Pentagon Strike....

bonkey

jackofalltrades wrote:

If thats the case then why was the footage of the alleged hijackers passing through a security check at Dulles airport and the security footage of the attack itself released?

Good question. I have no idea why it was released. I believe thats a far more pertinent question than why other material wasn't released.

If you want logic...ask yourself why Steve Jackson Games had a pc confiscated as part of a misguided attempt to crack down on hackers and it took over a decade to get it back, despite finding out in a far shorter period of time that charges wouldn't be pressed.

Basically, the US government agencies are reknowned for wanting to control the information. If they might use it, they confiscate it, and they hold on to it, and they decide when - up to the statutary limit, and sometimes beyond - it gets released.

Its pretty much SOP for them, so to point out that they did it is hardly indicative of something dodgy.

What is a far more interesting question is why they released what they have released.

I think the controllers would be able to tell the difference between a military jet and a 757, even one that was flown to its limits. The two would have completly different handling characteristics.

Nothing more than an assumption, TBH, and one which assumes the ATC-bods actually know the handling characteristics of combat aircraft and how that would be reflected on civilian radar.

The alleged pilot had difficult controlling a Cessena 172 so I wouldn't credit him with being a good pilot or in anyway having the ability to fly a 757.

Fair enough. So you don't believe he flew the plane. And how good a pilot was each of the other hijackers? (Incidentally, the numbers, names and histories of the pilots is one area where I do have some serious questions)

Lets look at it from the conspiracy theory side as well....if this was a setup, why would the people doing the whole "lets disappear a plane and claim it crashed into the Pentagon" go to all of the trouble of coming up with such a far-out cover story, and then put a cherry on top in the form of "and it was all done by a guy who couldn't fly a kite, let alone a commercial airliner".

Again, it seems that the CIA, FBI, or whoever is behind this is being credited with being simultaneously massively powerful and capable, and yet also incompetent and stupid. Smart enough to plan and carry off a sleight-of-hand to fool the world, but stupid enough to claim the plane was flown by a guy who couldn't fly a plane to save his life.

I'd make the assumption that the pilot was trying to fly into the front wall otherwise why would he perfrom a difficult 270 loop to line up with the front wall when he could just fly the plane into the roof, an altogether easier target to hit.

I haven't seen a detailed flight plan based on radar coverage, so I can't answer that definitively.

Then again, if you haven't seen such a detailed flight plan either, I'd say your assumption is unfounded.

But lets look at this...

For a start, why would any pilot pull a 270, when they could pull a 90 instead? Surely the need to turn through three right angles to line a plane up is evidence supportng the theory that this guy was not the best pilot in the world.

Also...if he turned through 270 degrees, then he wasn't pointed at the roof before hand, but rather was flying at right-angles to his target. So he would have had to make the same turn to hit the Pentagon even on the roof, so the "he turned 270 to hit the front wall" doesn't hold up. He needed to turn 90 (or 270) to hit any part of the Pentagon.

If I'm wrong...show me radar-coverage which details the actual flight-route.

Looking at the released secruity camera footage the angle of attack of whatever hit the building was very shallow, that and there's no evidence of a plane hitting the ground.

Fine - then it didn't hit the ground. Instead, the pilot pulled up and just managed to get the plane from smacking into the ground and instead executed a perfect "wall-hit".

Its immaterial - the point is that if it hit the ground, it did so for a single shallow bounce off the ground which is why there wasn't huge crash-scars on the lawn.

Whats funny though is that you're insisting it didn't hit the ground, when many of the questions asked are how a plane could not leave marks on teh lawn. Well, if it didn't hit it......

who between them saw a "missile with wings", a jet liner, a small business jet and one who saw the plane hit the ground before it hit the pentagon

And you selectively are choosing which ones to listen to in order to build your conspiracy theory.

The "hit the ground" ties in with what I said in the previous post about it hopping, but you say there is no evidence. On the other hand, you and the documentary both produce the quote of "missile with wings" as some sort of evidence, when all it has done is come from another eyewitness.

I on the other hand, can offer an explanation as to why people may have thought they say a missile with wings, a small business jet, or anything other than a jet-liner (which is what the majority say they saw from what I can gather). The explanation is how they could have mistaken a jet-liner for something else. Can you explain how so many people confused a missile for a Jet-liner? How many 50M long missiles do you know of?


So how do we reconcile the "missile with wings" option??? Its simple.

For a start, most of them have never seen a plane at any sort of close distance flying in excess of Mach .5. Whether the plane was doing 350 or 570 MPH, it was travelling a damn sight faster than planes we see at low altitude outside anywhere except the excoptional airshow.

Continuing from that, the Pentagon is big. I believe its still ranked as the largest building (floorspace) in the world. No matter what you put beside the Pentagon, it looks small. You know that tiny centre-court in the middle? Thats 5 acres in size. Each outer wall is 280m in length (yes, metres) - about three football pitches end-to-end.

Now consider the fact that most of the eyewitnesses were a considerable distance away - like outside the grounds of the Pentagon. They see a fast-moving object which is small relative to the target it hits. They see it travelling at anything up to Mach .8, and planes neither take off nor land at anywhere near those speeds (out by a factor of 3 to 5, depending on which speed you want the plane at).

So...fast-moving (especially compared to any commercial plane you'll ever see that close up)...looks small compared to what it hits...of course you'll have some people misidentifying it as an object smaller than it was in reality.

Also remember they had exactly one chance to see this. You can examine the replays all you like and convince yourself that you saw A, B or C.....but these guys got to see it once, and in real-timel.....and you have no idea how much attention they paid before the explosion, how clear their line of vision is, or anything.

(incidentally, if they saw it flying overhead - again at low altitude / high-speed - the same logic applies, only this time with no frame of reference to gauge size accurately.

Oh - and going back to the whole missile theory...

Go back and look at those still shots from the parking lot camera (you can get them here if you want them individually available. Now look a the blast. It clearly starts at the outside wall and works its way inwards. So again....tell me what knocked an almost-perfectly round 12' hole through the walls of the second ring? An already-exploded missile? Or an engine from a commercial airliner?

Seriously....

jc

sliabh

LFCFan wrote:

do yis know that the twin towers were heavily insured only a few months before Sept. 11th against a Terrorist attack and that a serious amount of profit was made from the insurance payout?

This one is cobblers.

The buildings were insured for terrorist attacks (as was pretty much everything before the insurance companies decided post September 11th to stop insuring for these risks) but a dispute went to court afterwards over whether it was one or two attacks on the day. The owner lost and as a result only got half the money he was looking for:
http://archrecord.construction.com/news/wtc/archives/040505insurance.asp

So no one cleaned up from the attacks.

mycroft

If you want logic...ask yourself why Steve Jackson Games had a pc confiscated as part of a misguided attempt to crack down on hackers and it took over a decade to get it back, despite finding out in a far shorter period of time that charges wouldn't be pressed.

Y'know I had completely forgotten about that until the other day it just popped into my head. That was just f*cked up.

Lets look at it from the conspiracy theory side as well....if this was a setup, why would the people doing the whole "lets disappear a plane and claim it crashed into the Pentagon" go to all of the trouble of coming up with such a far-out cover story, and then put a cherry on top in the form of "and it was all done by a guy who couldn't fly a kite, let alone a commercial airliner".

Okay could the conspiracy theorists please apply occams razor to all this.

What is more pausible that a group of terrorists flew a plane into a building.

Or.

The CIA/FBI/Illumanti, secreted the plane and it's passengers in a secret location. Fired a missile large enough to rip through one of the most fortfied building in the world, and then quickly ran around throwing small fragments of airplane around the grounds of the pentagon.

We're this close to mad fishmongers.

Continuing from that, the Pentagon is big. I

[fun fact] it takes around to walk around the perimeter[/ fun fact]

Would the conspiracy theorists please quit it and start refocusing their energy on the real conspiracy, the fact that Sept11th happened as a direct result of 40 years of inept corrupt US foreign policy of funding dictators terrorists and extremists when it suited their interest, and ignoring the consequences.

Until it flew into Washington and New York..........

sceptre

mycroft wrote:

Would the conspiracy theorists please quit it and start refocusing their energy on the real conspiracy, the fact that Sept11th happened as a direct result of 40 years of inept corrupt US foreign policy of funding dictators terrorists and extremists when it suited their interest, and ignoring the consequences.

Until it flew into Washington and New York..........

Oh now see, that's good. Whether you agree with it or not (and I do - and it's simple partial cause and effect so you don't have to be anti-American or anti-Bush or anti-Oreo to think that) that's a far better question. Something that doesn't require repeated viewings of JFK and Capricorn One.

bonkey

mycroft wrote:

Okay could the conspiracy theorists please apply occams razor to all this.

Occam's Razor is a conspiracy created by the Illuminati to help perpetuate the uncertainty about their own existence.

Sheesh...how could you not know that

fnord

jc

mycroft

Occam's Razor is a conspiracy created by the Illuminati to help perpetuate the uncertainty about their own existence.

I also heard that logic and deductive reasoning was taught to the Greeks by the Atlantians in an effort to cloud the location of Atlantis.

I'll fnord you.......

JFK and Capricorn One.

I swear to god theres this guy who claims JFK driver did the shooting. On his site theres a tiny thumbnail of the zapruder film, which he claims validates his theory

this guy here used to be my favourite conspiracy theorist. Alas Eircom took down his home page, the rant about there being satanic symbols in the RTE logo was really priceless

LFCFan

at the end of the day, it's far more interesting to believe it's all a big conspiracy then accept the official line. Most of these theories are probably born out of someone's boredom!

sliabh

I am a little bit behind posting this one as I got distracted with work (have they no consideration) but some links that may shed some light on what happened:
The report from the comission is here:
http://www.9-11commission.gov/

Read the first chapter for what happened to each aircraft. It includes timelines, diagrams of the flight paths and eye witness accounts of what was seen:
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

There is no mention of someone in ATC thinking it behaved like a fighter. But then as the aircraft transponder had been turned off when it was hijacked the civilian ATC people had lost track of the plane.

On the turn, the aircraft was 5 miles from the pentagon when the turn occurred. Close enough that Hanjour (the hijacker pilot) could see the place, but so close that if he turned towards it he would have overshot the site. So it made sense to turn the aircraft away from the Pentagon, i.e. through 330 degrees.

As for Hanjour's skill as a pilot while he was described as being of a poor standard he did acheive his Commercial Pilots Licence. So turning the aircraft and aiming it at a point on the ground (which you need to be able to do to land an aircraft) was not beyond him.

jackofalltrades

If I'm wrong...show me radar-coverage which details the actual flight-route.

Don't think they released the actual radar-coverage.
What is was talking about was something like the image in the link below.
The exact route mightn't be accurate.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://perso.club-internet.fr/mouv4x8/11Sept01/A0072b_Attack_Path_Flight_77_Pentagon.jpg&imgrefurl=http://perso.club-internet.fr/mouv4x8/11Sept01/A0072_steves-analysis.html&h=604&w=680&sz=339&tbnid=OGdEO3R6_RcJ:&tbnh=121&tbnw=136&start=10&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dflight%2B77%2Bflight%2Bpath%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DN

Nothing more than an assumption, TBH, and one which assumes the ATC-bods actually know the handling characteristics of combat aircraft and how that would be reflected on civilian radar.

A reasonable assumption none the less.

And you selectively are choosing which ones to listen to in order to build your conspiracy theory.
The "hit the ground" ties in with what I said in the previous post about it hopping, but you say there is no evidence. On the other hand, you and the documentary both produce the quote of "missile with wings" as some sort of evidence, when all it has done is come from another eyewitness.

I'm not selectively choosing which ones to listen to, im just pointing out the different variety of reports that the eyewitnesses have provide."Missile with wings" was only encluded so as to represent this variety.

And im not building a conspiracy theory either im just pointing out some of the flaws in the offical story.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

pork99

the_syco wrote:

One thing; It got through 3 sections. Did the plane that hit the WTC come out the other side? No. This thing went through 3 heavily fortified sections. Think about it. One lightly built civilian building -v- 3 military buildings. And it wasn't a big hole. Just a small one. A plane would crumple in the first one. Not go through 3.

Do I have a theory? No. I see facts. It wasn't a civilian plane.

You didn't see the documentary on Channel 4 on Thursday then?

1. They interviewed eyewitnesses who saw an Boeing 757 and the wreckage of that aircraft.

2. An air accident expert who said that the relatively small hole in the Pentagon was completely consistent with the impact of this type of aircraft.

Of course no doubt these people are under the influence of THE CONSPIRACY :eek:

MrPudding

But all the eye witnesses were actually planted there. They are all cia cutouts.

Man, you guys will beleive anything.

MrP

sovtek

LFCFan wrote:

at the end of the day, it's far more interesting to believe it's all a big conspiracy then accept the official line.

The official line is as dodgy as the "missile hit the pentagon" or "remote controlled airliners hit the WTC"....

Most of these theories are probably born out of someone's boredom!

Or it could be born out of several precedents of the "official" line being lies and half truths...
By definition the attacks on Sept 11th are a conspiracy.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

LFCFan

sliabh wrote:

This one is cobblers.

The buildings were insured for terrorist attacks (as was pretty much everything before the insurance companies decided post September 11th to stop insuring for these risks) but a dispute went to court afterwards over whether it was one or two attacks on the day. The owner lost and as a result only got half the money he was looking for:
http://archrecord.construction.com/news/wtc/archives/040505insurance.asp

So no one cleaned up from the attacks.

I was just quoting what was said on a Sky programme the other day that was looking into conspiracies. Was pretty skeptical of this 'fact' myself.

sliabh

LFCFan wrote:

I was just quoting what was said on a Sky programme the other day that was looking into conspiracies. Was pretty skeptical of this 'fact' myself.

You believed something Sky told you????

If they said the sky was blue I'd check it myself to be sure

LFCFan

sliabh wrote:

You believed something Sky told you????

If they said the sky was blue I'd check it myself to be sure

well, that's why I said I was skeptical. I only threw in this post to see what reaction there would be.

Did anyone see the conspiracy programme last night? It was about the Titanic and the conspiracy that it was it's Sister Ship The Olympic that was sunk in an elaborate insurance scam by switching the 2 ships before Titanics maiden voyage. I never even knew there was another ship like the Titanic!

sliabh

LFCFan wrote:

Did anyone see the conspiracy programme last night? It was about the Titanic and the conspiracy that it was it's Sister Ship The Olympic that was sunk in an elaborate insurance scam by switching the 2 ships before Titanics maiden voyage. I never even knew there was another ship like the Titanic!

This is getting way off topic, perhaps a new post would be better (and probably in a new group?)

But it you didn't even know that there was a sister ship to the Titanic (and there were 3 of that class, Titanic, Britannia and Olympic) then I'd say you need to do some more reading up before you start believing what one sensationalist tabloid TV program trys to sell you.

LFCFan

sliabh wrote:

then I'd say you need to do some more reading up before you start believing what one sensationalist tabloid TV program trys to sell you.

And where in my post did I say I believed it? Of course I don't believe it. It's rediculous.

mycroft

LFCFan wrote:

Did anyone see the conspiracy programme last night? It was about the Titanic and the conspiracy that it was it's Sister Ship The Olympic that was sunk in an elaborate insurance scam by switching the 2 ships before Titanics maiden voyage. I never even knew there was another ship like the Titanic!

Why yes I'm going to trust a show comissioned by a station which produces such find programs such as

"When bras collaspe"

"World wildest escaped animal high speed pursuits 4"

"When boob jobs go right"

"Supermodels uncovered volume 4"

:rolleyes:

BolBill

I think the easiest question to answer is:

"who had the most to gain from 9/11 ??"

Answer : George W. Bush.