Pentagon 9/11, serious thread

[RageAgainst]

Ok I want to remain objective here.

One one side, you have the US authorities saying a boeing 757 hit the pentagon on 9/11.

On the other hand.... The hole made by the plane was.. just a hole. no traces of wings hitting the wall. google the pictures for yourself.

Soooo. I don't think it was a boeing 757. It can't be. I'm not stupid enough to believe a boeing 757 hit the pentagon after what I have seen. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I'm playing objectively here. There is no trace of wings on the fucking wall. It clearly wasn't a boeing.

This raises another question. If it's not the boeing. Then what the hell happened to the missing boeing.. Did they make up false deaths? Or are these people really dead? Where and how did they die?

What do you think? Don't tell me you actually believe it was a boeing 757? That's way too huge.


edit ok so here's a pic. you can find it on google anywaysé

http://www.rense.com/general32/fuselagefragment_MVC-027S.jpg

edit : Ok so I'm reading on it, I don't have enough info yet. I try not reading from a single site, the more references the better. I just don't believe the official version is right.

[jam6549]

man u getting paranoid :confused:

[RageAgainst]

man u getting paranoid :confused:

No. I let my own judgement guide me.

btw jam.. the hole in the wall on the pentagon.. It's 8 feet tall... How tall is a boeing 757??? dun dun dun... I'm not paranoid.


edit: Regardless of the size of the hole, I would like to see a pilot hold a 757 steady, only a few meters off the ground, at the speeds it was travelling, long enough to slam into the building at the height it did.

Sorry but it wasnt a 757

[jam6549]

what hit it then?
edit: ever heard of landing, dumbass

EdIt: You could try making your point without the name calling. Or is name calling the only way you know how to debate? Lets keep that shit in Bait & Tackle.

~Max

[RageAgainst]

what hit it then?

some people say f-16.. or a missile.. definitely not a boeing 757.




PASSENGERS

Paul Ambrose, 32, of Washington, was a physician who worked with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the surgeon general to address racial and ethnic disparities in health. A 1995 graduate of Marshall University School of Medicine, Ambrose last year was named the Luther Terry Fellow of the Association of Teachers of Preventative Medicine.

Yeneneh Betru, 35, was from Burbank, California.

M.J. Booth

Bernard Brown, 11, was a student at Leckie Elementary School in Washington. He was embarking on an educational trip to the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary near Santa Barbara, California, as part of a program funded by the National Geographic Society.

Suzanne Calley, 42, of San Martin, California, was an employee of Cisco Systems Inc.

William Caswell

Sarah Clark, 65, of Columbia, Maryland, was a sixth-grade teacher at Backus Middle School in Washington. She was accompanying a student on an educational trip to the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary near Santa Barbara, California, as part of a program funded by the National Geographic Society.

Asia Cottom, 11, was a student at Backus Middle School in Washington. Asia was embarking on an educational trip to the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary near Santa Barbara, California, as part of a program funded by the National Geographic Society.

James Debeuneure, 58, of Upper Marlboro, Maryland, was a fifth-grade teacher at Ketcham Elementary School in Washington. He was accompanying a student on an educational trip to the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary near Santa Barbara, California, as part of a program funded by the National Geographic Society.

Rodney Dickens, 11, was a student at Leckie Elementary School in Washington. He was embarking on an educational trip to the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary near Santa Barbara, California, as part of a program funded by the National Geographic Society.

Eddie Dillard

Charles Droz

Barbara Edwards, 58, of Las Vegas, Nevada, was a teacher at Palo Verde High School in Las Vegas.

Charles S. Falkenberg, 45, of University Park, Maryland, was the director of research at ECOlogic Corp., a software engineering firm. He worked on data systems for NASA and also developed data systems for the study of global and regional environmental issues. Falkenburg was traveling with his wife, Leslie Whittingham, and their two daughters, Zoe, 8, and Dana, 3.

Zoe Falkenberg, 8, of University Park, Maryland, was the daughter of Charles Falkenberg and Leslie Whittingham.

Dana Falkenberg, 3, of University Park, Maryland, was the daughter of Charles Falkenberg and Leslie Whittingham.

Joe Ferguson was the director of the National Geographic Society's geography education outreach program in Washington. He was accompanying a group of students and teachers on an educational trip to the Channel Islands in California. A Mississippi native, he joined the society in 1987. "Joe Feguson's final hours at the Geographic reveal the depth of his commitment to one of the things he really loved," said John Fahey Jr., the society's president. "Joe was here at the office until late Monday evening preparing for this trip. It was his goal to make this trip perfect in every way."

Wilson "Bud" Flagg of Millwood, Virginia, was a retired Navy admiral and retired American Airlines pilot.

Dee Flagg

Richard Gabriel

Ian Gray, 55, of Washington was the president of a health-care consulting firm.

Stanley Hall, 68, was from Rancho Palos Verdes, California.

Bryan Jack, 48, of Alexandria, Virginia, was a senior executive at the Defense Department.

Steven D. "Jake" Jacoby, 43, of Alexandria, Virginia, was the chief operating officer of Metrocall Inc., a wireless data and messaging company.

Ann Judge, 49, of Virginia was the travel office manager for the National Geographic Society. She was accompanying a group of students and teachers on an educational trip to the Channel Islands in California. Society President John Fahey Jr. said one of his fondest memories of Judge is a voice mail she and a colleague once left him while they were rafting the Monkey River in Belize. "This was quintessential Ann -- living life to the fullest and wanting to share it with others," he said.

Chandler Keller, 29, was a Boeing propulsion engineer from El Segundo, California.

Yvonne Kennedy

Norma Khan, 45, from Reston, Virginia was a nonprofit organization manager.

Karen A. Kincaid, 40, was a lawyer with the Washington firm of Wiley Rein & Fielding. She joined the firm in 1993 and was part of the its telecommunications practice. She was married to Peter Batacan.

Norma Langsteuerle

Dong Lee

Dora Menchaca, 45, of Santa Monica, California, was the associate director of clinical research for a biotech firm.

Christopher Newton, 38, of Anaheim, California, was president and chief executive officer of Work-Life Benefits, a consultation and referral service. He was married and had two children. Newton was on his way back to Orange County to retrieve his family's yellow Labrador, who had been left behind until they could settle into their new home in Arlington, Virginia.

Barbara Olson, 45, was a conservative commentator who often appeared on CNN and was married to U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson. She twice called her husband as the plane was being hijacked and described some details, including that the attackers were armed with knives. She had planned to take a different flight, but she changed it at the last minute so that she could be with her husband on his birthday. She worked as an investigator for the House Government Reform Committee in the mid-1990s and later worked on the staff of Senate Minority Whip Don Nickles.

Ruben Ornedo, 39, of Los Angeles, California, was a Boeing propulsion engineer.

Robert Penniger, 63, of Poway, California, was an electrical engineer with BAE Systems.

Lisa Raines, 42, was senior vice president for government relations at the Washington office of Genzyme, a biotechnology firm. She was from Great Falls, Virginia, and was married to Stephen Push. She worked with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on developing a new policy governing cellular therapies, announced in 1997. She also worked on other major health-care legislation.

Todd Reuben, 40, of Potomac, Maryland, was a tax and business lawyer.

John Sammartino

Diane Simmons

George Simmons

Mari-Rae Sopper of Santa Barbara, California, was a women's gymnastics coach at the University of California at Santa Barbara. She had just gotten the post August 31 and was making the trip to California to start work.

Bob Speisman, 47, was from Irvington, New York.

Hilda Taylor was a sixth-grade teacher at Leckie Elementary School in Washington. She was accompanying a student on an educational trip to the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary near Santa Barbara, California, as part of a program funded by the National Geographic Society.

Leonard Taylor was from Reston, Virginia.

Leslie A. Whittington, 45, was from University Park, Maryland. The professor of public policy at Georgetown University in Washington was traveling with her husband, Charles Falkenberg, 45, and their two daughters, Zoe, 8, and Dana, 3. They were traveling to Los Angeles to catch a connection to Australia. Whittington had been named a visiting fellow at Australian National University in Canberra.

John Yamnicky, 71, was from Waldorf, Maryland.

Vicki Yancey

Shuyin Yang

Yuguag Zheng


WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO THESE PEOPLE

[Janglenut]

What I have to say.
http://www.muchosucko.com/flash/pentagonlies.html#Main

[RageAgainst]

What I have to say.
http://www.muchosucko.com/flash/pentagonlies.html#Main

wow janglenut.. thanks.

good url : http://www.muchosucko.com/flash/pentagonlies.html

[I Hate The FCC]

What I have to say.
http://www.muchosucko.com/flash/pentagonlies.html#Main
Very interesting. It was clearly not a Boeing 757. It was either a missile or a fighter jet. Was 9/11 set up by the U.S. Government as an excuse to attack Saddam? I don't know anymore. This whole world is fucked up. Hell, we're all going to end up killing each other.
EDIT: Was that not Adolf Hitler's voice in the beginning of that video? :confused: Oh and Rage they had a link to a more reliable site.

[bnccoder]

What I have to say.
http://www.muchosucko.com/flash/pentagonlies.html#Main
Good flash movie. :thumbsup:

[Slacker]

What I have to say.
http://www.muchosucko.com/flash/pentagonlies.html#Main

It looks like Janglenut knows what he talkin about i think it was a missile or what ever but not a plane

[dull_bullet]

I dunno, i've seent hat flash before, I'm pretty sure it was a missle. but to account for the missing persons? no idea. maybe the terrorists flew off with them to afghaninstan :confused:

[FireAngel]

I don't know who's making up these pictures and videos, but I saw the news reports on 9/11. Those pictures showed almost one entire side demolished on the Pentagon. I'm not saying it wasn't a missile, that's still a strong possiblity, but I think someone might be trying too hard for a conspiracy theory and doctoring photos.
Secondly, there have been rumors/conspiracy theories about the U.S. having a treaty with Osama bin Laden before. I wouldn't put it past Big Brother to set up the attack to make his war on Iraq and get the second term.

[Messerschmit]

Ok judging by the size of that hole - I personally doubt that a Boeing 757 crash would create just a small hole like that, considering what we all remember from the Lockerbie disaster here in the UK.

And it does beg the question where did the other plane vanish to? However, is it not more paranoia to suggest that even President Bush would go to such lengths to invade Iraq, when in fact he uses a completely different excuse to do so? As for Afghanistan, well...are you the suggesting that Osama Bin Laden is falsified, bearing in mind that other explosions and disasters have occured to which Al Quaeda (spelling??) have bared the blamed for?

We are all aware that both the UK and US supplied some of these countries with the equipment and firearms to support themselves in the name of "defence".

I just think it sounds a little far fetched to believe that any of the Western powers would stoop so low and create the immense fear and anger with the American (particularly New York) citizens just for the sake of voting into a Second Term - consider the extreme unpopularity the war in Iraq has created.

[FireAngel]

Ok judging by the size of that hole - I personally doubt that a Boeing 757 crash would create just a small hole like that, considering what we all remember from the Lockerbie disaster here in the UK.

And it does beg the question where did the other plane vanish to? However, is it not more paranoia to suggest that even President Bush would go to such lengths to invade Iraq, when in fact he uses a completely different excuse to do so? As for Afghanistan, well...are you the suggesting that Osama Bin Laden is falsified, bearing in mind that other explosions and disasters have occured to which Al Quaeda (spelling??) have bared the blamed for?

We are all aware that both the UK and US supplied some of these countries with the equipment and firearms to support themselves in the name of "defence".

I just think it sounds a little far fetched to believe that any of the Western powers would stoop so low and create the immense fear and anger with the American (particularly New York) citizens just for the sake of voting into a Second Term - consider the extreme unpopularity the war in Iraq has created.
Bush lied about the excuse to go into Iraq. It is not below an American president to lie, look at Clinton. Bush had to come up with a good excuse that would get the majority of the American population to support his war.
No, we are not suggesting that Osama bin Laden is falsified. Those attacks really did happen. What some rumors/conspiracy theorists suggest is that the attacks on us on 9/11 were set up to put the Americans in a constant state of fear so they would agree to anything that even whispered of a threat. Then you can make up some story that Iraq has WMD's, and the majority of American people will immediately say, let's get 'em.
You don't live in America, so you don't hear what a lot of Americans are saying in support of the war in Iraq. A lot of people are for war against any country that even seems to threaten us even if it really doesn't. Americans in general are so stupid that they will just lump entire countries in with the terrorists who attacked us even though that country had nothing to do with the attacks. And the reason Bush got the second term was not for popularity, but because he started a war. Americans have a history of re-electing the same president if we are in the middle of a war.

[Descent]

Let me clear this up for you...You cannot fly a plane that low, I know because I've tried it in over five simulators, primarily made by Novalogic, who are highly regarded as the best.

The problem is that at those speeds, the ground will screw with the amount of lift required to keep the plane airborne. Even at 100 feet, it's damn hard, almost impossible.

An F-22 cannot do it. An F-16 cannot do it. Neither can a MIG-27, MIG 29, or an F-117a Nighthawk (A.K.A. Stealth Bomber).

Every one of these flight sims has been crafted with an in-flight physics engine, realistic mapping of the planes functions, manueverability, loadout, etc., and is a very accurate way of figuring out how the plane would handle.

A 757 needs much more lift than any of those to stay aloft. It is physically impossible.

[voiceofreason]

some people say f-16.. or a missile.. definitely not a boeing 757.


PASSENGERS

Paul Ambrose, 32, of Washington, was a physician who worked with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the surgeon general to address racial and ethnic disparities in health. A 1995 graduate of Marshall University School of Medicine, Ambrose last year was named the Luther Terry Fellow of the Association of Teachers of Preventative Medicine.


WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO THESE PEOPLE

Yes, that will answer it - where are the people and their familes, where are the remains?

If the government could put this to rest - it would be through the families...

[RageAgainst]

Ok so let's look at it in a logical way.

1. Either it WAS a boeing 757
2. Or it WASN'T.

The evidence that we have make us suppose it couldn't be a boeing 757. So let's consider option 2 the valid one.

If it wasn't a boeing 757, either:

1. There was no hijacked boeing 757 and all these passengers are fakes (can anyone contact family members of these passengers to prove they are real people who really disappeared?)
2. There was a hijacked boeing 757 and we have no idea where it vanished.

I lean towards option 2, because it would be far fetched to think all the passenger list was set up.

So there was a hijacked boeing 757 but we have no idea where it vanished:

1. It was heading towards the white house or some other important building and a fighter jet shot it down. The authorities then set up the pentagon thing so that the population wouldn't be "angry" at them for blowing up a plane with civil passengers. (wich is unlikely, there is always witnesses to a plane crashing down..)

2. I'm out of explanations. Help me in my attempt to bring logic to this mess.

[_Kitana_]

Thanks for the link to flash i been looking for this video forever. This is something that scared me, cause i thought the same thing when it first happened. I wonder if the pane had blown up... If it had bombs on it. I seen the planes hit the trade centers, i seen the crash plane on the ground heading for the white house.

No way could they get a missile on the plane...

I am almost certain that our government would not attack itself. It simply not economically feasible. Nor would they use it for a reason to attack Saddam when they didn't link it to him. To say that Osama bin Laden is falsified is a joke as well. Since the man is known to exist and has tons of money. You would have to say that this conspiracy has been going on for a huge number of years with tons of different presidents. That is to many people knowing about the plan for it to be affective and kept secret. I mean that theory doesn’t hold water…

SO….

Where is this plane? Did the hijacker decided “hey I don't want to die” and land it somewhere else? Are these people being held hostage ? Why is the government being so hush hush about it? Was this part of the terrorist plans?

If the terrorist are trying to trick the government, is our president and government just playing along… to keep hidden a deep secret hidden mission. Why would the terrorist even want a plane or it’s passengers? Were they trying to hold them hostage against our government and the US had to let them die…. ? What hit the building then?

My guess is that the terrorist used a pretty powerful weapon that our government doesn’t want to tell the us they have for some reason. Maybe for our own protection who to say? Maybe if they gave out details like this it would harm America more or maybe it wouldn’t. Something defiantly hit the pentagon… and it didn’t come from America or it’s government. First off the pentagon would not attack itself….

[JLXC]

Well the Pentagon would very much attack itself if they knew the danger to those who are important there was zero. The people in charge would do anything to keep their power and increase it. I don't understand why so many people have to cling to the idea that those in power have morals. Some may, but many may not have one iota of care about their fellow man except to see themselves enriched by pretending to care. I guess many people just can't imagine those in charge being Evil. Maybe the idea that they voted for these Evil people hurts them? Maybe the idea that if they are capable of THIS, what more might they be capable of?

People love to have those blinders on. It's ok, just go to sleep. Trust us, we're the government, would we lie?

On topic, wow... I've never seen that flash. I've looked up some other pictures on google and sure enough, even the mainstream press pictures look like that. Where is the plane? There's no evidence of one at all. Creepy.

I like how so many people refuse to consider, even Consider, conspiracies of the Gov't against the American people. It's great not to even be able imagine something that could very well be true. So many of them have been proven true, of course so long after the fact that nobody can be held accountable anymore, but still true. Yet, it's so much easier to label every accusation as "from a bunch of anti-government kooks!"

People forget America was founded by anti-government kooks, it seems.

[_Kitana_]

Well the Pentagon would very much attack itself if they knew the danger to those who are important there was zero. The people in charge would do anything to keep their power and increase it. I don't understand why so many people have to cling to the idea that those in power have morals. Some may, but many may not have one iota of care about their fellow man except to see themselves enriched by pretending to care. I guess many people just can't imagine those in charge being Evil. Maybe the idea that they voted for these Evil people hurts them? Maybe the idea that if they are capable of THIS, what more might they be capable of?

People love to have those blinders on. It's ok, just go to sleep. Trust us, we're the government, would we lie?

On topic, wow... I've never seen that flash. I've looked up some other pictures on google and sure enough, even the mainstream press pictures look like that. Where is the plane? There's no evidence of one at all. Creepy.

I like how so many people refuse to consider, even Consider, conspiracies of the Gov't against the American people. It's great not to even be able imagine something that could very well be true. So many of them have been proven true, of course so long after the fact that nobody can be held accountable anymore, but still true. Yet, it's so much easier to label every accusation as "from a bunch of anti-government kooks!"

People forget America was founded by anti-government kooks, it seems.


Lots of people do. I just saying it doesn't make sense.... Shit I believe JFK was killed by the vice presdent.... why cause that adds up....

I don't believe a 747 hit the pentagon. because that adds up...

I however don't believe what is offered as far as conpercy theories. it doesn't make sense nor add up.

BTW: I didn't vote for bush at that time....

So now what?

[dull_bullet]

Now, we wait for somone with power to divulge this information to the general public. :thumbsup:

it's not gonna happen.

[bnccoder]

They are going to announce who really killed JFK, but I don't remember when.

[JLXC]

So now what?

This is a good question. I have no idea. There is no way they'll tell the truth, if they've already gone this far. So I guess it's just a case of "Oh well". There is nothing to do about it. There is no way to stop them if they are keeping secrets. It's actually quite sad, really.

I wish I could think of one thing that could make a difference in this. One thing that would prove the "truth" of the matter. I can't. Hopefully someone will, and make it public before they are killed for exposing the Evil liars for what they are. I can always hope... right?

[_Kitana_]

This is a good question. I have no idea. There is no way they'll tell the truth, if they've already gone this far. So I guess it's just a case of "Oh well". There is nothing to do about it. There is no way to stop them if they are keeping secrets. It's actually quite sad, really.

I wish I could think of one thing that could make a difference in this. One thing that would prove the "truth" of the matter. I can't. Hopefully someone will, and make it public before they are killed for exposing the Evil liars for what they are. I can always hope... right?

Evil Liars. You assume everyone in power must be evil. That America's goverment must be evil. Why?

[Janglenut]

Which raises another question Descent.


Where did the plane go that dropped the missle, if one? Or where did the missle come from?

[billybob13]

They are going to announce who really killed JFK, but I don't remember when.
Probably when the records are released on 2027 or something like that

[I Hate The FCC]

They are going to announce who really killed JFK, but I don't remember when.
The people that know Deepthroat are going to reveal who he/she is. LBJ didn't kill JFK. If he did it to geht into power then every Vice President would be killing the President. Nixon had a role in JFK's death. I read it in some article. I forget where. :happysad: Evil Liars. You assume everyone in power must be evil. That America's goverment must be evil. Why?
Every leader in the world is a liar. It's a fact Kitana. Why do you think they are good?

[JLXC]

Evil Liars. You assume everyone in power must be evil. That America's goverment must be evil. Why?

I do not presume that every single person who runs the American govt is evil. I presume the most important ones are. They call the shots, they make the news, they choose what happens. I'm not sure if Bush is even evil, he's obviously manipulated, but he could be evil too, I'm not sure.

I only make this judgement based upon their actions and the way politics, and society, is headed because of their actions.

[_Kitana_]

I do not presume that every single person who runs the American govt is evil. I presume the most important ones are. They call the shots, they make the news, they choose what happens. I'm not sure if Bush is even evil, he's obviously manipulated, but he could be evil too, I'm not sure.

I only make this judgement based upon their actions and the way politics, and society, is headed because of their actions.

Errr... I believe that people make poor jugmental calls.


Evil is a VERY strong word and some things that get blamed on world leaders is not in their hands.

[JLXC]

Errr... I believe that people make poor jugmental calls.


Evil is a VERY strong word and some things that get blamed on world leaders is not in their hands.

Noone who is truly Evil and in power sees themselves as Evil. They seem to believe they do things that "they must" or "for the good of the country" the list goes on and on. People seem to be very reluctant to believe in Evil, because then you have to define Evil, which seems to be very flexible. Nobody wants to believe they support Evil.

Let's just say I disagree. There are EVIL, straight out Demons in human flesh, who help steer america. They make sure to keep their competition down, they start wars to make profit, they support whatever dictators will obey the USA, they lie to the public about everything important, they support terrorists world-wide (but only the ones who kill people they don't like, see school of the Americas), they support 3rd world countries keeping their people as slave labor to feed their greedy little pockets, they are behind the scenes just FUCKING UP THE WHOLE WORLD. These people exist, I truly believe it.

[bnccoder]

The people that know Deepthroat are going to reveal who he/she is. LBJ didn't kill JFK. If he did it to geht into power then every Vice President would be killing the President. Nixon had a role in JFK's death. I read it in some article. I forget where. :happysad:
Every leader in the world is a liar. It's a fact Kitana. Why do you think they are good?
O'Rourke said "In my opinion, Hoover wanted the commission to find that Oswald acted alone," Hoover could have had something to do with it.

[I Hate The FCC]

O'Rourke said "In my opinion, Hoover wanted the commission to find that Oswald acted alone," Hoover could have had something to do with it.
Hoover could have been bribed by Nixon. Or blackmailed.

[bnccoder]

Hoover could have been bribed by Nixon. Or blackmailed.
In my opinion, the principal individuals and forces behind the assassination were fanatical right-wing elements in the CIA and in the military, J. Edgar Hoover and Lyndon Johnson. I believe CIA and Mafia operatives, to include disaffected anti-Castro Cubans, constituted the largest part of the on-the-ground, operational arm of the plot. I believe that members of the Dallas law enforcement community were involved in the Dallas end of the cover-up, and that some of them knowingly allowed Jack Ruby to murder Oswald. I believe that FBI agents, along with J. Edgar Hoover, played a major role in most aspects of the cover-up. I believe Oswald was setup by LBJ, Hoover and the CIA. The magic bullet found mysteriously, later in the Parkland Memorial Hospital in an almost pristine condition was planted to match Oswald's rifle. .

In my view, the main reasons President Kennedy was killed were

(1) He refused to further escalate American involvement in Vietnam
(2) He was moving to end the Cold War
(3) Mafia's outrage over his war on organized crime.

Just below these reasons, I would list LBJ's lust for the presidency, J. Edgar Hoover's hatred of JFK and his desire to remain director of the FBI and Kennedy's reported intent to drastically reorganize or dismantle the CIA.
Source
(http://allfreeessays.com/student/Assassination_of_JFK.html)

[_Kitana_]

Hoover could have been bribed by Nixon. Or blackmailed.


What would Nixon gain?

Hoover had everything to gain from JFK death. JFK wanted to bring our troops home, however this spelled big money loss for Hoover who was making a profit off of Vitnam...

Hoover didn't want us to pull out... JFK was very close to them coming home and admitted to making a mistake by sending them there.

[I Hate The FCC]

What would Nixon gain?

Hoover had everything to gain from JFK death. JFK wanted to bring our troops home, however this spelled big money loss for Hoover who was making a profit off of Vitnam...

Hoover didn't want us to pull out... JFK was very close to them coming home and admitted to making a mistake by sending them there.
He had much to gain. If you do not know, I will not waste my time telling you. I think neither of us have the time for that.

[gurlgonewild]

on 9/11 i remember clearly one more plane reported off course than was accounted for in the aftermath.

:is all:
ty

[Janglenut]

on 9/11 i remember clearly one more plane reported off course than was accounted for in the aftermath.

:is all:
ty


Mind elaborating? There was one more than was accounted missing or off course before the impact then one was just gone? Or whatsup?

[_Kitana_]

on 9/11 i remember clearly one more plane reported off course than was accounted for in the aftermath.

:is all:
ty


Yes two planes hit the tower, one hit the pentagon, one crashed in a field near Philadelphia, (going after the second pentagon)

[WILD]

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

[RageAgainst]

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

Sorry wild, but that is not a valid rebuttal in my opinion. I still stand on my point, it wasn't a boeing, period.

So Kit, you think it was a missile/fighter jet?

Either the missile/fighter jet attack was launched by terrorists
Or it was launched by American authorities (for some dark reason)
Or it was launched by someone else

correct?

Wich one do you think it is?

[RedOctober]

Rage... Sorry, but they don't seem to have a clue..
They are blinded by their Propaganda Minister.

And the Lord spoke...

"As easy as a camel can creep through a needle's eye, a Boeing can fly through a pinhole. It's all in the mind anyway.." :mfinger:

[RedOctober]

Yes two planes hit the tower, one hit the pentagon, one crashed in a field near Philadelphia, (going after the second pentagon)

They fucking told you a plane hit the Pentagon.
But nobody did see it!
It wasn't on photographs, or the photographs where it should be on were confiscated!

Why on earth would the government hide evidence, when there really busted a Boeing into the Pentagon? They just showed the photographs to the world and the problem would be solved.

Problem is, there wasn't any Boeing!

And think about it... How ridiculous it would be to fly into the side of the Pentagon, while it would give much more damage to dive into the Pentagon from above!

And another thing that's pretty awkward is that part of the Pentagon was under construction!
Right after the impact, the walls were still standing, and even most of the windows weren't broken.

You really must be a moron to believe a Boeing went through that hole!

[countrygrl]

First of all why did they need to lie about it. The damage ahd already been done from the two planes hitting the world trade centers. They didn't need to manufacture any other sites or disasters.


Second of all the pentagon is not a normal building. It has extra protection built into it just in case this kind of thing does happen so that the human lost will be minimized.

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

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

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

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



Snopes (http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/pentagon.htm) explains it all pretty well and there are tons of other sites out there that explain even more about what happened.

[Brain Spout]

how's this, that hole you showed is from the third or fourth ring in. meaning the wings were lost earlier and it was the core of the plane doin ghtat damage
it just went pfft. says someone which isnt what i would expect form a plane that is a football field away. well that is how something goes that low to the ground at 530 MPH.

it sounded so fast it had to be a missile others say. how many of these people have seen missiles is my question. and how many have been that close to something going 530 MPH and that big?

"and then i heard a second exlposion" explosion one: plane hits building, explosion two: fuel tank.
missile theory:
explosion one: missile hits building, explosion two: ?

"it sounded like a missile" what does a missile sound like? whoosh? what does a plan sound like? whoosh? i dont know how all these civilians are missile and aviation experts.

"a bomb had gone off, i could smell the cordite" okay...? how does this guy know what cordite smells like. does anyone know what cordite is. if you do then ask yourself why the fuck would the US government be using it??? or even terrorists. we dont use that shit for this. it was used by the british as a proppellant for bullets. and it creates little smoke. meaning you put it in the gun (like gunpowder) and shoot. this wasnt cordite, that guy is an idiot.

who the fuck is "skarlet"?

i checked soem of these people who have these claims on the internet and some of them don't even show up. if anyone's names are made up, these peoples are probably. how is it that this is the only video where they mention these claims. did they interview all these people and then did they never document it for us ot see? i didnt search all of them, but i found one: christine peterson, i didnt see any government or official orginazations with this name, but everywehre i saw it and the quote read exactly:
"My mind could not comprehend what happened. Where did the plane go? ... But there was no plane visible, only huge billows of smoke and torrents of fire." why did a site researching it put the "..." in. this is osmewhat odd in my opinion.

what is DSO, and why is dan wright the only one listed as that?
http://www.racepacket.com/result02/sep02/arlteam.htm

in one quote they simply call the person: reporter, DoD Pentagon News Briefing. why not give his name???

"Actually there's considerable evidence of the aircraft outside the E-Ring"
-Lee Evey, Pentagon Renovation Manager

the picture you showed rage was of an inner wall. so ofcourse there are no wings or what not. those are going to be on the outer most wall. and on your picture there is stuff on the ground.

"can a boeing 757 punch neat holes through steel reinforced concrete walls?"
i don't know, but i know that a missile can't do this and if it was a missile it wouldn't have penetrated as many walls. if it was a small aircraft i dont think it would have penetrated as many walls. by asking me a question it doesnt disprove shit, it proves that this video doesn't know the answer to this question. i dont know if it can. and notice the walls arent steel walls. it doesnt go through a sheet of steel, but by adding the word steel it add the illusion that this thing wasn't probable.

"the E-ring collapsed 20 minutes after the impact"
okay let me explain this: the twin towers didn't collapse on impact. they collapsed because the fuel when it caught melted the beams supporting the tower. this wouldnt collapse immediately either.

"the subsequent damage from fire is also evident"
says an orginazation of civil engineers (not a single person). also this disproves another claim that the same flash makes: what about all that fuel.
in fact in the next segment they say: "what happened to the 5,300 gallons of fuel." i dont know, but it could have been responsible for all that burn damage you claimed happened. these claims on figures they say they got from NTSB national transportation safety board. im pretty sure the government has the right figures. but heres a kicker: in the beginning of the film they claim the plane ways 80 tons. and here they claim it ways 60 according to government figures... that helps prove their credibility.

then they show you pentagon footage. 5 photagraphs taken one second apart are the footage. so while a normal video would have close to 90 photos they have five which they show in about 2 seconds. and you know what that makes me think initially: this must be in slow motion, that plane is probably very quick. actually they are showing it do you in fast motion. this is trying to decieve in my opinion. also the claims on the footage and what we are seeing are once again coming from the ASCE.
then the ASCE states that the front fuselage was no more than 20 ft off the ground... where did they find this out?

officially it was flying at 530 MPH. im not sure how many of htese i witnesses have seen somethjing going that fast, but im pretty sure to a civilian they wouldnt know the difference between one of these at low altitudes and a military airplane.

flight 77 disapeared from radar 45 minutes before the strike. i would like to know what that proves adn where they got this evidence from.
i cant find anything about danielle o'brian who supposedly stated that the aircraft was a military plane based on her experience as an air traffic controller.

the ASCE are taken from a report that they made so that explains that.
----------------------
ive analyzed the video: so why would hte government fly a plane into its own building??? werent the attacks on the twin towers good enough? i dont understand what they gain from doing this.

[WILD]

Sorry wild, but that is not a valid rebuttal in my opinion. I still stand on my point, it wasn't a boeing, period.
Not valid? Did you read it? It responds to most of what was said, I didn't feel like typing something out when I could just as easily post a link to something that makes most of the same points in a similar fashion.

[Brain Spout]

his link disproves it, i analyzed that flash movie which seams to shed light on this somehow. and furthermore the government has no reason to.

[bnccoder]

If the government hadn't covered it up the public would have freeked out and started singleing out innocent people. They were just trying to avoid mass chaos.

[Brain Spout]

If the government hadn't covered it up the public would have freeked out and started singleing out innocent people. They were just trying to avoid mass chaos.

i dont understand what you mean. if the government hadnt covered up a fake pentagon attack then we'd single out innocent people. i think that such a fake attack would cause us to single out innocent people. ie people believed to be terrorists.

[bnccoder]

It would have started a war. This way, they hoped to just single out members of that one group.

[Brain Spout]

wouldnt there already have been a war from the world trade center attack? this seams like overkill.

im confused, whose side are you on?

[bnccoder]

The pentagon attack was probably a missle attack, but I think that another country launched the attack. Alqaeda was behind the twin towers thing, but another attack from a differant source would mean more panic and might cause other countries to join in. By saying that it was just alqaeda, it eliminated some of the chance of a war. Alqaeda is not a nation, only a group. It would be simplier to eliminate a group than start a war with a country.

[dull_bullet]

It WAS a group. :thumbsup:

I had never thought of the possibility of another country. kinda scary :confuse:
And yeah, i bet that if the public knew that another country had attacked (IF) more countries would have joined the attack.

[Brain Spout]

that would be interesting if it was another country. but i think that a boeing 757 hit the pentagon and i havent seen enough proof to change my mind yet.

[RageAgainst]

how's this, that hole you showed is from the third or fourth ring in. meaning the wings were lost earlier and it was the core of the plane doin ghtat damage

***
There was no traces of wings at the scene. Nothing. The grass was intact.

AND

The core of the plane is taller than 8ft (height of the hole) . A boeing 757 doesn't would not make this kind of hole. A boeing is fucking huge, even without the wings and tail.

***

it just went pfft. says someone which isnt what i would expect form a plane that is a football field away. well that is how something goes that low to the ground at 530 MPH.

***

No... A plane going at 530 MPH does a shitload of noise. Hell a parked plane with its engines running makes a shitload of noise. You can hear a plane when its thousands of feets above you. It would'nt have went "pffft".

***

it sounded so fast it had to be a missile others say. how many of these people have seen missiles is my question. and how many have been that close to something going 530 MPH and that big?

***

You can discredit the witnesses, but that doesn't discredit the theory. The witnesses had never seen a missile before, but it doesn't mean it was a boeing :confused:

***

"and then i heard a second exlposion" explosion one: plane hits building, explosion two: fuel tank.
missile theory:
explosion one: missile hits building, explosion two: ?

***

you just discredited the witnesses, that argument isn't valid. don't use the witnesses when you want and reject them when you don't. I'll comment it anyways :

Explanation : Explosion two = the missile fucking explodes. It doesn't have to explode AS is hits the wall, it can be "programmed" to explode after. Some missiles can hit 2 targets : it goes through the first target and blows up the second, further away.

***

"it sounded like a missile" what does a missile sound like? whoosh? what does a plan sound like? whoosh? i dont know how all these civilians are missile and aviation experts.

***

what are you talking about!! a plane doesn't sound like whoosh. I have no idea how a missile sounds like, but a plane definitely doesn't sound like whoosh. If it takes off and you're right besides it you need ear protectors. If it's just a football field away and flies at 500mph, it doesn't make whoosh, ffs.

***

"a bomb had gone off, i could smell the cordite" okay...? how does this g
uy know what cordite smells like. does anyone know what cordite is. if you do then ask yourself why the fuck would the US government be using it??? or even terrorists. we dont use that shit for this. it was used by the british as a proppellant for bullets. and it creates little smoke. meaning you put it in the gun (like gunpowder) and shoot. this wasnt cordite, that guy is an idiot.

***

Maybe, but who cares? They could've removed him from the video, that would've made no difference. He doesn't make the point.

***

i checked soem of these people who have these claims on the internet and some of them don't even show up. if anyone's names are made up, these peoples are probably. how is it that this is the only video where they mention these claims. did they interview all these people and then did they never document it for us ot see? i didnt search all of them, but i found one: christine peterson, i didnt see any government or official orginazations with this name, but everywehre i saw it and the quote read exactly:
"My mind could not comprehend what happened. Where did the plane go? ... But there was no plane visible, only huge billows of smoke and torrents of fire." why did a site researching it put the "..." in. this is osmewhat odd in my opinion.

***

The fact you didn't find them on the internet show nothing. To really prove they are real or not, you'd have to go to washington look up their names and go see them personnally.

***

"Actually there's considerable evidence of the aircraft outside the E-Ring"
-Lee Evey, Pentagon Renovation Manager

***

dude that's like quoting Bush saying "there is WMD's in iraq"
That dude said there is considerable evidence of the aircraft outside the E-ring. But he did not show the evidence. The public never saw the evidence it was an aircraft. Not a valid quote.

***

the picture you showed rage was of an inner wall. so ofcourse there are no wings or what not. those are going to be on the outer most wall. and on your picture there is stuff on the ground.

***

Of course there is stuff on the ground something just flew off the wall. Look at the size of the wall and the hole, you really dumb enough to think a boeing made that hole? you know how big is a boeing?

***

"can a boeing 757 punch neat holes through steel reinforced concrete walls?"
i don't know, but i know that a missile can't do this and if it was a missile it wouldn't have penetrated as many walls. if it was a small aircraft i dont think it would have penetrated as many walls. by asking me a question it doesnt disprove shit, it proves that this video doesn't know the answer to this question. i dont know if it can. and notice the walls arent steel walls. it doesnt go through a sheet of steel, but by adding the word steel it add the illusion that this thing wasn't probable.

***

They are steel reinforced concrete walls. And yes, a missile can go through that. Dude, missiles are designed to go through shit. A boeing isn't.

***

but heres a kicker: in the beginning of the film they claim the plane ways 80 tons. and here they claim it ways 60 according to government figures... that helps prove their credibility.

***

200 passengers can weight 20 tons. It was an approximation, and even then, 80 or 60 tons, you get the point, it's heavy as hell. (I don't know how many passengers there were.. But a plane with passengers weights more than the official government figures, wich is the plane's weight when its empty.)

***

Don't have time to go on.

The main and central reason why I don't believe it was a boeing is : the type of damage it made and the lack of evidence of a plane wreckage.

Wild, the link you sent me doesn't prove anything.

[bnccoder]

Cordite is primer cord, this idiot knows that. Experiance with it is fun.

[Brain Spout]

im discrediting the witnesses and then using the experts. however im still using their observations. just because a witness doesnt know what he is talking about doesnt mean that what he observed is wrong:
"i sawa this large circular disk and it just flew by me, it had to be a alien spacecraft"
if this was in fact a quote i would have claimed that how would this person have known that it was an alien spacecraft. however i do trust that their observations are correct. i.e. any idiot can say i saw a this large circular disk. but when people say "it had to be a missile" then i want to see some credentials.

im interpretting the "pfft" the witness claimed the thing meant as it was here and gone that quick, not as a minor noise as it whizzed by. im not sure which interptetation is correct either.


i understand that a missile can go through stuff. i dont know much about missiles, but are there really missiles with an 8ft diameter. and if so how didnt a missile this big cause the cars on the highway to wobble and how did it manage to fly 2 ft off the ground? also how did the missile cause an explosion on the E-ring and then keep going?

after seeing all this evidence i agree that it looks like shit is out of place, but i still am not convinced enough to blame the government for doing this (sicne there is no proof that the government has played any part in doing it). ill admit that maybe a boeing 757 didnt hit the building, but im not totally convinced on that either.

[WILD]

The main and central reason why I don't believe it was a boeing is : the type of damage it made and the lack of evidence of a plane wreckage.
http://www.abidemiracles.com/images/88terror/94Pentagon911/wreckage6.jpg
Umm yeaaa....
Edit:The bottom is a mixture of building and plane wreckage btw.
2nd Edit: There is also a good chunck of something along the lines of plane wreckage in the first picture you posted.
3rd Edit: The piece in your picture is a fuselage(you can tell by the green anti-corrosion coating on the one side.)

[RageAgainst]

http://67.19.222.106/rumors/images/debris.jpg

http://www.abidemiracles.com/images/88terror/94Pentagon911/wreckage6.jpg
Umm yeaaa....
Edit:The bottom is a mixture of building and plane wreckage btw.

You're kidding me right? Actually I know you're not kidding.. sigh. That's not a boeing 757 wreckage. At all. That's not 80 tons of scrap. Not even 20.

[RageAgainst]

im discrediting the witnesses and then using the experts. however im still using their observations. just because a witness doesnt know what he is talking about doesnt mean that what he observed is wrong:
"i sawa this large circular disk and it just flew by me, it had to be a alien spacecraft"
if this was in fact a quote i would have claimed that how would this person have known that it was an alien spacecraft. however i do trust that their observations are correct. i.e. any idiot can say i saw a this large circular disk. but when people say "it had to be a missile" then i want to see some credentials.

im interpretting the "pfft" the witness claimed the thing meant as it was here and gone that quick, not as a minor noise as it whizzed by. im not sure which interptetation is correct either.


i understand that a missile can go through stuff. i dont know much about missiles, but are there really missiles with an 8ft diameter. and if so how didnt a missile this big cause the cars on the highway to wobble and how did it manage to fly 2 ft off the ground? also how did the missile cause an explosion on the E-ring and then keep going?

after seeing all this evidence i agree that it looks like shit is out of place, but i still am not convinced enough to blame the government for doing this (sicne there is no proof that the government has played any part in doing it). ill admit that maybe a boeing 757 didnt hit the building, but im not totally convinced on that either.

I'm not saying the government did it. I'm not even saying it's was a missile. I'm saying it was definitely not a boeing.

Now look at the bold part of your own quote. See, a missile would create less windforce (or whatever you call the force of the air that follows an object) than a boeing because it's smaller than a boeing. But I could turn around your quote : Why didn't they wobble if it was a boeing?

Bottomline, there is no evidence that it was a boeing other than official statements.
On the other hand there is alot of evidence that it wasn't a boeing. Not all this evidence is credible, like witnesses aren't a 100% valuable argument, but some of the evidence is enough to safely say : it probably (almost certainly) wasn't a boeing.

[WILD]

You're kidding me right? Actually I know you're not kidding.. sigh. That's not a boeing 757 wreckage. At all. That's not 80 tons of scrap. Not even 20.
Wait did it only show the bottom picture? Because there were 2 pictures... Oh well...

Now in response, if you notice there are workers there, thats nowhere near all of it, not anywhere close.

[gurlgonewild]

first- an additional plane (+1) than the ones we all know about.

second-ok, let's say, saddam bombed the pentagon (the real reason we went to war w/ iraq) ...why keep it a secret? or are you insinuating our pansy ass country backed down from some random country's attempted attack on the USA by bombing the pentagon? (unlikely-we are cowboys)

third- your theory makes little sense, why add insult to injury when you've got enough fuel to burn the world b/c of WTC attack?

[WILD]

Edit: Know what why bother... just go with what you want 'its all a coverup!!!111'.

[voiceofreason]

http://www.abidemiracles.com/images/88terror/94Pentagon911/wreckage6.jpg
Umm yeaaa....
Edit:The bottom is a mixture of building and plane wreckage btw.
2nd Edit: There is also a good chunck of something along the lines of plane wreckage in the first picture you posted.
3rd Edit: The piece in your picture is a fuselage(you can tell by the green anti-corrosion coating on the one side.)

OK
"These" are pictures of real Plane Crashes:

http://www.planecrashinfo.com/w990601.htm (http://www.planecrashinfo.com/w990601.htm)

http://www.planecrashinfo.com/w010704.htm

http://www.planecrashinfo.com/w001031.htm

http://homepages.compuserve.de/RainerLabie/c-world/0010/crash.jpg

http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/photos/000323.lockerbie_ap.jpg

http://pbc7972.k12.sd.us/year/1988lockerbie2.jpg

[Brain Spout]

when i said the bold part you highlighted i meant this: some of the evidence to disprove it was a boeing was that so basically im saying that some of the evidence disproves itself. plus it's easier for me to disprove things with evidence provided by the opposing view rather than evidence i have to gather.

im sick of argueing about this. let's agree that the US government was not involved in the crash, however if there is a coverup they would have had to have been involved. im willing to say that a boeing crashing into the pentagon may not have been what actually happened, but as of now it's the best explanation ive heard. (im not talking about explanations disproving that a boeing 757 crashed into the pentagon, but explanations that talk about what made those holes)

EDIT: the second picture above:
http://www.planecrashinfo.com/w010704.htm shows a plane crash and the only recognizable part of the plane is the tale. im sure there are plenty of small peices in that wreck (the flash said "waht are these small pieces" suggesting that a plane isnt composed of any small pieces). i know that there is a lot of crap on the ground and burnt marks so dont point that out in your reply.

[RageAgainst]

first- an additional plane (+1) than the ones we all know about.

second-ok, let's say, saddam bombed the pentagon (the real reason we went to war w/ iraq) ...why keep it a secret? or are you insinuating our pansy ass country backed down from some random country's attempted attack on the USA by bombing the pentagon? (unlikely-we are cowboys)

third- your theory makes little sense, why add insult to injury when you've got enough fuel to burn the world b/c of WTC attack?



About your first-: can you please give me a link?

About your second and third : I'm not saying the government is responsible for the attack. I'm saying it wasn't a boeing. With that in mind, I'm trying to find possible options about what really happened.

[RageAgainst]

omg. read this (http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html).

This site suggests that the "no plane" theory is a hoax to "discredit 9/11 skepticism and distract from proven evidence of complicity" of the 9/11 events.

To put it short, they say that there was indeed a boeing that crashed into the pentagon, but it was a conspiracy. The boeing was "remote controlled (http://www.oilempire.us/remote.html) because a noob pilot that flunked out of pilot school could never have flew a boeing in a 270 degrees spiral into the wall. Furthermore, why would a terrorist make that 270 degrees turn to hit the under-reconstruction wing when he could've simply crashed in the part straight in front of him, making it easier AND getting more casualties.

pretty fucked up.



I see this new scenario.

This site seems to give proof that a boeing did fly into the pentagon - you can see traces of wings into the wall and shit. But still, the boeing could'nt have made it through 5 walls (the boeing didn't make the 8 foot tall hole I posted earlier).

What this means is, maybe a f16 was following the boeing right to its tail and made the hole. Anyways, this is really fucked up. I'm taking a break of this shit.

[WILD]

omg. read this (http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html).

This site suggests that the "no plane" theory is a hoax to "discredit 9/11 skepticism and distract from proven evidence of complicity" of the 9/11 events.

To put it short, they say that there was indeed a boeing that crashed into the pentagon, but it was a conspiracy. The boeing was "remote controlled (http://www.oilempire.us/remote.html) because a noob pilot that flunked out of pilot school could never have flew a boeing in a 270 degrees spiral into the wall. Furthermore, why would a terrorist make that 270 degrees turn to hit the under-reconstruction wing when he could've simply crashed in the part straight in front of him, making it easier AND getting more casualties.

pretty fucked up.
He made a 270 degree turn???!?!?!? I'm not arguing im just wondering how we know that.

Edit: As to what you added after I posted, I don't think it was an F16 following it, it would take a world class pilot to come in nap of the earth aimed at the hole, not just hitting the building which almost anyone could do but making it to a specific target(of that small of a size) is kinda hard.

[RageAgainst]

He made a 270 degree turn???!?!?!? I'm not arguing im just wondering how we know that.

I have no idea but I have read this on multiple sites. I think they say it's 270 degrees because let's say he was coming from the south, well he turned and hit the wall from north-east.

[WILD]

Even though I don't agree with the newer theory, it does seem possible and really for all I know it could be what happened. So I guess :thumbsup: on this thread.

[Brain Spout]

so... im right?


however now im enthralled because if this no plane debate is a hoax then this thread is playing into its hands. im curious now and believing now that it may be some sort of conspiracy.

however, once again your source isnt too reputable in my opinion so "the no plane debate" hoax could be a hoax.

[RageAgainst]

so... im right?


however now im enthralled because if this no plane debate is a hoax then this thread is playing into its hands. im curious now and believing now that it may be some sort of conspiracy.

however, once again your source isnt too reputable in my opinion so "the no plane debate" hoax could be a hoax.

The source isn't reputable.. But it makes sense.. again how do you explain the "270 degrees spiral is way too hardcore for a noob" argument and "why the hell did he choose to do a 270 to fly into the reconstruction area when he could've just crash straight in front" argument?

I'm taking a break for real now. Later, good debate :thumbsup:

[Brain Spout]

The source isn't reputable.. But it makes sense.. again how do you explain the "270 degrees spiral is way too hardcore for a noob" argument and "why the hell did he choose to do a 270 to fly into the reconstruction area when he could've just crash straight in front" argument?

I'm taking a break for real now. Later, good debate :thumbsup:

lol, i like your "too hardcore for a noob" argument. i agree im just saying that just because it makes sense doesnt mean it's true. again why would the government fly a plane into its own building. or even this: why would the government fly a plane into any building on its soil?

unless a foreign country remotely controlled the plane...

[WILD]

Well as to the noob pilot thing, the reason the turn was made might be that he was not in great control of the plane in the first place(he did flunk out of flight school). Also how would he know which part of the building would cause the most or least causulties, I think thats mostly a moot point.

But then again I think after the whole 'there was a boeing' thing, nothing can be proven or disproven, anything can be true.

[RageAgainst]

lol, i like your "too hardcore for a noob" argument. i agree im just saying that just because it makes sense doesnt mean it's true. again why would the government fly a plane into its own building. or even this: why would the government fly a plane into any building on its soil?

unless a foreign country remotely controlled the plane...

omfg screw the break..for now.. well look at this quote from http://www.oilempire.us/remote.html

"There is considerable circumstantial evidence to suggest that remote control software may have been used to override the plane's controls. It is highly unlikely that flight school drop outs managed to carry out the precision maneuvers on 9/11, and it is even less likely that an expert Egyptian or Saudi pilot would have picked the recently strengthened, under construction, almost empty section of the Pentagon as a target."

Now look at the bold part of your quote.. Why? Because a group of elites, maybe people who control oil empires, decided they wanted to launch a "war against terror" to take control over the middle east. The government didn't necessarily participate in the conspiracy, nor knew anything about it. Bush is dumb, and he's a cowboy, maybe they're using his "patriotism". I really don't know. Good debate again, I'm off

[n8dross]

wow this is what it comes to! plane or missle ? i got an idea lets look up all the people on the plane and ask surviving family members what they think it was and after they see the video that was shown on the link see how they react to your little conspiracy theory??????? I would just like to remind u of the mindset of terrorists got to www.steakandcheese.com look at all the videos of the beheadings and tell me u dont think some fuckin terrorist asshole didn use that plane as a missle? and i bet u also beleive we never went to the moon it was all done in hollywood huh? :frown:

[Brain Spout]

wow this is what it comes to! plane or missle ? i got an idea lets look up all the people on the plane and ask surviving family members what they think it was and after they see the video that was shown on the link see how they react to your little conspiracy theory??????? I would just like to remind u of the mindset of terrorists got to www.steakandcheese.com look at all the videos of the beheadings and tell me u dont think some fuckin terrorist asshole didn use that plane as a missle? and i bet u also beleive we never went to the moon it was all done in hollywood huh? :frown:

shut up. you have no idea what you are talking about and you obviously read the first post of this thread only. if you even read that.

okay rageagainst, here is my point. your website is biased and unreliable at best. i dont care if it makes sense. there are hundreds of other theories that make sense. circumstancial doesnt mean much to me. ill agree that you have done a good job of making me question what really went down, but im not going to think these people are guilty or our government is covering it up until i see proof that this is the case. this "circumstancial" evidence doesnt do it for me. innocent until proven guilty

[UberSkippy]

You know, I've thought long and hard about this.

Here's a few thoughts:

For those of you that are saying this couldn't have been a 757 because there was no wreckage and then prove it with photos of other plane crashes why don't you post pictures of what plane crashes look like when the plane hits a building that is substantially larger than itself? A plane hitting a field would react far differently than a plane hitting a building. Look at the wreckage from the towers. There was very little debries from an airplane. And we all SAW the planes hit those two buildings. Even a Cessna that hits a house doesn't leave shit strewn all over the place. The wings tend to end up right there insde the house with it.

The hole that everyone is so up in arms about: Ok, we all know the building collapsed 30 minutes after the strike due to massive fire right? So lets look at this hole critically for a moment. There's no flame, no billowing smoke, lots of water and the fire fighter doesn't seem to be doing much. From all of this it's safe to assume that when that photo was taken the fire was out. By the time the fire was put out the section of the building that was most affected had already collapsed. So we can pretty much deduce that the hole shown is NOT the primary point of impact nor is it near the point of impact. So, could that hole have been made by a 757? Of course not, and we know it wasn't. But could it have been made by something like the engine, a wheel strut or some other large component of a 757? Yes it could. Could it have been made by a cruise missile? Most likely no as it's a rather large hole and cruise missiles tend to make rather small holes and then blow the living fuck out of everything.

Boing 757's fly very close to the ground ALL THE TIME. It's called landing. They don't just come in at a sharp angle, slap and stick to the ground. They actually cover a good bit of distance very close to the ground before they land. Could a dumbass pilot have pulled a 270 degree turn and flown that well into the building? Sure. Just like you can go down to the store and match 5 numbers and a powerball. The odds are very much against it but yet people win the lottery all of the time. Hell, maybe the guy practiced on his flight sim at home. Or maybe he was a lot better than the flight school is willing to admit. (I mean we are suggesting a rather large conspiracy here, so why not suggest a flight instructor lied to cover his ass after the fact?)

A Tomahawk Cruise missile has a diameter of 20.4 inches and would not leave a perfectly round 12 foot hole. The airforce AGM-86 is 24.5 inches. No cruise missile comes close to the 8 foot in diameter mark, much less the 12 foot point.

Ok, so the importance of the hole has been negated. The lack of wreckage doesn't mean much because the only times we've ever had a large jet smack into an even larger building was the two towers and from that evidence we have to infer that the lack of wreckage is normal. 757's fly close to the ground and it's possible that the dipshit in question could have done what the US claims he did.

But, the real question is this: What would the United States have gained by attacking the Pentagon or covering up another nation's attack? The towers gave us all the ammo we needed to start a war. And why attack a military installation that most people have little feeling for? Why not hit the White House instead? The point is that creating an attack on the Pentagon would not have gained the US military anything. Covering up an attack and blaiming it on the terrorists also would have gained them nothing. If anything, saying "We got hit by two different groups" would have been more benefitial from a military standpoint in the form of more funding and an even angrier US public.

We KNOW 2 planes hit the Trade Center. We KNOW a third plane was downed in Pensylvania. So why is everyone so quick to jump on the "THEY'RE LIEING ABOUT THE PENTAGON" theory? What, did the Pentagon feel left out so like the drama queen in the back of the class it had to arrange some attention for itself?

One last question for all the believers: How'd they arrange it so fast? How did the military realize the attack on the towers wasn't an accident (remember, the first plane was thought to be an accident) and arrange an attack on the Pentagon in a little more than an hour?

[WILD]

wow this is what it comes to! plane or missle ? i got an idea lets look up all the people on the plane and ask surviving family members what they think it was and after they see the video that was shown on the link see how they react to your little conspiracy theory??????? I would just like to remind u of the mindset of terrorists got to www.steakandcheese.com look at all the videos of the beheadings and tell me u dont think some fuckin terrorist asshole didn use that plane as a missle? and i bet u also beleive we never went to the moon it was all done in hollywood huh? :frown:
Sweet go you!!! Couldn't you of just read the thread and argued for or against it?

[n8dross]

ohh i get it i dont touch on anything u wanted me to so i need to shut up well fuck up i posted my opinion on the matter if u dont like it dont read it ???

[WILD]

ohh i get it i dont touch on anything u wanted me to so i need to shut up well fuck up i posted my opinion on the matter if u dont like it dont read it ???

No no no, I'm not telling you to shut up.

We are kind of missing the point that people died and that is a horrible thing.

It's just that you made your post into an angry barely coherent flame, if you presented your opinion in a more calm direct way it gets taken seriously instead of "WAAAHHH BLAH BLAH".

[n8dross]

ty wild i didnt realize i was flaming sorry i will try to calm it down a little

[Brain Spout]

ohh i get it i dont touch on anything u wanted me to so i need to shut up well fuck up i posted my opinion on the matter if u dont like it dont read it ???
*didn't
*you
*shut the fuck up
*well i...
*you
*... it then don't read it
*[remove]???

okay, i didn't want to have to argue with you or flame you, but since you are essentially begging for it, here is my rebuttal:

you decided to post about something not relating to the argument. well i shouldn't say that because it was somewhat related. you argument is short, lacking and frankly, stupid. ask the family members what they think of the video. i agree let's take a poll and see what they think and that has got to be the truth. here's a better idea let's flip a coin 200 times and count the results:
heads - boeing 757 hit it and there is no conspiracy
tails - one of the other conspiracy theories is true
here i just did it on my graphing calculator. tails barely won.

listen i tried to say nicely the last time that your post was stupid and didnt help the thread going on. you're new here and i won't neg rep you or flame you so let me put it this way: read more than the first post of this thread. come up with an intelligent response that makes sense and sticks to the topic and then you dont have to STFU. you're right you didnt touch on anything i wanted you to. those things being anything related to the general topic and that makes sense.

EDIT: i understand that we are analyzing this topic in such a manner that may trivialize the fact that people died. that is not my, and probably not anyone's intentions. the intentions is to debate what happened and hopefully agree on a truth. in doing so we are analyzing the facts objectively. i was too slow and i read your next post and i can understand your motives for your original post, but as wild said: calm down and take your time and we will care.

[RageAgainst]

You know, I've thought long and hard about this.

Here's a few thoughts:

For those of you that are saying this couldn't have been a 757 because there was no wreckage and then prove it with photos of other plane crashes why don't you post pictures of what plane crashes look like when the plane hits a building that is substantially larger than itself? A plane hitting a field would react far differently than a plane hitting a building. Look at the wreckage from the towers. There was very little debries from an airplane. And we all SAW the planes hit those two buildings. Even a Cessna that hits a house doesn't leave shit strewn all over the place. The wings tend to end up right there insde the house with it.

ok let's suppose you're right and a boeing did crash on the pentagon...Still, there something that went through 5 huge walls, the thing that made the 8ft hole, that WASN'T a boeing. So implying there was in fact a boeing means there was also something else. Maybe a F-16?

***

The hole that everyone is so up in arms about: Ok, we all know the building collapsed 30 minutes after the strike due to massive fire right? So lets look at this hole critically for a moment. There's no flame, no billowing smoke, lots of water and the fire fighter doesn't seem to be doing much. From all of this it's safe to assume that when that photo was taken the fire was out. By the time the fire was put out the section of the building that was most affected had already collapsed. So we can pretty much deduce that the hole shown is NOT the primary point of impact nor is it near the point of impact. So, could that hole have been made by a 757? Of course not, and we know it wasn't. But could it have been made by something like the engine, a wheel strut or some other large component of a 757? Yes it could. Could it have been made by a cruise missile? Most likely no as it's a rather large hole and cruise missiles tend to make rather small holes and then blow the living fuck out of everything.

***

I don't think a part of the boeing could have made it through 5 or 6 steel reinforced concrete walls.. I'm not an expert in physics.. I'm an amateur at best.. but my brain can't figure out how that could've happened... If a cruise missile couldn't have done these holes, how about a F-16? Is it possible that a F-16 was following the boeing (I mean, following reaaally close) and crashed as well?

***

Boing 757's fly very close to the ground ALL THE TIME. It's called landing. They don't just come in at a sharp angle, slap and stick to the ground. They actually cover a good bit of distance very close to the ground before they land.

***

When a boeing lands, it doesn't go really fast. We're talking about 530 mph speeds here, wich is really different from landing speed.

***

Could a dumbass pilot have pulled a 270 degree turn and flown that well into the building? Sure. Just like you can go down to the store and match 5 numbers and a powerball. The odds are very much against it but yet people win the lottery all of the time. Hell, maybe the guy practiced on his flight sim at home. Or maybe he was a lot better than the flight school is willing to admit. (I mean we are suggesting a rather large conspiracy here, so why not suggest a flight instructor lied to cover his ass after the fact?)

***

Actually all the sites imply that only an expert pilot or a remote controlled device could've pulled that stunt. Futhermore, like I said, why pull that stunt to specifically hit the almost empty reconstruction area why he could've pull a not so hard stunt and hit a populated area?

***

A Tomahawk Cruise missile has a diameter of 20.4 inches and would not leave a perfectly round 12 foot hole. The airforce AGM-86 is 24.5 inches. No cruise missile comes close to the 8 foot in diameter mark, much less the 12 foot point.

***

What about a military fighter jet?

***

Ok, so the importance of the hole has been negated. The lack of wreckage doesn't mean much because the only times we've ever had a large jet smack into an even larger building was the two towers and from that evidence we have to infer that the lack of wreckage is normal. 757's fly close to the ground and it's possible that the dipshit in question could have done what the US claims he did.

***

I still don't think the official version makes sense...
1. Noob pilot
2. Reconstructed area
3. 8 ft hole (A boeing may have hit the pentagon, but something else did too)

***

But, the real question is this: What would the United States have gained by attacking the Pentagon or covering up another nation's attack? The towers gave us all the ammo we needed to start a war. And why attack a military installation that most people have little feeling for? Why not hit the White House instead? The point is that creating an attack on the Pentagon would not have gained the US military anything. Covering up an attack and blaiming it on the terrorists also would have gained them nothing. If anything, saying "We got hit by two different groups" would have been more benefitial from a military standpoint in the form of more funding and an even angrier US public.

***

I hate to say that... But what if the US had something to do with it... Look at this argument :

the pentagon attack happened at 9:43, exatcly 40 minutes after the second plane hit the second tower at 9:03. The trillion dollar airforce did not defend its headquarters. They had 40 minutes to deploy and stop AA flight 77 to hit another target. They didn't. What would they have gained from not stopping the attacks? A motive strong enough to launch an endless war.

***

One last question for all the believers: How'd they arrange it so fast? How did the military realize the attack on the towers wasn't an accident (remember, the first plane was thought to be an accident) and arrange an attack on the Pentagon in a little more than an hour?

***

After the second plane hit the tower, they knew it wasn't an accident. They had 40 minutes to stop the other planes. They didn't. I could turn your question around : why did they not stop it?

To answer your question, it would be possible that they knew about it. According to the official version, they knew there was going to be an attack but they didn't know where and when. What if some people knew where and when?

You know why the airforce wasn't ready to intercept the planes? Rumsfeld had ordered a "practise" or wargame with NE interceptors. Most of the NE interceptors were in Canada or Alaska. Why did he decide to paralyse the NE airforce right on 9/11 morning? Don't tell me that is bad luck. Luck would be a far fetched explanation.

***

[UberSkippy]

Ok, some good points. And I want to make it clear that I did watch the video and thought "Hey, that's fucked up. Maybe it was a missile." But again, I have given it some heavy thought and I'm ok with saying it was a 757.

ok let's suppose you're right and a boeing did crash on the pentagon...Still, there something that went through 5 huge walls, the thing that made the 8ft hole, that WASN'T a boeing. So implying there was in fact a boeing means there was also something else. Maybe a F-16?

I don't think a part of the boeing could have made it through 5 or 6 steel reinforced concrete walls.. I'm not an expert in physics.. I'm an amateur at best.. but my brain can't figure out how that could've happened... If a cruise missile couldn't have done these holes, how about a F-16? Is it possible that a F-16 was following the boeing (I mean, following reaaally close) and crashed as well?

An F16 is much larger than 8 feet. It couldn't have made an 8 foot hole either. It would have been MUCH larger And I'm not sure that hole does go through all 5 sections of the building. It's hard to know how deep it is. But the engine from a 757 is large enough and would have enough momentum to create that hole through at least the first if not second wall.

In addition, and this is just another theory here, but since in the picture the fire is obviously out it is theoretically possible that the hole in question was made during efforts to put the initial fire out. There aren't a lot of access points that I've seen at the Pentagon so it's entirely plausible that the fire crews made one.


When a boeing lands, it doesn't go really fast. We're talking about 530 mph speeds here, wich is really different from landing speed.

This is where things get goofy. Everything I've read says it was more like 250 mph. Even so, if these planes can fly 250 mph close to the ground they can probably do 530 mph as well.



Actually all the sites imply that only an expert pilot or a remote controlled device could've pulled that stunt. Futhermore, like I said, why pull that stunt to specifically hit the almost empty reconstruction area why he could've pull a not so hard stunt and hit a populated area?

Well, haven't you ever done anything only to find out later that it's impossible? The sites you refer to are mostly sites that want this to be something other than a 757. You have to figure, this guy was jacked up on the adrenaline and just wanted to hit the building. At 250 or 500+ miles an hour he probably couldn't tell you which side was under reconstruction or not until he was already commited. Why'd he hit the side that was reinforced? Because we got lucky? Maybe he overshot his target (being a n00b pilot he didn't understand the need to bank sooner) and pulled tighter to come back around and hit the building.


I still don't think the official version makes sense...
1. Noob pilot
2. Reconstructed area
3. 8 ft hole (A boeing may have hit the pentagon, but something else did too)


It makes sense when you take into account the rest of what we know happened that day. We had other n00b pilots fly into building that weren't much wider than their aircraft which couldn't have been easy with all the updrafts over the city.


I hate to say that... But what if the US had something to do with it... Look at this argument :

the pentagon attack happened at 9:43, exatcly 40 minutes after the second plane hit the second tower at 9:03. The trillion dollar airforce did not defend its headquarters. They had 40 minutes to deploy and stop AA flight 77 to hit another target. They didn't. What would they have gained from not stopping the attacks? A motive strong enough to launch an endless war.

We already had the motive with the towers. You also have to remember that Bush wasn't involved. We've got photos of him sitting there like a mindless dork while some kid reads a book to him at the time this happened.

Yes, there was a 40 minute gap in which defences could have gone up. However 40 minutes isn't a lot of time to launch, find and intercept a 757 that's not where it's supposed to be. The first two attacks were in NYC. The Pentagon obviously isn't. In order for a fighter to intercept this flight, that fighter would have had to be in the air and covering the right areas. It was a confused day, a lot of airspace to cover and nobody knew where this plane was actually headed.



You know why the airforce wasn't ready to intercept the planes? Rumsfeld had ordered a "practise" or wargame with NE interceptors. Most of the NE interceptors were in Canada or Alaska. Why did he decide to paralyse the NE airforce right on 9/11 morning? Don't tell me that is bad luck. Luck would be a far fetched explanation.

He didn't order them that day. Games like that are planned far in advance. He didn't order them out a day or two before. More like months before. It could be that's why 9/11 was the day it happened. Remember, we were arrogant and our gaurd was down.


But don't get me wrong. I am not one to believe all the crap that is spoon fed to us by the US Gov. Personally, I have long suspected that this could have been prevented had the big guys upstairs not been so arrogant. I have always thought that if someone had been listening to all the evidence coming in they could have put this picture together before it happened. But because they were so certain we were perfect (we're not) the big guys didn't listen and let this happen through their own ignorance.

[vicodincasserole]

you have to look really closely at it to find whats wrong

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v608/tzedek/fuselagefragment_MVC-027S1.gif

[FireAngel]

Rage, a plane did go for the White House. Which Bush was conveniently not in, and Cheney was elswhere too (makes you go hmm doesn't it?). That's the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania because the people on the flight became heroes and tried to overtake the hijackers.
The Pentagon was damaged on all five sides, but the major damage was to the reconstructed side which was, luckily for us, pretty much empty at the time. Almost that entire side was taken out. Don't make the mistake of thinking the Pentagon is unimportant. The Pentagon was a clever hit militarywise. It might not have meant much to the people emotionally except an oh that's too bad for all those people since it was a military hit, but it was important.
UberSkippy, Bush could have planned those attacks. Maybe that's why he was sitting in that classroom that day. There are some conspiracy theorists who have started a rumor that our current government has a treaty with Osama bin Laden, and they set up these attacks in order to get the war in Iraq. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with this theory. Michael Moore certainly made the president look suspicious in his documentary about 9/11, but since he tends to exaggerate everything I would take that with a grain of salt. Still, there are a lot of suspicious things about that day. Why was Cheney underground almost before the attacks were made? If it's true that the government knew about this beforehand, which I believe is true, then why did they not do something to prevent it? We were warned in 91 that some kind of attack was planned. Why did they not do more to find out what was going to happen and prevent it from happening?

[RedOctober]

It doesn't make sense in any way!

Why would a number of Arab terrorists attempt an attack on the WTC just a day or so after the building has been sold?
Why would they attack the Pentagon?

Their main pain in the ass is Israel, and they didn't come further ever than blowing up a pizza bar or a bus. Why don't Arab terrorists try to fly into an Israelian target?

Even Osama Bin Laden hasn't mentioned the attack on the Pentagon specifically.
Very strange, because it would be a major Arab self esteem boost.

The entire case stinks like hell.

[RageAgainst]

thanks for your input tiger.. I'm at school and I don't have time to reply.

However I want ggw to link me to her claim that one more plane disappeared that was accounted for... I don't get it.

Red october : "Why would a number of Arab terrorists attempt an attack on the WTC just a day or so after the building has been sold?"

They planned it more than a day or so before... More like, maybe a year or two before. "Why would they want to hit an american target?" Well gee I don't know, maybe because the americans have been fucking the middle east in the ass for over 50 years?

[dull_bullet]

Arab pilots don't want to fly into and israeli target because israel can't do shit without the US. We supply all military weapons etc. why not take out the source instead of the consumer?

btw how would you know what osama bin laden planned his attacks on? all those tapes that were found were probably fake.

Rage, you can't scramble a couple of fighters AND find the plane in only 40 minutes.

And I'm not sure, but wasn't the Bin Laden family really close to the Bush family back in the early 90's?

[Brain Spout]

He didn't order them that day. Games like that are planned far in advance. He didn't order them out a day or two before. More like months before. It could be that's why 9/11 was the day it happened. Remember, we were arrogant and our gaurd was down.

I didn't mention this fact earlier because i didnt feel that it was too important to the argument, but the argument has shifted and my views are beginning to as well.

my aunt was a flight attendent several years ago. she got laid off about 2 years ago and since then has changed proffessions. however she was working on the day of september 11 at the airport in syracause, NY. she said that when she arrived at work she knew something was up. the reason she said she knew something was up was because unlike any other day she has worked there, there was a lot of FBI agents in the airport and outside.

i cant say for sure if this is true, but she is my aunt and i believe it.

from this, i atleast can conlcude that the government knew that there would be an attack of some sort involving air planes on september 11. i dont think they planned the attack though because if htat was the case then why would they have FBI in an airport that played no role in the attacks.

EDIT: tiger, please dont mention michael moore in any thread devoted to the gain of intelligence. atleast you dont follow it word for word, i dont remember your salt analogy or whatever. i saw his movie fahrenheit 9/11 and it was a huge sack of shit as far as im concerned. im not a republican nor am i a democrat. the movie to me represented a bunch of half truths thrown together with what ifs to paint a picture of anti-bush which in his movie didnt seam that far fetched.
americans have been critisized for not knowing anything about the world let alone their own history and when michael moore is able to broadcast... ill stop this is turning into a rant.
http://www.jeffblogworthy.com/uploads/FuppetMoore.jpg

EDIT2: i forgot to mention this as well, i was reminded of it when i read about the engine going thorugh steel part. in the twin towers a man two (or 12, i forgot how far to be honest, i heard about it 3 and a half years ago) blocks away was almost hit with an engine from the towers that kept going.

[RedOctober]

Rage, you can't scramble a couple of fighters AND find the plane in only 40 minutes.


Wuhaaaa... :tongue:
Where the hell do you have an Airforce for then?

In Europe airplanes allways get a fighter escort when they don't comply in whatever way!

[UberSkippy]

UberSkippy, Bush could have planned those attacks. Maybe that's why he was sitting in that classroom that day. There are some conspiracy theorists who have started a rumor that our current government has a treaty with Osama bin Laden, and they set up these attacks in order to get the war in Iraq. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with this theory. Michael Moore certainly made the president look suspicious in his documentary about 9/11, but since he tends to exaggerate everything I would take that with a grain of salt. Still, there are a lot of suspicious things about that day. Why was Cheney underground almost before the attacks were made? If it's true that the government knew about this beforehand, which I believe is true, then why did they not do something to prevent it? We were warned in 91 that some kind of attack was planned. Why did they not do more to find out what was going to happen and prevent it from happening?

Bush couldn't have planned the attacks. He can hardly count to 3 on his fingers. Ok, all smartass comments asside, yeah, Bush could have planned them. I seriously doubt it. Moore made him look like an incompetent ass, not a conspirator. The Bush and the Bin Laden families were close yes. But Osama himself has been an outcast of his own family for quite some time. (At least that's what they say.)

I don't know about Cheney being underground and I can't say. His not being in the Whitehouse isn't a big surprise since he doesn't live there. Bush was out visiting a school so there really would be little if any reason for the VP to be in the White House.

If the government knew anything, they knew that "something might happen on this day." I doubt they knew the specifics. I still think had they not been asleep at the helm they might have known but nobody was paying serious attention, or they weren't sharing what they did know.

Their main pain in the ass is Israel, and they didn't come further ever than blowing up a pizza bar or a bus. Why don't Arab terrorists try to fly into an Israelian target?

Because they see the United States as an Imperialist country that always sides with Israel and won't stay the fuck out of Arab Countries' business. (Most of which is pretty much a true statement.)

Rage, you can't scramble a couple of fighters AND find the plane in only 40 minutes.

This is true. Remember, we weren't at any sort of high alert so our planes weren't sitting on the tarmack ready to fly. The duty pilots were probably not even in a ready hangar.

So the alert goes out, the pilots haul ass to get into flight gear. They run to their planes. The planes are checked out, fired and taxi to a runway. The planes launch. On a good day this takes 10 minutes.

The planes leave the ground, fly to some sort of altitude. Lets say another 3 minutes here. They then get vectored to the last known location of the aircraft. Unless they were right on top of it in the first place getting into the area takes a while. Let's say another 10 minutes. (At 1000 miles an hour that's 170 miles roughly.)

Total time used so far: 23 minutes and I'm being really generous whith how long this shit takes.

They now have to look for a 757 that's moved about 83 miles (assuming it's going 500 mph). But that's means they've got to cover 5,000+ square miles in the next 17 minutes.

Assuming the fighters DO spot the plane, they still have to catch up to it, lock on to it, get permission from the ground to fire, pull the trigger and have the missile hit it. In 17 minutes.

[dull_bullet]

Well i don't know. I thought about it, wouldn't they KNOW where it is? I mean, the military does have radar all over the place. Not sure though.

[JLXC]

Well i don't know. I thought about it, wouldn't they KNOW where it is? I mean, the military does have radar all over the place. Not sure though.

An AWAC, which commonly fly over the USA for this purpose, can spot anything moving in the air for many hundreds of miles. Finding and locking onto a target going for D.C. would take at least 2 or 3 minutes tops, not to mention they could ask the air traffic control guys if desperate.

[RageAgainst]

An AWAC, which commonly fly over the USA for this purpose, can spot anything moving in the air for many hundreds of miles. Finding and locking onto a target going for D.C. would take at least 2 or 3 minutes tops, not to mention they could ask the air traffic control guys if desperate.

See, exactly. The US government spends 500 billion $ just for the military in 2005.. ok in 2001 it was less, like what, 300 something. Anyways, the defense owns top of the line technology and satellites. I'm sure they could have found the live location of the plane and find out its heading for washington, and stop it from reaching its destination. Aren't planes equipped with GPS equipment that signal their location? Hell if OnStar has it on cars don't tell me the planes don't.

If a bunch of fanatics can take control of a plane and crash in some towers and the pentagon without homeland security stopping them, then I guess the country isn't THAT safe afterall. Forget 24, that's a load of crap. Bring a nuclear bomb to LA and put the timer to 40 minutes and they're all gonna be like "omfg" and let the people blow up. Not so elite.

[countrygrl]

Planes don't have a mechanism for sending tracking data other than by radio. Even the black boxes in planes don't send off a tracking signal unless the plane crashes in water.

[voiceofreason]

Planes don't have a mechanism for sending tracking data other than by radio. Even the black boxes in planes don't send off a tracking signal unless the plane crashes in water.

Sorry, there's a little thing called radar which reads information from commercial and other aircraft.

It's the way air traffic controllers know who is on the scope. Otherwise it would be chaos up there http://forums.wtf.com/rage/icons/icon12.gif

[countrygrl]

Yeah but once they get out of radar range...and radar doesn't tell you what plane it is just that there is something there.

[RedOctober]

Oh no please!

I was in the Navy during the 70's and the tactics then were a 5 MINUTE response time for incoming bogeys. (hostile hardware)
Don't tell me the US Airforce is fucked up that much they aren't capable of spotting 3 or probably 4 airplanes that are goofing!

It smells like the same apeshit story they tell about the radar on Pearl Harbor telling the Japs were incoming, and nobody believed they could fly that far from home! And Mr. President and his Staff were playing golf. Yessireee!!

[countrygrl]

Not was I was saying at all.

Here's the question
Aren't planes equipped with GPS equipment that signal their location?

And my answer

Planes don't have a mechanism for sending tracking data other than by radio. Even the black boxes in planes don't send off a tracking signal unless the plane crashes in water.

And the next statement
Sorry, there's a little thing called radar which reads information from commercial and other aircraft.

And my reply

Yeah but once they get out of radar range...and radar doesn't tell you what plane it is just that there is something there.


And from that you get that I was saying that

Don't tell me the US Airforce is fucked up that much they aren't capable of spotting 3 or probably 4 airplanes that are goofing!


Huh?


This is from the commision finding on Sept 11
http://www.globalpolicy.org/wtc/analysis/2004/0617responseconf.htm

The commission said efforts to respond to four hijackings that day were plagued on multiple fronts. The FAA failed to notify the military that one of the four planes had been hijacked. The FAA also incorrectly told the military that the first plane to crash into the World Trade Center was still in the air after impact. A report recounting the details of what happened with each of the planes was read aloud before an audience that included victims' relatives. The reading of the report was interspersed with tape recordings from the planes and control towers that hadn't been heard in public before. Accompanying graphics traced the flight paths of the four planes. ....


The report detailed a series of missteps by aviation and military officials that squandered precious minutes between the time air traffic controllers became aware of the first hijacking and the crash of Flight 93 more than an hour later. And it recounted confusion at the Federal Aviation Administration and the North American Aerospace Defense Command (Norad) that led to delays in scrambling fighter jets to intercept the planes. Vice President Dick Cheney eventually issued an order to shoot down hijacked planes, but military pilots didn't receive it until the last of the four planes -- United Airlines Flight 93 -- crashed in Pennsylvania after passengers fought back against the hijackers. Mr. Cheney said he received the authorization in an earlier phone call with President Bush.

The report largely blamed inadequate emergency procedures that contemplated more time to react to a traditional hijacking rather than a suicide hijacking. "Norad and the FAA were unprepared for the type of attacks launched against the United States on September 11, 2001," the report said. "They struggled, under difficult circumstances, to improvise a homeland defense against an unprecedented challenge they had never encountered and had never trained to meet."







The FAA had no idea how to deal with 1 hijacked plane...much less four of them. Major mistakes were made all around.

[RageAgainst]

Ok so you can track cars equipped with onstar by satellites but you can't track a fucking plane. Great, makes so much sense.

[Brain Spout]

Ok so you can track cars equipped with onstar by satellites but you can't track a fucking plane. Great, makes so much sense.

im pretty sure that the cars are sending messages back too. its not just the satelite sending messages to the car.

[countrygrl]

Didn't say that they can't they just don't...usually. They didn't need to until Sept 11. Besides that GPS is available to everyone with the correct equipment. Until a few years ago the govt used Selective Availabilty to keep the accuracy of GPS down so that it couldn't be used by "the enemy" against them. In 2000 they "unscrambled" it so that people could get better accuracy out of handhelds.

GPS alone doesn't track cars. There is an additional device in the car that transmits the data, coordinates from the GPS back to the people who provide the service.

In 2003 the FAA approved the use of satellites. It will be years before all planes have them.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-07-10-space-usat_x.htm


May not make sense but....

[UberSkippy]

Well OK. A few things to go back over.

Yes, a LOT of shit got fuckered that day. People weren't watching what they were doing, people weren't communicating etc...

Now, an AWACs can spot damn near anything in the air. However, these weren't the only planes in the air that day and finding one of them (flight 77) wouldn't be easy. To complicate matters, the AWACs is a military aircraft and probably didn't have that days civilian flight paths to begin with. So they would be hunting in the dark.

A 5 minute ready drill is good. But you're talking about an aircraft carrier during the cold war. We were at low alert that day with no real enemies capable of launching a surprise attack on the continental US (or so we thought). We didn't have ready planes sitting on the tarmack hooked up to a generator with a pilot sitting in the cockpit. We got caught with our pants down.

You can track anything from space with the proper satelite. Of course you have to know where it is first and have a satelite in place in order to track it. Since your average photo would cover what, a few hundred thousand square miles it'd be difficult at best to find and follow one little itty bitty 757. Or even 4 of them.

All in all, there's no great mystery to how a 757 hit the pentagon 40 minutes later. The guys in charge were in the shitter. Nobody was paying attention. The military wasn't prepared, nobody told the military what was going on, the FAA didn't even know what was going on anyway. The system was broken. The system is still probably broken.

[voiceofreason]

The system was broken. The system is still probably broken.

But we have spent several billion dollars to make sure everyone takes their shoes off before they get on the plane...

Our tax dollars at work...

[UberSkippy]

But we have spent several billion dollars to make sure everyone takes their shoes off before they get on the plane...

Our tax dollars at work...

And your coat. But not your glasses. And you can't lock your luggage when you travel. Because they pay the baggage handlers jack diddly shit so we can trust them not to fuck with our stuff.

But don't worry about that. You're SAFER! You don't have to worry about sitting next to a guy with dog shit on his shoes the whole flight anymore.

[countrygrl]

No, you just have to worry about the snitty little dog, that the person sittin