|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
Pentagon Conspiracy Theory
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| Pentagon Conspiracy Theory
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| jlohlinger |
That's a damn good one I haven't seen in a while too. It's ridiculous the amount of shit this administration has gotten away with under the guise of nation security. It's time that Liberty Bell was rung once again. Viva la resit'ance. |
|
|
| clonetrooper |
Lets go to snopes.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
Claim: The damage to the Pentagon on September 11 was caused by something other than a hijacked Boeing 757's being crashed into its side.
Status: False.
Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2002]
As everyone knows, on 11 September, less than an hour after the attack on the World Trade Centre, an airplane collided with the Pentagon. The Associated Press first reported that a booby-trapped truck had caused the explosion. The Pentagon quickly denied this. The official US government version of events still holds. Here's a little game for you: Take a look at these photographs and try to find evidence to corroborate the official version. It's up to you to Hunt the Boeing!
Origins: The
notion that the Pentagon was not damaged by terrorists who hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 (a Boeing 757) and crashed it into the military office complex, but that the whole affair was staged by the U.S. government, has been promulgated by French author Thierry Meyssan in his book, The Frightening Fraud. Meyssan offers no real explanation for what did cause the extensive damage to the Pentagon, asserting only that Flight 77 did not exist, no plane crashed into the Pentagon, and that "the American government is lying."
Unfortunately, the appeal of conspiracy theories has resulted in widespread dissemination of Meyssan's "theory" in France and the USA, particularly in web sites that mirror his work. As Le Nouvel Observateur noted: "This theory suits everyone - there are no Islamic extremists and everyone is happy. It eliminates reality."
The text cited in the example above comes from a Hunt the Boeing! And test your perceptions! web site, one of the English-language mirrors of Meyssan's claims, where readers are invited to ponder a series of questions about why photographs of the damaged Pentagon seemingly show no evidence of a crashed airplane. The answers to the questions are:
1) Can you explain how a Boeing 757-200, weighing nearly 100 tons and travelling at a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour only damaged the outside of the Pentagon?
Despite the appearances of exterior photographs, the Boeing 757-200 did not "only damage the outside of the Pentagon." It caused damage to all five rings (not just the outermost one) after penetrating a reinforced, 24-inch-thick outer wall. As 60 Minutes II reported in their "Miracle of the Pentagon" episode on 28 November 2001, the section of the Pentagon into which the hijacked airliner was flown had just been reinforced during a renovation project:
"We made several modifications to the building as part of that renovation that we think helped save people's lives," says Lee Evey, who runs a billion-dollar project to renovate the Pentagon. They’ve been working on it since 1993. The first section was five days from being finished when the terrorists hit it with the plane.
The renovation project built strength into the 60-year-old limestone exterior with a web of steel beams and columns.
"You have these steel tubes and, again, they go from the first floor and go all the way to the fifth floor," says Evey. "We have everything bolted together in a strong steel matrix. It supports and encases the windows and provides tremendous additional strength to the wall."
When the plane hit at 350 miles an hour, the limestone layer shattered. But inside, those shards of stone were caught by a shield of cloth that lines the entire section of the building.
It is a special cloth that helps prevent masonry from fragmenting and turning into shrapnel. The cloth is also used to make bullet-resistant vests.
All of this, especially the steel, held up the third, fourth and fifth floors. They stayed up for 35 minutes. You can see them through the smoke, suspended over the hole gouged by the jet. Only after the evacuation did the heat melt the new steel away. Evey says that without the reconstruction, the floors might have collapsed immediately.
Exterior photographs are misleading because they show only the intact roof structures of the outer rings and don't reveal that the plane penetrated all the way to the ground floor of the third ring. As a U.S. Army press release noted back on 26 September 2001, one engine of the aircraft punched a 12-foot hole through the wall of the second ring:
On the inside wall of the second ring of the Pentagon, a nearly circular hole, about 12-feet wide, allows light to pour into the building from an internal service alley. An aircraft engine punched the hole out on its last flight after being broken loose from its moorings on the plane. The result became a huge vent for the subsequent explosion and fire. Signs of fire and black smoke now ring the outside of the jagged-edged hole.
Recall that when the first airliner was flown into a World Trade Center tower on September 11 — before it was known that the "accident" was really part of a deliberate terrorist attack — newscasters were speculating that a small plane had accidentally flown into the side of the tower, because the visible exterior damage didn't seem as extensive as what people thought a large airliner would cause. Even though the two airplanes flown into the World Trade Center towers were travelling faster at the time of impact than the Pentagon plane was (400 MPH vs. 350 MPH), hit aluminum-and-glass buildings rather than reinforced concrete walls, and didn't dissipate much of their energy striking the ground first (as the Pentagon plane did), they still barely penetrated all the way through the WTC towers.
Below is a recent (11 March 2002) photograph of the the rebuilding effort underway at the Pentagon, demonstrating that far more than just the "outside" of the building was damaged and needed to be repaired:
2) Can you explain how a Boeing 14.9 yards high, 51.7 yards long, with a wingspan of 41.6 yards and a cockpit 3.8 yards high, could crash into just the ground floor of this building?
As eyewitnesses described and photographs demonstrate, the hijacked airliner dived so low as it approached the Pentagon that it actually hit the ground first, thereby dissipating much of the energy that might otherwise have caused more extensive damage to the building; nonetheless, as described by The New York Times, the plane still hit not "just the ground floor" but between the first and second floors:
The Boeing 757 crashed into the outer edge of the building between the first and second floors, "at full power," Mr. Rumsfeld said. It penetrated three of the five concentric rings of the building.
Another account of the crash described:
The plane banked sharply and came in so low that it clipped light poles. It slammed into the side of the Pentagon at an estimated 350 miles per hour after first hitting the helipad. The plane penetrated the outer three rings of the building. The jet fuel exploded, which sent a fireball outward from the impact point. About 30 minutes after the crash, a cross-section of the building collapsed, but only after enough time had elapsed for rescue workers to evacuate all injured employees.
The fire was so hot that firefighters could not approach the impact point itself until approximately 1 P.M. The collapse and roof fires left the inner courtyard visible from outside through a gaping hole. The area hit by the plane was newly renovated and reinforced, while the areas surrounding the impact zone were closed in preparation for renovation, so the death toll could have been much higher if another area had been hit.
Next question:
3) You'll remember that the aircraft only hit the ground floor of the Pentagon's first ring. Can you find debris of a Boeing 757-200 in this photograph?
You'll recall from the discussions above that the hijacked airliner did not "only hit the ground floor of the Pentagon's first ring" — it struck the Pentagon between the first and second floors and blasted all the way through to the third ring. Because the plane disappeared into the building's interior after penetrating the outer ring, it was not visible in photographs taken from outside the Pentagon. Moreover, since the airliner was full of jet fuel and was flown into thick, reinforced concrete walls at high speed, exploding in a fireball, any pieces of wreckage large enough to be identifiable in after-the-fact photographs taken from a few hundred feet away burned up in the intense fire that followed the crash (just as the planes flown into the World Trade Center towers burned up, and the intensity of their jet-fuel fires caused both towers to collapse).
Small pieces of airplane debris were plainly visible on the Pentagon lawn in other photographs, however, such as the one below:
4) Can you explain why the Defence Secretary deemed it necessary to sand over the lawn, which was otherwise undamaged after the attack?
The claim that the "Defence Secretary" ordered the lawn to be sanded over is false. A base of sand and gravel was laid on the Pentagon lawn because the trucks and other heavy equipment used to haul away the debris (as shown in the photograph below) would have been slipping and sliding on the grass and become mired in the Pentagon lawn otherwise.
5) Can you explain what happened to the wings of the aircraft and why they caused no damage?
As the front of the Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, the outer portions of the wings likely snapped during the initial impact, then were pushed inward towards the fuselage and carried into the building's interior; the inner portions of the wings probably penetrated the Pentagon walls with the rest of the plane. Any sizable portions of the wings were destroyed in the explosion or the subsequent fire. Nonetheless, damage to the building caused by the plane's wings is plainly visible in photographs, such as the one below (note the blackened sections on both sides of the impact site):
6) Can you explain why the County Fire Chief could not tell reporters where the aircraft was?
The exact quote offered here was:
When asked by a journalist: "Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?"
"First of all, the question about the aircraft, there are some small pieces of aircraft visible from the interior during this fire-fighting operation I'm talking about, but not large sections. In other words, there's no fuselage sections and that sort of thing." "You know, I'd rather not comment on that. We have a lot of eyewitnesses that can give you better information about what actually happened with the aircraft as it approached. So we don't know. I don't know."
The fire chief wasn't asked "where the aircraft was"; he was asked "Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?" He did indeed provide an answer to the question he was asked: There were no large sections of the plane left by the time he was asked (the day after the attack) because they had been smashed into smaller pieces by the impact and then burned up; all that remained were smaller pieces visible only from the interior of the Pentagon.
7) Can you find the aircraft's point of impact?
Immediately after Flight 77 smashed into the Pentagon, the impact was obscured by a huge fireball, explosions, fire, smoke, and water from firefighting efforts. Within a half hour, the upper stories of the building collapsed, thereby permanently obscuring the impact site. It simply wasn't possible for photographs to capture a clear view of the impact site during that brief interval between the crash and the collapse.
In photographs like the one provided (below left), the impact site is obscured by water from firefighters' hoses and smoke. A two-story high impact hole does exist right behind the fireman in the photograph, but it's covered over by water issuing from the fire truck.
By the time the smoke and water cleared, additional portions of the building had collapsed (below right), further obscuring the impact point.
Update: A video presentation unleashed on the Internet in August 2004 rehashes the same conspiracy claims. It can be found at a number of locations, including:
http://www.elchulo.net/files/pentagon.swf
http://members.iinet.net.au/~sperna/omgkool.swf
http://www.freedomunderground.org/m...le/pentagon.php
Last updated: 23 September 2004
The URL for this page is http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
Click here to e-mail this page to a friend
Urban Legends Reference Pages © 1995-2005
by Barbara and David P. Mikkelson
This material may not be reproduced without permission
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
| jlohlinger |
| I suppose the easiest thing for the government to do to disprove us naysayers would be to release all of the videotapes confiscated by the FBI, and stop being so secretive in every aspect of their daily operations in general. There is a growing public distrust of this administration that is simultaneously growing within the federal government. Until they cut the bullshit, fuck em. Even the neo-con pinheads I know are having a hard time defending these pricks, I guess you are one of a dying breed. Have fun beating the dead horse. |
|
|
| ne0shell |
Lets go to snopes.
> Dude snopes is an OK source for urban ledgend coke spermacide type stuff but they are way over thier heads on this one
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
Claim: The damage to the Pentagon on September 11 was caused by something other than a hijacked Boeing 757's being crashed into its side.
Status: False.
Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2002]
As everyone knows, on 11 September, less than an hour after the attack on the World Trade Centre, an airplane collided with the Pentagon. The Associated Press first reported that a booby-trapped truck had caused the explosion. The Pentagon quickly denied this. The official US government version of events still holds. Here's a little game for you: Take a look at these photographs and try to find evidence to corroborate the official version. It's up to you to Hunt the Boeing!
Origins: The
notion that the Pentagon was not damaged by terrorists who hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 (a Boeing 757) and crashed it into the military office complex, but that the whole affair was staged by the U.S. government, has been promulgated by French author Thierry Meyssan in his book, The Frightening Fraud. Meyssan offers no real explanation for what did cause the extensive damage to the Pentagon, asserting only that Flight 77 did not exist, no plane crashed into the Pentagon, and that "the American government is lying."
> funny cause since then a large number of conservative govt officials have also said 911 was an inside job. I'll have to read Snopes book discounting Tarpleys' "911 - synthetic terror". Oh wait, they dont have one and never will.
Unfortunately, the appeal of conspiracy theories has resulted in widespread dissemination of Meyssan's "theory" in France and the USA, particularly in web sites that mirror his work. As Le Nouvel Observateur noted: "This theory suits everyone - there are no Islamic extremists and everyone is happy. It eliminates reality."
The text cited in the example above comes from a Hunt the Boeing! And test your perceptions! web site, one of the English-language mirrors of Meyssan's claims, where readers are invited to ponder a series of questions about why photographs of the damaged Pentagon seemingly show no evidence of a crashed airplane. The answers to the questions are:
1) Can you explain how a Boeing 757-200, weighing nearly 100 tons and travelling at a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour only damaged the outside of the Pentagon?
Despite the appearances of exterior photographs, the Boeing 757-200 did not "only damage the outside of the Pentagon." It caused damage to all five rings (not just the outermost one) after penetrating a reinforced, 24-inch-thick outer wall. As 60 Minutes II reported in their "Miracle of the Pentagon" episode on 28 November 2001, the section of the Pentagon into which the hijacked airliner was flown had just been reinforced during a renovation project:
> Despite the appearances of exterior photographs? You mean the ones that show an intact limestone wall with one hole in it and unbroken windows within a few feet of the hole?
"We made several modifications to the building as part of that renovation that we think helped save people's lives," says Lee Evey, who runs a billion-dollar project to renovate the Pentagon. They’ve been working on it since 1993. The first section was five days from being finished when the terrorists hit it with the plane.
The renovation project built strength into the 60-year-old limestone exterior with a web of steel beams and columns.
"You have these steel tubes and, again, they go from the first floor and go all the way to the fifth floor," says Evey. "We have everything bolted together in a strong steel matrix. It supports and encases the windows and provides tremendous additional strength to the wall."
>Kind of like the steel matrix of the towers which clearly showed slices in them from the wings.
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.
>Kevlar wont stop something with enough velocity and mass, say like a 757.
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.
>Once again this theory that burning jet fuel reaches the temp to melt steel ((it cant btw - not without accelleration and a steady supply of fuel, far more than available in this case).
Exterior photographs are misleading because they show only the intact roof structures of the outer rings and don't reveal that the plane penetrated all the way to the ground floor of the third ring. As a U.S. Army press release noted back on 26 September 2001, one engine of the aircraft punched a 12-foot hole through the wall of the second ring:
On the inside wall of the second ring of the Pentagon, a nearly circular hole, about 12-feet wide, allows light to pour into the building from an internal service alley. An aircraft engine punched the hole out on its last flight after being broken loose from its moorings on the plane. The result became a huge vent for the subsequent explosion and fire. Signs of fire and black smoke now ring the outside of the jagged-edged hole.
Recall that when the first airliner was flown into a World Trade Center tower on September 11 — before it was known that the "accident" was really part of a deliberate terrorist attack — newscasters were speculating that a small plane had accidentally flown into the side of the tower, because the visible exterior damage didn't seem as extensive as what people thought a large airliner would cause. Even though the two airplanes flown into the World Trade Center towers were travelling faster at the time of impact than the Pentagon plane was (400 MPH vs. 350 MPH), hit aluminum-and-glass buildings rather than reinforced concrete walls, and didn't dissipate much of their energy striking the ground first (as the Pentagon plane did), they still barely penetrated all the way through the WTC towers.
>Wheres the ground damage? Also intact jet engines were found after the tower strikes, just not at the Pentagon.
Below is a recent (11 March 2002) photograph of the the rebuilding effort underway at the Pentagon, demonstrating that far more than just the "outside" of the building was damaged and needed to be repaired:
>AFAIK nobody is claiming only the outside wall was breached, it's fairly obvious something punched a really neat hole through the first 3 rings.
2) Can you explain how a Boeing 14.9 yards high, 51.7 yards long, with a wingspan of 41.6 yards and a cockpit 3.8 yards high, could crash into just the ground floor of this building?
As eyewitnesses described and photographs demonstrate, the hijacked airliner dived so low as it approached the Pentagon that it actually hit the ground first, thereby dissipating much of the energy that might otherwise have caused more extensive damage to the building; nonetheless, as described by The New York Times, the plane still hit not "just the ground floor" but between the first and second floors:
The Boeing 757 crashed into the outer edge of the building between the first and second floors, "at full power," Mr. Rumsfeld said. It penetrated three of the five concentric rings of the building.
Another account of the crash described:
The plane banked sharply and came in so low that it clipped light poles. It slammed into the side of the Pentagon at an estimated 350 miles per hour after first hitting the helipad.
>helipad, ground, whats the difference? Neither showed any damage
The plane penetrated the outer three rings of the building. The jet fuel exploded, which sent a fireball outward from the impact point. About 30 minutes after the crash, a cross-section of the building collapsed, but only after enough time had elapsed for rescue workers to evacuate all injured employees.
The fire was so hot that firefighters could not approach the impact point itself until approximately 1 P.M. The collapse and roof fires left the inner courtyard visible from outside through a gaping hole. The area hit by the plane was newly renovated and reinforced, while the areas surrounding the impact zone were closed in preparation for renovation, so the death toll could have been much higher if another area had been hit.
Next question:
3) You'll remember that the aircraft only hit the ground floor of the Pentagon's first ring. Can you find debris of a Boeing 757-200 in this photograph?
You'll recall from the discussions above that the hijacked airliner did not "only hit the ground floor of the Pentagon's first ring" — it struck the Pentagon between the first and second floors and blasted all the way through to the third ring. Because the plane disappeared into the building's interior after penetrating the outer ring, it was not visible in photographs taken from outside the Pentagon. Moreover, since the airliner was full of jet fuel and was flown into thick, reinforced concrete walls at high speed, exploding in a fireball, any pieces of wreckage large enough to be identifiable in after-the-fact photographs taken from a few hundred feet away burned up in the intense fire that followed the crash (just as the planes flown into the World Trade Center towers burned up, and the intensity of their jet-fuel fires caused both towers to collapse).
Small pieces of airplane debris were plainly visible on the Pentagon lawn in other photographs, however, such as the one below:
>Like the turbine that does not belong to a 757? Funny how Boeing cited national security when asked for photos of the various turbines for 757's. Kinda like the need to grab all the camera footage and not release it except for one view which is unable to provide a clear view of the object impacting.
4) Can you explain why the Defence Secretary deemed it necessary to sand over the lawn, which was otherwise undamaged after the attack?
The claim that the "Defence Secretary" ordered the lawn to be sanded over is false. A base of sand and gravel was laid on the Pentagon lawn because the trucks and other heavy equipment used to haul away the debris (as shown in the photograph below) would have been slipping and sliding on the grass and become mired in the Pentagon lawn otherwise.
5) Can you explain what happened to the wings of the aircraft and why they caused no damage?
As the front of the Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, the outer portions of the wings likely snapped during the initial impact, then were pushed inward towards the fuselage and carried into the building's interior; the inner portions of the wings probably penetrated the Pentagon walls with the rest of the plane. Any sizable portions of the wings were destroyed in the explosion or the subsequent fire. Nonetheless, damage to the building caused by the plane's wings is plainly visible in photographs, such as the one below (note the blackened sections on both sides of the impact site):
>I've also seen photos showing no "wing damage" at all. Also we see the limestone outer casing intact right up to the entry hole along with the glass windows. Maybe the limestone and glass were also govt spec 757 proof. Oh wait, they say the limestone shattered.... hmmm.
6) Can you explain why the County Fire Chief could not tell reporters where the aircraft was?
The exact quote offered here was:
When asked by a journalist: "Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?"
"First of all, the question about the aircraft, there are some small pieces of aircraft visible from the interior during this fire-fighting operation I'm talking about, but not large sections. In other words, there's no fuselage sections and that sort of thing." "You know, I'd rather not comment on that. We have a lot of eyewitnesses that can give you better information about what actually happened with the aircraft as it approached. So we don't know. I don't know."
The fire chief wasn't asked "where the aircraft was"; he was asked "Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?" He did indeed provide an answer to the question he was asked: There were no large sections of the plane left by the time he was asked (the day after the attack) because they had been smashed into smaller pieces by the impact and then burned up; all that remained were smaller pieces visible only from the interior of the Pentagon.
>That would make 2 large plane crashes in history where no wreckage was identifiable. The pentagon and flight 93.
7) Can you find the aircraft's point of impact?
Immediately after Flight 77 smashed into the Pentagon, the impact was obscured by a huge fireball, explosions, fire, smoke, and water from firefighting efforts. Within a half hour, the upper stories of the building collapsed, thereby permanently obscuring the impact site. It simply wasn't possible for photographs to capture a clear view of the impact site during that brief interval between the crash and the collapse.
In photographs like the one provided (below left), the impact site is obscured by water from firefighters' hoses and smoke. A two-story high impact hole does exist right behind the fireman in the photograph, but it's covered over by water issuing from the fire truck.
By the time the smoke and water cleared, additional portions of the building had collapsed (below right), further obscuring the impact point.
>I love how they mix in non issue stuff to try to make the overall challenge ridiculous. Hey isnt that called a strawman arguement?
Update: A video presentation unleashed on the Internet in August 2004 rehashes the same conspiracy claims. It can be found at a number of locations, including:
http://www.elchulo.net/files/pentagon.swf
http://members.iinet.net.au/~sperna/omgkool.swf
http://www.freedomunderground.org/m...le/pentagon.php
Last updated: 23 September 2004
The URL for this page is http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
Click here to e-mail this page to a friend
Urban Legends Reference Pages © 1995-2005
by Barbara and David P. Mikkelson
This material may not be reproduced without permission
When I see snopes address the following 911 related topics I'll give them some credit for not being shills:
1. Why were the 911 hijackers allowed in the country again and again and immigration told they were part of an "anti terror drill"?
2. How did computer glitches account for the 911 planes being emptier than normal, (far emptier).
3. How do they explain the numerous sources which have shown the hijackers were trained on military bases and paid thier bills with FBI credit cards?
4. How do they explain NORAD not sending fighters immediately to intercept the planes once they went off course in the most protected airspace in the country? (An hour and 45 minutes in one case)
5. I guess the govt drill simulating hijacked planes being flown into the WTC and other targets was just coencidental?
I could go on for days. If you want to just accept the official story fine, have fun. If you do some research it falls apart. |
|
|
| Stickman |
The Pentagon Strike is from a film called Loose Change by a guy named Dylan Avery. There is a new edition called Loose Change 2E.
Have at it defenders of the official account.
Good luck trying to answer even the most basic question, like those posted by neo. |
|
|
| Max-the-Silent |
A friend of mine with no axe to grind was an eyewitness.
It wasn't a cruise missle, an executive jet, or a flying saucer. It was a commercial airliner.
He saw the approach and impact, and at the time had no idea that it was anything other than a horrible accident. |
|
|
| Fa-Fa-Fo-Ha |
Quote: Originally posted by Max-the-Silent
He saw the approach and impact, and at the time had no idea that it was anything other than a horrible accident. |
I don't believe for a second the bullshit conspiracy theory about the pentagon strike but I have to ask you...How did he think it was an accident? By that time did he not know about the planes crashing into the WTC? |
|
|
| dcjispimp |
| This thread is too damn wordy. |
|
|
| jlohlinger |
Quote: Originally posted by Max-the-Silent
A friend of mine with no axe to grind was an eyewitness.
It wasn't a cruise missle, an executive jet, or a flying saucer. It was a commercial airliner.
He saw the approach and impact, and at the time had no idea that it was anything other than a horrible accident. |
My friend was a witness to the Trade Center Attack, this was the last photo he ever took, ***sniffle***, we will miss him.
 |
|
|
| Stickman |
Every time something bad happens people have to jump to enormous conspiracy theories. It used to be Kennedy, now it's 9/11.
There's even a conspiracy theory going around that 19 Arab hijackers armed with box cutters, managed to hijack four commercial airliners all within 20 mins of take off. Then, quite miraculously, they evaded the most redundant and advanced defensive system in the world.
These people even believe that a numbskull like Hani Hanjour had the ability to avoid the missile batteries surrounding the Pentagon, pull a 280 degree turn from 5000 feet, and fly parallel to the ground at 500 mph, into the only unoccupied wing, and get this...a full hour and a half after the largest and most advanced military knew it was under attack.
As if that wasn't ridiculous enough, all these tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy freaks actually suggest that two of these airliners brought down to the ground, not two, but three massive skyscrapers, at nearly free fall speed, the two tallest in less than one hour and ten minutes.
It's very easy to shut down these ridiculous conspiracy theories. If they tell you that one of the planes landed in a field in Pennsylvania, or crashed into the Pentagon, ask them to show you a picture, a video, a crash site investigation report, or any evidence.
How do they make this shit up? |
|
|
| Max-the-Silent |
On his way to the office, listening to the cd player.
Quote: Originally posted by Fa-Fa-Fo-Ha
I don't believe for a second the bullshit conspiracy theory about the pentagon strike but I have to ask you...How did he think it was an accident? By that time did he not know about the planes crashing into the WTC? |
|
|
|
| clonetrooper |
| My father was also a witness. Thats all the proof I need. Yes he knew what was going on. He was travaling near the pentagon listening to what was going on. He was supposed to catch a flight later that day. When he saw and heard the plane. The next thing he said was the explosion and turned to his buddy and said they aint flying today went to the car rental company and asked how much it would be to drive the car to Columbus and drop it off there. |
|
|
| Max-the-Silent |
Quote: Originally posted by Stickman
snip... These people even believe that a numbskull like Hani Hanjour had the ability to avoid the missile batteries surrounding the Pentagon...snip...How do they make this shit up? |
How do they? I've been to the Pentagon, been around the Pentagon, and flown out of Washington, and never saw a "Missile Battery" one fucking time.
Maybe hidden underground within the Alien flying saucer base? |
|
|
| jlohlinger |
Quote: Originally posted by Max-the-Silent
How do they? I've been to the Pentagon, been around the Pentagon, and flown out of Washington, and never saw a "Missile Battery" one fucking time.
Maybe hidden underground within the Alien flying saucer base? |
We were told in the Army, the United States Army, that there was indeed a missile battery at the Pentagon, outside of D.C. to protect the Capitol/ White House/ other government interests, as well as Newark to protect NYC from invading Air force's since the late sixties. I guess the military has a problem shooting straight with it's soldiers as much as this administration has a problem with doing the same with it's citizens. |
|
|
| Max-the-Silent |
Quote: Originally posted by jlohlinger
We were told in the Army, the United States Army, that there was indeed a missile battery at the Pentagon, outside of D.C. to protect the Capitol/ White House/ other government interests, as well as Newark to protect NYC from invading Air force's since the late sixties. I guess the military has a problem shooting straight with it's soldiers as much as this administration has a problem with doing the same with it's citizens. |
Here's what I dug up, I know it's WorldNutDaily, but take it for what it's worth:
Posted: September 11, 2001
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Paul Sperry
© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com
WASHINGTON – Defense Department officials actually considered a terrorist scenario in which Islamic fundamentalist martyrs crashed planes into the otherwise impregnable Pentagon, but they ruled out countermeasures, such as anti-aircraft batteries and radar, as too costly and too dangerous to surrounding residential areas, a senior Pentagon official specializing in counterterrorism told WorldNetDaily in an exclusive interview.
What's more, the airspace over the Pentagon, which is next to Reagan National Airport, is heavy with flight traffic, making engagement of threatening commercial aircraft too risky, the official says.
A low-flying American Airlines 757 jet loaded with fuel torpedoed, full throttle, into the south side of the Pentagon, near a helipad, at about 9:45 a.m. today – less than an hour after two jets, one an American 767 and the other a United Airlines 767, slammed into the twin World Trade Center towers in New York. Much of the five-sided U.S. military headquarters was engulfed in flames and smoke.
Officials suspect all three planes were hijacked by foreign terrorists.
"In the threat community, we have considered that people would do something like this," the Pentagon official said, "but we didn't have plans to defend against it."
"But I think we'll be looking at it a little bit differently in the future," he said.
Unlike the White House, the Pentagon has no anti-aircraft batteries to defend against attacks from the air.
"It's tough to defend such a big building," the Pentagon official said.
"And the air traffic is heavy. We've got helicopters [carrying mostly Pentagon brass] coming in and out several times a day. And aircraft [from Reagan National] come in right down the [Potomac] river within a couple hundred yards of us," he added. "It's a tough nut. I mean, what do you do? Do you engage? If you do, do you end up with even more [civilian] casualties? The [gunned-down] plane could land anywhere."
Arlington, Va., a large residential community, is next door to the Pentagon. Some 100 people, mostly Pentagon employees, were hospitalized after the Pentagon attack.
High costs also convinced defense officials to table the idea of installing anti-aircraft guns at the Pentagon.
"It's quite expensive, because not only do you have anti-aircraft, but then you've got to put radar in," said the official, who requested his identity be withheld. "And it's not like putting it on a ship at sea."
"So these are some of the discussions that have occurred," he said. "You know, what do you do?"
Something the Defense Department has been able to do to help protect its building and personnel from terrorist attacks is to begin reinforcing load-bearing columns and walls inside the Pentagon with high-strength fiber sheathing that would minimize casualties not only by controlling flying debris, but also by preventing the collapse of flooring.
"The materials won't stop a plane, but they will probably stop the progressive collapse of columns," the official said.
Unfortunately, only one "wedge," or section, of the Pentagon has been retrofitted with the tough Aramid fabric. The jet's impact caused another portion of the Pentagon building to collapse.
"The new wedge under renovation does have that protection, but the material is only in that new wedge," the official said.
The entire Pentagon is scheduled to undergo renovation. Contractors are working on one wedge at a time, clearing workers from offices and rebuilding walls and floors.
Besides wrapping columns with the Aramid fabric, contractors also are adding stiles around the structure to thwart car-bombers.
Related story:
Anti-terrorism agency underfunded? |
|
|
| jlohlinger |
| I'm only stating what we were told, which was this, if you would throw a softball of the top of the Empire State Building, with pinpoint accuracy a laser guided stinger type missile could blow it out of the air with 100' of it leaving your hand. Now of course, the system would have to be armed and ready for use for a scenario such as this to play out, however I do not know of any system that takes over an hour to arm, and or mobilize and put to use. How these aircraft were rouge for well over an hour, with the government fully aware of their location, as well as the fact that they were indeed high jacked, and failed to scramble aircraft to intercept, never mind the obviously tall tales of missile batteries, shows a major failure in our defense planning, that still continues to this day. |
|
|
| Max-the-Silent |
Stingers came along long after my time, and I'm a bang and boom guy anyway, not a ADA guy. My point is that many "facts" asserted in these various conspiracy theories are flat out horseshit.
About a shoot-down on a civilian aircraft. pre-9/11.
Prior to 9/11 there was never a shoot-down sop for civilian aircraft, anywhere in the US including airspace over sensitive sites - I know this for a fact - not from rumor, innuendo or internet "investigation" Any such order would have to come down the coc from National Command Authority, and that order evidently never made it down to the shooters in time.
Long before 9/11, the 70's to be exact, there was a trial ballon floated during the Ford Administration to allow the Navy to shoot down suspected drug flights entering US airspace in the Gulf of Mexico and the Florida area. The trial ballon sunk like a Lead fucking Zepplin. The military at the time wanted no fucking part of any scheme that called for them to shoot at any un-armed non-military aircraft. I have a Marine Aviator in my family, fighter pilot in the 80's. We've talked about this whole scenario many times. He told me that pre-9/11, absent a state of war, he would have a hard time believing any fire order on an obviously civilian aircraft in US airspace.
He in fact stated that unless such an order came from a certain individual in his coc, he would dis-obey such an order, based on his understanding of the ROE and the UCMJ.
Quote: Originally posted by jlohlinger
I'm only stating what we were told, which was this, if you would throw a softball of the top of the Empire State Building, with pinpoint accuracy a laser guided stinger type missile could blow it out of the air with 100' of it leaving your hand. Now of course, the system would have to be armed and ready for use for a scenario such as this to play out, however I do not know of any system that takes over an hour to arm, and or mobilize and put to use. How these aircraft were rouge for well over an hour, with the government fully aware of their location, as well as the fact that they were indeed high jacked, and failed to scramble aircraft to intercept, never mind the obviously tall tales of missile batteries, shows a major failure in our defense planning, that still continues to this day. |
|
|
|
| ne0shell |
| The "missle battery" at the White House is a very high speed elevator to the roof from which secret service can fire shoulder ground to air missles. It wouldn't surprise me if the Pentagon had a similiar arrangement. The fact is that intercept orders and routines were in place long before 911 but everyone stood down that day due to drills going on and Cheney standing in a command center yelling at his defense coms to back off. |
|
|
| jlohlinger |
| I had always felt prior to 9/11 if an order to shoot down a civilian flight were ordered, and even as the events on 9/11 unfolded, it would be extremely difficult for any pilot to believe what he was being ordered to do, and even more difficult to execute that order. These days, with the road this government, not just this administration, is leading us down, and the mounting corruption on both sides of the aisle, the conspiracy theories are becoming more plausible with the disclosure of each scandal, whether or not they have more than just a grain of truth. I hope one day in my lifetime we can not only have faith in our leadership, but also the knowledge that a new day is dawning, and we're back on the track that will once again make us the strongest nation in the world. I personally have very little faith that we will see this happen as long as we're alienating nations abroad with this cowboy foreign policy, and continuing to hemorrhage from within. |
|
|
| Max-the-Silent |
Prove up or shut up, and Alex Jones and his gang of fellow traveler turd burglars doesn't constitute "proof."
Quote: Originally posted by ne0shell
The "missle battery" at the White House is a very high speed elevator to the roof from which secret service can fire shoulder ground to air missles. It wouldn't surprise me if the Pentagon had a similiar arrangement. The fact is that intercept orders and routines were in place long before 911 but everyone stood down that day due to drills going on and Cheney standing in a command center yelling at his defense coms to back off. |
|
|
|
| ne0shell |
Quote: Originally posted by Max-the-Silent
Prove up or shut up, and Alex Jones and his gang of fellow traveler turd burglars doesn't constitute "proof." |
Prove up or Shut up? How bout you fuck off? I really dont give a fuck what you believe, you want to believe in the official 911 story and the tooth fairy please do so. Your discussion points consist mainly of name calling and the newly popular "Neocon school of debate" theory which just makes you look idiotic. You can take away the existence of "shoot down" orders, I'll give you that one as that's not what I said. (Neocon debate theory - present a false argument, attribute it to your subject and then point out the falicy of his "position") The fact is that procedures to "intercept" ie. get fighters up and around any aircraft off course in that airspace have been around for decades. The only time they failed to be followed was on 9/11. |
|
|
| Max-the-Silent |
Facts please, with sources.
Quote: Originally posted by ne0shell
Prove up or Shut up? How bout you fuck off? I really dont give a fuck what you believe, you want to believe in the official 911 story and the tooth fairy please do so. Your discussion points consist mainly of name calling and the newly popular "Neocon school of debate" theory which just makes you look idiotic. You can take away the existence of "shoot down" orders, I'll give you that one as that's not what I said. (Neocon debate theory - present a false argument, attribute it to your subject and then point out the falicy of his "position") The fact is that procedures to "intercept" ie. get fighters up and around any aircraft off course in that airspace have been around for decades. The only time they failed to be followed was on 9/11. |
|
|
|
| mickeithestones |
Quote: Originally posted by Max-the-Silent
A friend of mine with no axe to grind was an eyewitness.
It wasn't a cruise missle, an executive jet, or a flying saucer. It was a commercial airliner.
He saw the approach and impact, and at the time had no idea that it was anything other than a horrible accident. |
i dont believe a word this admin has to say...but i did know a family of 4 who was on that flight..........and they're gone.... |
|
|
| Max-the-Silent |
I didn't, wouldn't & couldn't vote for Bush, have no neo tendencies, and no axe to grind.
I'm not selling DVD’s or t-shirts or books pushing my opinions.
I just know a bullshit story when I see one, and each 9/11 CT I look into gets nuttier than the one I looked into before.
Quote: Originally posted by mickeithestones
i dont believe a word this admin has to say...but i did know a family of 4 who was on that flight..........and they're gone.... |
|
|
|
| ne0shell |
Quote: Originally posted by Max-the-Silent
I didn't, wouldn't & couldn't vote for Bush, have no neo tendencies, and no axe to grind.
I'm not selling DVD’s or t-shirts or books pushing my opinions.
I just know a bullshit story when I see one, and each 9/11 CT I look into gets nuttier than the one I looked into before. |
Like I said, you wanna believe the official story then have at it. For someone who demands facts you present none, just opinions. It's a fact the official story behind 911 is also in itself just a conspiracy theory as all forensic investigation was stopped and all evidence which could prove the account locked away under national security. I doubt very much you have bothered to watch an Alex Jones fim and then go out and research the sources. If you had you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it. Face it, you WANT to believe the official fable. And for your information, I'm not some Jones fan, I do my own research which includes trips to NYC and long talks with the people who were there. Maybe you should try it. |
|
|
| ne0shell |
Quote: Originally posted by Max-the-Silent
Facts please, with sources. |
So it's your position that our govt had no procedures in place to investigate off-course / non communicative air traffic over the East Coast Air Corridor before 911? I just want to get clarification if that's your opinion and if you can back it up if so. |
|
|
| Max-the-Silent |
Quote: Originally posted by ne0shell
Like I said, you wanna believe the official story then have at it. For someone who demands facts you present none, just opinions. It's a fact the official story behind 911 is also in itself just a conspiracy theory as all forensic investigation was stopped and all evidence which could prove the account locked away under national security. I doubt very much you have bothered to watch an Alex Jones fim and then go out and research the sources. If you had you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it. Face it, you WANT to believe the official fable. And for your information, I'm not some Jones fan, I do my own research which includes trips to NYC and long talks with the people who were there. Maybe you should try it. |
Proof? facts? Explanations?
I've watched every bit of Alex Jones proof, and he knows as much about the facts as a cat does about algebra. |
|
|
| ne0shell |
Quote: Originally posted by Max-the-Silent
Proof? facts? Explanations?
I've watched every bit of Alex Jones proof, and he knows as much about the facts as a cat does about algebra. |
Your so good at spouting unproven opinions and then demanding people provide facts, proof etc. Im done wasting my time on you. |
|
|
| cashflow |
| Shit or go blind |
|
|
|
|
|
