didn't say that early 747's did not contain DU.

[The Magistrate]

132. You Would Seem, Mr. Seat

Sorely afflicted with an affinity for the capillary, which you cannot expect everyone to share, and play along with. You have asked a series of questions you seem to attach great importance to, that really have no relevance to anything important. It seems that you are of the view that a great presence of depleted uranium at the Pentagon establishes that the hijacked jetliner did not strike that building, as the construction of that machine did not include that material: whether you worship at the church of the cruise missile and military jet striking the Pentagon, or the temple of the substitition of a weaponized jetliner containing shaped-charge and depleted uranium ordnance, remotely controlled or otherwise, you have not yet disclosed sufficient of your dogmas that an outsider might fairly judge. You seem to feel these questions point to answers that will establish whichever cultus you adhere to, but in fact, they do nothing of the sort.

What you must do, Mr. Seat, to establish your faith as fact is to prove that there is a great quantity of depleted uranium contamination at the Pentagon. This you have failed entirely to do; indeed, you have failed at it so spectacularly as to leave it evident you have been unable to find any evidence supporting the proposition. The available reports boil down to a statement that "a pile of rubble" at the site of the impact showed some radioactivity, and two reports of radioactivity at points widely seperate in space and time from the site of the impact. The only tie in any of these reports to depleted uranium comes from reports of a query directed to an EPA official about the "pile" at the crash site. He is widely reported by those hewing to the peculiar sort of views you do as having said this was probably from depleted uranium in the jetliner, which was an erroneous statement, but one that, since many people who know little detail of the various types and constructions of jetliners do have a hazy awareness that material is often used in them, falls easily into the category of normal and expected human error under press of circumstance. It is certainly nothing that establishes for a fact either that this official knew for a fact the material was present there in quantity, or that the material was in fact there: he was being asked to speculate on an early and fragmentary indication, and did so. Those persons so excited by that statement generally fail to quote it entirely, for the fellow also suggested americium could account for the report he was queried over. There is no doubt whatever appreciable quantities of that highly radioactive material were present, for it used in aircraft instruments and gauges, and in the better sorts of smoke alarms. Whatever "pile" contained remnants of the jetliner's instrument panel, or something so prosaic as a janitor's closet containing a case of spare alarms, since subjected to crush and fire, would certainly excite a radiation monitor. The reports of radiation at a great distance in space and time from the site of impact establish nothing at all, for there is nothing whatever that links the radiation measured to the site of impact. An aerosol dispersion of any great quantity of particulate radioactive material from the site of impact would take the form of a plume, and deposit discernable radiation at many points in an even distrubtion, denser towards the point of origin. You provide nothing that indicates such a pattern, let alone proves one. Yet if a great quantity of your pet material was in fact oxidized at high heat, there really ought to be such a thing, and finding it would be child's play.

It is clear, Mr. Seat, you have a great affection for Col. Rokke, but you should not allow it to color your interpertations of what other people might say concerning him. Nothing in my comments has disparaged him in the slightest; they have only pointed out what he himself has said, that he has no personnal knowledge of depleted uranium contamination at the impact site, and has simply retailed what some person who would not allow him or her self to be publicly identified told him. You have defended this as showing scruple, but in fact, Mr. Seat, if you had the courage of your convictions entire, would you not be clamoring for this person to come forward and raise the greatest public stink possible? Are they not, in your view of things, clearly concealing vital evidence in a crime of treason and murder passing belief, the sort of matter in which a person ought to count their own life and well being as nothing, but rather ought to embrace the loss of those trifles as a small price to pay for exposure of such monstrous criminals?

"That is wrong. Cling to your pathetic fables of fluid exchange."

[seatnineb]

133. Wrong again.

The EPA official is certain that it is depleted uranium.....

Americium is a radioactive transuranic(cointains more protons and electrons) that is contained in Depleted Uranium(although in very small amounts)

And.......

Even if that anonymouse aquaintance of Dr Rokke came forward and.......like the EPA official,Mr Bellinger .....would you believe him?

As for obviouse signs of health problems.......

They were still trying to prove that in Holland.....7 years after the incident......

http://www.laka.org/teksten/Vu/hap-99/7.html

[The Magistrate]

136. You Need Some New Material, Dear

This constant squawking of "wrong" in reply to all address has gone very stale: you cannot simply declare me wrong; that is something you must demonstrate, and you have not done so, not by a country mile.

The quote from Mr. Bellinger, and the circumstance in which it was elicited, have been gone into exhaustively, and it is clear the fellow was guessing when he made that statement.

What would, to my mind, constitute proof of the presence of signifigant amounts of depleted uranium at the crash site is what would constitute proof of such presence to anyone with a level and judicious turn of mind: reports of chemical analysis by a reputable laboratory with expertise in the area that indicate the presence of the material in signifigant quantity. Reports of radiation readings, similarly sourced, that match closely the expected profile of what that material would produce could suffice. When you can provide such things, you can claim your faith in this presence is backed by evidence; until you can do so, you are merely engaging in speculation, and on a level that would make a theologian blush for shame.

"It is wrong to divide people into good and bad. People are either charming or tedious."

[seatnineb]

137. No.

It is you who say that he is guessing.

Which equates to nothing.

And even if it is not depleted uranium.

What else could it be.

The hydrocarbons from the kerosene buried in the soil.

I don't think so.

Funny how Bellinger came to the same conclusion as Dr Rokke's colleague.

And no matter how hard you try........

I'll take Dr Rokke and his colleagues over you any time.

[The Magistrate]

138. The Fact that You Believe Something, Dear

Does not make it true: indeed, many will likely take it as a sound indication for the opposite case. Your belief is not evidence, and will not become evidence no matter how often and how shrilly you squawk that you do believe, no more than a lunatic's belief he can waft about like a dandelion seed will prevent him crashing to the earth from a cliff-top if he steps over the edge.

Since the fellow in question was quoted as saying "probably" it is very hard to argue he was not guessing, as any person with a basic command of the English language would have to agree that word indicates what follows is not to be treated as a certain fact.

None of the people you have cited has claimed any first hand certain knowledge of the presence of that material.

Thus the basis for your certainty cannot be the expertise or respectable repute of anyone, but must only be your own surmise, and that in accord with your own preconceptions. You will not be shaken from these, of course, but no one else is under any obligation to regard them as anything other than your own base-less beliefs.

"A stroll through the lunatic asylum establishes that faith proves nothing."

[seatnineb]

141. No.

I see that you are trying to deflect attention away from Dr Rokke's anonymouse aquaintance and trying to concentrate on Bellinger instead......

It is your last resort.......

One that I foresaw before I even posed you the question in 120.

And it took you 3 days to actually put your defenses into action........

Do you really think that you can be taken seriously AFTER the way you reacted to the Hanjour photos......?

With regards to the Pentagon......

2 sources came to the same conclusion.

That there was the presense of some form of radioactive contamination.
at the site.

And if it was not depleted uranium......what was it o'fabled one?

Carbon monoxide?....sulphur dioxide?......burning plastics from the plane?

Sorry to dissapoint you but the above are about as radioactive as your ass!

I'll take Bellinger or Rokke over you.......any time........

[vincent_vega_lives]

122. You are absolutely correct

Although, there have been utilization in the latest Russian shaped charge weapons of DU replacing the copper liner in the cone. This has shown to increase penetration ability significantly. I know of no explosive type US weapons that utilize DU however. They remain confined to solid penetrators, as you detail.

[The Magistrate]

124. That Is A New Wrinkle, Mr. Vega

My knowledge of these matters is derived from historical interests, and the most modern of "whizz-bangs" fall outside that, although the principles of effect and usage remain unchanged. This sounds like it would be most effective, gaining by the pyrophoric nature of the material. The amount involved would be very small, of course, even in a relatively large shaped charge.

[vincent_vega_lives]

125. Understand

It does behoove you to become knowledgeable on current "whizz-bangs" when your backside may depend on it. ;)

[The Magistrate]

126. Being Old And Slow, Sir

My only real recourse would be to sit and await fate in what dignity might be mustered....

Happy hunting!

[seatnineb]

128. What's the matter Vince........

Does post 120 scare you?........

What are you waiting for?

Give it your best shot......

[seatnineb]

127. Please answer post 120 if you can........

[The Magistrate]

129. Getting Anxious, Fellow?

"The soundest policy is to postpone operations until the moral disintigration of the enemy renders their success certain."

[seatnineb]

130. post 120 awaits you............Maggy my "Wrattled....rattled " chum.

[hack89]

98. What size missile

could carry a warhead large enough to cause the damage evident on the exterior of the Pentagon? Also, aren't bunker busters designed to penetrate thick walls before exploding? Wouldn't a relatively small hole all you see on the outside wall, with all the damage caused by the blast contained within the building?

[hack89]

107. Just so I am clear on this

Are you saying it was a single missile that caused all the damage? What do you believe fired the missile?

[demodewd]

108. for the record

Just for the record ,you are referring to the small hole evident prior to the collapse of the section?

[hack89]

109. How small is small?

Did this same missile cause all the damage inside the building also?

[demodewd]

110. actually...

Actually I'm not so sure about the missile theory but it is generally maintained by those who subscribe to the missile theory that a missile was released a split second before a fighter jet crashed into the building.

I like this theory http://eric-bart.net/iwpb/

[m0nkeyneck]

2. what about the missing ppl?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/12/victim-capsule-flight77.htm

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

52. Hmmmmmm... how about the ocean, or dumped anywhere. If they

were going to kill them in the attack, what's so different if they killed them anywhere else.
.

[MercutioATC]

59. It's a question of logistics, not intent.

Logistically, how did the passengers and crew wind up in the ocean (or wherever)? The radar data doesn't support "plane switching".

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

64. The radar was going bonkers. There were war games going on

and they had "false" blips on the screen, because the war games included hijackings...... Also, have you seen the radar tracking? If higher ups were in collusion, anything could have happened.

Then you had the case of someone at the FAA who destroyed the audio interviews of the controllers. They are all under gag order.

[MercutioATC]

65. There were military exercises that day.

Do you have evidence that any of the "false blips" were anywhere near the flight path of any of the 9/11 planes?

Who is under a "gag order"?

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

66. I will have to dig up the source on the false blips. It was widely

reported the controllers were under gag order. Will have to dig those up too.

If anyone reading this has those sources, please provide. :)

edited to include this for now on Operation Vigilant Guardian, etc.

http://www.infowars.com/print/Sept11/wargames_cover.htm

[LARED]

67. Amazing ain't it (n/t)

[Abe Linkman]

68. Military exercises were part of the plot, but no, bushco won't admit it.

Sorry, m-atc - sometimes you have to rely on your cranial organ to figure out what the bushco criminals are up to. Just as spinners rely on spin, and disinfo agents rely on disinformation, distraction, focus on irrelevant minor details that don't alter the main point etc. -
SINCERE, OBJECTIVE TRUTH SEEKERS (the overwhelming majority of DUers) know that we have to sometimes rely on logic, common sense, what history has taught us, and who stands to gain from a particular act, in order to ascertain the likely truth.

[MercutioATC]

69. That's like saying that construction companies cause hurricanes.

They benefit from natural disasters...

How is it any different to claim that you're using "who stands to gain" as a logical means of determining blame?

[meppie-meppie not]

70. that's a silly analogy, IMO, sorry. 9/11 was anything but a

natural disaster, this event was man made from start to finish, no element of "act of god". The question of "who stands to gain" is a valid avenue of inquiry because it goes towards motivation which facilitates comprehension of the "why" questions. It's a key step in connecting the dots.

[MercutioATC]

145. I didn't say that it wasn't a valid avenue of inquiry.

However, I don't believe it's the damning evidence that some here claim.

[Abe Linkman]

146. I didn't say that giving opinions isn't a "valid" thing to do

However, I don't believe that anyone cares about someone's biased opinions, except for some who might be here as the result of a request.

[MercutioATC]

149. You're always free to use the "ignore" function, Abe.

If you aren't interested in my views, feel free to ignore them.

[Warpy]

3. Where are the passengers?

Where are the crew?

Where is the plane?

For that matter, where is Babs Olson? There's no way anybody could have shut her up!

Spare me.

[ThoughtCriminal]

7. Give up

>>Where are the crew?
>>Where is the plane?
>>For that matter, where is Babs Olson?

Logical questions like that are ALWAYS ignored when this comes up.

[tngledwebb]

43. You ARE ignoring logical evidence. If one looks at

and doesn't dispute the provenance of all the Pentagon photographs ( ie doesn't say they are say photo-shopped, CGI, or otherwise manipulated ) and still claims to SEE evidence of a crashed Boeing jetliner, ones own credibility is highly suspect.

Now, some of us may wish to propose that the plane blew up, melted, or otherwise disappeared, but no-one can posit, at least to any sentient being with reasonably good eyesight, that the photographs show any evidence of a Boeing crash, whether Flight 77 or not.

Thus this particular debate rises or falls on visual and photographic evidence, or the lack thereof. That evidence, as it stands, clearly and obviously does NOT show a Boeing hit the Pentagon. Not now, not ever.

How MSM, or this Admin, or any other DU'er on this thread wants to spin it afterwards is another story. ( But quoting official Bush approved Government reports will not help much, unless you care to explain how this Admin missed the advance warnings re 9/11, and later so grossly mis-interpreted the intelligence re Saddam's WMD's.)

[meppie-meppie not]

117. however tngledwebb, I understand the question because I have asked the

very same. The only reason the question doesn't plague me as it did is because once it became clear (to me) that the government was complicit in 9/11 (the degree is still to be determined) well then it was no stretch of the imagination to realize just what they were capable of. For this government "the ends justify the means" as long as it's for the "greater good" (whatever the hell they perceive that to be)!

[demodewd]

9. re: where

Are you afraid to ask the next question? Were they done away with some place else?

[ThoughtCriminal]

12. Oh that make sense

Let me guess. (This will be the part that FOX and the NYT quotes)

The plane was hijacked to a secret location, all radar records destroyed and traffic controllers exterminated or threatened, the passengers and crew executed. the plane dismantled and destroyed. Witnesses who saw an airliner are actually bribed. Family members who received cell calls from pessengers were actually talking to highly trained imposters.

Wouldn't it be easier just to crash the plane into the Pentagon?

[demodewd]

22. criminally thinking

The only call that came from #77 was allegedly Barbara Olson's.

There were as many as 22 unaccounted for radar blips in the NEADS radar sector that morning due to inserted blips(fakes) and live fly excercises by the military. The plane could have been flown out to the Atlantic and crashed or brought down to a military base during the five military air excercises being conducted during that "hijacking" time frame.

It would be easier to substitute #77 for a drone in order to hone it in at an exact location thus eliminating the possibility of error or having it crash at the wrong location.

[meppie-meppie not]

118. I was going to answer with the same stats but you you saved me the

effort, thnx :) It's funny that when Norwood first came to light many didn't believe it but now it's common knowledge. Some want to disparage or make light of our lines of inquiry but if we don't ask the questions who will?

[tngledwebb]

47. Worried that MSM will ruin DU's reputation if a DU'er or two

writes something that the 'majority' doesn't approve of?
Tell us then, which religion should we choose, what books should we read, what political theories should we credit? Please let us know soon so we won't needlessly suffer the taunts and derision of the beloved MSM op-ed writers. ( You know, the ones that gave the draft dodging mass murderer and his handlers a pass while steadily bashing Dem candidates anytime they exhibited their basic humanity.)

And unless you have personally researched 9/11 issues extensively for the last three years, do not pre-judge others when their POV doesn't match your particular world-view.

[meppie-meppie not]

71. it's very easy to be dismissive about the questions being posed but

the Barbara Olson calls are highly suspect. First her husband says she rang up using the phone on the aircraft. He reported that she said she had trouble even getting through to him because she didn't have her credit card on her. I find that really hard to believe that a rich broad like her would go anywhere without her credit card. But we won't even address that here. So she uses another passengers credit card to enable her to get through to an operator and from there she "supposedly" makes a collect call to her husband at his government office. Olson's secretary "supposedly" told him Barb was on the phone but she never actually took the call she just passed on that information to him. They have never released the name of the person who answered that call initially, or who accepted the charges, and conveniently there are no billing records for it that have been provided to the public. Barb made 2 calls to him (so they say) and 2 days after 9/11 Ted changed his story to say she rang from her mobile not the plane phone and again no billing records for that call have been provided. In light of all the CT flying around you would think that Mr Olson would want to clear up any discrepancies immediately by providing the billing records for those calls but more than 3 years after 9/11 he still refuses to provide any log records from his office or any billing records for her mobile.

[FogerRox]

4. What was it that knocked down the light poles on I-395?

WAs it a missle? maybe a missle would have veered off course or detonated? After taking down multiple poles-------

Airplane parts? why would there be any to speak of? Aluminum burns about 850degrees F/Jet fuel burns @1000 degrees.

What were those bumps on the bottom of the wings of the 757?

Answer me that---Bumps on the 757---what were they --I saw the Pic.
What were those bumps.

[madrchsod]

5. the big bad wolf

[andyhappy]

6. airplane parts

I have seen the flash movie about this and it is pretty convincing.

but there weren't any airplane parts strewn around the base of ground zero in NY. The wings folded up and went into the fire with the rest of the plane.

why would they make something like that up? And if so do you honestly think that the government was behind 911?

give me a break!

[spooked911]

33. yes I honestly think the government was behind 9/11

if you study all the evidence, it's hard to escape that conclusion.

[meppie-meppie not]

72. ditto! n/t

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

53. 9/11 gave them exactly what they wanted. A reason to start endless wars.

To blame it on Bin Laden (who has a cia operative)gave them the perfect opportunity to go to war in Afghanistan. They wanted an oil/gas pipeline built, the Taliban stopped negotiating, and then all of a sudden we were in Afghanistan, and the pipeline has been started.

In Rebuilding America's Defenses which is a blue print for our imperialistic future, it was noted that they would need a catastrophe, like Pearl Harbor to get the plan in motion, if the wanted to do it quickly. Well they got it.

Please do the research. When you do you will see that the "official story" read like a conspiracy theory.

Also remember, that human life (for that matter no life) is of no importance to these madmen. Look at Afghanistan, thousands of dead. Look at Iraq, over 100,000 innocents, and they want to start death squads there now. How about all of our soldiers who have died for their greed? What would an extra 3000 lives in Washington, NY and PA mean to them? Do you know that while 3000 lay dead on the ground, Bush was up in Air Force One doing a photo-op. He then gave those pics as a perk at a $150 per plate GOP fundraiser.

A very telling quote about how these people feel about the "common person" is this from Henry Kissinger (whom Bush first wanted to lead the 911 Commission:

"Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy." ~ Henry Kissinger

[tngledwebb]

55. Good points, all.

n/t

[meppie-meppie not]

119. hear hear!! TY for saying what I was thinking but lacked the clarity

of thought :-)

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

54. Self-deleted. Duplicate.

[China_cat]

8. A friend of mine's

husband worked in the Pentagon at the time and was there when the plane hit it. As an EOD, he had to help in the initial cleanup. Nobody knew whether he was alive or dead for 4 days.

He says it was a plane. I believe him.

[demodewd]

10. yes...but..

What kind of plane?

[China_cat]

11. Since I don't believe in the Bermuda triangle

or the rapture for the explanation of the missing passengers, I'd have to say it was the one reported to have hit the building.

[demodewd]

23. avoiding my question

You're avoiding my question. Just from seeing in the air,you can't identify it as being Flight 77. It could possibly be Flight 77 or it could be a plane somewhat smaller or a 757 but not Flight 77 or a 747 but not Flight 77. There is no way you can positively identify that it was Flight 77 just because you saw it fly past you.

[China_cat]

24. I would think that the people picking up

the wreckage, including pieces with the plane's ID number, the black box, etc. know. They say it was.

Shall I send you a new roll of aluminum foil for Valentine's Day?

[demodewd]

26. pieces..

Pieces with the plane's ID number? Is this documented?

[AZCat]

29. It should be, actually

Aviation is insane when it comes to identifying parts - there's a lot of paperwork that shows where a part came from, when it was installed, and what has happened to it since the installation. The maintenance logs for the aircraft will have a list of the unique identifers for a particular part, and it shouldn't be difficult to prove that a certain part belongs to that plane. Of course, that still doesn't settle any arguments over "planted" evidence.

[demodewd]

31. some questions

How do you explain the whitish coloration of the initial blast which indicates shaped charges and or bomb or missile as oppossed to solely a fuel blast? No such coloration was observable from the WTC2 explosion.

Why is the video footage offered up to the American public by the Pentagon of the plane's apparent entry and explosion devoid of any evidence of the presence of a 757? Why did the Pentagon obviously delete the frames that would have identified the type of plane?

Why does the light from the initial explosion penetrate through the walls of the heliport? This is indicative of solarwaves.

From the Pentagon footage it appears that whatever hit the West wing expoded upon impact yet there is no evidence of passengers,passenger's body parts or luggage outside the Pentagon. According to Barbara Olson the passengers were forced to the back of the plane yet no body parts were recovered outside the Pentagon when the force of the blast sent materials raining down on the lawn and highway like confetti.

How could the nose/fuselage after being sliced in two (the fuselage is higher than one floor) penetrate through six reinforced walls to create a hole into the A-E drive nine feet high? How could this penetration not bring considerable smoke and fire damage into the area?Where is the fire damage in the north area of the blast leading to the hole that would have accompanied the nose/fuselage at it made its journey through this area bringing fuel from the explosion along with it?

:tinfoilhat: B-)

[Abe Linkman]

32. Hear, Hear. Powerful questions. Painful implications. Thanks. n/t

n/t

[LARED]

56. solarwaves???

Does this mean maybe the Sun hit the Pentagon?

[Abe Linkman]

57. Did you learn that from an article in the "Triangle"?

n/t

[LARED]

58. The "triangle"

has never addressed solarwaves hitting the Pentagon to my knowledge.

But I rarely read it, so maybe I just missed the article. Let me know if I did.

[AZCat]

60. What the heck is "The Triangle"?

If you don't mind me asking. :shrug:

[Abe Linkman]

61. Monthly publication for retired former traveling salesmen for the...

Red Goose Shoe Compny.

[AZCat]

62. I didn't even realize there was a "Red Goose Shoe Company"

As always, Abe, I appreciate the information. There's lots I don't know.

[Abe Linkman]

63. That's the company where the band leader for "Guy's Allstar Shoe Band"

used to work.

Glad to be of help. You're welcome. So long.

[tngledwebb]

49. Not all CT's are the same,

some have legs for good reason. How about the stolen election? You in for that?

[Maria Celeste]

17. It was real

I lost a friend on that flight. Another person I know saw it happen, One of the most wonderful persons I know on this earth was in there, not harmed, and stayed comforting the wounded until help got there.

[MercutioATC]

13. People thought a god rode his fiery chariot across the sky each day.

Then, they learned about the sun.


When one has no understanding of the subject matter and, instead, clings to superstition and misrepresentations, one frequently reaches the wrong conclusion.


It's not magic...it's science.

[Abe Linkman]

14. That's right, M-atc. The scientific method debunks the OCT Voodoo.

However; as you can see, there are still plenty of folks who can't be bothered to learn much more about 9/11 than what you know.

[MercutioATC]

16. It's only "voodoo" to those who don't (or won't) understand.

The rest of us don't seem to have much trouble with it.


Again, I'm a layman in subjects like physics. If you have some education or experience that affords you a better understanding, please let me know.

[Abe Linkman]

18. You think more than 2 people here agree w/your 9/11 conspiracy theory?

"The rest of us don't seem to have much trouble with it."

[MercutioATC]

19. I think there are more than two who have real issues with yours...

Especially professionals.

I haven't seen ANY aviation or engineering professionals here who agree with you, Abe. Why do you suppose that is?

[Bolo Boffin]

20. Or any eyewitnesses to the event

None of them say that anything other than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

Why is that, Abe?

[Abe Linkman]

21. Kindly provide proof of that.

You're the gentleman(?) who knows so little about the JFK assassination that you still believe in Arlen's "magic bullet" theory and that the Warren Commission's starting premise (that LHO acted alone) was correct.
Furthermore, I assume you DISbelieve the Democrats who held hearings in the late 70's and concluded that there was a conspiracy to assassinate the President.

You believe all that, so there's nothing odd about your support of the Pentagon Fairies Tale. What difference is educating you any further going to do? You're a partisan, not an objective truthseeker. Who the H--- do you think you're kidding?

[Bolo Boffin]

25. Kindly provide proof to the contrary.

One single solitary eyewitness to the Pentagon attack who now says it was something other than Flight 77.

[Abe Linkman]

27. Well, if it makes you feel better - during your absence ...

not one single person has said their mind was changed by all of the spinning done here on behalf of bushco. So, you've got your work cut out for you.

[MercutioATC]

28. I take it that means there were no "fighter" witnesses?

:eyes:

[Bolo Boffin]

30. Who's here doing spinning on behalf of bushco, Abe?

Care to name any names?

And as Merc's pointed out, your non-response to the question means that you don't have any eyewitnesses who now say that something other than Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.

So to recap -

The ASCE report shows how all damage and wreckage is consistent with a large 757.

Eyewitnesses all confirm a large 757.

The passengers of Flight 77, a large 757, were discovered dead at the crash site.

Therefore, Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.

You were saying?

[meppie-meppie not]

74. there are just as many "eye witness" reports supporting a missile or

secondary plane theory as there are supporting the OCT. As for the eye witness reports about it being UA77 I think the dynamics of the psychology of perception and memory address this.

[Bolo Boffin]

95. That's not true.

The eyewitness reports of a large American Airlines jet hitting the Pentagon outweigh any other reported impression. You're fooling yourself if you think otherwise.

But you're completely missing the point of my argument here. I'm not talking about initial impressions, "sounded like a missile" and all that.

Find a single eyewitness to the Pentagon crash TODAY who says anything other than a large American Airlines jet crashed into the Pentagon, who has not reconciled their immediate interpretation with this story.

You want to play the "psychology of perception and memory" game? Fine. The hotel employees who got to watch the rooftop camera version of the crash over and over before the FBI confiscated it would be a vital control group. Find a single one who saw that tape who says something other Flight 77. They got to watch the tape, again and again. What do they say hit the Pentagon? Are any of them on record as saying anything other than a large American Airlines jet hit the Pentagon?

I'm still waiting...

[meppie-meppie not]

100. I'm well aware of the hotel employee's and the tape they watched

repeatedly until the FBI absconded with it but I have yet to see any transcripts of interviews with those people. If you have come across any I'd be very interested to see them. I'm not trying to fool myself about anything with respect to 9/11, I'm only searching for answers. The "psychology of perception and memory" is anything but a game and I'm a little taken aback that you would characterize it as such. It is the main reason why eye witness testimony is so unreliable, so it's not something to be cast aside so flippantly.

[MercutioATC]

101. That's simply not the case.

http://www.wtc-terrorattack.com/pentagon_eyewitness_accounts.htm

This isn't a comprehensive compilation of statements, but I've never seen more than a half-dozen reports of anything other than a commercial airliner (actually, I can only recall two).

[Abe Linkman]

41. Name them, m-atc.

"I think there are more than two who have real issues with yours.."

[MercutioATC]

42. I have, in the OTHER thread you dragged this issue into.

[The Magistrate]

87. Well, Here Is At Least A Third, Mr. Linkman....

Things are awfully slow up in the Israel v. Palestine forum just now....

"Honey, I couldn't be prouder of you if you thought you were Napoleon."

[vincent_vega_lives]

15. Good Questions...

I wouldn't have been able to (and still aren't) able to form any INFORMED opinion by looking at a few pictures on the INTERNET. The key word here is INFORMED. Anyone can form an opinion, but it's quality is based on the amount of information it is formed from. Investigators on the ground have MUCH more information available that peons siting at their computer...to include myself. :hi:

[tngledwebb]

45. You trust this Admin how far? Just curious..

You don't think you could make ANY informed opinion looking at a few pictures on the internet? Well, that in itself is a kind of informed opinion, is it not?

And you have posted plenty of other similarly uniformed opinions here on DU, using photographs and links to all sorts of strange websites, and suddenly you want to confess that your opinions are not to be trusted!


How is it for you when reading the NYT or WaPo online, or watching CNN or Fox or CSPAN, is it just as hard for you to make informed opinions based on those electronic media sources?
(Shouldn't be too difficult though, given your impressive resume. Or was that an internet hoax too? Ah, well, some of us were a tad suspicious.)

Curious if you actually know any 'investigators on the ground' and how you know they have MUCH MORE information? Do you know any personally, or is it blind faith in officialdom? And would you trust or distrust their report if it was posted on the net?

At any rate, your post is certainly one of the most incredible things I have read on in any form.

[vincent_vega_lives]

123. "informed" is a relative term

NYT, the WaPo, CNN, Fox, they have somthing called reporters who's job it is to find out the truth. They actually talk to people, get on the scene. Of course they get it wrong a lot of the time. But they certainly have a better chance of getting it right than some nitwit sitting at his computer.

"Blind faith" and "officialdom" are great words to throw around when you don't like what you are hearing. The fact remains all of us are reliant on other people, sources for information on way or another. It's up to the indivudual to vett that source, information for accuracy.

[spooked911]

34. I think a plane hit the Pentagon-- I'm just not convinced it was flight 77

[spooked911]

35. more important than WHAT hit the Pentagon is WHERE it hit

the plane went out of its way to hit a recently renovated section of the building-- where few people were working. And it hit at a really tight angle-- an amazing hit really. It's really hard to believe that Hani Hanjour would have pulled that off.

[TrustingDog]

36. the news that day, about the Pentagon crash...

I distinctly recall it being said on BN that it was a truck bomb. then the story changed.

so how the hell could someone confuse something like that?

[Abe Linkman]

37. The demands of an effective propaganda/PR campaign.

Rapid Response Reaction Teams from PR firms and Crisis Consulting Communications firms know how to adjust the "spin" being sold to naive, trusting people AND the FIRST wave of their response comes from the corporate-owned so-called mainstream media.

[MercutioATC]

38. Or, maybe it was just the eagerness of the media to report something.

Naw, it was probably some vast conspiracy perpetuated by hundreds of paid PR people to....hmmm....to do what?

Since the truck bomb story was an early report that was quickly dismissed, what WOULD it have accomplished? Assuming it was an intentional misrepresentation of the facts, as you claim, what was its purpose?

We know the media often releases the first report it gets (frequently without any confirmation) in an effort to scoop the competition.

Either the media did what it always does or some shadowy group of people instantly leapt into action with a story of a truck bomb that served no purpose. Which is more likely?

[Make7]

39. Eagerness of the media? What are you talking about?

That never happens.


From: TheSmokingGun.com

:) Make7

[TrustingDog]

40. I am just assuming not to believe the big Megaphones afterspins.

""Assuming it was an intentional misrepresentation of the facts, as you claim, what was its purpose?""
==

Instead of intentional, I am more inclined to believe that the initial report was knee jerk and closest to honest we get before the spinners change it all. (yah, laugh at me). What I don't get is Why the truck bomb story ever was set loose if it didn't have some kind of germ to it. Goodness, there's quite a difference between that and an airline passenger ramming into the pentagon.

So I could possibly accept something in between as the real story. After all these are the same people that are behind election fraud and illegal invasions that kill hundreds of thousands of people. Why would This be so unbelievable - that it wasn't an airline passenger?

and as for the 'missing' passengers - I don't think it would be all that difficult to dissapear them - worse and bigger crimes have been committed and exposed decades later or never at all.

[Make7]

44. There was a lot of confusion that day.

"Aircraft Crashes Near Pentagon

By RON FOURNIER
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Pentagon was struck by aircraft, a car bomb exploded outside the State Department and agents patrolled outside the White House with automatic weapons Tuesday as an apparent coordinated terrorist attack spread fear and chaos in the nation's capital." - Pocono Record
__________

The difference between a car bomb exploding and no car bomb exploding seems like it would be a pretty easy thing not to confuse, but a bomb was reported by the press. Does that mean that it happened that way?

-Make7

[Old and In the Way]

46. I made the same observation way back in 2002....

If someone had stumbled on the scene without any clue as to what occured, I doubt many would have said, "yep, a 757 crashed there".

Now, it is very possible that it was 77....I really don't know. Why don't I know? Because I've seen no irrefutable evidence that confirms Flight 77 was what hit the Pentagon. I've seen some pics of parts that could be from a 757, but I'd really like to see video that clearly shows 77 going in. I'd like to know what they found on the videotape at that gas station and the hotel.....I've heard nothing to confirm or deny that there was video evidence....that bothers me. If there was nothing, why wouldn't the FBI say so? If there was clear evidence, why not release it? What benefit is it for anyone to not to have this in the public record?

But what bugs me the most is how the Pentagon could get hit 52 minutes after the 2nd crash into the WTC. And how Hanjour could have performed that 270 degree and drop 5000 feet without destroying the airframe in mid-air. And what made the hole in the inner ring? Shouldn't there have been an engine or a fuselage plugging it?

[meppie-meppie not]

73. you echo the very questions I have! The PAVE PAWS system doesn't miss

anything that gets into North American airspace but we are supposed to believe that it couldn't detect a single airliner headed towards the Pentagon that day. ooooooooookkkkkkkkkkkayyyyyyyy. The Pentagon and the WH have antimissile batteries, how come they didn't pick up the aircraft? Only military aircraft have transponders that send "friendly" signals to the antimissile batteries preventing them from being shot down. Are we to believe that flight 77 had a transponder on board that signaled "friendly"? That would be a first in the aviation transportation industry!

[k-robjoe]

75. batteries

meppie meppie not wrote : >"The Pentagon and the WH have antimissile batteries, how come they didn't pick up the aircraft? Only military aircraft have transponders that send "friendly" signals to the antimissile batteries preventing them from being shot down."

We had a discussion about this. On this thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=25520&mesg_id=25520 , post 19 to 31.

Some guys said that the Pentagon had no missiles defending it. Do you know that they had these antimissile batteries?

[meppie-meppie not]

76. I wasn't aware of that thread, sorry for the redundancy. I believe the

Pentagon and WH have antimissile batteries. David Ray Griffin speaks about them in his book "The New Pearl Harbor" starting on page 32. Thierry Meyssen speaks about them too in "Pentagate" (the Pentagon he site's is protected by "5 extremely sophisticated antimissile batteries" pg. 112). The defense of sky programs are further talked about in the "New Pearl Harbor" on page 42 and on and in "Pentegate" on pg 115 and 174 and also you can check out http://www.pavepaws.org

[k-robjoe]

111. curious

I see that Sweet Pea has posted on this thread, but has not commented on this issue about anti missile batteries.

Do I take it that it makes sense that such batteries were in place, and there´s no real reason to doubt it?

[meppie-meppie not]

115. curious indeed! it has been stated that when a planes transponder has

been turned off and if radio communication cannot be established that fighter jets are scrambled IMMEDIATELY to make a visual inspection and try and communicate with the non-responding plane by rocking from side to side and then making a slow progressive left turn to which the non-responding plane is to follow (if visual communication has been established). For either situation (no radio contact or the transponder turned off) planes are scrambled and for BOTH situations to arise it's an automatic given! To scramble planes does not require a presidential directive (as Cheney has mislead people to believe)as a matter of fact it's standard operating procedure (SOP). So the antimissile batteries guarding the Pentagon and WH are not the first lines of defense. However, on 9/11 it appears that SOP's was not in play because if it had been fighter jets would have been flying around the towers in NY before they had been hit and around the WH and Pentagon. But, just like the F 16's were in a stand down position until after the crashes it's a reasonable assumption that the batteries were also in a stand down posture.

[hack89]

77. PAVE PAWS looks out - not in

1. PAVE PAWS is situated to look beyond our borders for incoming missiles (located in Cape Cod Air Force Station, Mass., Beale Air Force Base, Calif., and Clear AFS, Alaska.). Since flight 77 took off in US air space and was behind the Pave Paws arrays, it would not have been seen.

2. All aircraft have IFF (Identification Friend or Foe) transonders. Military aircraft have unique codes that identify them as military, however, flight 77 would have an IFF transponder indentifying it as a US commercial airliner. In the military, it is the LACK of an IFF code that identifies an enemy aircraft - since flt 77 had a valid IFF code, it would have been identified as a friendly

[meppie-meppie not]

79. it has the capability to look in and given the transponder of 77

was turned off it would have been registered as foe not friend.

[hack89]

80. Why would it be used to track commercial airliners

given that its mission is detecting sea launched ballistic missiles? Each site has a fixed 240 degree zone of coverage - this very fact shows they were designed to look out not in. Cape Cod is the nearest site and is oriented to detect missile launches from Russian subs in the Artic and Barents - the opposite direction of Washington DC. The geometry doesn't work.

[meppie-meppie not]

81. my understanding is that it's a backup redundancy system when needed n/t

[Sweet Pea]

82. One point of clarification...

As per military Combat Identification (CID) doctrine, the lack of an IFF on a contact is only ONE of a number of criteria that can result in the classification as hostile. You cannot use it as the sole criteria since a friendly a/c can have a malfunctioning IFF and you definitely don't want it to be classified as hostile. Visual ID (VID), positive secure voice comms, flight profile, things like that and more are all considered before classifying a contact as friendly or hostile.

With regards to Flt 77 (and the other hijacked aircraft), the whole IFF deal is academic since it did not carry the secure Mode IV IFF that military aircraft use, and the IFF was turned off, in any event, by the hijackers to avoid easy location by radar.

[meppie-meppie not]

83. Definitely there are a number of criteria used to determine hostile or not

but when looking at 9/11 from the time of the 2nd tower being hit and the pentagon being hit 52 mins had elapsed. According to the official account UA77 was flying towards Washington for 29 mins without being detected by any radar system. Pentagon officials said afterwards that they weren't even aware that UA77 was on its way. So we are to believe that UA77 was lost in US air space for almost 1/2 an hour. Even if the local air controllers didn't have the kind of radar system that can track a plane whose transponder had been switched off the FAA sure would have been able to. Moreover, the 2 towers had already been hit and we are to believe that the National Military Command Center at the Pentagon wasn't put on the highest alert by this time? The Pentagon is said to be one of the most heavily defended buildings on this earth but it just happened to not be defended at all on 9/11. The planes that were scrambled to protect the Pentagon did not arrive at that location until 15 mins AFTER UA77 hit the Pentagon. The max speed for the fighter jets is 1500 mph but what do they travel at? Somewhere in the neighborhood of 700 mph. If they had even traveled at 1300 mph they could have got to Washington before UA77 but they went at almost 1/2 that speed. There are too many holes in the "offical" story. IMO

[hack89]

92. Imagine this pre 911 conversation:

Rummy: Mr President, I want to place anti-aircraft missiles next to a major airport with blanket permission to shoot down any commercial airliner we deem a threat.

What are the odds that this would happen? The Pentagon is next to the National airport - the potential for mistakenly killing innocent civilians was (and is ) much too high to ever justify using anti-aircraft missiles. Can you imagine anyway to devise a system that would allow you to identify and shoot down a bad guy every time while NEVER mistakenly shooting down a friendly plane? I don't share your apparent confidence in the capabilities of military hardware or the judgment of military personnel. I don't believe that there were missiles at the Pentagon able to shoot down flt 77

[demodewd]

96. Imagine these pre 9-11 conversations

Rummy: Mr. President,I want inferior cameras outside the Pentagon so if a commercial jet were to crash there we won't be able to show any conclusive photographic evidence that it was an airliner.

Rummy: Mr. President, I want you to promise not to send up any interceptors in time to deter a reported hijacking of a commercial airliner even if it is 50 minutes after the fact.

[hack89]

97. All good points , however

I thought we were talking about missiles defending the Pentagon?

[meppie-meppie not]

116. that is why antimissiles are not the first line of defense. see my post

#76. Apparently there are 5 anti missile batteries and the military must have had the same sentiments as you have expressed because these anti missile batteries are not the first line of defense but rather the last.

[hack89]

139. What anti-missile system are you talking about?

The only missile that can shoot down missiles (in addition to aircraft) is the Patriot PAC 3 and that is a relatively long range missile with a significant minimum range- it would not be used in a close range point defense mode. Secondly, Patriot batteries are big, with big radars and missile launchers - very hard to hide in large crowded cities like DC and Arlington. If they exist where are they? Show me any reports of such batteries prior to 9/11.

The only missile that could possibly be deployed to defend the Pentagon would be handheld Stinger missiles - hardly sophisticated weapons. It very unlikely that its 2.2 pound warhead would stop a large aircraft from crashing into the Pentagon.

Patriot and Stinger are the only land based anti-aircraft missiles the Army has.

You need to apply some research and critical thought to the matter - "apparently" doen't cut it.

[MercutioATC]

140. Are we even sure that anti-aircraft defenses existed at the Pentagon?

Truthfully, I haven't researched it, but I've read that no such systems were at the Pentagon on 9/11/01.

[Abe Linkman]

143. Right. If they HAD been there on the 11th, they might have been expected.

to have been used. But then, that would mean a take-down by friendly fire, wouldn't it? I've seen no definitive evidence that proves there was any other part of the Pentagon that was vulnerable to attack on 9/11 EXCEPT for the target area (where the missile created a 16 foot entry hole for the attack jet which followed it into the building).

So, the question is really a moot one, isn't it?

[MercutioATC]

144. What do you mean by there was no other part that was vulnerable to attack?

The section that was hit was, perhaps, the least vulnerable to attack as it was the only section that had been updated with new reinforcement and blast-resistant windows.

[Abe Linkman]

147. Yes indeedy, we're lucky those crazy Airubs plumb missed "good" targets

Thanks for helping out new readers with that recap of a few of the reasons why the attack happened at that particular section of the Pentagon.

[MercutioATC]

148. Are you planning to answer the question?

You claimed that that section of the Pentagon was especially vulnerable when it was the most reinforced section.

Why do you claim that it was more vulnerable than other areas of the Pentagon?

[hack89]

151. Show me a missile that can make a 16 foot hole and..

be carried by a jet fighter. Inquiring minds want to know.

[spooked911]

48. Why is the Pentagon security camera video so strange...

and very likely faudulent?

Why did the government release such a thing?

Good analysis here:

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/pages-en/im-origin.html

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/pages-en/im-2ndlev.html

[tngledwebb]

88. They either knew this was coming out, or else wanted to squelch

the no-plane hit stories coming out, and thought this might do it.
(Or, someone on the inside wanted to bring down the evil regime and thought this might help?)
Don't think the video is entirely fraudulent tho missing frames may yet prove the no-plane theory. But seems likely the tape is otherwise real and shows a missile explosion, or whatever they used. It certainly doesn't prove Flight 77 or anything that size hit the Pentagon

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

50. 9/11 In Plane Site. Excellent video with CNN footage of the

aftermath of the Pentagon attack. There is no way that it could have been a 757. I think it was a bunker buster missile disguised as a plane.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6847.htm

[meppie-meppie not]

84. I have that video. I'm going to look at it again now that I have a

better idea of things and what I need to look for.

[Old and In the Way]

102. Thanks for the link.

Most of this stuff is nothing new for DUer's who have followed the 9/11 threads here. But there was one new piece of evidene that's totally turned my thinking with regards to the WTC events.

I saw the CNN tape during their segment with Tom Clancy. I never saw that cloud rising from the bottom of the building before. That was a huge plume of white smoke, almost 1/2 as high as the building......and it has no connection that I can see with the burning floors.

How is this explained in the OCT? I'm not sure it is explainable....and that may be why that clip has never been shown again.

[gbwarming]

103. Debunked earlier. It is the dust cloud from the South tower collapse.

If this is the shot I think it is, the collapsing South tower is hidden behind the North tower. There is video available on the web that shows the collapse and billowing dust from other vantage points. Pure misdirection on the part of the editors of In Plane Sight.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=21360#21516

Edit: This video shows the S tower collapse and the cloud rising up above the top of WTC7. http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/010912%20-%203rd%20clip.mpg

[Old and In the Way]

104. Well, that's interesting, too.

Because he clearly says that this is before either tower collapse....I don't recall if there was a time reference on the live feed. That would be somrthing to check again, I think.

[demodewd]

105. correction

It is not "pure misdirection" from the editors of In Plane Sight. They do stand corrected and have come on various internet radio shows(von Kleist) admitting to their initial misinterpretation.

[gbwarming]

106. Thanks for that correction.

It only took 20 minutes or so to find the video to demonstrate that their 'explosion' was the dust cloud from wtc2. Why didn't they catch it?

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

114. The subject is the Pentagon, and not the WTC. The coverage

of the Pentagon is outstanding, and as on a different thread you have not pointed out anything to rebut that.

[MercutioATC]

142. It's "outstanding" to selectively edit eyewitness reports to change

the meaning?


If VonKleist is right when he says that if obfuscation is discovered then the entire argument must be called into question and he misrepresents an eyewitness statement, how does that make his coverage of the Pentagon crash "outstanding"?

[DETERMINEDPROGRESIVE]

150. Newbie, but I care

I'm new, but wanted to chime in. I never even questioned the events of 9-11 (do ya believe it?) until recently. Once I did I set out eagerly to find as much info as I could on the subject. I now have spent countless hours doing research. One of the strongest things I've learned so far is that in the heart of the 9-11 theory community they look at 'in plane site' as a debacle, a video that can only serve to hurt our movement. It seems though the video does contain some excellent footage and details, there are just too many inconsistancies and inaccuracies in it to make it worthwhile to the cause. Cause as we know, once you debunk one part of something, the credibility for the rest goes down the drain, even if there is some credibility. From what I have learned from all my research there are many other incredible sources of facts and questions for 9-11 then to use 'in plane site', and I believe most true believers recommend not using that to show those who do not yet question the events of 9-11.

Hope I don't upset anyone, just wanted to speak my thoughts on that video, since I have found much to be said about it online.

Me? I think the pentagon was hit by a plane no doubt, but the circumstances surrounding it are definitely quite questionable. The fact that the Pentagon had probably 10 cameras minimum that could've shot footage, and I have yet to see one video (not some stupid 5 clip frame by frame), is one of the most compelling questions.

Why no Pentagon video? Of all my questions to 9-11 that one is still one of the most disturbing to me...

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

113. Your welcome. The footage of the Pentagon is excellent. n/t