So what really did happen to flight 77

[Skuk]

if it didnt hit the pentagon? After doing a lot of reading i agree that things dont add up, but how do you hide a 757???

[DrWeird]

1. gremlins.

They took it into the future to repopulate the earth.

[childslibrarian]

2. WHAT

ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

[Skuk]

3. watch this now

http://pixla.px.cz/pentagon.swf

[MercutioATC]

9. It's been linked to before. It's got great visuals, but

it's light on the facts. There's been no shortage of really good propaganda throughout history.

This piece ignores a lot of facts to make its point, however.

[Endangered Specie]

96. With every great event, you get the conspiracy nuts,

tin foil loonies and various riff raff... Reminds me of "Who REALLY killed Kennedy"

[slutticus]

4. Not to mention the people on the plane... eom

[DulceDecorum]

5. How do you hide a 757?

The same way you hide a 727.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3003058.stm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/news/2003/06/sec-030611-voa03.htm

[MrSammo1]

112. easy

You keep Reagan international locked down for a couple of weeks, have it taken apart and shipped to china with the evidence from the WTC!

[MercutioATC]

120. OK, how do you land a 757 at Reagan without anybody noticing?

You're talking about an airplane entering some of the most closely watched airspace in the world with nonody noticing. Exactly how do you propose that happened?

[WoodrowFan]

123. Romulian CLoaking Device.

hey, makes as much sense at the CTers rants.

[DulceDecorum]

126. And how well

was that particular airspace being watched on September 11, 2001?

SENATOR FRITZ HOLLINGS: What's the matter with Reagan National? When it comes to air operations, there's no difference in proximity than Baltimore or Dulles. And the plane that hit the Pentagon, of course everyone knows, came from Dulles.
SPOKESMAN: Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport is closed because... That decision really is not in our hands.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terrorism/july-dec01/national_9-26.html

[MercutioATC]

130. As well as it's being watched every day.

Which is pretty well.

You don't land a 757 at ANY major airport unnoticed.

[DulceDecorum]

132. Really?

How about taking off unnoticed?

According to BTS data,
Flight 77 did exactly that.

Why are there no government statistics for
American Airlines' Flight 11 and Flight 77 on 9/11?

BTS Detailed Airline On-Time Statistics
This chart shows a weeks worth of the U.S. government's Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) on-time statistics for the 9/11 hijacked planes. All of these four flights had been regular daily scheduled flights.
What's interesting to note is that the BTS has statistics on their website for the doomed flights of Flight 175 and Flight 93, but not for Flight 11 or Flight 77. So according to the BTS, not only did Flight 11 and Flight 77 not depart on 9/11, THEY WEREN'T EVEN SCHEDULED TO FLY ON 9/11! Also note that the reported departure time for Flight 11 on 9/11 is about 16 minutes later than the rest of it's weeks average actual departure time. It's the only plane that departed uncharacteristically late from it's average departure time.
http://www.geocities.com/killtown/chart.html

And what is EVEN MORE BOTHERSOME
is the fact that the nudniks down at the
Transportation Security Administration
haven't figured this out.

And many of us--like our guests this morning--have an even more personal story--loved ones who were lost on the ground or in the air. Perhaps you've heard the story of TSA's very own Hal Glassman, WHO WAS SCHEDULED TO TRAVEL ABOARD AMERICAN AIRLINES FLIGHT 77 THAT DAY, but he took an earlier flight instead. He didn't learn about the fate of American 77 until he landed on a small airstrip in Garden City, Kansas--one of the tens of thousands of planes grounded instantly to the nearest airport
http://www.tsa.gov/public/display?theme=46&content=0900051980052285

[MercutioATC]

146. You and your databases again.....

I refuse to get into this issue with you until we resolve our LAST database issue which spawned a thread with over 200 posts and no resolution.

I'm stating with COMPLETE certainty that a 757 couldn't land at Reagan without being noticed by a LOT of people. AAL77 didn't land at Reagan.

[DulceDecorum]

157. I have two words for you

Wherdy go?

[MercutioATC]

159. And I have two words for you...

"little pieces"

[demodewd]

160. And i have two words for you

shaped charges

[Bolo Boffin]

161. And I have two words for you

Fanta Sea.

[MercutioATC]

165. I was gonna reply, but you said basically what I would have said, Bolo.

I would, however, like to hear demodewd's scenario in detail. "Shaped charges" doesn't tell me anything. How were they used? What kind of explosives are we talking? How much? Can you provide a link to a site dealing with shaped charges and their effects?

...hey, I'm curious.

[sofa king]

162. I have an earwitness perspective on what was going on at DCA.

Normally I don't participate in these threads, but I thought you'd like my firsthand perspective of what was going on by the time I returned to my home on September 16, 2001. I was out of town the week that things went down.

At the time I lived in the bottom lefthand corner of this picture, in Rosslyn.



The Pentagon is clearly visible on the far center right, and that grassy strip of land just above the Pentagon (on the Virginia side of the river, not Hayne's Point) is the overshot section of one of the main DCA runways. The flight path of aircraft is straight up and down the river, or effectively straight over my home.

Rosslyn is a weird town in that while it has a huge daytime population which includes Air Force workers and KBR, almost nobody actually lives there. By dark the place shuts down, and except for the constant roar of planes approaching DCA every 90 seconds until about 2am (they supposedly can't take off after like 11pm, but they do anyway), there's not much traffic and little else in the way of city noise.

It was very hot in my apartment because it had no air conditioning. I slept with the windows open all the time.

It was eerie as hell, because for the first time since I lived there, it was quiet. No jets.

But plainly audible was the constant whine of a very, very small piston aircraft engine unlike any I'd ever heard before or since, which circled constantly. I went outside to look, but I never saw what it was. They were only audible at night, and they were constantly audible nightly for what now seems like weeks. I can't remember how long the airport was closed.

Occasionally you could hear them following the river at a much lower altitude, along the same flight path the passenger planes normally take off and land.

I assume the aircraft were taking off and landing from DCA.

(Yes, DCA is the airport formerly known as Washington National Airport. It actually suits the other President it is now after. It's loud, dirty, polluting, and considered far more important to some people in Congress than it is to the rest of us.)

Aside from the obvious reasons for closing down the airport--that the air traffic was routed only a few thousand yards at most from the CIA, the Defense Mapping Agency, the Vice President's home, the State Department, the Treasury Building, the White House, Federal Triangle, and the Pentagon, and half a dozen shady double-secret buildings in Arlington alone, for example--I think that DC was being observed at night by Predator-type drones which were operating out of DCA.

So that might be one more reason apart from the very obvious ones why the airport was closed until someone felt they had a clue what to do about kamikaze hijackers. Of course, you'll have to take my word for it about the drone-things.
______________________

And let me say something else, since I'm thinking about it. Saturday night I went out with a good friend of mine to see a band. I asked her where her boyfriend was. Turns out that he was riding to work with a friend one Tuesday on I-395 when an airplane crossed the highway about two hundred yards in front of him, knocked over several telephone poles, and smashed into the Pentagon. He wasn't in any mood to go out on Saturday, September 11th.

So for my friend Brian, who is still obviously traumatized by the event you claim didn't happen, here's a big "fuck you." Just like our President, you are helping charlatans profit from the deaths of innocent people, and by discussing these utterly impossible theories as if they had a chance of being based in fact.

The whole reason why we need to get these buttholes out of office here in DC is because they have no regard whatsoever for the difference between a fact and a belief, and that ignorance is gutting this nation. Some of you, unfortunately, have succumbed to the exact same disease.

But hey, that's just like, my opinion, man.

[MercutioATC]

164. About the Predator drones.

I hadn't heard any stories of them being used, but it wouldn't surprise me. Civilian air traffic was shut down, so they wouldn't have gotten in the way and they're cheaper and easier to put up than fighters.

I'm sorry about your friend. I was at the FAA's tech center working on a project on 9/11. When I arrived in the lobby of the hotel we were staying at to meet my coworkers in the morning, I saw the second plane hit on the TV in the hotel's lounge. I immediately called my sister and brother-in-law on my cellphone and my brother-in-law answered. As it turns out, they had both decided to go into work late that morning and hadn't even been watching TV (they're attorneys...my brother-in-law worked on the same block as the WTC buildings). They were fine, obviously. Had they been at work as they usually were, however, things might have ended very differently. I still think about that from time to time, especially on 9/11.

[WoodrowFan]

166. ZBolling?

they might have been flying out of Bolling. I live in Falls Church and I remember hearing fighters overhead for several days. (and they still fly overhead)

[MrSammo1]

169. Simple

You put your brother Marvin Bush in charge of security.

[Slit Skirt]

151. that deserves a high five!

[MrSammo1]

173. You got it!

Whenever there's a problem, you can be sure a Bush brother isn't far away!

[Ameridansk]

6. Consider a Pentagon plan from 1962

If you haven't seen and read the Operation Northwoods planning document you should. Here it is:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf

Here's a bit that might expand your imagination:

>>
a. An aircraft at Elgin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area.

At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases.

The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.

b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida.

From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Elgin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status.

The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will being (sic) transmitting on the inter-national distress frequency a “MAY DAY” message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft.

The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal.

This will allow ICAO radio stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the US what has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to “sell” the incident.<<

[Bolo Boffin]

10. Thanks for the link to the proposed Operation Northwoods paper.

I've never actually read it before, and it explains what Dulce has been trying to do here completely.

Here's a link to the Wikipedia article on Operation Northwoods, the most irresponsible proposal I ever seen come from the Department of Defense. Well, scratch that, SDI may hold a white-knuckled grip on that distinction.

From the article: It has been reported that John F. Kennedy personally rejected the proposal, but no official record of this exists. What is known for certain is that Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara examined and rejected the proposal, and that the President removed General Lyman Lemnitzer as Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff shortly afterward.

Lyman Lemnitzer is the person who submitted this report to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. His signature is on the first page, and it's telling that JFK shut the man down shortly after that. Operations Northwoods then is something that the civilian leadership rejected as beyond the pall.

Operations Northwoods is very similar to the 9/11 attacks in some vital ways, but there are some crucial differences that we must consider.

It involves portraying Cuba as an irresponsible and dangerous nation, and its ultimate objection is military intervention in Cuba. Terrorist attacks against Camp Gitmo were to be staged. A ship was to be destroyed there in a mock attack.

The most heinous suggestion here was to either simulate the destruction of a Cuban refugee boat or to actually sink one and frame Cuba for it. There is no justification for this suggestion, and I suspect that this section was the last straw for McNamara and JFK. The only way I can contemplate a human being writing such a phrase was under the knowledge that many Cuban refugee boats sunk before reaching Florida. The brutal calculus that could equalize that terrible loss of life with a deliberate attack on a refugee boat was rightly rejected and rightly punished. Even the tamer suggestion of staging attacks on prominent Cuban refugees, even to the point of wounding them, is reprehensible; this would have been an crime of historic proportions.

Can you imagine what would have resulted from such an exposure? The Bay of Pigs would have been nothing - the Cuban Missile crisis would have been eclipsed with such a revelation. No wonder McNamara clamped down on this proposal.

The US military should have learned something from all that mess - they didn't need to provide a pretext for military invasion. If a nation is unstable and irresponsible enough, they will provide one eventually, as the Cuban missile crisis bears out.

However, the key proposal, as quoted in the above post, is the fake attack on a airplane full of college kids over Cuba.

When seen through this proposal, the labors of Dulce Decorum become crystal clear.

A chartered, non-scheduled flight was to be shot down in Cuban air space. The plane itself would be a substitute drone, a plane painted to look like a commercial plane owned by a CIA proprietary company. The real plane would be boarded at the airport with its passengers, CIA agents with carefully prepared aliases. At a certain point, the real plane would fly below radar, and the unmanned drone aircraft would rise up, taking its place. The real plane would land, offload its passengers, and be converted into a drone. The unmanned drone plane would then be triggered to transmit a Mayday signal and a recorded pilot frantic call for help, and then the plane would be destroyed via remote control.

Sounds doable, right? Wrong. The media of the day would have puzzled over a group of college students who had no family members anywhere in the US. This is one of the first crucial differences between Operation Northwoods and the 9/11 attacks. Family members of those who died are members of many different communities all over the United States. The sheer scope of preparing that many identities is a task beyond human ability to accomplish, not even for all the oil in Saudi Arabia, much less in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Another crucial difference: this proposal was to happen in a remote area - the skies and waters around Cuba. This would help keep watchful eyes away from the event, and allow the US to "learn" of the event from radio operators in the area. But the 9/11 attacks happened in populated areas - downtown Manhattan and the Pentagon, next to a crowded interstate clogged with traffic. They were also meant to be videotaped and distributed, to maximize the terror. How could the planners know that only what they wanted to appear on the tapes and pictures would be all that was preserved?

Finally, this and all other proposals except sinking the Cuban refugee boat went out of their way to avoid actual deaths. But the 9/11 attacks did not regard sparing innocent lives as a priority. Even if Dulce could prove that all the passengers and pilots of the hijacked flights were only aliases, and even if Dulce could show that the hijacked planes were transformed into other planes, complete with new tail numbers and registrations, Dulce would still be stuck with the people who died in the buildings.

The office workers. The restaurant employees. The janitors. The policemen. The firemen. All innocent, all consumed. They can't all be aliases. They weren't.

Operation Northwoods was a regrettable proposal, rightly rejected and made obsolete in the face of real evil. But even it did not contemplate an actual attack on American citizens on American soil. The 9/11 attacks were no Operation Northwoods.

[MercutioATC]

11. Thanks, Bolo. I never got the chance to post it, but that's how I see it.

You said it better than I would have anyway...

[demodewd]

12. false flag operations

You can't take the details of Operation Northwoods as you understand them and apply them page for page,plan for plan in comparing it to 9-11. The general idea is the same. Create a false flag operation that gives the US justification to further its military/global economic intentions. Of course new identities would not be in the offering for the unlucky passengers. Maybe a planned exception or two or three,who knows. The passengers met an unfortunate demise that day,that would be the only effective and secure way of pulling off the misdeed. And then the unfortunate ones in the buildings in the wrong spot at the wrong time. Our hearts go out to all of them. Innocent people died and suffer as Rome burns. Blame it on Osama. And in the conspirator's heads it is all justified for the common good..securing American dollar hegemony and neo-liberal global market dominance.

[Bolo Boffin]

13. Why can't I?

You can't take the details of Operation Northwoods as you understand them and apply them page for page,plan for plan in comparing it to 9-11.

Number one, "as I understand them?" Please point out how I've mischaracterized the details of Operation Northwoods.

Number two, why can't I contrast the details of both operations? As I've shown, Dulce is busily trying to use those details as a blueprint for demonstrating the 9/11 attacks to be the same kind of attack, right down to the fake aliases and the switched planes. Why can't I show how the details are different?

Operation Northwoods is not fully understood until you realize that this false flag operation, which it was, was rejected by the White House, and that it proved unnecessary because Cuba was caught redhanded importing missiles from the Soviet Union.

The point is, even the drafters of Operation Northwoods knew that they couldn't actually kill American citizens. Not even for the laudatory goal of eliminating a dire threat to American security interests could they go so far. No false flag operation planned by the United States would have actually endanged an American civilian.

In fact, the excesses of the 9/11 attacks wouldn't have been necessary if American officials had planned it. They could just as easily "seized" a shipment of chemical and biological weapons at a New York harbor, with manifests and associates tracing back all the way to whoever they wanted to frame. No actual deaths, but that would have been a potent "act of war" that would have justified the use of force against the "patsy" without the single loss of an American life. It's just too easy to come up with scenarios like that.

Here's another thing: if the 9/11 attacks had been planned by officials from the American government and other friendly governments, I can guaran-dang-tee you that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda would never have been the patsies. Not a single Republican could even let his name slip past their lips during their convention. Who was Public Enemy No. 1 for the Bushistas? Saddam Hussein. Why would they have wasted their time and energy framing anybody else? Why drain resources fighting a middle man, when they could have just as easily framed the Big Guy and gone straight to Baghdad?

Is Bushco acting to secure the American dollar hegemony and neo-liberal (neo-liberal? Don't you mean neo-conservative?) global market dominance? They sure as Hades are. Did they use the tragic attacks to further these objectives? Yes they did. But that means they are guilty of attending Stephen Covey seminars. "Turn your problems into opportunities" is an old maxim, and buddy, they got busy after 9/11 turning that problem into an opportunity, didn't they?

An opportunity to attack who?

We blame it on Osama because Osama did it. We can't help that Bush blames Osama too - that doesn't change the facts in the case. He had his motives, most of which were accomplished in the days after 9/11. American troops are out of Saudi Arabia. America has been drawn into a bitter feud in the Islamic world, which raises the specter of a nuclear religious war. And now American actions are heightening the religious component of this American opposition, from the atrocities at Abu Ghraib to Bush standing in the Resurrected City proclaiming the reign of Freedom, the gift of God that America has been called to bestow upon the world.

His arrogance will be our undoing. His arrogance is what Osama counted on. His arrogance must be put decisively out of office in this election.

PS: It occurred to me that George Bush has been rescued from every mess he ever created by somebody higher up. Do you think that George is playing such a risky hand because he thinks he's got the Ace of Raptures up his sleeve? If you've never heard of premillinialism, google it and see how this false Christian doctrine might be fueling a true Armegeddon. Christian Reconstructionism is another interesting search term.

[seatnineb]

16. Very eloquently written Bolo........

But just one question.

Why would Osama execute 9/11 if he knew that BushCo would take advantage of a post 9/11 scenario to suit his(Bush) agenda?

Not only to the detriment of Osama's Al-Quida, but also to the people of Afghanistan and subsequently Iraq.

The very people that Osama claims to care and fight for.

[RH]

18. Maybe Osama thought that

he could undermine the US by firstly establishing connections between his hijackers and certain government agencies, thereby to pump up a propaganda campaign on the Internet to convince a good number of people that Bushco had itself engineered the terror attack.

[seatnineb]

20. Osama 9/11 motive.

Sure rh........

Although this......

Maybe Osama thought that he could undermine the US by firstly establishing connections between his hijackers and certain government agencies, thereby to pump up a propaganda campaign on the Internet to convince a good number of people that Bushco had itself engineered the terror attack.

........didn't undermine the U.S to stop them invading Afghanistan or Iraq.

Next.

[RH]

21. Next?

As if Afghanistan of all places in 2001 had something to lose?

And as if a revenge attack would depend on what comes next rather than what went before?

The big issue in Afghanistan in 2001 was the Taliban's eradication of the opium trade.

[seatnineb]

28. Bin Laden perspective.

From the official story point of view.

You have to look at it from Bin Laden's perspective.

He and his group had everything to lose by executing 9/11.

The Taliban was the only regime that was prepared to defend Al-Quida.

It was this entity that would most certainly be destroyed once the U.S retaliated for 9/11........along with potentially millions of innocent Afghans*(people that Bin Laden claims to care for)whose suffering would be exacerbated when the U.S attack began.

And history has proved it so.

Hence........

Why would Bin Laden do 9/11?


:shrug:


*These innocent Afghans suffered terribly under the Taliban.
Another contradiction for Bin Laden who ultimately supported the Taliban.

Everything Bin Laden has ever done(in the last 25 years) has directly or indirectly supported U.S and British foreign policy.

:evilgrin:

That is when the ramifications of 9/11 start to make sense.

[RH]

39. That's just the official propaganda,

strictly for the gullible.

The truth is that during the American backed war, before the Taliban, 4 million refugees had left Afghanistan. Then with a sense of order restored by the Taliban they were electing to return home.

What was Bin Ladens's view?

Read the Allouni interview:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=18321&mesg_id=18716&page=

[seatnineb]

86. Wrong.

About 1.5 million Afghans "elected" to return home when the Soviet backed goverment was ousted by the Mujahedin.........
In 1992 .........2 years before the Taliban.

The next wave of Afghan refugees to return from Pakistan included people who would eventually found the Taliban.

These particular Afghans had been bred on the Jihadi textbooks that the University Of Nebraska had produced for the Pakistani Madrasses(where these Afghans studied) to the tune of $50 million over a period of 10 years(1984-1994)...spanning 3 U.S administrations.

These returning Afghans united with the Pashtun religouse leaders from Khandahar .......and the Taliban was born...............

Other Afghan refugees were returning from Pakistan ....but not because the Taliban had restored order..........but because their standard of living in Pakistan where most worked on subsistence agricuture or the most meager of wages was becoming intolerable..........

And rh..........roughly 200 000 people were displaced within Afghanistan as they fled the advancing Taliban virus..........just ask the Hazara ethnic minorities as they were massacared by the Taliban.

At least another 170 000 fled Afghanistan back into Pakistan because of the ongoing conflict in 2001(before 9/11).The Taliban in true style even exacted costs from these fleeing refugees(for those who did not wish to join the Taliban army).............

Nice people that Bin Laden frequented ..........
As I said............the Taliban and Bin Laden did FUCK ALL for the people of Afghanistan........

And who gave the Taliban their power..............

I'll leave that for one Ahmad Shah Masood to tell us..........
"The assistance the Taliban was recieving directly from Pakistan and indirectly from the United States.Pakistan intervened from the outset and was engaged in helping the Taliban movement.Saudi Arabia also helped."
Ahmad Shah Masood
August 2001.

Looks like Masood read the script bang on!
And paid for it with his life.

Which begs the question...........

Why would Bin Laden want to overthrow the Saudi Royal family.........the same Saudi Royal family who had had financed and recognized the Taliban.........the same Taliban who were protecting Bin Laden............

Any answers...............

Quickly now.

[MercutioATC]

41. Why? Because he's a terrorist.

That's what they do.

By your reasoning, the IRA doesn't really detonate car bombs in Ireland and the Palestinians don't blow up buses in Israel. In fact, NO terrorists really exist anywhere in the world.

:silly:

[seatnineb]

87. Wrong.

Try again Merc.............

The I.R.A may never get Northern Ireland.............
But that is the only part of Ireland that the I.R.A did not effectively win for the Irish..

Let us see Al-Quida do the same for Afghanistan or Iraq.
Dont expect anythin to happen anytime soon if ever.

As for the Hamas suicide bombings in Israel.............
Was it not Israel who initially helped create Hamas to counteract the influence of the P.L.O.

And when it comes to funding suicide bombers............
Israel's Mossad have a healthy relationship with suicide bomber maestro's ...the Tamil Tigers..........

when investigators probed the collapse of the notorious Bank of Credit and Commerce International in 1991, they found not only evidence that Mossad was banking with BCCI, but also that payments had been made from the Mossad accounts to Sri Lanka’s Tamil Tigers rebels and the Abu Nidal Organisation.
http://www.howlingatthemoon.com/pacific_jihad_OCT2000.htm

Why ..............did disinfo agent Bin Laden himself also have an account at BCCI?

Senator John Kerry believes he did.
"Investigators didn't know it at the time, but bin Laden had accounts at BCCI," says Senator John Kerry.
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_409044.html

One big happy family............

Wad da ya say Merc.........

[MercutioATC]

89. I say the argument was the OBL wouldn't have attacked the WTC

because we would have retaliated and that's just a silly argument. If you don't want to believe OBL did it, that's fine but the argument that he would have been afraid of retaliation against Afghanistan is ridiculous.

[seatnineb]

134. Wrong.

The people of Afghanistan who had already suffered internal and external migrations,years of internal and external wars and civilian massacres as-well as starvation thanks to a severe drought in 2001 (just before 9/11).


If Osama Bin Laden cared for these people...........
Then he would not have done 9/11/01.

By doing 9/11/01 and giving a pre-text to the U.S to retaliate, all he did was exacerbate the suffering of these poor people.

Hardly a great motive for someone who cares about the Islamic nation.

Try again.

[MercutioATC]

147. He's OBL, not Ghandi.

His actions are motivated by religious fanaticsm, not humanitarianism.

What don't you get about this?

[Bolo Boffin]

34. Osama wanted the hijacker-Saudi connection to be revealed.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/9584265.htm

Osama wanted the US out of Saudi. The ruling coalition that was being propped up by US troops would then be more vunerable to others that wanted to take over.

He got what he wanted anyway - the US pulled troops from Saudi Arabia.

[DulceDecorum]

42. Saudi hijackers? Sez who??

Boston FBI?

WASHINGTON - Two of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers had a support network in the United States that included agents of the Saudi government, and the Bush administration and FBI blocked a congressional investigation into that relationship, Sen. Bob Graham wrote in a book to be released Tuesday.
The discovery of the financial backing of the two hijackers ''would draw a direct line between the terrorists and the government of Saudi Arabia, and trigger an attempted coverup by the Bush administration,'' the Florida Democrat wrote.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/9584265.htm

The Official Lists appear to omit Arabs entirely.
http://www.911review.org/Wget/www.sierratimes.com/03/07/07/article_tro_flight77.htm
and many signs point to an inside job.

Others speculated that the date of 9/11 was chosen because on that date many New York fire and rescue vehicles were out of the state for training purposes. It was also the day of the New York City mayoral primary, which was postponed to a later date after the attacks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks

So far,
we have Riggs Bank -- and Unka Jonathan;
Major oil companies -- and Unka Dick;
the FBI -- with Edna Salvati-Mueller and the Kalico-Krisco-Kid aka AshKKKroft.
When the Saudis got mad at Bush, they pulled their money from the New York stock market and US financial institutions. They had absolutely no need to resort to physical violence against the only nation ever known to have dropped atomic bombs on civilian cities.

Washington's embrace of the Saudi royal family dates back to the era of Franklin Roosevelt. It has always been primarily about oil, but other factors have played a role, including Saudi investments in American Treasury bonds and the purchase of expensive American weapons systems. Since the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia has given American military forces limited access to its bases.
http://www.hvk.org/articles/1001/160.html

ROBERT SIEGEL, host: One aspect of the Saudi-US relationship is financial. The Saudis bank much of their considerable national wealth in the United States in dollars. According to Youssef Ibrahim of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Saudis are so distressed by US Middle East policy right now that some bankers are making noises about taking Saudi deposits elsewhere.
Mr. YOUSSEF IBRAHIM (Council on Foreign Relations): When you think about Saudi Arabia, here is a statistic to ponder. There are 200 families in Saudi Arabia who control more than $200 million each. And if you do the calculation and the math, generally speaking, we estimate that there is between $550 billion to $650 billion of private Saudi money invested largely in the United States or United States-related instruments. In addition to this, of course, the Saudi government has invested in Treasury bonds something along the lines of $70 billion. And there is, of course, oil. Saudi Arabia does sit on one-third of the world's oil reserves. The other third, Iran and Iraq sit on it, and we are not speaking to either of them.
SIEGEL: And if, in fact, the Saudis were so upset with the US that they said, `We're going to first of all take our money elsewhere,' where would they take it?
Mr. IBRAHIM: That's a good question, and there aren't really too many alternatives, but I must say that the euro is evolving as a mighty alternative.
http://www.cfr.org/pub4640/youssef_michel_ibrahim/youssef_ibrahim_discusses_saudi_feelings_toward_the_us.php

This has really screwed things up for the grim weeper:
http://www.akst.com/cantor.htm

August 17, 2004: 5:17 PM EDT
Cantor and its eSpeed Inc. (ESPD: Research, Estimates) electronic bond brokerage unit are among the top intermediaries trading securities, especially U.S. Treasury bonds, between major Wall Street and European banks.
http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/17/news/midcaps/cantor.reut/

Hence the lawsuit:
Sept. 3 2004 (Bloomberg) -- Cantor Fitzgerald LP, the bond broker that lost about 60 percent of its New York employees in the 2001 World Trade Center terrorist attacks, filed a $7 billion lawsuit against Saudi Arabia, al-Qaeda and more than 50 Middle Eastern banks and foundations.
<snip>
The families of two men who died in the World Trade Center - - Timothy Soulas, a senior managing director at Cantor Fitzgerald Securities, and George Eric Smith, a senior business analyst at SunGard Asset Management -- are suing many of the same defendants in New York federal court.
In May 2003, U.S. District Judge Harold Baer ruled that Iraq aided Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda in the World Trade Center attack, and awarded $104 million to the families of Soulas and Smith.
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=aK7KqGCU_Ll0&refer=home

Incidentally, here is list of persons who were employed by Cantor Fitzgerald.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/lists/by-employer/page12.html
This list only includes those whose last names began with the letter A or the letter B.
The list has been cross checked with the SSDI.
http://ssdi.genealogy.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/ssdi.cgi

As marvelous a finding aid as it is, the SSDI does not include the names of everyone, even if they had a Social Security number (SNN). If relatives or the funeral home did not report the death to the Social Security Administration, or if the individual died before 1962 (when the records were computerized) then they probably will not appear in this database. The omission of an individual in this index does not indicate the person is still living. It simply means that there was no report of the person's death to Social Security Administration.
http://www.rootsweb.com/~rwguide/lesson10.htm
(V)=(Verified) Report verified with a family member or someone acting on behalf of a family member.
(P)=(Proof) Death Certificate Observed

Here are the results.

Andrew Anthony Abate Nothing found
Vincent Abate VINCENT P ABATE 23 May 1961-11 Sep 2001 (V)
Laurence Abel LAURENCE C ABEL 28 Oct 1963-11 Sep 2001 (V)
Paul Andrew Acquaviva Nothing found
Donald L. Adams Nothing found
Shannon Lewis Adams Nothing found
Lee Adler Nothing found
Daniel Thomas Afflitto DANIEL AFFLITTO 04 May 1969-11 Sep 2001 (V)
Alok Agarwal ALOK AGARWAL 03 May 1965-11 Sep 2001 (V)
David Agnes DAVID AGNES 10 Sep 1955-11 Sep 2001 (V)
Joanne Ahladiotis JOANNE M AHLADIOTIS 10 Jun 1974-11 Sep 2001 (P)
Andrew Alameno Nothing found
Edward L. Allegretto Nothing found
Joseph Ryan Allen JOSEPH R ALLEN 06 Feb 1962-11 Sep 2001 (P)
Christopher Edward Allingham Nothing found
Michael Rourke Andrews Nothing found
Laura Angilletta Nothing found
Lorraine D. Antigua Nothing found
Peter Paul Apollo Nothing found
Frank Thomas Aquilino Nothing found
Michael J. Armstrong Nothing found
Joshua Aron Nothing found
Michael Edward Asher Nothing found


John James Badagliacca Nothing found
Jane Ellen Baeszler Nothing found
Paul V. Barbaro Nothing found
Ivan Kyrillos Fairbanks Barbosa Nothing found
Colleen Ann Barkow Nothing found
Renee Barrett-Arjune Nothing found
Carlton W. Bartels Nothing found
Guy Barzvi GUY BARZVI 23 Feb 1972-11 Sep 2001 (V)
Inna Basina Nothing found
Alysia Basmajian Nothing found
W. David Bauer WALTER D BAUER 07 Mar 1956-11 Sep 2001 (V)
Larry I. Beck Nothing found
Maria Behr Nothing found
Debbie S. Bellows Nothing found
Bryan Craig Bennett Nothing found
Dominick J. Berardi DOMINICK BERARDI 07 Feb 1976-11 Sep 2001
Alvin Bergsohn ALVIN BERGSOHN 13 Jun 1953-11 Sep 2001 (P)
William Bernstein WILLIAM H BERNSTEIN 28 Dec 1958-11 Sep 2001
Timothy D. Betterly Nothing found
Bella Bhukhan Nothing found
Joshua David Birnbaum Nothing found
Balewa Albert Blackman Nothing found
Craig Michael Blass Nothing found
John Paul Bocchi Nothing found
Bruce Douglas (Chappy) Boehm Nothing found
Martin Boryczewski Nothing found
Thomas H. Bowden Jr Nothing found
Kimberly S. Bowers Nothing found
Shawn Edward Bowman Jr. Nothing found
Alfred Braca Nothing found
Michelle Renee Bratton MICHELLE R BRATTON 26 Apr 1978-11 Sep 2001 (P)
Edward A. Brennan III Nothing found
Frank H. Brennan Nothing found
Mark Francis Broderick Nothing found
Lloyd Brown Nothing found
Brandon J. Buchanan BRANDON J BUCHANAN 09 Apr 1977-11 Sep 2001 (V)
Dennis Buckley Nothing found
Patrick Joseph Buhse Nothing found
John E. Bulaga Jr. Nothing found
Stephen Bunin Nothing found
Matthew J. Burke Nothing found
Thomas Daniel Burke Nothing found
Keith James Burns KEITH BURNS 09 Feb 1962-11 Sep 2001 (V)
Milton Bustillo Nothing found

There are 24 more letters in the alphabet.
You are strongly encouraged to
cross-check the ENTIRE Cantor Fitzgerald employee list
against the SSDI database.

Much of SSA's disseminated actuarial, statistical, and analytical information is potentially influential because it has an impact on important public policies or important private-sector decisions relating to the Social Security program. Information products that are deemed to have a greater impact on public policies are subject to more extensive internal review and, where appropriate, review by external technical panels prior to release.
http://www.ssa.gov/515/ssaguidelines.html

[Bolo Boffin]

47. Is that supposed to have a point?

Could you may spell that point out in a paragraph or two so those of us who don't speak Dulce can understand it. Because I think you're trying to imply that no person at Cantor Fitzgerald actually existed since their deaths aren't recorded in the SSDI database.

Can I quote you on that?

BTW, I like this quote from the Ibraham interview:

And the message we heard, the angry messages that are coming out of Saudi Arabia, leaked to the press, accurately reflects the attitude of the leadership. What the Saudi leadership is saying--`Look, you've been angry at us and insulting us since September 11 because 15 Saudis were on that plane. There are 20 million Saudis who were not on those planes. We have been a loyal ally for 60 years, and if you're threatening to divorce us, well, it works both ways. We are also ready for the worst.'

This is true. Saying that 15 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and had extensive high-level ties with the Saudi government doesn't indict the whole goverment or the people of Saudi Arabia. No one should claim so.

American dollar hegomony is a chief policy initiative of this adminstration - who can deny it? Who would deny it? It's one of the unstated reasons why Bush was gunning for Iraq from the minute he sealed his theft of the Presidency with his hand on the Bible.

But creating a whole company of fake people so that Bush could fake a terrorist attack in order to invade Iraq? Now that's just silly.

[DulceDecorum]

64. 911: the first live-broadcast, mass snuff film in human history.

BOLOboffin says:
But creating a whole company of fake people so that Bush could fake a terrorist attack in order to invade Iraq? Now that's just silly.

http://www.anecdotage.com/index.php?aid=16044

During the summer of 2001, Thomas Barnett, author of The Pentagon’s New Map, directed a joint project between the Pentagon and Wall Street to explore how the spread of globalization affects national and global security.
Barnett worked for the Pentagon. His stock-market partners were from Cantor Fitzgerald, and their meetings were held on the 107th floor of One World Trade Center.
http://www.hillnews.com/book_reviews/051104.aspx

This blueprint for America's defense force comes wrapped in a presentation devised by Mr. Barnett that samples the "ching ching" sound effect from the television series "Law & Order," borrows lines from the Sopranos and features the voice of movie character Austin Powers calling out "Oh yeah, baby!" to punctuate a key idea. At one point, upsetting some, Mr. Barnett refers to 9/11 as the "first live-broadcast, mass snuff film in human history."
<snip>
The lights dimmed and Mr. Barnett, clad in a dark turtleneck and khakis, launched into his brief. He soon flashed up on a screen a picture of a mock personal ad that he found taped to a Pentagon wall in the late 1990s.
"ENEMY WANTED: Mature North American Superpower seeks hostile partner for arms racing, Third World conflicts and general antagonism. Must be sufficiently menacing to convince Congress of military financial requirements...Send note with pictures of fleet and air squadrons to CHAIRMAN JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF/PENTAGON."
http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/published/wsj.htm

The Pentagon's New Map
It explains why we're going to war. And why we'll keep going to war.

Since the end of the cold war, the United States has been trying to come up with an operating theory of the world—and a military strategy to accompany it. Now there's a leading contender. It involves identifying the problem parts of the world and aggressively shrinking them. Since September 11, 2001, the author, a professor of warfare analysis, has been advising the Office of the Secretary of Defense and giving this briefing continually at the Pentagon and in the intelligence community. Now he gives it to you.

LET ME TELL YOU why military engagement with Saddam Hussein's regime in Baghdad is not only necessary and inevitable, but good. When the United States finally goes to war again in the Persian Gulf, it will not constitute a settling of old scores, or just an enforced disarmament of illegal weapons, or a distraction in the war on terror. Our next war in the Gulf will mark a historical tipping point—the moment when Washington takes real ownership of strategic security in the age of globalization.
That is why the public debate about this war has been so important: It forces Americans to come to terms with what I believe is the new security paradigm that shapes this age, namely, Disconnectedness defines danger. Saddam Hussein's outlaw regime is dangerously disconnected from the globalizing world, from its rule sets, its norms, and all the ties that bind countries together in mutually assured dependence.
http://www.esquire.com/features/articles/2004/040510_mfe_barnett_1.html

In other words,
Iraq, under Saddam, could afford to tell the US to go Cheney itself.
Therefore the US decided to Cheney Saddam.

LAMB: ... so that we can an idea of where you`re coming from. Senior strategic researcher and professor at the U.S. Naval War College from October 2001 to June 2003. What is the Naval War College, and what did you do there?
BARNETT: Well, actually, that goes all the way back to 1998. I had done eight years here in Washington at the Center for Naval Analyses, which is sort of the Rand for the Department of Navy, a think tank. I go to the Naval War College in 1998 and become a senior strategic researcher.
One of the key things I did during that time period was I ran a series of workshops with Cantor Fitzgerald, atop the World Trade Center, where we brought together Wall Street heavyweights, National Security Council members and OSD, office of secretary of defense, planners and whatnot, and subject matter experts, and we explored the future of globalization and what could threaten globalization and what would be new definitions of international instability and crisis.
That gets wiped off the board with 9/11 because Cantor loses so many people. At that point, the person who had been the president of the Naval War College, Vice Admiral Art Zabrowsky (ph), retires as president, goes to work for Don Rumsfeld as his transformation guru. They start this new office within the office of the secretary of defense called the Office of Force Transformation. It`s going to be about really transforming the U.S. military for the tasks that lie ahead. This administration comes in very committed to this concept. We`re going to build the military of tomorrow today.
So Art Zabrowsky calls me soon after 9/11, knowing that my project`s been shot out from under me, somewhat literally, and says, Come work for me. We need rationales. We need an explanation of the world that says not only that we`re transforming because we`re a rich and technologically capable country and thus can have a, you know, well-endowed and technological enabled military, but that we`re doing this transformation of the U.S. military in response to real changes in the international security environment that we think we now understand, in part, thanks to 9/11, that a certain world has been revealed to us.
That`s when I start putting together this briefing, which I deliver throughout OSD -- I do it 150 times, roughly, to 4,000 or 5,000 DoD officials -- that tries to explain a new way of looking at the world, a new way of understanding the spread of globalization, the connectivity between national security and economics, and says, This is where the global war on terrorism fits within. This is the larger reference.
And that receives good purchase within this administration. They let me brief it all over. It becomes an "Esquire" article. That becomes a book. That`s why I`m here.
http://www.booknotes.org/Transcript/?ProgramID=1782

WARNING: self medicate before commencing to read this:

TB: Right, and in fact, we need...own and what's the interesting scenario for me is if we do Iraq, and it goes reasonably well, and Bush gets re-elected, then there is going to be an 18 to 24 month period in the first administration, where the Defense Act of 2005 is seriously possible. And of course, what will be interesting is whether (Inaudible) stay along for that ride. And if not, who the Secretary of Defense will be at that point, because that may be possibly very (Inaudible). And it's my hope that a lot of these issues get addressed because I think right now, what they're doing is they're working around things.
http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=5569

[Bolo Boffin]

67. Thomas Barnett's ideas are worth another thread.

I've seen this presentation - just yesterday as a matter of fact. It was running on C-Span.

Some very challenging ideas. His proposal to split the US military into two - the Levithan forces and the System Administration force, in his terminology - should be discussed in this forum. This forum is about military affairs, too, after all.

I wonder what John Kerry thinks about The Pentagon's New Map.

[DulceDecorum]

84. What do you want?

In the movie "The Shining"
there is a scene in which blood flows everywhere.

This is the reality
that vampires
in the employ of Thomas Barnett (Morden)
can expect to enjoy.

http://www.sacklunch.net/Latin/C/cuibono.html

In order to understand what Boloboffin is enamoured of,
you, the people of the Liberal Gap,
must delve way past the most rabid Freeper,
and right into the Functioning Core
of Conservatism.

To me, that is the most chilling aspect of the war on terrorism to which the President has committed the United States. He is not much of an orator. He has been talking about freedom and its spread around the world, but offering little more by way of explaining why this is so important. Barnett says, “We will need many presidents—Democrat and Republican—over the coming decades who will keep our political system, our public, and the rest of the Core focused on the prize we seek—making globalization truly global, and shrinking the Gap” (between the Core Western nations and the Gap represented by all those now controlled by Islamic and other oppressive societies.)
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3433.html

Iraq is the tactical pivot;
Saudi Arabia the strategic pivot;
Egypt, the prize.
the prize.
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NIV&passage=exodus+7%3A19

[Bolo Boffin]

85. Thomas Barnett is a Democrat, Dulce.

He's voting for Kerry.

Your emotional appeal is noted, but it is short on facts and real argumentation. I've started a thread to discuss his ideas because they are important ideas that are gaining ground in the US government, for good or for ill. Your evocation of vampires, rivers of blood, and the plagues of Egypt ignore a real fact: the military is something any political party is going to have to deal with. Why don't you join the discussion instead of breaking out into hysteria?

[DulceDecorum]

94. And so is Zell Miller.

They both seek our destruction.

[Bolo Boffin]

95. And so is John Kerry, whom Barnett is voting for, unlike Zell.

And whom I am voting for.

[DulceDecorum]

97. Tony Blair Democrat??

BRIAN LAMB, HOST: Let me ask you about the most political statements you make in your book.
BARNETT: OK.
LAMB: At one point, your wife is afraid you`re becoming a Republican.

(Great example in the book of how someone would say something to me the day before I wrote a chapter and it would end up there. After a while, I realized I needed to stop talking to people about the book as I wrote it—except for my wife, of course.)

BARNETT: Right.
LAMB: What does that mean? Are you not a Republican?
BARNETT: Well, I`m a registered Democrat. I tend to vote Democrat. It`s an odd thing to be a Democrat who works with the military, which is overwhelming Republican. I`m comfortable in that -- in that milieu because I like to be the skeptic in the room. I like to be the contrarian. And if you`re going to be a contrarian in the military environment, you`re probably going to have to be a Democrat. But that`s the family background I come out of. I had a grandfather who ran as a Progressive.

(Not true, as my Mom corrects me: Grandpa ran for Congress (Green Bay district) as a Democrat and lost to a Progressive, although he beat the Republican.)

LAMB: In Wisconsin.
BARNETT: In Wisconsin, for the Senate. And so that`s the kind of background I come from. I will tell you, though, I tend to describe myself more like a Tony Blair Democrat. I tend to get lumped in, because of the work I`ve done with this administration -- and I`m not a political appointee, I`m just a government worker who was elevated for 20 months to a certain position in the office of the secretary of defense and therefore became known for that.
http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/published/bn.htm

I do hope that this excerpt,
is not "quoted out of context."

Entering Stage Right—Bush vows a "safer world"
Dateline: above the garage in Portsmouth RI, 3 September 2004
Watched Bush's film and then most of his speech last night and have to admit: this guy is neither out of touch like "41" nor ready and willing to lose this election like his old man did in '92. From a historical standpoint, I liked Bush's framing of today as being similar to the years following the end of WWII more than I did Kerry's framing of today from the perspective of Vietnam. I realize both reached back to history that serves them best personally in the race, but I think Bush's choice sits better with most Americans because it recalls a bold time, a bold vision, and a bold president.
On the other hand, the GOP convention did project much less passion than the Democratic one did. Yeah, the Republicans really want four more years, but the Dems really REALLY want Bush out.
And yet, as I predicted, already Iraq fades more than most expected as THE issue of the campaign. And with the various new struggles emerging (e.g., Russia's dark days with terrorism, France banning head scarves and telling terrorists they won't give in, the Nepalese rioting against Muslim churches and business after the beheadings in Iraq, South Korea now admitting it's dabbling in nuclear weapons grade uranium, Iran acting tough vis-à-vis the IAEA), Bush's promise to be more straightforward and bold comes off better than Kerry's calculated nuancing. Frankly, that line about Kerry asking the UN for permission to use U.S. military force sticks in too many people's minds, reminding people of how Clinton's team let security matters linger unresolved for so long through his two terms. Bush's team is moving troops, shifting bases, and holding firm in Iraq, whereas Kerry's team is reduced to saying things like, "we wouldn't move so fast," "we'd do it more carefully," "we'd put off that decision for a later date." None of that really comes very well, in my mind.
Yes, I think the Dems would do better across the board in running the country, and I will vote for Kerry, but I suspect just enough of the undecideds out there will see a fairly scary world right now requiring a fairly bold president, so I think Bush and Cheney will squeak by. And the polls suggest that. Bush had a slight lead going into the convention, which isn't how a wounded president (like "41" in '92) looks when he's getting ready to be unseated.
http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/archives1/000773.html

Here’s what this splitting of the U. S. military means to the American people: The National Security Act of 2005 tentatively sits on the far side of this national election. I fully expect that if Bush is reelected, this piece of legislation will be profound, moving America down the pathway of seriously reordering its national-security establishment for the better. Does that mean a Kerry administration wouldn’t do the same? Not at all. In fact, that administration may well be the far better choice to pull off such a dramatic reorganization, given the growing distrust of many Americans and the world regarding the Bush administration’s integrity on matters of security.
My point is not to tell you how to vote, but simply to make sure you ask the right questions. If you think “preemptive war” and all that violence in the Gap are going to go away simply by voting Bush-Cheney out of office, you’re kidding yourself. The next administration is going to have its hands full with international-security issues no matter how much it may want to focus on other things. So don’t let either ticket off the hook on how it proposes to reshape our national-defense establishment for the big tasks that lie ahead.
http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/published/esquire2004.htm

If you think “preemptive war” and all that violence in the Gap are going to go away simply by voting Bush-Cheney out of office, you’re kidding yourself.
-- Thomas Barnett

Why I prefer Zell Miller.
Trojan-horse Zell miller took votes away from Bush.
Stealth-bomber Thomas Barnett is giving them back.
With Democrats like Thomas Barnett .......

In other words, we go from today's limited-access Internet to an Evernet with which we will remain in a state of constant connectivity. We will progress from a day-to-day reality in which we must choose to go online to one in which we must choose to go offline. This is not some distant fantasy world. Almost all the technology we need for the Evernet exists today. It mostly is just a matter of achieving connectivity.
The rise of the Evernet will be humanity's greatest achievement to date and will be universally recognized as our most valued planetary asset or collective good. Downtime, or loss of connectivity, becomes the standard, time-sensitive definition of a national security crisis, and protection of the Evernet becomes the preeminent security task of governments around the world. Ruling elites will rise and fall based on their security policies toward, and the political record on, the care and feeding of the Evernet, whose health will be treated by mass media as having the same broad human interest and import as the weather (inevitably eclipsing even that).
Eventually, the Evernet and the Pentagon will collide, with the most likely trigger being some electronic Pearl Harbor, where DoD is unmasked as almost completely irrelevant to the international security environment at hand.<20>

The result? DoD will be broken into two separate organizations:

The Department of Global Deterrence (DGD), to focus on preventing and, if necessary, fighting large-scale conventional and/or weapons-of-mass-destruction-enhanced warfare among nation-states
The Department of Network Security (DNS), to focus on maintaining the United States' vast electronic and commercial connectivity with the outside world, including protection and large-scale emergency reconstitution of the Evernet, and to perform all the standard crisis-response activity short of war (with a ballooning portfolio in medical).
In effect, we will split DoD into a warfighting force (DGD) and a global emergency-response force (DNS), with the latter aspiring to as much global collaboration as possible (ultimately disintermediating the United Nations) and the former to virtually none. To put it another way, DGD is deterrence; DNS is assurance.
Who gets the "kids" in this divorce?
DGD includes:
U.S. Army (ground & armored)
U.S. Air Force (combat)
U.S. Navy (strategic)
DNS includes:
U.S. Army (airborne)
U.S. Air Force (mobility and space)
U.S. Marine Corps
U.S. Navy (rest)
Air/Army National Guards.<21>
DNS also picks up the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Agency for International Development, U.S. Information Agency, U.S. Customs, and a host of other specialized units from other federal agencies (e.g., Justice, Treasury).
DNS will discard the traditional notion of military service separate from civilian life. For most personnel, it will adopt a consultancy model, whereby the agency rents career time versus buying entire lifetimes (essentially the National Guard model). DNS's officer corps will remain career managers, but with frequent real-world tours of duty in technology, industrial, and business fields. This organization will be networked in the extreme, because networks will be what it is all about. This means no separate legal system and the end to posse comitatus restrictions.
http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/published/ladod.htm

TITLE 18
PART I
CHAPTER 67
Sec. 1385. - Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus
Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1385.html

In other words,
Barnett wants the military to police y'all.
In order to do this, the Constitution must be repealed.

Barnett points out that the American social political reorientation has already started, and that our new organizing construct rests on two key documents: The PATRIOT Act of 2002 and the 2002 National Security Strategy. The PATRIOT Act might be described as a legislative assault on the Constitution, approved sight unseen by the Congress. The National Security Strategy introduced the radical concept of pre-emptive executive war. The sleeping legislative and aggressive executive are complemented by a silent judiciary which, in an interesting way, is represented by what Barnett calls a "real answer man," Attorney General John Ashcroft. An "answer man" is a "new source of authority within the government … armed with extraordinary legal powers, which might strike many citizens as threatening their basic civil rights." The idea here is that in a post 9-11 environment, we needed new domestic rule-sets. Barnett shares his observations because he had predicted this exact scenario long before 9-11. Perhaps he picked up this idea after studying Germany in the 1930s.
http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/archives/000369.html

Naturally,
Thomas Barnett is himself
a yellow-feathered chickenhawk
who will courageously sacrifice
YOU
and YOUR sons and daughters.

[Bolo Boffin]

98. :eyes:

In other words,
Barnett wants the military to police y'all.
In order to do this, the Constitution must be repealed.

It's a new way of looking at the vast behemoth that's become the Department of Defense, Dulce. He's tearing the old Army and Air Force apart - the DGD forces, the one involved in real conflict, will still be under posse comitatus restrictions. It's the SysAdmin forces, the DNS, that should be exempted from PC, according to Barnett. The Constitution won't have to be repealed, but it will need to be amended. That's going to take a lot of debate and discussion. You should really take the time to read Barnett's book instead of scouring his website looking for choice bits of spinnable quotage.

Oddly enough, you selected for your final lectionary passage, a section of a review by Karen Kwiatkowski. Here's what Barnett had to say about it:

I do take this as the definitive sort of libertarian review of my work, reflecting all the paranoid fears of government control, conspiracies (exploiting and seeking—dare I say "manufacturing" crises to confiscate power!), and globalization-at-the-barrel-of-a-gun fantasies. The distortions of the book are multiple, but not worth combating, for once I see the non-too-veiled reference to Nazi Germany ("Perhaps he picked up this idea after studying Germany in the 1930s."), I know we're into the territory of the black helicopters and one-world-government types. Her lowlight? Suggesting I intend on sending in the Marines to "connect" the Amish of Pennsylvania. Wow! She really nails me on that one! Exposed at last!

What's sad, is that with someone that starkly libertarian in their outlook, you never really can tell when they're being sarcastic or just plain wacko. I know, I get their emails on a daily basis.

Speaking of only Karen Kwiatkowski and not a single person on this forum, I'm going to posit sarcastic. Is that about right, Dulce?

[DulceDecorum]

102. I have been effectively silenced.

in matters concerning Thomas Barnett.

[seatnineb]

88. Wrong.

Sorry Bolo............

But those U.S troops only left Saudi Arabia..............
AFTER the invasion of Iraq was complete.


"It is now a safer region because of the change of regime in Iraq," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "The aircraft and those involved will now be able to leave."
http://www.iht.com/articles/94887.html

So 9/11 has acheived a lot for Bin Laden and his masters in al-CIA-da!

Oh and by the way..........

The corrupt Hause Of Saud only have 75 Billion dollars worth of weapons at their disposal...........
Half of which was provided by the good ol U.S of A!
They are well protected against their own democratically deprived people.....with or without U.S troops..............

But if the day should come...........

Saudi and American officials said cooperation would continue, and they noted that American forces and war planes could return someday if the Saudi rulers faced a new threat..
http://www.iht.com/articles/94887.html

Oh and Bolo...........

Looks like some U.S troops are stayin in Saudi Arabia regardless............

Still the departure of all American military forces from Saudi Arabia except for about 500 troops near Riad who will continue a long standing training mission
http://www.iht.com/articles/94887.html

So what was that you were sayin about Bin Laden gettin U.S troops out of Saudi Arabia?

[demodewd]

17. bolo...

I will respond to you but first how do I change the default font into italics?

[Bolo Boffin]

19. There's an HTML lookup table above the posting form.

Just click on that link, and a table will pop up with allowed
codes. Be sure to use brackets instead of <>'s like in
regular HTML.

Here's an example:

[i]This paragraph would be in italics if I hadn't checked the
plain text box above the posting form. The codes at the
beginning and end of the paragraph tell your browser to
display whatever's in between the codes in italics. Always be
sure to include the code at the end, or the italics will go
all the way through your post.[/i]

[demodewd]

90. bolo wrote

bolo wrote...
This paragraph would be in italics if I hadn't checked the
plain text box above the posting form. The codes at the
beginning and end of the paragraph tell your browser to
display whatever's in between the codes in italics. Always be
sure to include the code at the end, or the italics will go
all the way through your post. thanks bolo!

[DulceDecorum]

23. Truth Suppression Technique Number 4

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
http://www.universalway.org/Foreign/truthsuppression.html

BOLOboffin says:
Number two, why can't I contrast the details of both operations? As I've shown, Dulce is busily trying to use those details as a blueprint for demonstrating the 9/11 attacks to be the same kind of attack, right down to the fake aliases and the switched planes. Why can't I show how the details are different?

BOLOboffin,
please pull up a verbatim quote,
complete with link,
containing ANY reference DulceDecorum has EVER made,
concerning planes being switched.

NOTE TO READER:
Do not hold your breath in anticipation of this event.

[Bolo Boffin]

24. Oh, Dulce, knock it off.

You claimed to have pictures of one of the hijacked planes still being used. What else could you have meant but that the planes were switched?

[DulceDecorum]

29. N591UA has been seen in Chicago O'Hare

AFTER September 11, 2001.
N591UA is alleged to be the plane used in Flight 93.
N591UA is being reported to the BTS as N594UA.
BUT
a look at the tail number confirms that it is N591UA that is flying.

Can you disprove that, BOLOboffin?
Have you actually been planespotting in Chicago O'Hare?
Have you even bothered to check the BTS database to confirm that N594UA is indeed traveling in and out of O'Hare?

BOLOboffin,
please pull up a verbatim quote,
complete with link,
containing ANY reference DulceDecorum has EVER made,
concerning planes being switched.

NOTE TO READER:
Do not hold your breath in anticipation of this event.

[Bolo Boffin]

32. What's your explanation for this, Dulce?

How do you account for a plane supposedly destroyed in Pennsylvania flying in and out of O'Hare Airport? Something crashed in Pennsylvania, and that something was supposed to be Flight 93. If it wasn't, then somehow Flight 93 was switched with whatever crashed.

It's a logical necessity for what you are asserting. How else could it have happened, Dulce? Enlighten us.

Dulce, you claimed to have post-9/11 pictures of N591UA, and you have repeatedly refused numerous requests to post these pictures. I'm saying that you don't have these pictures and have been backpedalling on that claim ever since. Prove me wrong, Dulce. Post the pictures.

Because I can link to your post in which you claim to have the pictures. Don't make me whip out the Search function on your crawfishing.

[DulceDecorum]

33. Truth Suppression Technique Number 14

BOLOboffin,
please pull up a verbatim quote,
complete with link,
containing ANY reference DulceDecorum has EVER made,
concerning planes being switched.
NOTE TO READER:
Do not hold your breath in anticipation of this event.

BOLOboffin says:
Dulce, you claimed to have post-9/11 pictures of N591UA, and you have repeatedly refused numerous requests to post these pictures. I'm saying that you don't have these pictures and have been backpedalling on that claim ever since. Prove me wrong, Dulce. Post the pictures.
Because I can link to your post in which you claim to have the pictures. Don't make me whip out the Search function on your crawfishing.

BOLOboffin,
please also pull up
a verbatim quote
complete with link
containing ANY reference DulceDecorum has EVER made,
concerning personally owning photographs of any plane.
NOTE TO READER:
Do not hold your breath in anticipation of this event.

As for N591UA
http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=591UA
and N612UA,
http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=612UA
they remain on the US civil aviation registry
that is maintained by the FAA
per international law.

BOLOboffin says:
How do you account for a plane supposedly destroyed in Pennsylvania flying in and out of O'Hare Airport? Something crashed in Pennsylvania, and that something was supposed to be Flight 93. If it wasn't, then somehow Flight 93 was switched with whatever crashed.

DulceDecorum replies:
For further information, please contact:
Civil Aviation Registry
AFS-700
PO BOX 25082
Oklahoma City, OK 73125

BOLOboffin says:
It's a logical necessity for what you are asserting. How else could it have happened, Dulce? Enlighten us.

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best items qualifying for rule 10.
http://www.universalway.org/Foreign/truthsuppression.html

[Bolo Boffin]

37. It's getting a little shrill in here...

BOLOboffin,
please also pull up
a verbatim quote
complete with link
containing ANY reference DulceDecorum has EVER made,
concerning personally owning photographs of any plane.
NOTE TO READER:
Do not hold your breath in anticipation of this event.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=10112#12317

48. Planespotters

abound in areas such as Chicago which is home to O'Hare.
O'Hare is a major hub of United Airlines.

Those planes have been spotted on NUMEROUS occasions both taking off and landing.
Photographs have been taken.
The damn planes are STILL FLYING.

When asked to post the pictures:

51. All in good time,

All in good time.

In the meantime, watch the skies.
And remember,
the planes in question are being passed off as other planes.
Luke 12: 1-5

After much changing of subject, I post:

92. Dulce vs. Dulce

First Dulce claims to have pictures.

Then Dulce promises to post the pictures "in good time".

Now Dulce reneges on posting the pictures.

Now Dulce could actually have pictures, but you know what I think, Dulce?

YA GOT NOTHIN'.

Post 'em, Dulce. Prove me wrong. Prove you actually have the pictures. I will defend to the death your right to publish information that actually convicts the Bush Administration in any misdeed whatsoever.

Post 'em, Dulce. Tell the truth and shame the devil.

Post 'em, Dulce.

And Dulce responds:

05. OK then,

I got nuthin'.

And you ain't about to see that nuthin' anytime soon.

(Who do you take me for?
Bloody Bob Novak?)

MoVEON.
Go drown your Soros elsewhere.

Now Dulce is backpedalling, claiming that Dulce has never had personal possession of the photographs, evidence of a conspiracy so vast that should the photos prove genuine, the entire world would turn on the Bush adminstration with a fury unrivalled in human history.

So you've never had personal possession of these photographs but you have seen them, right? You've held them in your hot little hands? You've gazed at them longingly on your monitor?

You wouldn't have made a truth claim about these photos having never seen evidence of them, would you, Dulce?

Prove me wrong. Post 'em, Dulce.

[DulceDecorum]

43. Photographs HAVE been taken

and the planes HAVE been spotted.

And perhaps some day,
they will be posted.

Nice try BOLOboffin.
Didn't think you had it in you
to ever lift one finger in search of the truth.
But you did not read this part carefully enough.
"CONCERNING PERSONALLY OWNING PHOTOGRAPHS OF ANY PLANE."

BOLOboffin,
please also pull up
a verbatim quote
complete with link
containing ANY reference DulceDecorum has EVER made,
concerning personally owning photographs of any plane.
NOTE TO READER:
Do not hold your breath in anticipation of this event.

BOLOboffin,
tell me,
WHY should I post such photographs here?
When all I would hear is the word PHOTOSHOP?
And why would I knowingly endanger certain lives?
(Who do you take me for?
Bloody Bob Novak?)

Go down to Chicago.
Check the skies.
See what you see.
And check the BTS database for N594UA.
It is there, and THAT particular record is official.

I would much rather lose some or all of my credibility on this forum
than be responsible for the demise of fellow human beings.
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=1+Kings+3%3A26&version=NIV

But we digress:
this thread is about the passengers of Flight 77.
And you still have not shown me the mush.

[Bolo Boffin]

49. bullpoopy

You have no photographs or you'd post them.

As I said, you're hiding behind a "Personally posssessing them" qualification that you didn't make in the initial claim. Your nobility in sacrificing your credibility to save your companion's lives is touching, but since ya got nothin' in the first place, it's only your credibility that's savaged here, and for what?

For what, Dulce? What is it that you're trying to do that even your credibility here is worth the sacrifice?

N594UA is not the tail number in question, now, is it? Your claim is that the original tail number is still on the plane being touted as N594UA. So the official documentation would really prove nothing.

What we need is the pictures.

Pray tell, how can posting pictures anonymously on the web endanger the life of anyone - anyone??? That may be the most paranoid thing you've ever posted here, Dulce.

But we digress: it's about the passengers of Flight 77? Well, no, I check the top of the thread and it's about the plane. Where would you hide the plane - and you're saying there was a switch and the real planes are flying around and you know where to get photographic proof and you won't post it.

Post 'em, Dulce. Prove me wrong. You know you want to. Wouldn't you like to take those photographs that you've seen and shove them into my face and prove me wrong? Come on, Dulce, post 'em.

Post 'em, Dulce. Show us what you can do, tiger, show us what you can do.

[DulceDecorum]

51. You win.

I cannot do as Bob Novak has done.
The following statements have one thing in common.

There are no photographs.
The FAA says that N591UA was destroyed on September 11, 2001.
The FAA says that N612UA was destroyed on September 11, 2001.
The FAA says that N334UA was destroyed on September 11, 2001.
The FAA says that N644UA was destroyed on September 11, 2001.
Osama did it.
There are Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.
Zell Miller is sane.

[Bolo Boffin]

61. Those statements have one thing in common?

Certainly there's more than one thing they all have in common:

All of those statements were typed by Dulce Decorum.

All of those statements are in a single post from Dulce Decorum.

All of those statements were written in English.

All of those statements are simple declarative sentences.

All of those statements can be proven true or false based on actual evidence.

All of those statements are things that Dulce Decorum thinks are false.

Come on, Dulce. Post those pictures. Prove me wrong. You know you wanna. You know you're dying to prove me wrong.

Post 'em, Dulce.

[MercutioATC]

36. I've asked you for proof of this before, DD. Do you have any?

You've repeatedly made the claim that this plane has been seen at O'Hare. You've been asked for proof. So far, you've refused to provide it. Why?

[DulceDecorum]

46. None that YOU are going to see

How come you,
a fully grown ATC,
is depending on a poster who you openly despise
to provide proof that a plane is still flying?

Prove me wrong.
Prove that N591UA is NOT flying in and out of Chicago.

[MercutioATC]

48. You're asking me to prove a negative?

DD, I expected better. You know that can't be done.

I could just as easily demand that you prove spaceships aren't flying in and out of Chicago. Could you?

You're the one claiming to have proof. Why won't you provide it?


Oh, and I don't "despise" you. I'm not that emotionally invested.

[DulceDecorum]

52. YOU constantly ask me to prove negatives.

Now you say it cannot be done.

I am so going to bookmark this page.

[MercutioATC]

53. I do?

Give me a few examples...

[RH]

40. That's cute.

On the one hand the BTS databas is accurate enough to show that a dead plane is still alive, while on the other hand it is not accurate enough to show that an alive plane is not a dead plane!

No kidding?

:silly:

[DulceDecorum]

45. Do pay attention.

The FAA database is the one that says that the planes are still registered.
The BTS database says who took off from where.

And I am NOT the one who constantly derides and negates the databases simply because they do not corroborate the Official Story.

[RH]

54. I did.

If indeed the BTS database says who took off from where, where then does it say that N591UA took off from anywhere since 9/11/2001?

:shrug:

[DulceDecorum]

57. Slow on the uptake

N591UA is being reported to the BTS as N594UA.

[Bolo Boffin]

58. Did N594UA exist before 9/11, Dulce?

Were departure and arrival times for N594UA reported to the BTS before 9/11, Dulce?

Because if so, N591UA was as well, meaning that there were two airplanes.

If now N591UA is being reported as N594UA, what has happened to the actual N594UA?

Were the two planes switched on 9/11? Is that what you are asking us to suspect?

[RH]

63. N594UA has been around for quite a while.

here it is in 1999, same livery:

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/048006/L/

[Bolo Boffin]

68. Well, there you have it.

Dulce says that N591UA is flying around and being reported as N594UA. The question naturally arises, then; what happened to N594UA?

Obviously these two planes have been switched according to Dulce's theory, yet Dulce seems strangely adverse to my stating so. In fact, Dulce challenges me to prove Dulce ever said the planes switched.

Even though it's a logical consequence of the theory Dulce is explicitly posting.

Weird.

[RH]

62. Really?

So what then is N594UA reported as?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=103361&PHPSESSID=3863bc7e45e8263bdfe03251d57b1d65

[DulceDecorum]

65. Funny,

I've been asking that question myself.

Perhaps you could go over to Chicago on holiday
and watch the planes land,
and report back to us here.

[RH]

66. Look in the database. Look around.

Lots of people already watch planes. They take a lot of photos of planes.

David Atkinson took the pic of N594UA (in the link I cited) on June 12, 2003. It appears in the BTS databse, arrived at 14:44 from LA as flight 0194.

So? :eyes: What else ya got?

In terms of wafer thin ploys to pointlessly waste time this is really scraping the barrel.

Or is it just the sort of thing that you "have to want to see"?

[MercutioATC]

26. Do you REALLY want to keep citing that silly thing and have me apply it to

your fellow CTists?

I will if I have to...

[demodewd]

91. boloboffin...finally an answer

boloboffin states
Operation Northwoods is not fully understood until you realize that this false flag operation, which it was, was rejected by the White House, and that it proved unnecessary because Cuba was caught redhanded importing missiles from the Soviet Union.
The Cuban Missile crisis really had a lot more to do with the Soviets. The stand off between the two nations did not and would not initiate a US invasion of Cuba. Northwoods on the other hand was expressively designed to give rational for a US invasion.

In fact, the excesses of the 9/11 attacks wouldn't have been necessary if American officials had planned it. They could just as easily "seized" a shipment of chemical and biological weapons at a New York harbor, with manifests and associates tracing back all the way to whoever they wanted to frame. No actual deaths, but that would have been a potent "act of war" that would have justified the use of force against the "patsy" without the single loss of an American life. It's just too easy to come up with scenarios like that
9-11 was staged to permanently impress upon the American public that Arab terrorism is a menace to the world thus allowing the US and its military to justify any protracted military invasion(s)particularly into the Middle East. The importance of the event was this indelible psychological imprint it left on the masse's minds. Thus we are shown WTC2 being crashed into by allegedly Flight 175 with the horrific fireball to follow. Deaths are a necessary element for this kind of false flag operation.... the people jumping out of the Trade Center buildings...all to justify the intended military objective of NWO control of the world's depleting oil supply and other vital resources.
Is Bushco acting to secure the American dollar hegemony and neo-liberal (neo-liberal? Don't you mean neo-conservative?) global market dominance?
Neo-liberalism is the present deregulated globalist market philosophy of our present capitalistic economic system.Both parties in this very vital sense operate under the same economic paradigm.
We blame it on Osama because Osama did it. We can't help that Bush blames Osama too - that doesn't change the facts in the case. He had his motives, most of which were accomplished in the days after 9/11. American troops are out of Saudi Arabia. America has been drawn into a bitter feud in the Islamic world, which raises the specter of a nuclear religious war. And now American actions are heightening the religious component of this American opposition, from the atrocities at Abu Ghraib to Bush standing in the Resurrected City proclaiming the reign of Freedom, the gift of God that America has been called to bestow upon the world.

His arrogance will be our undoing. His arrogance is what Osama counted on. His arrogance must be put decisively out of office in this election.
Let me remind you that John Kerry and all but a handful of congress people and senators supported Bush and his invasion of Iraq. It's just the apocalyptic brashness of this controlled puppet that actually facilitated the agenda of American Imperialistic State and their NWO cohorts. Bush was the perfect set up salesman guy for the job. Now it may be very true that his boldness has outserved its purpose and this is why I do believe that many world aristocrats including the Rothechilds are leaning towards Kerry. America WAS NOT drawn into the Middle East. America put herself in the Middle East purposely to control the vital oil and other resourses in the region. In that it serves Greater Israel's policies is all for the better for such leadership as Ariel Sharon,Benjamin Netanjahuh and the Likud extremists.Yes..I agree that its best to see Bush leave office but America's and the NWO elitists have full intention of continuing to demonize Islam to justify and mask its true objectives...petrodollar hegemony and American military hegemony of the entire region.

[Bolo Boffin]

92. Anything that's a real discussion is worth waiting on.

1. Cuba was a problem because of the Soviet Union. If the Soviets were neutralized, then Cuba was (and has been since) no big whoop. The US invasion of Cuba planned by Northwoods was one in which the Soviets couldn't dispute internationally. It would have allowed America to remove the threat of an antagonistic country importing missiles that could strike American cities well before America could respond in kind. Cuba was a first strike zone, but after the Cuban missile crisis, that threat was neutered. We've never invaded since then because we've never needed to.

2. Where do you get the idea that "deaths are necessary in this kind of false flag operation"? This kind? Is there some source of false flag operation protocol that I'm unaware of?

Alos, there's no doubt that the 9/11 attacks were used by the Bush Administration to justify further operations against Arab terrorists, and a heightened military presence in the Persian Gulf. But what I see as an appropriation of 9/11, you see as conclusive evidence of planning the attacks, down to people jumping out of the buildings.

The only thing you've established is motive. It's a strong one, but means and opportunity have yet to be established - and even then, that's not proof of BushCo having planned this. There's a great amount of evidence that al-Qaeda pulled this off. If BushCo did it, then they did it using al-Qaeda as the murder weapon, as it were. No explanation of the day's events will ever rival the simple fit of "four hijacked planes, three crashing into the buildings". No explanation of the means of control will ever fit the evidence the way that al-Qaeda operatives do.

But will you ever be able to establish opportunity? Look at how the Smear Boat Vet campaign was ocordinated. There's levels of deniablity built into that relationship, and that's just about spreading a few lies about Kerry. How many levels of deniablity do you think exist between BushCo and al-Qaeds? Enough to truly question whether BushCo had any real control over them at all. And I maintain that they did not.

Where we are deficient, I feel, is explaining a motive for al-Qaeda large enough to make an attack that played into BushCo's hands so well. It did so well enough, that I suspect that was part of the motive. The ultimate objective for bin Laden is the triumph of an Islamic state over the secularism of the West. How best to get the West out of the Gulf? Get America out of the Gulf. How best to get America out of the Gulf? Start a messy war. Knock down a few dams and let the floodwaters rush out.

Why did he think it would be successful? Because it was up to Allah.

It's a mark of many fighting techniques to use your enemy's momentum against him. I think Osama meant to push the various conflicts in the Persian Gulf past the point of no return by drawing America deeper into the region (yes, America was there to begin with, I'm sorry I was unclear about that). Once America started throwing her weight around, Osama hoped that many Muslims would lay aside their different conflicts to fight off the Great Satan. That didn't happen exactly, but it's always a threat. 9/11 is a case where Osama won the battle, but lost the war.

3. Demonize Islam? Even Bush has made it consistently clear that Islam isn't the problem, but religious fanatics are. It's the same level of circumspect language you employ to condemn Sharon and the Likudists. This isn't about Islam anymore that criticism of the Sharon government is about Judaism. No one in this debate is demonizing Islam.

4. Again, this comes down to a debate over globalization. Is there any scenario that you see globalization being a good thing?

[RH]

15. Why frame Osama?

What has Osama got to do with Global intentions?

Why not frame Saddam Hussein?

Why frame Arabians, not Iraq?

[DulceDecorum]

22. Truth Suppression Technique Number 19.

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
http://www.universalway.org/Foreign/truthsuppression.html

BOLOboffin says:
Thanks for the link to the proposed Operation Northwoods paper.
I've never actually read it before, and it explains what Dulce has been trying to do here completely.

BOLOboffin says:
Family members of those who died are members of many different communities all over the United States. The sheer scope of preparing that many identities is a task beyond human ability to accomplish, not even for all the oil in Saudi Arabia, much less in Afghanistan and Iraq.

My my, and what of the Witness Protection Program?
How many identities has the Department of Justice previously carved out of thin air?
Fewer than 3,000?
But you may have a point.
Several of those identities have already been proven to be miserable failures.
And we are not just referring to Sammy the Bull et al.

Ladies and gentlemen, look at the FACTS.
CHECK THE DATABASES FOR YOURSELF.
THINK FOR YOURSELF.
Make sure that two and two add up correctly.
DRAW YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS.

[Bolo Boffin]

25. Dulce, you have read the Operation Northwoods papers?

Because you'd know that the passengers on that proposed shootdown would have been fictional people entirely. CIA agents would have assumed these identities, boarded the plane, been flown to Elgins Air Force Base, offloaded, and gone on with their lives.

The Northwoods mission was specifically designed to minimize how many people had to be "created". Yet the 9/11 attacks defy such an explanation. Could it be that all the people on all the flights were carefully prepared aliases? Were all of their relatives who spoke out just more CIA agents? The idea is ludicrous.

In other words, this is another reason that the 9/11 attacks are very different from the proposed Northwoods mission, and those differences are why the 9/11 attacks weren't planned by anyone in the US government.

For you to have dragged out your Truth Suppression list, I must have hit pretty close to home. This post confirms it: you're using the Northwoods mission as your operative paradigm. You're trying to prove that the people never existed.

Give it up.

[DulceDecorum]

30. BOLOboffin

do make yourself useful for a change.

Take a list of all the victims,
(or just a list of ALL the passengers on the planes)
and divide it into two groups.
Military personnel and pure civilians.

Military personnel includes
active military,
reserves,
Pentagon civilians,
employees of defense contractors,
former enlisted men,
retired military,
retired reserves,
retired defense contractor employees,
and others of their ilk.

Pure civilians includes
people who are NOT CIA
nor FBI
nor any type of law enforcement.
People who do NOT work for any state or federal agency
and who are not married to anyone who is not also a pure civilian.

The second list will be EXTREMELY short.

BOLOboffin says:
Because you'd know that the passengers on that proposed shootdown would have been fictional people entirely. CIA agents would have assumed these identities, boarded the plane, been flown to Elgins Air Force Base, offloaded, and gone on with their lives.

The Northwoods mission was specifically designed to minimize how many people had to be "created". Yet the 9/11 attacks defy such an explanation. Could it be that all the people on all the flights were carefully prepared aliases? Were all of their relatives who spoke out just more CIA agents? The idea is ludicrous.

In other words, this is another reason that the 9/11 attacks are very different from the proposed Northwoods mission, and those differences are why the 9/11 attacks weren't planned by anyone in the US government.

BOLOboffin,
if I read you correctly,
you are saying,
point blank,
that
"the 9/11 attacks weren't planned by anyone in the US government."

You may be wrong but you may be right.
-- Billy Joel

[Bolo Boffin]

31. Exercise in futility

As I recall, the National Geographic had a field trip on Flight 77. Kids, parents, and guides.

Where would they be on your two lists?

I defy you to prove that the US government planned coldheartedly to kill these kids OR that these kids are now in a "9/11 participant protection program" somewhere.

[DulceDecorum]

35. Truth Suppression Techniques Number 2 and Number 14

BOLOboffin says:
I defy you to prove that the US government planned coldheartedly to kill these kids OR that these kids are now in a "9/11 participant protection program" somewhere.

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used to show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the "How dare you!" gambit.

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best items qualifying for rule 10.

Every one of the eight child victims of the Sept. 11 terror attacks was, as President Bush described it earlier this month, "the most important person on Earth to somebody." The latest Associated Press Sept. 11 victims' list names the following:
Christine Lee Hanson, 2, Groton, Mass.
David Brandhorst, 3, Los Angeles, Calif.
Juliana McCourt, 4, New London, Conn.
Bernard Brown II, 11, Washington, D.C.
Asia Cottom, 11, Washington, D.C.
Rodney Dickens, 11, Washington, D.C.
Dana Falkenberg, 3, University Park, Md.
Zoe Falkenberg, 8, University Park, Md.
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25771

Bernard and Sinata Brown say their son just couldn’t wait to go. Young Bernard, Jr. was a boy who was quick on the basketball court and quick in the classroom.
“He’s a happy, loving child,” says Sinata. “And anybody that knows him knows that he was a star, you know?”
His father, a Navy chief petty officer, says he sat his son down on the morning of Sept. 11, and had a serious talk with him about dangers he might encounter on the trip.
“To be honest — totally honest — we talked about death,” he says. “And I just told him, ‘Don’t be afraid.’ Just because the events that they were going to do were pretty dangerous. Just listen to what the people tell you, and the instructions, you’ll be all right. You’ll be fine. He said ‘Daddy, I’m scared,’ and I said, ‘hey, don’t be scared, don’t be afraid to die. Because we all are going to die someday.’”
The next morning at the airport, it was sunny and bright, and so was Bernard.
“And as he was walking through the door, he winked his eye, and, you know, blew a kiss, like, ‘All right, mommy, I’m OK,’” says Sinata.
Bernard’s mom Sinata Brown went to work. Her husband Bernard took a rare day off to play golf. Had he not — he would have been in his office at the Pentagon when the plane slammed in at 9:43.
http://wtc.wildfuryx.com/the_children.htm

Coincidences and Other Anomalies
http://www.the-movement.com/menu/weird_coincidences.htm

[Bolo Boffin]

38. So what?

You think it sinister that a lot of people on Flight 77 had some connection with the government?

You mean to tell me that a plane flying out of Washington, DC had people on it connected with the government? Stop the Presses!

So you got one kid out of eight who's family with a Navy chief petty officer. How did they choose his kid for the "participant protection plan," Dulce? A big Shirley Jackson lottery?

Give it up. Admit what you're doing.

[DulceDecorum]

44. What am I doing?

:shrug:

[Bolo Boffin]

50. What you are doing:

Wherdy Cart? I don't see no cart; wherdy go?

[DulceDecorum]

56. BOLOboffin believes that:

On September 11th, 2001, Flight 77
turned off its transponder. Its radar image
was still clearly picked up, however, and
air traffic controllers watched this airplane
fly over Washington, DC and begin to circle
the Pentagon. Cellphone calls from Flight
77 confirm that the plane had been
hijacked by terrorists. Eyewitnesses saw a
757 circling the Pentagon in the exact
place where air traffic controllers
observed Flight 77 on their screens. Flight
77 descended, flew across a interstate
filled with rush hour traffic, and then
crashed into the Pentagon. The fire raged
and part of the Pentagon collasped. After
the fire was contained, pieces of Flight 77
were pulled from the lawn and the
wrecked building, along with the mortal
remains of Flight 77's passengers.

So,
you still keep that picture next to your heart....
Got it off here, eh?
http://www.boyshome.ro/
We wish you cared about the children of Afghanistan and Iraq as well.
The poor things simply cannot drag the pack of lies they have been harnessed to.

[Bolo Boffin]

59. Nothing in that statement has ever been proven false, Dulce.

Every bit of evidence bore out all of those statements, and every bit of evidence continues to support those statements.

On September 11th, 2001, Flight 77
turned off its transponder. Its radar image
was still clearly picked up, however, and
air traffic controllers watched this airplane
fly over Washington, DC and begin to circle
the Pentagon. Cellphone calls from Flight
77 confirm that the plane had been
hijacked by terrorists. Eyewitnesses saw a
757 circling the Pentagon in the exact
place where air traffic controllers
observed Flight 77 on their screens. Flight
77 descended, flew across a interstate
filled with rush hour traffic, and then
crashed into the Pentagon. The fire raged
and part of the Pentagon collasped. After
the fire was contained, pieces of Flight 77
were pulled from the lawn and the
wrecked building, along with the mortal
remains of Flight 77's passengers.

I have NEVER retreated from a single statement in that paragraph. I've been proven wrong about a few things here, and admitted so quickly when recognizing it. But that paragraph stands: Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.

What induces you to believe that I do not care about the children of Afghanistan and Iraq? What evidence do you possess that I do not care about them?

Because if you do not possess any such evidence, if your statement is a baseless attack, then I demand an apology. You are entitled to your own opinions, Dulce, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Don't try to slander me on these boards and expect to let such lies go unchallenged.

[tngledwebb]

71. Nothing in the statement proved false?

and nothing proved TRUE, if so please show where and how. Now,I don't know this Dulce poster personally but seems to be running circles round some opponents with interesting and credible material, presented with humor and wit. What is being debated is a preponderance of evidence. I DO hope this whole issue ends up in a court of law to be proved one way or another beyond a reasonable doubt, and might even be relieved if your favored CT (Incredibly Incompetent Unlucky US Military vs. Incredibly Competent & Lucky terrorists) wins. But not necessarily- after all, what has this Govt really done to prevent such attacks in the future? Is the FBI/CIA/Pentagon running 'Using your imagination successfully next time' seminars? Sure hope so. Besides, YOUR own evidence-deficient and incredible version of events really fits in rather nicely with what Bush Co Ltd would like everyone to believe.

[RH]

72. and NOTHING proved TRUE?????

if so please show where and how.


:eyes:...:eyes:...:eyes:...:eyes:...:eyes:...:eyes:...

I did. Where were you?

In March 2002 I assembled a considerable collection of eye witness reports.

Since then a number of collections have appeared elsewhere. Hundreds of people from all walks of life witnessed the Pentagon event, one way or another.

So whose affidavit then do you expect to produce in a Court of Law? We can't wait to see. Do you have as much to show as the name of one single witness willing to swear to anything other than the effect that Flight 77 hit the building?

No. Since then not one of them who was there to see for themeslves is known to subscribe to any doubt about it.

QED.

[tngledwebb]

73. You are asking me to don a tin foil hat

a BIG one, again. I've read what you said last summer and I still don't see any proof. Gobbledygook and bollocks yes, proof... no.) You can call it that though, though your passionate and imaginative rants strongly parallel the classic CT model.

I agree there are certainly many witnesses to be called, one day. And may I ask how YOU know that NO eyewitness has subscribed to any doubts since then? Do you have Transcontinental ESP? Or was that a story reported only in the UK?

[RH]

74. passionate and imaginative rants?

:eyes: ... No.

Perfectly calm, reasoned and abundantly verifiable.

There has been more than enough time now for anybody so inclined to demonstrate any fault or bad faith in the witness reports. One particular self appointed commentator tried very hard to do so but in several respects his own conjectures were demonstrably wrong.

How do we know now that NO eyewitness has subscribed to any doubts since then?

Simply because you, nor anybody else has the name of such a witness to cite, nor even to allude to and not, of course for any lack of hope to find one, and simply because for more than two years now I have watched vigilantly for such a name to appear, anywhere.

What did we see instead? Those who most ardently presume to have eye witness "evidence" to the contrary are reduced to cherry picking from accounts from people like Riskus and Lagasse, people who continue to this day to insist that not only did an airliner hit the Pentagon, they saw it do so, with their own eyes.

[tngledwebb]

77. No need to show 'bad faith'

or faults in witness reports, just show how said reports prove your Official Tin Foil Hat CT. Every report is vague and contradictory, beneath the level of high school journalism. Who, what, where, when, all gone missing. But suppose the reports were as clear and compelling as you would have us believe - Just show those with eyes to see any photo evidence of a Boeing crash and all is forgiven.

Still curious if there is any little part of Official CT that gives you pause?

[RH]

81. If there is no bad faith,

then there is presumably nothing to forgive.

Haw many witness accounts did you study? Many are remarkably detailed.

I paused for a long time. Aint going pause for ever. Nothing turned up.

You got the name of a witness to support your case?

[MercutioATC]

60. What do children in Afghanistan and Iraq have to do with this?

That was one STRANGE segue...

[RH]

55. Wasting time.

:nuke:

[MercutioATC]

27. Again, the whole "mote and beam" thing. Wanna see how this applies to the

CT crowd??

[MrSammo1]

170. Have you?

Have you heard Ellen Mariani's statement that she is the only relative of all the passengers that died on Flight 175?

[mountebank]

7. Check out these threads on the front page of this forum.

Debra Burlingame, sister of Flight 77 (Pentagon) pilot, speaks at RNC:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x18393

The Passengers and the Planes:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=18365&mesg_id=18365

The Pilots the the Planes (Part II):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=12490&mesg_id=12490



The plane is one thing. Those that drew up Operation Northwoods obviously didn't see it as a major stumbling point. The PASSENGERS, though......

I don't find that video on Flight 77 to be very convincing. But questions remain. Why doesn't someone go to D.C. and talk to the citizens who saw the tapes before they were confiscated?

[The Straight Story]

69. How we can use the pentagon video to prove something

The height of the tailfin. Look at in the video, then examine some overhead shots of where it impacted and it's relation to the camera (which I think was some 500-600 feet away, don't have all my data on this system). Someone, somewhere, should be able to do some math and figure out how big the object we are seeing is.

Of course, we could prove the size is what it should be and then people will say 'ok, it was a big plane, but not 77...'

At any rate, I will do my own analysis of the numbers but will hold off releasing it until I see the work of others to compare it to - I don't want how I get them, etc, to influence other independent folks.

Should be interesting...

[Bolo Boffin]

70. The ASCE report doesn't think the tail fin struck the building.

There isn't facade damage high enough for the tail fin to have struck. Check out the Pentagon security camera stills - the last frame shows some large debris hurtling over the top of the Pentagon. That's probably part of the tail section.

[RH]

76. Check out the Will Morris photo

There appears to be a vertical white mark slanted slightly to one side, as the plane was, exactly where the tail fin would have hit, on a vertical column between two windows.

[Bolo Boffin]

79. And the ASCE report is using tail height while resting on wheels.

This is from page 32 of the ASCE report:

The height of the damage to the facade of the building was much less than the height of the airplane's tail. At approximately 45 ft, the tail height (with the aircraft resting on its wheels) was nearly as tall as the first four floors of the building. Obvious visible damage extended only over the two lowest floors, to approximately 25 ft above grade.

I don't think the ASCE had the Morris picture, RH. It's not in the report, and their only reference to facade damage was pictures taken before the collapse. But you're exactly right. That white mark is where the tail fin would have struck, at the right angle, and the right height when the landing gear height is subtracted from the tail fin height. Good find.

[The Straight Story]

78. I am more looking into the height in this moment

[RH]

75. Seen it. .....Done it, .... waited for the movie.

:boring:

A number of people went over all that with a fine tooth comb, in 2002 soon after the security camera shots appearad. An Englishman, Dave Bosankoe, was the first to attempt to make something of it mathematically. Then a few months afterwards he withdrew completely, having changed his opinion and his mind.

I have not yet seen anything at all to confirm the perpetual assumption that the shots came from any sort of "video", i.e. with continuous frames as opposed to intermittent still shots.

Nor have I yet seen anything to convince me that any sort of tail fin is depicted. Study the geography. The alleged tail fin appears to me to stand behind a tree beside the elevated Beltway, not nearer to the viewer as if on its way to the Pentagon. The object also conjoins with the River House appartments in the distance.

[Bolo Boffin]

80. I'll have to admit

That "tail fin," whatever it is, isn't in the rest of the pictures (intermittent still shots sounds fine by me). The natural conclusion is that it's part of the plane.

I still swear I can see a slight red blur along the top of the white post blocking part of the view. That red blur looks exactly the color of the American Airlines logo.

There's problems with anyone putting a plane in that picture, though. Look at the roof of the Pentagon. There's a lot of lens distortion. I can't see how anyone can try to put a model of Flight 77 onto that picture without accounting for that. Getting a shot of the plane at the proper angle will also be a task.

Is there any possibility that the "tail fin" is actually the right wing tilted above the plane? Just an innocent question...

[RH]

82. I produced a barrel distortion corrected version.

Bosankoe used it on his web site. Others have since adopted it. I don't have a link to hand but it shouldn't be too hard to find. I'm not sure if there is a mirror of Bosankoe's site still around.

The carcam photos are deceptive. The Beltway horizon in the distance is about 75 ft above sea level and rising towards the west. The base of the Pentagon in the mean time is about 45 feet below. The position of the incoming aircraft on the right hand side of the security camera shot should therefore be lower than one would expect intuitively, at first sight, so I doubt that the alleged "tail fin" is low enough to qualify, let alone any wing tip.

I am not so surprised if small objects in the distance appear to come and go. There seems to be a lot of heat haze rising off the lawn and the camera lens was obviously dirty.

The sharpness of the images also appears to have been digitally enhanced. The long distance focus of the original version was possibly all but non existent. When all said and done the camera was prsumably installed to observe road traffic passing close by, not to home in on any Boeing that happend to pass by on a bad day.

All in all it amounts to little more an elaborate Rosarch test, in terms of proof, next to nothing.

[Bolo Boffin]

83. RH, you're on top of it as usual

http://website.lineone.net/~bosankoe/analysis.htm

There's a site where Bosankoe uses your corrected picture (nice job) to figure out almost completely how the Boeing 757 fits into the first security cam. This picture almost nails it:



There's only one problem I see with his analysis on this page. He figured the length of the plane in pixels based on a perpendicular shot of the plane. The plane is flying in at an angle though, so I think that if the back outline is shortened proportionally to account for the angle (and lowered just a touch), the outline would match tail fin for tail fin, and the nose would be just emerging from behind the wooden box.

Putting the American Airlines logo right above the wooden box, just as I thought. And Bosankoe says at the end of the page that the 757 would fit only if turned 30 degrees toward the camera, which it should be at least.

Hey, Dulce? Theredy Boeing.

[MercutioATC]

8. I'm sure you'll find all sorts of "answers" to that question here...

I agree with you (if I read your post correctly).

If you haven't taken the time to browse, do. It's entertaining.

Welcome!!

[tngledwebb]

14. Suggest reading Griffin's The New Pearl Harbor first...

or visit DU 9/11 threads, other websites, ie google Killtown. Skeptics and neophytes should spend a lot of time looking at all available photos. The DOD and photos from NYT and other big media are interesting for what they DON'T show. Keep an open mind.

[WoodrowFan]

93. it did hit the Pentagon

case closed

[tngledwebb]

99. Sez you....

Many others say the opposite. Pics? One pic will suffice.

[Bolo Boffin]

100. Really? One pic will suffice?

Really? Somehow I doubt that.

[tngledwebb]

101. Yes it will, but.....

photo must show a plane the size of a Boeing in on or near the P-gon wall, lawn etc. Not a wheel, or a piece of aluminum, or a part of an engine. Something that those with reasonably good eyesight can identify as the wreckage of an entire plane. Or, a photo of a hole big enough to swallow said plane. That will do. And the OCT team can take off their TF Hats on this issue.

[Bolo Boffin]

103. What part of

"the plane smashed through a reinforced concrete wall, exploded, and then tore itself to shreds on internal columns throughout the building" do you not understand?

There will be no picture of a whole plane. Though the Pentagon security cam does show the plane, it's fuzzy enough that I don't blame people if they can't see it. We must rely on the testimony of hundreds of eyewitnesses, the radar evidence that tracked Flight 77 from takeoff to crash, and the recovery of both plane parts and the mortal remains of Flight 77's passengers.

There's a picture that I can't link to, because the only place I've seen it so far is WhatReallyHappened.com. You're just going to have to look for it. It shows an aerial picture during the cleanup process. Over to the side is a HUGE pile of aluminum. Since the Pentagon is made up largely of concrete and wood, what do you suppose all of that aluminum is, TW?

But let's be realistic, TW. If anybody produced a picture at this stage of the game, howls of digital manipulation and photoshopping would sound out from the CT crowd like a banshee wail. Perhaps you personally might be convinced, but do you think any true believer would? Nah...

[Bob Stanford]

104. Here is your proof that f77 hit the Pentagon

"Or, a photo of a hole big enough to swallow said plane."

Here is your photo:

[WoodrowFan]

105. you expect us to believe

that Flt 77 left those pretty colored lines like that? Lines marked with distances yet!!! HA! That photo was DOCTORED!!! :silly:



seriously, welcome to DU.

[Bolo Boffin]

106. Ooh, it gets better.

Go to the actual site:

http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/

Many pictures from Sarah Roberts (Anablep - bless her heart).

Thanks for posting this, Bob. I've got it linked now.

[tngledwebb]

107. For those who haven't seen the photos and sites

that the 'Official' CT people are using as proof, take a look ASAP please. Find a Boeing, or any cogent case which makes you believe a Boeing crashed there. These links help PROVE the unofficial CT case far better than anything else, and also underscore the dangers of the internet for naive or un-critical thinkers. My favorite is the Purdue study. What a incredible place to obtain a degree in engineering!

[AZCat]

108. It sounds like you have issues with the Purdue study

If so, what would they be?

[RH]

109. help PROVE the unofficial CT case.

Go on then. Please tell. :wow:



How do the five felled lamp poles help to prove your unofficial case?

The original Meyssan thesis was that an airliner could not have hit the Pentagon because no lamp poles were touched.

Do you still think that that no poles were touched?

http://www.dragonslair.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/77/poles_.htm

[demodewd]

114. pole evidence

Your pole evidence only proves that a plane with a certain required wing span hit the Pentagon. Nothing more.

[tngledwebb]

116. Not even that....

But possibly of course. May have been 'knocked over' by other methods. Either way fallen poles are not proof of Boeing hitting Pentagon, except in the vivid imaginations of the OCT adherents. But then how could 9/11 blamed on a 'failure of imagination?'

[RH]

118. Double standard?

A "small hole" is proof of a small plane or no plane but a large pole gap is not a proof of a large plane; is that the argument, or what?

The abysmal failure to suggest any other actual, feasible, credible method to fell poles is noted, and not at all unsual in view of the challenge.

Would you also have another way to explain the damage to the electricity generator? Or perhaps not?

Thanks for trying, anyway.

[RH]

117. It proves the strength of the wings.

I doubt that something like a Global Hawk would shear the poles in two.

It also proves that the witnesses were not imagining.

It was interesting though that I never saw a witness report, nor any other report that had counted up to five. One can understand that no witness had a clear view of all the poles at once, and there were a lot of other things to think about; nevertheless......

[MercutioATC]

110. Some of the debris was identifiable as having come from a commercial

airliner. If no commercial airliner crashed there, where did the debris come from?

I've asked you this before (as I've repeatedly asked another of the local CT squad who's recently gone missing). He states that the debris was planted. Are you making the same claim?

If not, please ket me know, at your convenience, where you think it came from.

[DulceDecorum]

127. Who's missing?

Wherdy go?

[MercutioATC]

148. Well, Abe seems to be.

I haven't seen him since August 23rd.

[DulceDecorum]

171. The 911 forum

is a very tough neighborhood
for those who do not accept the Official Story.

Perhaps Abe has been Wellstoned.

It would not be the first time that a 911 researcher was driven off this forum by a well-organised barrage of venomous attacks from a certain clique.

It does surprise me however,
to see that the date of Abe Linkman's departure
has been so carefully noted.

[MercutioATC]

172. It surprises you?

I noticed he hadn't been around for a while so I did a search for his posts. The last one was on 8/23. It's suspicious that I know how to use DU's search function?

[tngledwebb]

179. One would not be surprised.

Also wonder how it is OCT folks seem to have no day jobs, or else have unlimited internet access, and also seem to be able jump right in, within minutes, to 'answer' or 'rebut' their opponents, even if the post wasn't meant for them. Never mind OCT folks chronic inability to answer questions directly and/or clearly. And they never admit they have doubts or might be wrong about anything. Uncanny isn't it? Most people I know have a bit of difficulty in taking such strong positions without bit of qualification here and there.

[DulceDecorum]

183. Shhhh

The people who Blog For Bush will hear you.

[DulceDecorum]

184. Lime-green lies?

MercutioATC says:
He states that the debris was planted. Are you making the same claim?

Lime-green primer was on the aircraft debris.
Lime-green paint was not qualified for use as a primer on Boeing aircraft until July 2000.

N644AA was delivered to American Airlines in May 1991.
YOU do the math.

[MercutioATC]

188. Just explain to me how the scores of onlookers missed it.

Scores of people were watching. How was evidence planted?

[tngledwebb]

192. Most 'onlookers' part of the drill,

ie the war games that facilitated the stand-down. See Dept of Defense website for the day for the number of anxious, worried, or traumatized faces of military personnel. Any evidence could have been planted before, during, after, or photographed elsewhere. REAL onlookers were kept faraway. And remember, to this day, there are plenty of 0fficial Conspiracy Nuts who deduce evidence of a Boeing crash in a photograph of a wheel.

[MercutioATC]

193. Damn! They're good! A whole highway of "extras" for their game!!!

Do you see how silly the idea of the onlookers being "part of the drill" and real civilians being "kept faraway " is?

[tngledwebb]

194. What we have here...

is a failure to communicate. Or a 'failure of imagination.' Are you really unable to understand what I wrote? Any other OCT types have the same problem? No, wait, don't bother to answer, I can predict your responses well in advance.

[MercutioATC]

195. I'm using YOUR words. YOU made the claim, I'm just taking issue with it.

Did you or did you not say that the onlookers were part of the drill and that the "real" potential witneses were kept far away?

The highway was plenty close to qualify someody driving there at the time of the crash as an "onlooker". So were the business around the Pentagon (if you're going to claim that a surveillance video from a business near the Pentagon would yeild evidence, you can't claim that a person standing there wouldn't have seen what happened).

Your statement is patently false. There were plenty of people who were not "part of the drill" on hand. To many for the "planting of evidence" that's been claimed.

[tngledwebb]

196. The onlookers NEAREST to site

were official or military personnel, passersby on highway probably not, capiche? The 'evidence' at the sight was part of the 'show', as in DOD website. And as usual you pick and choose the parts of a post you want to respond to while the totality of the post goes right over your head, like a certain C-130.

[MercutioATC]

198. Well, the Pentagon IS a military facility...of course the people closest

were mostly military. :eyes:

I'm just trying to get this straight...you're saying that the debris on the lawn was planted well in advance as part of an exercise and not seen by others until they looked to see what had happened?

[tngledwebb]

199. Debris on lawn may have been planted

ahead of time, or during, may have been result of explosion, ie parts of something other than Flt 77, and would not always have been noticed or deemed important when everyone nearby was part of the Exercise, etc. And by looking at photos on Ron Harvey's website for example, those on the highway, ie civilians and passersby, would be too far away to notice the piece of aluminum on lawn thru smoke and fire-fighting activities. The wheel and engine pieces seem to be inside of course, and could also have been planted, or they may have been part of Rumsfield's burgeoning military memorabilia collection.

[RH]

200. everyone nearby was part of the Exercise?

:eyes:

Including the Pentagon renovation contractors?

Aircraft debris landed on the Highway. Several news stories mention it. One piece went through a windshield. Penny Elgas later provided a fragment she'd found in her car. If the debris on the lawn had not been noticed you'd have no photos of it. The almuminum confetti that fell like snow was seen from as far away as DCA.

[WoodrowFan]

202. CT Limbo

this is fun, it's like watching a limbo dancer see how far backwards they can bend, but in this case it's the CTers bending and contorting themselves into more and more ludicrous positions to try and defend their faith!

[RH]

197. "REAL onlookers were kept faraway"?

There were hundreds of real onlookers all around, on Washington Boulevard, on the Beltway on Columbia Pike and around the Pentagon.

Give it a rest.

:eyes:

[RH]

190. Lime Green Primer

In the aircraft industry of the 1940s, Zinc Chromate was used as an anti-corrosive barrier primer; it could be described as a sort of painted-on galvanizing. It has been developed by Ford Motor Company by the late 1920s, subsequently adopted in commercial aviation and later by the US Military. Official USAAC notes mention successful application of Zinc Chromate primer starting from 1933, but it has not been adopted as standard until 1936.

http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2004/01/stuff_eng_interior_colours_us.htm

[DulceDecorum]

191. World War II camoflage!!!

This is the first part of the three-part feature covering the finishes and colours used for the interiors of American-produced aircraft of the World War II era. This part gives general information on the development and the variety of finishes used. In the part two we will cover interiour finishes of the US Army Air Corps / Air Force types. Part three will be devoted to Navy aircraft types. - Ed.

<snip>

We know now, contrary to these perceptions, that interiors of US aircraft weren't always Interior Green or Zinc Chromate at all; in fact some kinds of aircraft were never painted in either colour.
The answers here are complex. It is one thing to prove an old theory wrong, yet another to find out with a degree of certainity what colours were used. In the research trying to determine colours of aircraft interiors, we are still halfway through.
Part of the problem is that "standards", even though they existed, were often seemingly loosely defined, which in turn lead to them being widely superceded by practical thinking. Unlike for example the German RLM, USAAF did not seem to enforce its own standards. Paints that did not meet correct colour specifications were used anyway, and often not checked on subsequent batches. There were different paint makers, shortage of certain chemical ingredients, re-formulations to facilitate mass-scale production, and paints mixed locally at the assembly line.
http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2004/01/stuff_eng_interior_colours_us.htm

And what, pray, does all this have to do with
N644AA
the Pentagon wall
and September 11, 2001?

Put it in context please, RH.

Zinc Chromate
Anyone who has ever read anything on the subject of US aircraft interiors must have stumbled upon the name Zinc Chromate. Yet, do you know what Zinc Chromate is? Understanding it is an essential starting point for the discussion on anything concerning interior colours.
Zinc Chromate is a corrosion resistant agent that is added to certain coatings. Even today, chromate finishes including Zinc Chromate provide superior corrosion resistance. ADDITIONALLY, ZINC CHROMATE IS HIGHLY TOXIC thus protecting the surface from proliferation of organic matter.
In the aircraft industry of the 1940s, Zinc Chromate was used as an anti-corrosive barrier primer; it could be described as a sort of painted-on galvanizing. It has been developed by Ford Motor Company by the late 1920s, subsequently adopted in commercial aviation and later by the US Military. Official USAAC notes mention successful application of Zinc Chromate primer starting from 1933, but it has not been adopted as standard until 1936.
BACK THEN, AS WELL AS IN THE PAINT INDUSTRY OF TODAY, THE TERM ZINC CHROMATE DOES NOT REFER TO A PAINT COLOUR BUT RATHER A PROTECTIVE COATING. Therefore, the precise colouring of it is and has not been considered as important as the chemical composition. In the official notes of the period, the name Zinc Chromate is often accompanied by the name of particular manufacturer, thus mentioning Ford Zinc Chromate, DuPont Zinc Chromate or Berry Brothers Zinc Chromate. This means that the actual colour of Zinc Chromate coating may have varied from batch to batch or manufacturer to manufacturer without it being viewed as an issue.
http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2004/01/stuff_eng_interior_colours_us.htm

What was that again?
ADDITIONALLY, ZINC CHROMATE IS HIGHLY TOXIC thus protecting the surface from proliferation of organic matter.

HIGHLY TOXIC!!
Do you HONESTLY think that in 1991,
Boeing was using THIS multicoured crap on the INTERIOR of their planes?
Well it wasn't.

Boeing BMS 10-79 (Airbus TNA 10113)
is a polyurethane primer with strontium chromate.
Check the short pdf file for yourself.
http://www.mapaero.com/fiches_techniques/gb/023.pdf

[MrSammo1]

111. Obviously

There wasn't a Flight 77.......at least not at the Pentagon.

[RH]

113. Obviously

that's why you can't find a witness, not one at all, anywhere, who was there to see themselves and also of the same opinion, that Flight 77 did not hit the building.

Makes perfect sense, don't it?

:eyes:

[demodewd]

115. no way

There is no way any witness could know that the plane that hit the Pentagon was actually Flight 77. They would only know that a plane that was the size of and looked like a commercial airliner(possibly a "UA" painted airliner) hit the Pentagon.

[RH]

119. That's not what I said.

I never said that any eye witness "knew"; I referred to their "opinion".

I'd nevertheless expect a good number to be willing to say that they "know". How about for instance a flight attendant who'd worked the AA route and then saw parts of it at the Pentagon. Do you think she'd be entitled to say so?

[demodewd]

121. 757 vs 77

How would the flight attendant know the parts to be specifically of Flight 77? You can't state that you think it was a UA 757 and then conclude that it must be #77.

[RH]

122. Ask the Flight attendant.

I heard that a registration number on the tail survived, and she also recognised parts of the lime green internal furnishing.

If you look carefully at some of the high resolution versions of the usual photos there were lime green parts on the Pentagon lawn.

[DulceDecorum]

124. About those lime-green plane parts

We often hear that the parts have been stripped down to the primer -- by the fire and the heat -- and so all that is left is the bare metal and some traces of lime-green primer.

Boeing was using DARK GREEN primer on all of its planes,
up until 2000 when the environment people made them switch to a low VOC paint system.
In other words,
when N591UA and N612UA were manufactured,
there was no lime-green primer used on ANY of the parts.

We have service reports of both planes since they entered service,
and have found no reason to accept the notion that those lime-green parts came from either of those two planes.

RH, you say that the registration number from the tail survived?
Curious.
Who else saw it?
Any photos?

[demodewd]

128. re: primer

The primer difference is very good evidence. Looks like RH inadvertently has stepped into major doo-doo.

[RH]

135. "the lime green internal furnishing",

not primer paint.

Two different things.

:eyes:

[DulceDecorum]

149. Infernal furnishing?

The plane was burned to a crisp
but the lime-green internal furnishing survived?

OK, time for verification.
WHo here has EVER seen lime-green internal furnishing inside ANY American Airlines plane?

Incidentally, RH, old boy,
what is your take on the lime-green primer in those photos?

[DulceDecorum]

125. T.Carter, the Penta-stewardess

certainly gets around.
The woman is a regular Jessica Fletcher when it comes to politics and and death.

T is a dedicated researcher who has worked on both JFK and MLK cases with Judge Joe Brown, among others. Her first report was on her efforts to weigh the infamous Minox camera held in the National Archives. The effort to weigh the alleged CIA spy cam "found" at Oswald's residence is to discover what if anything may have been used to seal and/or fill the interior portion of the Bic lighter sized camera. The camera has been impenatrable. As it turns out the camera does weigh more than the 200 or more weighed by T. Carter. On the second night of the conference gave an update on the Martin Luther King case related to securing of the rifle everyone believes is NOT the real assassination weapon and how Denny's (!) has taken up sponsorship of the MLK Assassination museum.

Researcher T Carter explains her relation to flight 93 which slammed into the Pentagon September 11th, 2001.

The final day of the event, Ms. Carter related her connections to the September 11th case. She is a She is a flight attendant and one of her usual routes was Flight 77 - the plane that went into the Pentagon.
T Carter was a regular stewardess on that flight and had witnessed one of the alleged hijackers doing a pre-911 test flight.
She said that she believes the plane actually went into the Pentagon, contrary to a popular internet theory. Her friends bodies and aircraft wreckage were recovered from the scene of the impact which she visited. Other revelations included privy knowledge of her flight attendant friends personal cell phone call to her mother. During the call the flight attendant friend to the mother that there were SIX hijackers - contradicting the number claimed by the Government "authorities." She implored the audience to research September 11th for this and other "discrepancies."

Listen to her ...

JFK panel lecture (minox camera update)
MLK panel lecture (rifle/museum update)
September 11th 2001 panel lecture
http://www.parapolitics.info/copa/copa2002gallery/index.html

[demodewd]

129. Dulce

Dulce...I have considered this scenario for Flight 77. Flight 77 is landed by remote soon after the transponders are switched off and the passengers have been gassed. Their bodies are transferred onto another plane that is remotely piloted into the Pentagon. This plane probably has been rigged with shaped charges and possibly a bomb. There would have been sufficient time to pull this off and may explain the difference in crash times between 175 and 77.What is your opinion of this scenario.

[DulceDecorum]

131. Getting the jigsaw pieces to fit

is very difficult.

Take for example, the lime green primer.
RH says that pieces of wreckage were found at the Pentagon and also that those pieces had lime-green primer on them.

RH is correct.
Such reports exist.

Burkhammer spotted lime-green pieces from the interior of the plane. “You could tell where the plane had gone because of the destruction of the steel and concrete beams,” he says.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3069699/

There are photos of metallic-looking metal with lime green smears over them.
http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:VupdqQsXfRoJ:www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm+%22sarah+roberts%22+%22lime+green%22&hl=en

But this is where it gets interesting.

The components of Airbus aircraft are initially coated with an undercoat of primer. This paint – which is lime-green in colour and more reminiscent of the Incredible Hulk than a modern aircraft – is harsh on the eye, more used as it is to the generally conservative colour schemes of modern aircraft. As soon as the parts have been assembled, another layer of undercoat is applied, and only after that does the inevitable white topcoat follow. Finally the aircraft is given its identity for the years to come, as the logos and designs of the contracting airline are applied with plastic foil.
http://www.aua.com/at/eng/Fascination/experience/A319/

In July of 2000, after much research, Boeing Materials Technology (BMT) qualified Dexter Aerospace's 10P20-44 low-VOC primer system to the BMS 10-79 specification. The "-44" primer system has been in use for several years at Boeing paint hangars as an exterior decorative primer (as qualified to BMS 10-72 Exterior Decorative paint System).
http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/doingbiz/environmental/BMS10-79.html

Painting process
When an aircraft arrives for a repaint, the airline will have already decided whether it is to be sanded down to the first top-coat or chemically stripped back to the metal. The latter is the more expensive option but has a number of benefits. Firstly, it allows the aircraft skin to be inspected for corrosion and secondly will help reduce the weight of the aircraft by removing the old paint. If an aircraft has been stripped, the next process is a steam clean to remove any residue of the stripper. All the production joints on the aircraft will then be resealed, followed by a wash with solvents as a final preparation. The next stage of the process is to apply either a Filliform Corrosion Resistant primer or alochrome pre-treatment, which is the first layer of protection for the airframe. Next is the intermediate primer of either polyurethane or epoxy, the latter is a yellowy green colour, which will normally be allowed to dry overnight. After this the aircraft will be rubbed down to remove any imperfections and a tack cloth used to pick up any remnants.
http://www.airpictorial.com/pages/paintingPerfection.html

The way I understand it,
there is a problem with hexavalent chromium and OSHA and the EPA have cracked down on paints and primers that contain it. Hence the new lime-green paint. The lime-green paint came into widespread usage around 2000, which is when the new regs came into effect.
OK so far, so good.
We have established that whatever the heck it was that left pieces around the Pentagon was manufactured or repainted around or after 2000.
So now, demodewd, we have a problem.
What the heck was it?
Assuming that the alleged 757 debris was not planted in the first place.

If it was a switched plane,
made by Boeing,
where are the dark-green pieces?

There do not appear to be any.
This narrows it down considerably.
The plane that crashed into the pentagon must have been built BEFORE September 2001 and around 2000. That gives us a space of about one year. Naturally, it could have been completely overhauled, stripped down to the primer and repainted, within the same time frame. However, given the state of aviation at the time and the number of perfectly healthy aircraft that were being put into storage, this is somewhat unlikely. But we are not ruling it out and we can access such records if need be.

OK,
let us assume that the switched US-registered plane was also a Boeing 757.

N174AA, serial number 31308, was rolled out on December 14, 2001.
So that plane and those with higher serial numbers are eliminated from this inquiry.
98-0001, serial number 29025, was rolled out on January 22, 1998.
It is assigned to the US military as is
98-0002, serial number 29025,
98-0003, serial number 29027,
98-0004, serial number 29028.
These four military planes are each specially configured to transport 45 VIPs.
This is as good a place as any to commence our search.

So,
we are going to check Boeing 757s with serial numbers between 29025 and 31308. If I am correct, that means that we are going to look at about 120 planes and examine only those which are based in the US.

But then again, why should we even bother?
Do you see the debris
that would have been left by a fully-grown Boeing 757
lying around the Pentagon?
I am not talking about scraps.
I want one whole damn planes-worth of debris.
And I want to see mush.
And there isn't any.

Which brings us back to Square One.
Wherdy go?

[RH]

136. Huh? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"RH says that pieces of wreckage were found at the Pentagon and also that those pieces had lime-green primer on them."

Where was that then?

[DulceDecorum]

154. RH said:

If you look carefully at some of the high resolution versions of the usual photos there were lime green parts on the Pentagon lawn.

My mistake.
I get confused easily.
Especially after reading articles such as this:

I. Witness Accounts of Wreckage Inside the Building

Witnesses described small pieces of plane debris in the building. Because of the fire, much of the debris was burned beyond recognition. Some pieces bore lime or yellow primer paint characteristic of internal aircraft parts. Larger pieces included seats, cockpit circuitry, and a landing gear. THESE ACCOUNTS WERE DRAWN FROM RON HARVEY'S EXCELLENT COMPILATION and from my own research.

3) While searching through wreckage inside the building, firefighters Carlton Burkhammer and Brian Moravitz "spotted an intact seat from the plane's cockpit with a chunk of the floor still attached." Burkhammer also "spotted LIME-GREEN PIECES FROM THE INTERIOR OF THE PLANE" within the building.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/635293.asp

Most of the heaped scrap is unrecognizable, but THERE ARE TWO PIECES OF METAL BEARING YELLOW-GREEN PRIMER WHICH WERE NOT BURNED THOROUGHLY. Charles Burkhammer similarly noted SMALL LIME-GREEN PIECES OF AIRCRAFT INTERIOR.
Resting next to another pillar is ANOTHER SECTION OF LIME-GREEN MATERIAL BEARING CLEAR RIVET LINES (photographed by FEMA's Jocelyn Augustino):

As other witnesses related, debris lying outside the C-ring punchout hole in A-E Drive included a chunk of nose fuselage or nose cone, a landing gear, and an aircraft tire tread.The following photo (by Fort Belvoir photographers) shows two pieces of fuselage debris (NOTE THE GREEN PRIMER) lying in front of the hole.
http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

[MrSammo1]

174. Great point

It's not like they are showing us the videos to convince us? The five frame folly that they did show us looks like a whatsit riding on the ground!

[RH]

178. The five frame folly

I have no information to show where that actually came from, who gave it to the media and for what consideration, except that it was not an official release.

Do you?

[MrSammo1]

182. It is

amazing! It had to come from somewhere. But nobody in our government will take credit for it! Go figure? I guess that way when the indictments come down.......everyone can claim they , "Just don't know?"


===============================================================
"Where were our aircraft, when a missile is heading toward the Pentagon" - Jamie S. Gorelick <9/11 Commission>
===============================================================

[seatnineb]

133. Wrong.

These witnesses all saw something hit the wall of the Pentagon.

Then the plane cartwheeled into the building.
Dave Marra
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,174655-4,00.html

"The nose hit, and the wings came forward and it went up in a fireball."
Tim Timmerman
http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,550486,00.html

I saw the wings fold back and crumple and pierce the wall sorta like an accordian.
Mike Walter
RaiDue(Italian T.V) September 2002

At that point, the wings disappeared into the Pentagon. And then I saw an explosion and watched the tail of the plane slip into the building.
http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/supporting.asp?ID=30

Trouble is......... they all saw something different.............
Which makes you wonder if they are tellin the truth about what they saw at all.

[RH]

137. The more commendably intelligent appraoch

would be to work out, in the first instance, from which particular positions each of the witness obsevered the same event.

Timmerman's impression from the River House Apartments with the aircraft passing across his field of view would of course be significantly and usefully different to the impression from nearer the event, on Washington Boulevard, with plane flying directly overhead. Somebody viewing from behind the tail of the plane would not be in such a good position to see whther or not the wings flew forward.

You should also explain how any cartwheeling effect would contradict in any sense what happend to the wings. Apart from any rampant psychosis how is it possible to come to that conslusion?

[seatnineb]

138. Wrong.

What impression?

Timmerman said he SAW "the wings fly forward, and then the conflagration engulfed everything in flames."

Walters said he SAW "the wings fold back and crumple".

2 completly different testimonies....about the same event?

Difference of angles not withstanding........

Either the wings flew forward or they folded backward.

As for the cart-wheeling observed by Marra.......

Did Walters say that the fuselage had cart-wheeled into the wall?

Walters said..."it pierced the wall....sorta like an accordian"........

Eglas says"The plane seemed to be floating as if it were a paper glider and I watched in horror as it gently rocked and slowly glided straight into the Pentagon."

No cart-wheeling here I am afraid.

Sorry but these particular eye-witnesses are the worst enemies of each other........

And should not be trusted.

[RH]

140. Wrong? wrong? wrong? wrong? wrong? wrong? wrong? wrong?

Wings flew forward towards the Pentagon or back towards the Pentagon, away from the viewer, it all depends on what your point of reference is. You're analysing your own presumption.

I see no reason why a cartwheeling object would not pierce a wall.
How do you work that out?
Kinetic energy would still be much the same.

Nor do I see any reason why the wings could not gently rock in one doirection while the fuselage cartwheeled sideways. Once again it all depends on what your point of reference point is.

Instead of wasting time on this pointlessly aggressive attempt to impose your own interpretation why not do something useful, ask the people themselves what they meant? When if ever you've finished your negative rant their entitlement to their own experience will still be just as much their own.

[seatnineb]

142. Your defense is poor.

In the Italian T.V documentary from September 2002.......
Walters uses his hands to accentuate how the wings folded back.

No forward movement here.

And according to his CNN testimony(on 9/11/01) he was effectively behind flight 77 when it impacted...I have it on the 9/11:In Plane Sight DVD.
:evilgrin:

Go watch it tiger.

And just for good measure here is a another pentagon eye-witness who will add to your misery.

"The wings came off as if it went through an arch way leaving a hole in the side of the building"
Tim Hovis.
To be fair this guy does work 8 miles away from the Pentagon.

So did the wings fly forward(Timmerman),fold backwards(Walters) or shear off(Hovis)or disappear into the building(Eglas)?

I would love to interview these guys.
I dont think they would want to be interviewed by me.

[RH]

145. It is not my defense.

Nor so unhappy.
Why should I care?
The sensation is rather one of extraordinarily uninspired tedium.

:boring:

What's the game here supposed to be?
Does somebody hand out a prize to the winner?

With folded back what I said before appies.
Backwards or forwards is only meaningful according to the point of view and the actual time.

It is possible that one wing went forwards and the other went backwards.
Did anybody have a clear view of both wings at once?
I doubt it.
The starboard engine ran straight into a 30 ton elctricity generator and a tree.
That's perfectly clear and it would presumably make a difference.
The wings hit lamp poles.
That would presumably make a difference.
So what?
It is possible that a wing folded forwards when the fuselage first hit the building and then backwards when the engine and the wings hit the building.
Some of the accounts are precise.
A lot of it sounds like conjecture.
I don't know.
You don't know.
So what?

If one man says a dog had fleas and another says the dog had lice, does it prove there was no dog?

:eyes:

[DulceDecorum]

150. Heh heh heh heh

[seatnineb]

152. You have no case.

rh...........

It is quite simple.

Either the wheels were extended or they were retracted.

Noel Sepulveda, who made the observation that the wheels of flight 77 were extended as if to come in for a landing ,was 150 ft away when he saw the plane.

Lincoln Liebner was further away(300ft) than Noel Sepvuleda but still claimed that he could" see through the windows of the airplane"!.
Yet Liebner also claims that"It was wheels up, flaps up, engines full throttle.

Forget it rh.........

Your star witnesses ain't convincin me!

I am so glad that they have come forward to give testimony.
Their lies are there for all to see.

[RH]

201. Those distances are obviously wrong.

Sepulveda and Leibner were both in the vicinity of the Pantagon Car Park (south). That puts them both around about 600 feet from the point of impact.

http://magellan.co.arlington.va.us/scripts/esrimap.dll?name=REAmaps&Cmd=ZoomIn&CB1=0&Left=11892419.1110725&Bottom=7002715.45921895&Right=11893673.2356948&Top=7003969.58384127&Preview=Print+Preview&ScaleBox=&CB2=0&CB3=0&PV=&L23=ON&CB4=0&RPCnum=

If you really want to know what happened the need is to expressly consult the eye witnesses. Malicious insults prove only that you're walking backwards with your eyes shut.

[seatnineb]

203. Distances are not the only wrong things.

Sure rh.

You may be right.

The distances are wrong.

But then it is only the fault of either your star eye-witnesses or the journalists who interviewed them if those distances are wrong.

Libner himself claimed : "I was about 100 yards away,You could see through the windows of the aircraft. I saw it hit."

100 yards is 300 feet.

As for Sepulveda....the article implied he was standing only 150 feet from the point of impact.

So we have Sepulveda at 150 feet from the point of impact.
And we have Liebner at 300 feet at the point of impact.

Even if these distances are wrong..........

It does not explain how one man(Sepulveda) claimed:
"it flew above a nearby hotel and drop its landing gear. The plane's right wheel struck a light pole, causing it to fly at a 45-degree angle"

Whilst another man(Liebner) says:
"It was wheels up, flaps up, engines full throttle."

Two completely different observations regarding the same plane by two men who were in the same vicinity.

Looks like the distances are not the only things that are wrong with their testimony.

Why should I believe either of them.

But do keep trying rh.

[seatnineb]

139. Wrong.

rh.....How do you explain this.......

Sergeant Noel Sepulveda was on assignment at the Pentagon as a Medic. He was standing in the parking lot at the Pentagon when he noticed a jetliner lower its landing gear as if to make a landing ..........

And also according to Noel Sepulveda.....
"it flew above a nearby hotel and drop its landing gear. The plane's right wheel struck a light pole, causing it to fly at a 45-degree angle".....

Noel Sepvulda who is contradicted by his fellow pentagon 9/11 eye-witnesses.....

I can still see the plane. I can still see it right now. It's just the most frightening thing in the world, going full speed, going full throttle, its wheels up,"
Dan Creed.

The jet was 40-feet off the ground speeding toward the Pentagon. The wheels were up
Bob Dubill.

There were no flaps applied and no apparent landing gear deployed.
Albert Hemphill

The 757's flaps were not deployed and the landing gear was retracted.
William Lagasse

It was accelerating," he said. "It was wheels up, flaps up, engines full throttle. "
Lincoln Liebner

So rh........was the landing gear extended or retracted?

[RH]

141. I go with the majority verdict.

There was too much space between the lamp poles for the landing wheels to collide but the second lamp pole was very close to the outboard side of the port engine nacelle, possibly clipped by it.

A vast majority said that the wheels were up. A teacher at the Hoffman Boston Elementary School was impressed because a student had especially noticed that the wheels were up.

Whatever discrepancy over the sundry details the witnesses you cite all have one thing very much in common don't they?

[seatnineb]

143. Yeah!

rh nobly states......
Whatever discrepancy over the sundry details the witnesses you cite all have one thing very much in common don't they?

Yeah......some of them say somethin different!

[RH]

144. "Some of them"?

I'm talking about all of them, all of those you cited, not some of them.

What do the accounts of all those you cited have absolutely, consistently and persistently in common?

Shouldn't really be so hard to work out, should it?

[seatnineb]

153. Big or Small.

O.K rh.......

Was flight 77 a boeing 757 ......or something smaller.........

Like these pentagon 9/11 witnesses seem to think.

"At first, we thought it was the jets that sometimes fly overhead. However, it appeared to be a small commercial aircraft..."
D.S Khavkin

The plane, which appeared to hold about eight to 12 people, headed straight for the Pentagon
Steve Patterson.

"The plane was a two-engine turbo prop that flew up the river from National. Then it turnedback toward the Pentagon. We thought it had been waved off and then it hit the building."
Ken Ford

"silver pasenger jet, mid sized"
Allan Cleveland

"I watched this ...it looked like a commuter plane, two engined"
Don Wright.


Does the plane below look like a:
a two-engine turbo prop.

small commercial aircraft.

silver pasenger jet, mid sized.

And does it:
appear to hold about eight to 12 people



Dont bother trying to come up with the......
"A 757 can also qualify as a commuter jet."

And ....
Don't worry rh........I have already read the other witnesses who have claimed to have seen a 757.

[RH]

155. I go with the majority verdict.

seatnineb prefers to come up with a small selection of deceptive quotes with nothing to say about it that we hadn't already heard over and over agin more than two whole years ago.

So now we know a little more perhaps about seatnineb but apart from that....?

:boring:

I have commented elsewhere on the unreliabitlity of the Patterson quote which was not actually, in fact a quote at all. Barbara Vobejda hadn't even spoken to Patterson.

Don Wright was in Rosslyn, a full three miles to the north, and Allan Cleveland was a couple of miles away to the south, on the Metro near to National Airport. It is not so suprising then, is it, if their identification of the object was not as acute as others much nearer to the scene?

[seatnineb]

156. Wrong.

rh.
Mate........you are forgetting something!

Cheney said that the hijacked plane was headed for 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
"It turned away and, we think, flew a circle and then came back in and hit the Pentagon. That's what the radar track looks like."

This is probably why Don Wright had as good a view as any.....
Even though they are seperated by the Pontomac......Wilson blvd is practically in line(just a tad to the south) with Pennslyvania ave.
The plane could have circled back over or near to Rosslyn.

I see you avoided Ken Ford's testimony ,who incidentally backs up what I said above.......
I'll just remind everyone what he observed.
"The plane was a two-engine turbo prop that flew up the river from National. Then it turnedback toward the Pentagon. We thought it had been waved off and then it hit the building."

And for good measure ....Ken Ford was using binoculars!
See ya later rh......


And as for eye-witnesses closer to the scene.

Like Tony Terronez.

Who was a mere 300 ft from the Pentagon Heliport:

So I got about 100 yards or so past the heliport and then all of the sudden I heard this loud screeching sound that just came out of nowhere and it intensified. This huge WHOOSH! And something made me look in my rear view mirror and by the time I looked up I saw the side of the Pentagon explode. I was stunned. It was just so surreal, like At that point I realized - you see at that point I didn't know it was a plane, I thought it was a missile strike - how dangerous things were.
http://www.counseling.org/ctonline/news/amazing1001.htm

Even though it was behind him.....he couldn't tell that it was a plane.....or at least the sound of a plane.........despite the fact it was bearly 300 ft away from him?

Yeah right!

As I said before......ALL these eye-witnesses are their own and each-others worst enemies.

See ya later again rh.......

[RH]

158. No. You're horribly wrong and your geography is appalling,

and you're not even bothering to check stories before you quote, because the Terronez link is defunct.

If indeed Flight 77 flew "up river from National" then it was further away from Don Wright at Rosslyn, not closer to Rosslyn, for National Airport and 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, as seen from Rosslyn, are both further from Rosslyn than the Pentagon.

Furthermore, "Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/national/main310721.shtml

So before circling down and around Pentagon City (away from Rosslyn, not northwards towards Rosslyn) Flight 77 was flying at a considerable height. An altitude of 7000 feet is 1.33 miles high!

As it headed in for Washington it would thus be more difficult to recognise from Rosslyn, not less.

However, that was definitiely not where Don Wright saw it. He saw it "come down from the south real low"...."very low over the trees"
7000 feet is not very low over the trees, is it?

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sns-worldtrade-pentagon-witness-ra.realaudio?coll=sfla-home-headlines

:eyes:

I am not suprised if nobody was able to recognise the sound of an airliner flying at circa 500 mph and extremely low. Fortunately it is not a frequent occurence.

[seatnineb]

163. You have fallen for the oldest trick in the book!

Radar shows that it did a downward spiral?

Really?

If Flight 77's transponder was turned off.

How could the radar show what altitude the plane was at?

The article refering to the downward spiral was published on the 21st September,2001.

At that point there was no information retrieved from flt 77's data recorder (that was recovered from the crash scene) that was released to the media or the public.

Sure Robert Mueller claimed to have the data recorder as early as September 14th,2001.
FBI Director Robert Mueller said Friday the agency has gotten information from Flight 77's flight data recorder, which tracks an airplane's flight movements, such as altitude, heading, speed and the operations of other airplane systems for the last 25 hours.

But our Robert decided to keep things pretty close to his chest.....

He declined to say what the FBI has learned.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archi... .

In fact ,as you so kindly pointed out to me in another thread,Mueller only revealed flt 77's data recorder information in Febuary 2002.

FBI Director Robert Mueller said Flight 77's data recorder provided altitude, speed, headings and other information, but the voice recorder contained nothing useful.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/02/25/attack/main50...


The radar never showed ANYTHING regarding Flight 77's altitude.
NEVER.
NOTHING.

So what the fuck are you and that CBS article talkin about?

NOTHING.

[RH]

168. You were wrong.

Don wright saw the plane coming "down from the south real low"...."very low over the trees".

South of the Pentagon is further from Rosslyn, not nearer.

ATC knew it did a downward spiral because it vanished from radar as it came down. If it had come in at tree top height before spiralling down it would have been off radar all along.

The height the Boeing flew in at was seen from the military C130 called by ATC to intercept to identify the object. The descent of the aircraft was also eye balled directly by Chris Stephenson, the controller-in-charge at the Reagan National Airport tower. It would also have been seen by aircraft coming in to land at National.

Do you have something to prove that they lied? Did you ask Don Wright how far off the plane was when he saw it?

I thought not.

:spank:

[seatnineb]

176. This is what happens when you believe in a lie.

rh deludes himself....
If(fl77) had come in at tree top height before spiraling down it would have been off radar all along.

Wrong.

If it were monitored by a Terminal Radar Approach Control it would be observed as a primary target assuming NO OBJECT such as a Building or a Mountain or a tree was between the plane and the radar.

But fl77 only went down below tree level merely a few seconds before it hit the Pentagon.

He and two colleagues from Oracle software were stopped in a car near the Naval Annex, next to the Pentagon, when they saw the plane dive down and level off.
Dan Creed.

Seems like the naval annex is taller than the trees.



So eat it rh........
The plane disappeared off radar just a few seconds before it crashed.

It did not disappear off the radar screen because it was "spiraling down" from a great altitude(7000ft).

And if fl77's transponder was turned off then NO ATC would have a clue as to how high it was.

Unless they were in contact with a C-130 Cargo plane.

But...

The information regarding the C-130 was not released to the public until OCTOBER 17 2001.

Exactly one month AFTER the CBS SEPTEMBER 17 2001 article which said :
Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes.

How could a news agency like CBS have access to information that the fucking Pentagon did not have!(on 9/17/01)

In the days immediately following the Sept. 11 hijackings, the Pentagon had no knowledge of the C-130's encounter, because all reports were classified by the Air National Guard, the Pentagon spokesman said.
http://www.logofilo.com/PentagonC130&KeithWheelhouse.html

The 9/17/01 "source" for the CBS article was probably the NTSB who, according the 9/11 commission report , had a document entitled:
NTSB report Flight Path Study-American Airlines Flight 77 - 9/17/01.

No shit man!

What the fuck are the NTSB doin here!
I thought that this is supposed to be a criminal investigation with the FBI callin the shots!

And.........

Here you have a contradiction.

Information obtained by an ATC at Reagan National regarding fl77's altitude was given by a C-130 cargo plane whose "presence" was deemed to be classified information that not even the Pentagon knew about it!
Yet you have the NTSB(who should not even be here) presumably taking information from this Reagan National ATC Chris Stevenson.

Chis Stevenson who........
Looked at the radarscope and saw that the jet was about five miles to the west.
He looked out the tower window and saw the jet turning to the right and descending. The jet did a full circle and whoever was flying knew what he was doing. The wings never rocked or oscillated
http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002-08-11-voices_x.htm

Oh really?

He saw this with his bare eyes?

Well Stevenson's testimony does come a bit late.8/13/02

Was Chris Stevenson using binoculars?...like Ken Ford.....whose testimony beat Stevenson's by nearly a year(as far as the public is concerned) and who saw the same plane from the State Department Annex across the Pontomac.
According to Ford it was" a two-engine turbo prop that flew up the river from National. Then it turned back toward the Pentagon"

Now before you try to criticize my Geography........
Take this into account.....
Later, we were told that it was a 757 out of Dulles, which had come up the river in back of our building, turned sharply over the Capitol, ran past the White House and the Washington Monument, up the river to Rosslyn, then dropped to treetop level and ran down Washington Boulevard to the Pentagon.
Scot Cook.

Rosslyn lines up quite nicely with the state department across the Pontomac which gives a guy(Ford) using binoculars a pretty good view.

Between Washington D.C's 9/11/01 eyewitnesses who have seen:
757's or turbo prop planes...
Planes that still show altitudes on radar screens even when their transponders are turned off!
ATC's who can see aircraft 7000ft in the air with their bare eyes.
Wings that either fold back,fly forward or shear off.
Wheels that are extended or retracted.

Quite franky......I would not believe any of them.

[RH]

177. What a glutton for punishment!

It is a reported fact that

"The final radar signal from the plane came at 9:37:35 a.m., about a
mile from the Pentagon, when the plane dropped below radar level."
(as reported in 'Hijackers Targeted Pentagon', Washington Post - September 21 by Don Phillips)

One mile at 500 mph. is 7.2 seconds. Because the Arlington Heights over which the plane flew are well above the Pentagon the plane would have been at tree top height for some considerable distance. Many witness decribed it the same way.

ATC was in touch with the C130 plane. It was called in especially by ATC. CBS would have access to the information the same way they have access to any other information. They ask or they read. The source may well have been the NTSB.

I agree that the secrecy about the C130 is suspicious, as is the delay. The 'No Boeing' disinformation campaign did a remarkably good job of distracting attention from that and the Black Box flight recorder information. There are many contradictions and oddities. If you get around to reading the O'Brien C130 pilot story I dare say you'll think of few about that. It does look like the C-130 story was initially classified because early stories about ACT and radar made no mention of it.

Strangely enough lots of people on 9/11 had bare eyes. Lots of stories turned up late. As I collected eye witness reports in 2002 new ones continually turned up and older ones were discovered. There are also of course a lot more people who saw the plane, especially along Columbia Pike and in Arlington Village, except that they're not heard of. It was simply not so unusual to have seen the thing, not newsworthy as such. Hundreds of people, literally, had noticed it. 'anablep' who used to contribute here was in touch with some before she withdrew from the flack.

"Rosslyn lines up quite nicely with the state department across the Pontomac" ?

Lines up with what? A line between Rosslyn and the State Dpartment passes well north of the Pentagon with National Airport nearly 90 degrees away to the South.

I understand the doubts about the trajectory because I used to have my own doubts about it, thinking that the radar plot of the C130 and the B757 may have been confused. The descriptions from witnesses are not terribly clear and I have never yet seen an officially verified map of the trajectory. Nor did I ever ever take the story from the C130 pilot at face value, but all in all there were far too many people around to see where it went. It is hardly possible to fake a version of somthing that happened in broad busy daylight. An Airliner away from a usual flight path is not something to make a mistake about. I live right underneath a busy flight path. It is something that nobody in the vicinity can help but be aware of. Even if you can't hear or see a plane that flies that low and fast you can feel the building shake.

Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Save yourself some time. Get used to it.

Did you ask Don Wright?

I thought not.

Can you show me one person in Arlington to see for themselves who thinks that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon?

I thought not.

[seatnineb]

180. Keep belivin the lies rh..........

The question is how could the Pentagon not have been aware of this C-130?
It flew in the vicinity of the Pentagon after flight 77 hit.

And this is the catch.
Stevenson(or some-one working for him) was in contact with the C-130.
Stevenson was also in contact with the Secret Services.
The Secret Services were in contact with the White House and Dick Cheney.

Dick Cheney was in contact after 10:39am on 9/11/01 with Donald Rumsfeld.

Donald Rumsfeld who works at a now attacked Pentagon.

Yet Rumsfeld doesnt know or is not told about the C-130 on 9/11/01?
Rumsfeld is the bleedin Secretary Of Defence for C*****s Sake!

This is what happens when there is a lie.

Oh dear!

Hey .... ya gotta love the 9/11 commision report.......
It has gotta be my fav book at the moment!
Suprised?
:evilgrin:

And regarding the eye-witnesses......

I love this
To quote rh....
Lines up with what? A line between Rosslyn and the State Dpartment passes well north of the Pentagon with National Airport nearly 90 degrees away to the South.

Exactly ol' chap.

Where did the plane begin its descent from it's alleged 7000ft altitude?
Thats right......
Rosslyn.

According to your friend Stevenson at Reagan national Airport.....
It did a Full Circle

Which ,once this circle is complete ,would place it at.......
Rosslyn!
Just at a lower altitude.

Which would give Ken Ford with his binoculars at the state department across the Pontomac and Don Wright from his 12th floor appartment on Wilson blvd in Rosslyn a good view.

Now the question is Wright claims to have seen it:
"come down from the south real low ......over the trees"

The "Come down" could be intepreted as Coming down from a higher altitude?

Considering Rosslyn is North of the Pentagon.

When Wright says "from the south" as in south of where Wright was looking from..........

He may have had a closer look than what you give him credit for.

But do not fear rh.

Wright said he saw a commuter plane.
As I said before.
A Boeing 757 can fall within the definition of a Commuter plane.

But Ken Ford said that he saw a "Twin engine turbo prop"
Which could also pass as a commuter jet.

The jury for me is still out.
I know that it is closed for you.

Only time will tell what really happened on 9/11/01 at the Pentagon.

[RH]

181. Huh?

Stevenson(or some-one working for him) was in contact with the C-130.

Where do you get that from? He was at DCA. The ATC was at IAD.

Stevenson was also in contact with the Secret Services.

Where do you get that from?

And what has any of this got to do with Rumsfeld? I'd expect that he had one or two other things to attend to that day.

And you know the plane began its descent from Rosslyn?

Where do you get that from? Who said that?

According to your friend Ken Ford “The plane was a two-engine turbo prop that flew up the river from National." Up the River from National is not from Rosslyn, is it? Is he reliable or not?

If it flew a full 360 degree circle it would thus have come in from the south west, over the Pentagon, or maybe over the Cemetery or over Pentagon City. I don't know.

Rosslyn is not at an altitude of 7000 feet. That's for sure. It is not acually so easy to notice a plane at a height of one mile immediately overhead. That's also for sure and I don't know why anybody at that stage, in Rosslyn, would have taken any notice at all of a plane at 700O feet, do you?

And that's not where Don Wright said he saw it, is it? He said "tree top height".

Did you ask Don Wright to clarify?

I thought not.

Case closed?

Does Don Wright think that something other than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon?

I thought not.

Was Don Wright lying?

Do you have any particular reason to believe one witness but not other?

I thought not.

:eyes:

[seatnineb]

185. Who to trust?....I dunno........

Stevenson was the controller in charge at Reagan national airport tower.

Stevenson was in contact with the Secret Services.
About 9:30, the phone that connects his tower to the Secret Service rang. A voice on the other end said an unidentified aircraft was speeding toward Washington. Stephenson looked at the radarscope and saw that the jet was about five miles to the west.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002-08-11-voices_x.htm

According to your beloved 9/11 commision report:
Reagan national controllers then vectored an unarmed National Guard C-130H cargo aircraft,which had just taken off en route to Minnesota,to identify and follow the suspiciouse aircraft.The C-130 pilot spotted it and identified it as a Boeing 757.
9/11 commission report.
Page 25 and 26.

The Secret Services were with Dick Cheney.
Dick Cheney spoke to Donald Rumsfeld at 10:39am on 9/11/01.

So why did Dick Cheney not tell Donald Rumsfeld about the C-130?
The Secret Services knew about the C-130 on 9/11/01
The National Guard knew about the C-130 on 9/11/01
Dick Cheney knew about the C-130 on 9/11/01.
Conrollers at Reagan national knew about the C-130 on 9/11/01
So why the fuck should'nt the Secretary Of Defence of the United States Of America,Donald H Rumsfeld, NOT know about the C-130 on 9/11/01?

As for where flight 77 began its descent towards the Pentagon......

We are informed that someone told D.C resident Steve Cook that...
"It was a 757 out of Dulles, which had come up the river in back of our building, turned sharply over the Capitol, ran past the White House and the Washington Monument, up the river to Rosslyn, then dropped to treetop level and ran down Washington Boulevard to the Pentagon."
http://www.clothmonkey.com/91101.htm

According to ATC Stevenson all the way down south at Reagan national
the plane did "a full circle".........

Which would place fl77 at Rosslyn or thereabouts after its descent....just at a lower altitude.....

Which would give Don Wright in Rosslyn a decent view........
And Don Wright never said he saw flight 77.
He said he saw a commuter plane.


But Ken Ford who was at the State department across the Pontomac watching with binoculars said that he saw a turbo prop plane(which could also pass as a commuter jet)

And he said this on 9/12/01.

Rosslyn is roughly a 1-2 miles west of the state department.
But Ken Ford was using binoculars.

Why should I trust certain eye-witnesses over others?

I dont.

I just highlight the differences between their testimony.

Only time will tell which eye-witnesses told the truth.

[RH]

186. "beloved Commission report"?

What is that supposed to allude to? Where did I mention the Commission report?

I'd forgotten "Stevenson was in contact with the Secret Services".

It does raise questions. Since when were the Secret Services seconded to act as Air Traffic Controllers? And where did the Secret Services get the information from if not from ATC?

I must continue to dispute your geography.

"At the Dulles tower, O'Brien saw the TV pictures from New York and headed back to her post to help other planes quickly land."

"We started moving the planes as quickly as we could," she says. "Then I noticed the aircraft. It was an unidentified plane to the southwest of Dulles, moving at a very high rate of speed … I had literally a blip and nothing more."

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/2020/2020_011024_atc_feature.html

N.B. elsewhere it is said that the object approached from the west but here, more definitely it says southwest

So if then it began southwest of Dulles and then continued eastwards that does not take it along the river to Rosslyn. The river is definitely not southwest of IAD. The river is on the other side, northeast of IAD.

According to what then do you interpret Steve Cook's "up the river to Rosslyn" and "back of our building". Do you know which of the Portals buildings he was in? He could possibly mean up river from the south or down river from the northwest. To concur with Ken Ford it would have to be up river from the south.

But more to his point, he didn't see it! So why did he not see it? If you think that it was so clearly visible from Rosslyn why was it not so clearly visible from the other side of the Potomac? And how come Wright said nothing about a plane above Rosslyn or circling down?

There is barely any such thing as a decent view of a plane at 7000 feet. I see an awful lot of planes at lower levels but a plane at that height I would barely notice from one year to the next.

I don't see a significant issue with Rumsfeld, no reason on the face of it why the activity of the C130 would be a priority for him or for anybody around him after the event.

[seatnineb]

189. 2 Trajectories.

What we seem to have are conflicting testimonies regarding flight 77's approach and descent towards the Pentagon.

Ken Ford says:
The plane was a two-engine turbo prop that FLEW UP the river from National. Then it turnedback toward the Pentagon.

Scot Cook corroborates what Ken Ford says(in terms of the trajectory):
It was a 757 out of Dulles, which had COME UP the river in back of our building, turned sharply over the Capitol, ran past the White House and the Washington Monument, up the river to Rosslyn, then dropped to treetop level and ran down Washington Boulevard to the Pentagon (...)

The only difference between these 2 testimonies being that:
Ken Ford said it was Turbo-prop plane.
Scot Cook(who never saw the plane himself) says it was a 757.


Now according to the 9/11 commision report............
American 77 was then 5 miles west-southwest of the Pentagon and began a 330 degree turn .At the end of the turn ,it was descending through 2,200 feet,pointed straight towards the Pentagon and downtown Washington
9/11 commision report.
Page 9.


According to this trajectory....flight 77 NEVER FLEW THE UP THE RIVER FROM NATIONAL!.

A 330 degree turn to the right when flight 77 was already in a south-westerly position(relative to the Pentagon) would actually take the plane south, EVEN FURTHER DOWN the river ,not up towards the Capitol.....

Conclusion.

2 Different planes flying 2 completely different trajectories......

Yet both are supposed to be one in the same?

[MrSammo1]

175. You would think

You would think that any of the eyewitness statements that best fit the physical evidence would hold up in a court of law? Instead of the statements that don't match the physical evidence and could be swayed by "orders!"

[FighttheFuture]

167. It bounced off a hard lawn and hit a hard wall.

I posted this wahile back (warning, big picture coming up)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2265159#2265249

[LARED]

187. Ok, I admit it. It was MEEEEEE!!!

I hid the 757 in my basement along with the passengers. Keeping this conspiracy going is a real pain in the butt. They are eating me out of house and home and keep plugging up the toilet.

Anyone want a used 757 and some very cranky passengers?