Pentagon Releasing Video of Plane Hitting Building on 9/11

[DBruleU]

Here we go. Taco John's cue....

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,195702,00.html

WASHINGTON — Conspiracy theorists may or may not be disappointed Tuesday when the Pentagon releases footage from two angles showing American Flight 77 hitting the western wall of the building on Sept. 11, 2001.

The Department of Justice is releasing the videotape after a Freedom of Information Act request by Judicial Watch, a government watchdog. The request was made to quiet claims by some that pictures from that day never showed an airplane, only the "alleged" impact of the plane. Those claims spawned theories that the U.S. government faked the crash at the Pentagon.

"We fought hard to obtain this video because we felt that it was very important to complete the public record with respect to the terrorist attacks of September 11," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "Finally, we hope that this video will put to rest the conspiracy theories involving American Airlines Flight 77. As always, our prayers remain with all those who suffered as a result of those murderous attacks."

One of the tapes is from a security camera that was used to produce five still shots on that day. That video, which takes pictures in half-second increments, apparently shows the nose cone of the plane clearly entering the picture, then a blur and then a fireball.

The other camera shot that hasn't been seen before shows more of the plane before the fireball.

American Airlines Flight 77 left Dulles Airport outside Washington, D.C., around 8:51 a.m. EDT on Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001. On its way to Los Angeles, the plane was hijacked and crashed into the Pentagon at 9:37 a.m. EDT.

Three other planes were hijacked that day. Two hit the North and South towers of the World Trade Center and one — United Flight 93 — believed to be headed to Washington, D.C., was stopped by passengers who fought the hijackers. The plane crashed into a field in Shanksville, Pa. Nearly 3,000 people died that day as a result of the attacks.

A dramatic film, United 93, is currently in wide release depicting that day. The film borrows heavily from taped phone conversations that passengers and crew had with their families and air traffic controllers before the fight for control of the plane.

Judicial Watch first filed the FOIA request in February 2004. It received a letter from the Pentagon in January 2005 that it possessed a videotape responsive to the request but wouldn't release it since it was "part of an ongoing investigation involving Zacarias Moussaoui." Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit in February 2006, arguing that the Defense Department had "no legal basis" to withhold the tape.

[defenseman]

For those who believe in the conspiracy, give the family members of those who died on that plane a phone call and speak to them about the conspiracy. I'm sure they'll convince you otherwise...dman

[Bronco_Beerslug]

For those who believe in the conspiracy, give the family members of those who died on that plane a phone call and speak to them about the conspiracy. I'm sure they'll convince you otherwise...dman

Many of them believe it was a government conspiracy.

[DBruleU]

Many of them believe it was a government conspiracy.

Really?

Where?

[24champ]

Many of them believe it was a government conspiracy.
really like who?

[Bronx33]

I guess a hotels security camera across the street caught the impact as well, agents confiscated those tapes right after it happened (i wonder where those tapes are)?

[alkemical]

I never bought into the 'pod people's' explanation for 'no plane'. They had enough to make me look into it - but i found enough to say it was a plane. I think part of the 'no plane' stuff was a disinfo ploy as well. Not that the gov't set the disinfo in motion, but ya know - sometimes i think that's why conspiracies aren't debunked - it's best to have a blanket of secrecy.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

really like who?

Relatives challenge White House to provide answers to 23 questions
The families don't buy that on faith or partial evidence. They want to know the real answer: "As Commander-in-Chief, from May 1, 2001 until September 11, 2001, did you receive any information from any intelligence agency official or agent that UBL was planning to attack this nation on its own soil using airplanes as weapons, targeting New York City landmarks during the week of September 11, 2001 or on the actual day of September 11, 2001?"

It is hard to dismiss these concerns as "conspiracy theory" when the U.S. government itself used the most outrageous conspiracy theory of all — the lie that Saddam backed the attacks — as one of its pretexts to invade Iraq. In that matter as well, the families want to see the government held accountable: "Do you continue to maintain that Saddam Hussein was linked to al-Qaeda?" they ask. "What proof do you have of any connection between al-Qaeda and the Hussein regime?"
http://tinyurl.com/enqof

[alkemical]

And according to the FBI's most wanted list, 9/11 is not a reason listed for Osoma 'wantedness' (sorry i thought a bushism would fit, maybe i can get unstuck sometime)

[bronco militia]

Relatives challenge White House to provide answers to 23 questions



http://tinyurl.com/enqof

I think everyone is refering to the conspiracy about no views of the plane hitting the Pentagon.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

JudicialWatch is already crashing from people flooding the site.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Video showing a plane crashing into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, will be released publicly for the first time on Tuesday, a judicial watchdog said.

The Department of Defense will hand over tapes showing American Airlines Flight 77 striking its headquarters outside Washington to Judicial Watch, a public interest group that requested the video, the group said.

The video will be available on the group's Web site after it receives the tape at 1 p.m., according to a news release from Judicial Watch.

(CONTINUED)
http://tinyurl.com/lvnah

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I think everyone is refering to the conspiracy about no views of the plane hitting the Pentagon.
OK, I thought it was just the 9/11 conspiracy in general but who knows.

[24champ]

Relatives challenge White House to provide answers to 23 questions



http://tinyurl.com/enqof
Sure, you can make the arguement there was a conspiracy to tie Iraq on 9/11, but I do not see where a family has said they believe the goverment put bombs in the WTC,the Pentagon and that they shot down flight 93 with a missle.....

[DBruleU]

I think everyone is refering to the conspiracy about no views of the plane hitting the Pentagon.

Which should be put to rest with these videos.

But, as always, there will be wide speculation that these videos were "doctored."

[DBruleU]

Sure, you can make the arguement there was a conspiracy to tie Iraq on 9/11, but I do not see where a family has said they believe the goverment put bombs in the WTC,the Pentagon and that they shot down flight 93 with a missle.....

Why is Raquel Gibson so hot?

[alkemical]

Sure, you can make the arguement there was a conspiracy to tie Iraq on 9/11, but I do not see where a family has said they believe the goverment put bombs in the WTC,the Pentagon and that they shot down flight 93 with a missle.....



Well i think plane wreckage and pieces of people found 6-8mi away from the plane supposidly 'impacting' into the ground is a bit hard to digest myself.

[alkemical]

Why is Raquel Gibson so hot?


because you don't leave the house much.

[24champ]

Why is Raquel Gibson so hot?
are you saying she isnt?

[defenseman]

Yep, they'll claim they were doctored. It's old GW up to his tricks again, gotta be his fault.....on and on and on and on and..whoops , new president? Change the page, new conspiracy...on and on and on and on...dman

[24champ]

Well i think plane wreckage and pieces of people found 6-8mi away from the plane supposidly 'impacting' into the ground is a bit hard to digest myself.
are you a plane crash specialist?

[DBruleU]

are you saying she isnt?

Nope.

I'm saying she is.

[DBruleU]

because you don't leave the house much.

Oh ok.

[defenseman]

Many of them believe it was a government conspiracy.


Who? How many? When? Here we go again..dman

[alkemical]

For the record, i'd have no problem if 93 was shot down.

[clint7]

JudicialWatch is already crashing from people flooding the site.

Yeah, and I'm sure the White House was behind bringing down this site to keep the public from seeing the video and knowing the truth! They probably are the ones behind the crop circles too. ::)

[alkemical]

are you a plane crash specialist?


Give me some examples of planes that hit the ground and their wreckage was scattered over 6-8mi.

[Rascal]

I honestly have no problem with flight 93 being shot down nor do think it's improbable if not likely.

But after the Moussoui case in which they heard the cockpit recorder, you think there would not have been statements about how the plane was out of control and what not. The evidence seems to suggest that the plane did in fact crash.

Now how in the world remains would have been 6 miles away I honestly have no idea. It might have been in a shallow dive but I honestly don't know.

[24champ]

Give me some examples of planes that hit the ground and their wreckage was scattered over 6-8mi.
you tell me, Im not a plane crash specialist....

[clarker]

Give me some examples of planes that hit the ground and their wreckage was scattered over 6-8mi.FACT: Wallace Miller, Somerset County coroner, tells PM no body parts were found in Indian Lake. Human remains were confined to a 70-acre area directly surrounding the crash site. Paper and tiny scraps of sheetmetal, however, did land in the lake. "Very light debris will fly into the air, because of the concussion," says former National Transportation Safety Board investigator Matthew McCormick. Indian Lake is less than 1.5 miles southeast of the impact crater--not 6 miles--easily within range of debris blasted skyward by the heat of the explosion from the crash. And the wind that day was northwesterly, at 9 to 12 mph, which means it was blowing from the northwest--toward Indian Lake.


http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=8&c=y

[alkemical]

FACT: Wallace Miller, Somerset County coroner, tells PM no body parts were found in Indian Lake. Human remains were confined to a 70-acre area directly surrounding the crash site. Paper and tiny scraps of sheetmetal, however, did land in the lake. "Very light debris will fly into the air, because of the concussion," says former National Transportation Safety Board investigator Matthew McCormick. Indian Lake is less than 1.5 miles southeast of the impact crater--not 6 miles--easily within range of debris blasted skyward by the heat of the explosion from the crash. And the wind that day was northwesterly, at 9 to 12 mph, which means it was blowing from the northwest--toward Indian Lake.


http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=8&c=y




http://post-gazette.com/headlines/20010913somersetp3.asp

Finding the flight data recorder had been the focus of investigators as they widened their search area today following the discoveries of more debris, including what appeared to be human remains, miles from the point of impact at a reclaimed coal mine.

Residents and workers at businesses outside Shanksville, Somerset County, reported discovering clothing, books, papers and what appeared to be human remains. Some residents said they collected bags-full of items to be turned over to investigators. Others reported what appeared to be crash debris floating in Indian Lake, nearly six miles from the immediate crash scene.




http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12192317&method=full&siteid=50143

At least six eyewitnesses saw the mysterious aircraft on the morning of September 11 last year. But the US authorities deny it ever existed.

[defenseman]

The terrorist could have detonated the bomb at one point in the flight. The plane continued on some sort of heading, streaming debris as it went, then finally came to rest in that field. If the bomb only took out part of the plane, disabled it with some ability to half way navigate, it would have traveled a bit farther before impact...explaining the debris pattern to a point anyway..dman

[alkemical]

The terrorist could have detonated the bomb at one point in the flight. The plane continued on some sort of heading, streaming debris as it went, then finally came to rest in that field. If the bomb only took out part of the plane, disabled it with some ability to half way navigate, it would have traveled a bit farther before impact...explaining the debris pattern to a point anyway..dman



Ahh, this was where i was going next Dman.

IMO, the plane was either shot down, or taken down (bomb) mid air - This is where i'm at. Either the terrorists were right and they had a bomb on board, and if they did, did the others? (which caused TJ's secondary explosions?)

If so, how did they get bombs on board. FYI for those of you who didn't want Dubai getting port control - An Israeli Company managed security at the airports the 9/11 hijackers comprimised.

EDIT: 2 of the airports.

[defenseman]

Interesting. Didn't know that..dman

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Who? How many? When? Here we go again..dman
Your reading comprehension is poor at best. I posted one link where many families believe the government is involved in some sort of conspiracy (cover-up).

--------------------------------------------------------------
In its public hearings the Kean Commission has indeed displayed reluctance to pursue controversial lines of inquiry. It is hard to imagine its members would ever ask if the U.S. government tried to cut a deal with Osama Bin Laden in advance of the attacks, as reported in the European press already in 2001. But the families want the answer: "Did you or any agent of the United States government carry out any negotiations or talks with UBL, an agent of UBL, or al-Qaeda?" ("UBL" is government-speak for Osama Bin Laden.)


Nor has the Kean Commission shown any inclination to follow the trail of the Cheney "energy policy meetings" in early 2001 and the Bush administration's oil-pipeline negotiations with the Taliban up to July 2001 — a touchy subject that might come up if the government ever had to answer this question: "During that same period, did you or any agent of the United States government carry out any negotiations or talks with any foreign government, its agents, or officials regarding UBL?"

And it is simply inconceivable that the Kean Commission would ever wonder out loud if anyone other than Al-Qaeda benefitted from the attacks. But the families are not afraid of the obvious: "Which individuals, governments, agencies, institutions, or groups may have benefited from the attacks of 9/11?"

[defenseman]

These statements/questions while interesting a very generic. And appear to be adjusted somewhat. Hard to find the right words. I see your point on the possibility , however, don't see any information on any one family or person calling out the government let alone anyone else. These takes throw a slew of possibles under the same umbrella, ie...media generated point of view from what I can tell. Names, dates, accusations , specifics..etc...etc...etc...is what it would take for me to buy into your thought process on this. If they have guts enough to claim a conspiracy, then they probably wouldn't mind their names and faces being published. If it were my family member, and I had evidence of a cover up, I know I wouldn't mind at all...the truth is the truth..dman

*A little bit of "conspiracy mining" going on here from what I can tell by the way the paragraphs are worded. Planting the seed, never intending for the tree to grow, only planting doubt.

[Rascal]

The video is available on CNN since Judicial Watch is down.

And looking at time frame :07 I can say with a great deal of confidence based on my AF experience:

That is a freaking missle.

I haven't finished watching the tape yet.

[24champ]

The video is available on CNN since Judicial Watch is down.

And looking at time frame :07 I can say with a great deal of confidence based on my AF experience:

That is a freaking missle.

I haven't finished watching the tape yet.
link?

[Rascal]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/16/pentagon.video/index.html

[bronco militia]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/16/pentagon.video/index.html

isn't that the old video?

[bronco militia]

nevermind..I guess that was the new video...I didn't see anything that will change your opinion if you thought it was anything other than a 757.

[Rascal]

That object at the :07 time frame is nothing close to the front of a 757. It does resemble a missile though.

And I always thought it was a 757 till I saw that video, but I still haven't seen the second tape and apparently that is the oen that shows it's a plane (according to Fox anyway).

[Taco John]

you can see the fox coverage on www.foxnews.com (http://www.foxnews.com)

[DomCasual]

Yep, they'll claim they were doctored. It's old GW up to his tricks again, gotta be his fault.....on and on and on and on and..whoops , new president? Change the page, new conspiracy...on and on and on and on...dman
It's surprising that as stupid as GW is, he was able to pull off the greatest conspiracy in the history of the world.

[Taco John]

It's surprising that as stupid as GW is, he was able to pull off the greatest conspiracy in the history of the world.


I don't think anyone believes George Bush is smart enough to pull something like this off...

[DomCasual]

I don't think anyone believes George Bush is smart enough to pull something like this off...
So, is the assumption that he doesn't know about it?

[Taco John]

So, is the assumption that he doesn't know about it?


Whose assumption are you asking about?

As far as I'm concerned, George Bush is a trademark face who some powerful people financed all the way to the presidency. I don't think he has any more control than Ronald McDonald has over the price of a Big Mac. George is just a face that they could elect.

Maybe I'm wrong, but based on his years of service, he seems to have accomplished more for the rich and powerful than his common constituent.

As far as this whole conspiracy angle goes, the only thing I can say with certainty is that there are a lot of questions that the 9/11 commission didn't answer, leaving a lot of meat on the table for the theorists...

I personally have questions about the ground level charges that went off prior to the buildings collapsing. There has never been any inquiry into these charges, and that disturbs me...

But for anyone who is willing to examine the evidence for themselves, I present the following video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=eyewitness

Once you've seen the video, which presents clear and lucid evidence that secondary charges existed, you are welcome to hear what the boots on the ground said about the secondary charges:

1) Go to this video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=eyewitness&pl=true

and

2) Forward to 39:36 and listen to the firefighters give their accounts of the secondary charges.


Finally, after seeing these videos and examining the evidence, ask yourself why FDNY fire fighters remain under a gag order (Rodriguezvs-1.Bush.pdf, p. 10 (http://www.911forthetruth.com/pdfs/Rodriguezvs.Bush%20.pdf)) to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a 9/11 gag order.

[alkemical]

TJ,

i haven't seen your vid links yet - are the charges where the planes went in, could the planes have had bombs (my thoughts on flght 93)?

[Taco John]

TJ,

i haven't seen your vid links yet - are the charges where the planes went in, could the planes have had bombs (my thoughts on flght 93)?



No, the charges are at ground level... White smoke starts to pour out of the building at ground level...

If you're interested in doing further independent research, start with the terms "thermite WTC"

You could also read the science being conducted by Professor Steven E. Jones of the Department of Physics and Astronomy at BYU:

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Once you've seen the video, which presents clear and lucid evidence that secondary charges existed, you are welcome to hear what the boots on the ground said about the secondary charges:

1) Go to this video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=eyewitness&pl=true

and

2) Forward to 39:36 and listen to the firefighters give their accounts of the secondary charges.


Finally, after seeing these videos and examining the evidence, ask yourself why FDNY fire fighters remain under a gag order (Rodriguezvs-1.Bush.pdf, p. 10 (http://www.911forthetruth.com/pdfs/Rodriguezvs.Bush%20.pdf)) to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a 9/11 gag order. Are Americans really this gullible?
The towers did NOT implode from planned demolitions on ground level or below, they fell down on themselves, top floors pancaking down on the next, onto the next, etc... Anyone with 20-100 eyesight can and did see that.

Gag order? The link you sight is for ONE individual.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Here's the list of people needed to pull off this "conspiracy"...

---------------------------------------------------------------------
-The courts for imposing a gag rule [SEE above]

-The NYC Police department who lost over 20 lives. They didn't ask for an investigation. Motive? None...

-The NYC port Authority who lost personnel. Motive?

-All the people in the pentagon who have not called for an investigation. Many who are liberal and centrist. They did or said nothing while people supposedly truck in airplane parts to cover the crime. Why? again, no answer...

-The more than 1,600 widows and widowers of 9/11 who rather have investigations of the decisions which lead to the terrorist getting away with this. They don't want to waste time investigating the mass murder of their loved ones. Even the Jersey Girls. Why? They say it's the money... [note: Whenever killing someone, pay off the relative. They wont say anything.]

-The media (This one I almost believe) who doesn't follow up on the biggest mass murder and conspiracy in American history. It seems no one wants a Nobel prize for journalism. Not only the American media but foreign press like like the BBC and Al Jeezera. Why? No answer here either...

-The photographers from around the world who took pictures of the towers which clearly show bowing of the perimeter columns. These photos support the NIST hypothesis that the sagging trusses lead to the collapse. Some photos also show the core intact shortly after collapse which also not only support the NIST hypothesis but discredits the "Controlled demolition" account.

-Popular Mechanics who debunked these sites are also helping Bush commit the biggest mass murder in history.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

-PBS Nova since they created a documentary explaining in detail how and why the buildings fell. None of it said bomb.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/

-Everyone in the NIST who covers up the largest mass murder in US history. This independent org doesn't have a moral person in hundreds of employees because not one has come out exposing this so called "Conspiracy". In fact the hundreds of scientist who signed onto the report are willing to not only lie for Bush but cover up the largest mass murder in American history. Some suggest only a hand full can do the job but that's simply impossible. The team in charge of the computer modeling has to be in sync with the team in structural engineers and so on. There are hundreds involved in this investigation and every team has to work other teams using the same evidence and specifications.

-NY Governor Pataki because he sold steel to from the WTC for the construction of the USS New York. If the argument is the government sold the steel in order to cover up the crime then Pataki is one of the criminals.

-The NY city scrap yards because they also sold steel to china before all of it was tested. Bush would have needed to call them up and tell them to sell it before they could have investigated every beam. A task which would have taken years and years not to mention millions more. Ironically the republican Mayor Bloomberg could not be involved since he asked the scrap yards not to sell the steel on behalf of the fire fighters.

-EVERY STRUCTURAL ENGINEER IN THE WORLD who doesn't write a paper for a mainstream peer reviewed journal saying the towers were brought down and could not have fallen due to fire. If laymen can prove things just by looking at videos and reading interviews out of context then all those structural engineers MUST be working for Bush right? Even the ones in other countries. Why? The answer they give is the engineers don't know about Jones work. So in all this time no one has e-mailed Jones's work to any structural engineer?

-The liberals who don't believe the towers were brought down. (Like me) They're helping a neo-con cover-up the largest mass murder in this nation’s history. Why" No clue...

-The CIA

-The FBI

-FEMA

-The American Society of Civil Engineers who have produced peer reviewed papers showing how what Conspiracy Theorist say is impossible is possible.

-NORAD

-The FAA who saw planes which conspiracy theorist never existed.

-The Silverstein Group who they say got together with Bush to blow up the building for insurance money.

-Silverstein's Insurance Company who didn't question the collapse and paid out over 2 billion to Silverstein. Why? Conspiracy Theorist say the insurance company just wants to pass on the bill to the public but they already fought Silverstein in a number of law suits concerning the amount.

-American Airlines (Pentagon)

-United Airlines (Pentagon)

-Logan, Newark and Dulles Airport for losing the planes

-Scientists and engineers who developed the remote control plane technology

-Installers of the remote control devices in the planes (Pentagon)

-Remote controllers of the planes (Pentagon)

-Scientists and engineers who developed the new demolition technology and carried out practical tests and computer models to make sure it would work.

-Installers of the demolitions devices in the three buildings

-People who worked at the company(s) the installers used as cover

-Airphone etc employees who said they got calls from passengers (Pentagon)

-Faux friends and relatives of the faux passengers or just the faux relatives who claim to have been called by their loved ones or just the psyops who fooled relatives into thinking they really were their loved ones. (Pentagon)

-People who detonated the buildings"

-anyone who thinks the conspiracy is a diversion to take liberal activist focus off of real crimes.

Even conspiracies with a few people are doomed, Look at Enron and Watergate. The more people you involved the more likely the conspiracy will fall apart. The amount of people needed for this conspiracy could fill one of the towers. It's absurd to think this many people could keep a mass murder for Bush secret for this long. Absurd...
http://tinyurl.com/qph4u

[Taco John]

Seems like that's a lot of people who could have been asked simple questions but weren't by the 9/11 commission...

I'm not interested in the conspiracy as I am in the science of ground zero. I figure any conspiracy is for the Justice Department to ferrett out. I just want simple answers to simple questions about ground zero... starting with the ground level charges that evidence proves exists.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Seems like that's a lot of people who could have been asked simple questions but weren't by the 9/11 commission...

I'm not interested in the conspiracy as I am in the science of ground zero. I figure any conspiracy is for the Justice Department to ferrett out. I just want simple answers to simple questions about ground zero... starting with the ground level charges that evidence proves exists.
So you read the entire report (hundreds of pages) and none of these things were brought up?

http://tinyurl.com/djdjq


.

[alkemical]

Here's the list of people needed to pull off this "conspiracy"...

---------------------------------------------------------------------
-The courts for imposing a gag rule [SEE above]

-The NYC Police department who lost over 20 lives. They didn't ask for an investigation. Motive? None...

-The NYC port Authority who lost personnel. Motive?

-All the people in the pentagon who have not called for an investigation. Many who are liberal and centrist. They did or said nothing while people supposedly truck in airplane parts to cover the crime. Why? again, no answer...

-The more than 1,600 widows and widowers of 9/11 who rather have investigations of the decisions which lead to the terrorist getting away with this. They don't want to waste time investigating the mass murder of their loved ones. Even the Jersey Girls. Why? They say it's the money... [note: Whenever killing someone, pay off the relative. They wont say anything.]

-The media (This one I almost believe) who doesn't follow up on the biggest mass murder and conspiracy in American history. It seems no one wants a Nobel prize for journalism. Not only the American media but foreign press like like the BBC and Al Jeezera. Why? No answer here either...

-The photographers from around the world who took pictures of the towers which clearly show bowing of the perimeter columns. These photos support the NIST hypothesis that the sagging trusses lead to the collapse. Some photos also show the core intact shortly after collapse which also not only support the NIST hypothesis but discredits the "Controlled demolition" account.

-Popular Mechanics who debunked these sites are also helping Bush commit the biggest mass murder in history.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

-PBS Nova since they created a documentary explaining in detail how and why the buildings fell. None of it said bomb.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/

-Everyone in the NIST who covers up the largest mass murder in US history. This independent org doesn't have a moral person in hundreds of employees because not one has come out exposing this so called "Conspiracy". In fact the hundreds of scientist who signed onto the report are willing to not only lie for Bush but cover up the largest mass murder in American history. Some suggest only a hand full can do the job but that's simply impossible. The team in charge of the computer modeling has to be in sync with the team in structural engineers and so on. There are hundreds involved in this investigation and every team has to work other teams using the same evidence and specifications.

-NY Governor Pataki because he sold steel to from the WTC for the construction of the USS New York. If the argument is the government sold the steel in order to cover up the crime then Pataki is one of the criminals.

-The NY city scrap yards because they also sold steel to china before all of it was tested. Bush would have needed to call them up and tell them to sell it before they could have investigated every beam. A task which would have taken years and years not to mention millions more. Ironically the republican Mayor Bloomberg could not be involved since he asked the scrap yards not to sell the steel on behalf of the fire fighters.

-EVERY STRUCTURAL ENGINEER IN THE WORLD who doesn't write a paper for a mainstream peer reviewed journal saying the towers were brought down and could not have fallen due to fire. If laymen can prove things just by looking at videos and reading interviews out of context then all those structural engineers MUST be working for Bush right? Even the ones in other countries. Why? The answer they give is the engineers don't know about Jones work. So in all this time no one has e-mailed Jones's work to any structural engineer?

-The liberals who don't believe the towers were brought down. (Like me) They're helping a neo-con cover-up the largest mass murder in this nation’s history. Why" No clue...

-The CIA

-The FBI

-FEMA

-The American Society of Civil Engineers who have produced peer reviewed papers showing how what Conspiracy Theorist say is impossible is possible.

-NORAD

-The FAA who saw planes which conspiracy theorist never existed.

-The Silverstein Group who they say got together with Bush to blow up the building for insurance money.

-Silverstein's Insurance Company who didn't question the collapse and paid out over 2 billion to Silverstein. Why? Conspiracy Theorist say the insurance company just wants to pass on the bill to the public but they already fought Silverstein in a number of law suits concerning the amount.

-American Airlines (Pentagon)

-United Airlines (Pentagon)

-Logan, Newark and Dulles Airport for losing the planes

-Scientists and engineers who developed the remote control plane technology

-Installers of the remote control devices in the planes (Pentagon)

-Remote controllers of the planes (Pentagon)

-Scientists and engineers who developed the new demolition technology and carried out practical tests and computer models to make sure it would work.

-Installers of the demolitions devices in the three buildings

-People who worked at the company(s) the installers used as cover

-Airphone etc employees who said they got calls from passengers (Pentagon)

-Faux friends and relatives of the faux passengers or just the faux relatives who claim to have been called by their loved ones or just the psyops who fooled relatives into thinking they really were their loved ones. (Pentagon)

-People who detonated the buildings"

-anyone who thinks the conspiracy is a diversion to take liberal activist focus off of real crimes.

Even conspiracies with a few people are doomed, Look at Enron and Watergate. The more people you involved the more likely the conspiracy will fall apart. The amount of people needed for this conspiracy could fill one of the towers. It's absurd to think this many people could keep a mass murder for Bush secret for this long. Absurd...
http://tinyurl.com/qph4u



http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ICTS.html


All 9/11 Airports Serviced by
One Israeli Owned Company

It's one of those times when an innocuous comment in an unrelated news report triggers a revelation.
In the article at http://afrocubaweb.com/news/israelispying.htm there is the following paragraph:

To make the situation worse, a private security company called ICTS, owned by an Israeli, Ezra Harel, and registered in the Netherlands, was employed at Charles de Gaulle airport to screen passengers boarding US planes. Most of its personnel are ex-Shin Bet officers. The company covers security at Boston’s Logan airport, where the American Airlines plane came down after flight attendants and passengers overpowered Reid.



http://anderson.ath.cx:8000/911/hj05.html


SECRECY SURROUNDS A BUSH BROTHER'S ROLE IN 9/11 SECURITY
by Margie Burns

Washington, D.C. WASHINGTON, Jan 19, 2003 -- A company that provided security at New York City's World Trade Center, Dulles International Airport in Washington, D.C., and to United Airlines between 1995 and 2001, was backed by a private Kuwaiti-American investment firm with ties to a brother of President Bush and the Bush family, according to records obtained by the American Reporter.

Two planes hijacked on Sept. 11, 2001 were United Airlines planes, and another took off from Dulles International Airport; two, of course, slammed into the World Trade Center. But the Bush Administration has never disclosed the ties of a presidential brother and the Bush family with the firm that intersected the weapons and targets on a day of national tragedy.

Marvin P. Bush, a younger brother of George W. Bush, was a principal in the company from 1993 to 2000, when most of the work on the big projects was done. But White House responses to 9/11 have not publicly disclosed the company's part in providing security to any of the named facilities, and many of the public records revealing the relationships are not public.



http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911security.html

9/11 Security
Courtesy of Marvin Bush

Marvin P. Bush, the president’s younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport. The company, Burns noted, was backed by KuwAm, a Kuwaiti-American investment firm on whose board Marvin Burns also served. [Utne]
According to its present CEO, Barry McDaniel, the company had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down."
The company lists as government clients "the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, U.S Air force, and the Department of Justice," in projects that "often require state-of-the-art security solutions for classified or high-risk government sites."

[elsid13]

I have a question. How many folks that posted on this thread were near the WTC or the Pentagon on 9-11? Or knows someone who was there?

[W*GS]

I have a question. How many folks that posted on this thread were near the WTC or the Pentagon on 9-11? Or knows someone who was there?

I have a former colleague who was working for a major computer company who worked at the WTC. She didn't see the first plane hit, but did see the second plane hit, shortly after leaving the subway.

She saw plane parts on the ground (from the first plane) as well as what looked to her like body parts. Suffice to say she didn't stick around and investigate.

[W*GS]

http://pserver.mii.instacontent.net/defense/flight77/fl77-1_11094135.WMV

and

http://pserver.mii.instacontent.net/defense/flight77/fl77-2_11094237.WMV

[Billy Clyde Puckett]

I have a question. How many folks that posted on this thread were near the WTC or the Pentagon on 9-11? Or knows someone who was there?

I have a good client in Mid Town - many of those folk watched the episode. One woman had an apartment about 6 blocks away from the WTC. She could not get home for almost two weeks. One guy was directly across the river in New Jersey and watched everything.

I was in Boston and getting ready to leave. My partner was on a United flight that left Logan the same time as the one that hit the Trade Center. He sat in the waiting area at the gate with the folk who died. They landed his plane in Detroit and he drove home from there. We had two people in Manhattan that day. They were on their way to JFK when it happened and ended up driving home. I drove home later that day with four of my employees. Lots of memories from that trip. Police guarding the bridges, National Guard trucks heading into NYC, not being able to get cell, land line or internet connection back to Denver to tell families we were all safe for about 4 hours, rumors on the radio, and most baffling, as we drove past the Indianapolis Airport, all of the planes lined up against the chain link fence with no guards in site.

[Taco John]

So you read the entire report (hundreds of pages) and none of these things were brought up?

http://tinyurl.com/djdjq


.


Yeah, I bought the report the first week it came out...

[Taco John]

I have a former colleague who was working for a major computer company who worked at the WTC. She didn't see the first plane hit, but did see the second plane hit, shortly after leaving the subway.

She saw plane parts on the ground (from the first plane) as well as what looked to her like body parts. Suffice to say she didn't stick around and investigate.


Poor woman... I can't imagine how horrifying it would have been to be on the ground there... Watching the videos now, I get misty thinking of all of the death...

[elsid13]

I guess since I asked the question I should tell you mine experiences.

I drove past the Pentagon at 1523 on 9-11, going south on 395. I know that the time because that was the first time I able to reach my father and tell him I was safe. I was in lock down in my building, listen to DC panic over the radio, and catching glimpse of the black smoke drift over the Potomac and 14th street bridge. I even remember my words to him. I had been schedule to drop my boss over there for meetings(meeting had been cancelled). - Actually we usually picked him up on the side were the plane hit. It is one of those times that I never forget.

Recently I was given an impromptu to tour of the Pentagon and actually stood in the place where the plane hit the building. It very tough listen to 4 Star Admiral described losing his friend and predecessor that was in the office that day. But as bad as that was the next place he took us was worse. It the place were they stacked the burned bodies before they could be moved. It a memorial now. Unfortunately it something that will never leave me or those that were there that day. I know a lot more personnel stories from folks that were in the Pentagon that day. It for that reason I know a lot of folks in uniform or civilian that support National Security that would never allow any of conspiracy theories to be true. That want the people that did that us to pay.

[minibronco]

I promise you if you watch this video, you will know what they are talking about.

This is the documentary "Loose Change", runtime 1 hour 20 minutes.

http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/12047/9_11_Staged_by_USA_Evidence

Also, I watched the video from fox news, and you can't see anything. The nose cone could be from a missle. Also, if you watch this video, you will notice that the bright flash cannot be emitted from jet fuel, only from corsine (missile). And the hole's not big enough.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I promise you if you watch this video, you will know what they are talking about.

This is the documentary "Loose Change", runtime 1 hour 20 minutes.

http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/12047/9_11_Staged_by_USA_Evidence

Also, I watched the video from fox news, and you can't see anything. The nose cone could be from a missle. Also, if you watch this video, you will notice that the bright flash cannot be emitted from jet fuel, only from corsine (missile). And the hole's not big enough.

Bingo.

The 'new' photos do nothing but reinforce the claim that NO plane hit the Pentagon. MORE important.....where the hell is the wreckage?

Where the Hell is the Wreckage?
http://tvnewslies.org/blog/?p=355

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Where the Hell is the Wreckage?


Sorry you conspiracy nut boys but it was an airplane not some ground crawling missile.

--------------------------------------------------------
Inside The Pentagon
Exclusive Photos & Story
From Sarah Roberts
spinner2882@yahoo.com
12-4-2

The recent Pentagon crash discussion on Rense.com has almost entirely focused on photos of plane debris on the lawn. Since most of the plane reportedly entered the building, we should also look for images of debris inside the building. Unfortunately, such images are very hard to come by since: (1) Much of the debris was burned and torn beyond recognition, (2) Most FEMA photos in the public domain were taken on 9/14/01, after much of the debris was cleared out of the building, (3) Most other photos remain in the private hands of investigators, rescue workers, and others who were inside the building. Many images are officially classified. The following article attempts to bring together all known images sent to me or in the public domain that show aircraft debris inside the Pentagon. The images were either found online or sent to me by recovery workers to be used with permission.

First, we shall examine witness accounts of plane debris inside the Pentagon. These were given by recovery workers, firefighters, engineers, and Pentagon officials. Their statements help in interpreting the various photos taken inside the building.

I. Witness Accounts of Wreckage Inside the Building

Witnesses described small pieces of plane debris in the building. Because of the fire, much of the debris was burned beyond recognition. Some pieces bore lime or yellow primer paint characteristic of internal aircraft parts. Larger pieces included seats, cockpit circuitry, and a landing gear. These accounts were drawn from Ron Harvey's excellent compilation and from my own research.

1) "Most of the wreckage was in very small pieces and most was carried out in drywall buckets. Some was large enough to identify -- including the tail number on the aircraft. I don't think there's any doubt about what it was and who owned it." (From a letter by an employee of the Pentagon)
http://www.humanunderground.com/11september/comments-general.html

2) "DC Matthew" wrote about his work inside the Pentagon: "After about 15 minutes shoveling up chunks of carpet and brick, I found a piece of circuit board, and a chunk of the plane. When I say a chunk of it, I mean a piece that was about 3 oz of twisted aluminum. The biggest piece I've seen so far is about the size of a refrigerator."
http://pub6.ezboard.com/foldmenonlinewhatdoyouthink.showPrevMessage?topicI D=957.topic

3) While searching through wreckage inside the building, firefighters Carlton Burkhammer and Brian Moravitz "spotted an intact seat from the plane's cockpit with a chunk of the floor still attached." Burkhammer also "spotted lime-green pieces from the interior of the plane" within the building.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/635293.asp

4) CMSgt. John Monaccio wrote: "I was in room 1B461. The plane's inertia carried aircraft remains all the way through the building coming to rest on the outside walls of our offices. We discovered cockpit wreckage at our feet while attempting to rescue people from a Navy operations area."
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/pentagon-email_20020316.html

5) ARFF Captain Michael Defina said: "The only way you could tell that an aircraft was inside was that we saw pieces of the nose gear."
http://www.nfpa.org/NFPAJournal/OnlineExclusive/Exclusive_11_01_01/exclusive_11.01.01.asp

The Navy operations area, where the cockpit was discovered, was in C-ring near the punchout hole. Many witnesses also recalled seeing plane wreckage in A-E Drive next to the punchout hole. The following three items were mentioned: a piece of the nose fuselage or nose cone, a landing gear, and a tire tread.

6) Navy Lt. Commander David Tarantino described the A-E Drive punchout hole: "They found an area where fire surrounded a hole in a wall that was blown out. They heard cries from people who were trapped and saw a plane tire."
http://www2.hawaii.edu/~julianr/lexisnexis/tarantino.txt

7) Lt. Kevin Schaeffer from the Navy Command Center recalled that "on a service road that circled the Pentagon between the B and C rings, a chunk of the 757's nose cone and front landing gear lay on the pavement a few feet away, resting against the B Ring wall."
http://www.pilotonline.com/special/911/pentagon3.html

8) "The nose of the plane just barely jutted out into A/E Drive (the street that runs around the inside of the building). It made a perfectly round, 5-foot hole in the wall. There was one set of landing gear (presumably from the nose) out in A/E Drive. But most of the plane's skin was in pieces not much bigger than a piece of notebook paper." (From a letter by an employee of the Pentagon)
http://www.humanunderground.com/11september/comments-general.html

9) "I thought it was a terrorist bomb. . . .But then I saw the landing gear. It was on the ground in the alley between the B and C rings. When I saw it there, not only did I realize an airplane had struck the Pentagon but it was clear that the plane had come through the E, D, and C buildings to get there." (Paul K. Carlton, Jr., U.S. Air Force surgeon general, quoted by Dean Murphy, "September 11: An Oral History," p. 216

10) Rep. Ted Tiahrt wrote: "In the C and B rings the plane had punched a hole you could a drive a truck around in, and I saw an airplane tire. It made it very real."
http://wichita.bizjournals.com/wichita/stories/2002/09/09/story1.html

11) When LTC Victor Correa went back inside the Pentagon, "he found out what caused the horrific attack he survived earlier that morning; he saw the nose cone and the landing gear of the airliner."
http://www.army.mil/usar/news/2002/09-11anniv/herotellsall.html

More witness accounts may be found on Ron Harvey's website: http://www.dragonslair.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/77/ffdd.html

We shall now see some interesting images taken inside the Pentagon on 9/12 and 9/13 -- photos of some of the objects mentioned by these witnesses.


II. Photos of Plane Wreckage Inside the Building

Because of the destructive fire that raged inside the building, most photos show only charred heaps of scrap. A good place to look for plane wreckage is around structural columns which tore the plane into pieces as it entered. Many columns show shredded or wrecked pieces of metal wrapped around them or stacked beside them. The following photo (by MDW Engineer Co. Fort Belvoir photographers) shows such a column in D-ring near column 3H:
(CONTINUED)
http://tinyurl.com/54jjp

[minibronco]

1. The engine is made of steel titanium alloy, and cannot melt under the heat that was available. It could not have just vanished.
2. There are no skid marks on the lawn, as the official record says that the flight "bounced" off the lawn into the building.
3. The hiijacker, as the local plane center says, had almost no skill at piloting at all. However, FAA officials thought that the plane's maneuvering and turning ability was that of a military plane. Also, a plane flying at such a speed, and turning while descending at such a quick pace would theoretically, fall out of the air immediately.
3. The hole, 16 feet in diameter, does not explain the 110 feet wingspan of the plane crashing in, or the 25 feet in diameter fuselage.
4. As it crashed, six light poles were ripped clean out of the ground. In a similar instance in history, the light poles were only bent, or snapped, and caused huge marks and alterations in the wings and fuselage of the plane.

Just watch the video.

[enjolras]

Those pictures posted by Beerslug are quite compelling.

The big issue here is that the Pentagon is hardly a normal building. Its extraordinarily reinforced with massive concrete pillars reinforcing several deadzones in between building segments.

This means a plane, travelling at a few hundred miles an hour slammed into the worlds strongest brick wall. The wings would have hit those reinforcements and done what they're designed to do (shear off) and the incinerate under force. There was a lot more than a chemical force at play here (explosion), but a huge amount of kinetic energy being dispersed into a VERY narrow area (thanks to the Pentagons rather ingenious design). Most of that energy is effectively reflected back into the object slamming into that wall.. in this case a big jet.

Wings (and most of the plane for that matter) simply are not going to survive the amount of force being generated. You'd expect to find scattered sheet metal (we did) and certain components (wheel hubs, landing gear struts, jet rings) (we did). Given that the Pentagon is fundamentally designed to direct impact through a given 'cell' (which it did remarkably well) does make this a very unique crash site, but I have no doubt in my mind its a jet site.

The videos released today support that.

And yes, I *AM* a physicist...

Note: To me the most interesting thing about the video is watching the explosive cloud... you can really see the Pentagons cell design at play. The explosion actually disperses up and into a very narrow area and you end up with a narrow, upward moving ball. That is a big indication of how the energy was behaving.. and you can really see the pentagons energy dispersel strategy at play. The fact that the plane penetrated so far shows just how incredible the momentum involved was.

[mosca]

2. There are no skid marks on the lawn, as the official record says that the flight "bounced" off the lawn into the building.
the video only showed a handful of photos of the lawn near the impact site... and what it showed was from an odd angle. there easily could have been skid marks that weren't photographed by whoever they featured in the video.

additionally, why in the world would the official record state that the flight bounced off the ground if there is an absence of skid marks? that makes no sense... if they saw no skid marks they could (and would) have simply altered their story to say that it never hit the ground.

4. As it crashed, six light poles were ripped clean out of the ground. In a similar instance in history, the light poles were only bent, or snapped, and caused huge marks and alterations in the wings and fuselage of the plane.

even the wikipedia article on the movie casts some doubt on their claims of the interactions between airplane and light poles - "The film suggests that a plane hitting a single light pole would crash, citing the example of a Gulfstream II headed to Houston saying it crashed because it hit a light pole. In fact the Gulfstream II jet crashed and a TV reporter noted it had clipped a light pole while crashing, the film suggests the pole ripped the wing off. The film states 5 light posts were knocked over Flight 77, in fact light poles are designed to detach from few simple bolts, on impact from car crashes to save lives. The effect of hitting a light post by a plane's wing would not cause it to rip the wing off."

[enjolras]

The film states 5 light posts were knocked over Flight 77, in fact light poles are designed to detach from few simple bolts, on impact from car crashes to save lives. The effect of hitting a light post by a plane's wing would not cause it to rip the wing off."

There is no question... if you ever seen what a semi can do to your average light pole (even at relatively low speeds). It doesn't take a lot of momentum to bring a pole down..

By the same note.. if you ever seen what happens when a semi takes on a concrete pylon (such as a bridge support) then you'll appreciate how strong those pylons are (it rarely ends up well for the semi). The pentagon is essentially a building built around thousands of those same pylons, and they held up incredibly during this crash.

[minibronco]

Is it also a coincidence that the plane hit the only part of the pentagon that was especially reconstructed with shatterproof reinforced bulletproof windows and a reinforced concrete mix?

And that the important officials just happened to be at the other side of the Pentagon when the plane hit?

[minibronco]

that makes no sense... if they saw no skid marks they could (and would) have simply altered their story to say that it never hit the ground.

Why alter the truth? :wiggle: ;) :rofl:

Did you watch the rest of the video?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Many images are officially classified.

Where have we heard that before?

If we have to take the anecdotal evidence provided by rescue workers at the Pentagon seriously, then the same standard has to apply re: the rescue workers at the WTC who reported hearing explosives detonated inside the buildings.

[mosca]

Why alter the truth? :wiggle: ;) :rofl:

Did you watch the rest of the video?
well, just playing along with the theory that it wasn't actually the 757 that hit, if they are gonna make an official report stating that it did, you'd think they'd express a plausible report. why add the minor detail that the plane hit the ground, which would just make their coverup more complex and complicated to pull off? i'd bet on the facts that if it did hit the ground, that there were skid marks - and i'd would like to see more pictures than the one or two vague ones from the video to support or deny this.

to answer your other question, i didn't finish the video. i started to lose interest and realized that i'd heard most of the theories covered in the video elsewhere. sort of how i felt when i watched f/911. i may watch the whole thing sometime, though.

[Spider]

For those who believe in the conspiracy, give the family members of those who died on that plane a phone call and speak to them about the conspiracy. I'm sure they'll convince you otherwise...dman
then we can tell tem wh we didnt find any luggage ............ you know every air plane wreck , there has always been luggage , or personal effects scattered around ..............

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

then we can tell tem wh we didnt find any luggage ............ you know every air plane wreck , there has always been luggage , or personal effects scattered around ..............

That's right.

I forgot all about that little detail.

At any rate, for me, it all starts with their lie "we never could have imagined anyone would use aircraft as missles."

[mosca]

then we can tell tem wh we didnt find any luggage ............ you know every air plane wreck , there has always been luggage , or personal effects scattered around ..............
one would think that the luggage would have been consumed in the fireball... if anything that was on or a part of the plane was combustible, it would definitely be the luggage.

[Rascal]

The video is available on CNN since Judicial Watch is down.

And looking at time frame :07 I can say with a great deal of confidence based on my AF experience:

That is a freaking missle.

I haven't finished watching the tape yet.

After watching the second film and realizing that the camera was not as close as I initially believed I am retracting my statement.

[defenseman]

I have a question. How many folks that posted on this thread were near the WTC or the Pentagon on 9-11? Or knows someone who was there?

I am friends with a Capt. in the navy who's office was destroyed by the plane when it hit the pentagon. He was fortunate and survived due to the fact he was down the hall way a bit when the plane came in. He ended up saving a half dozen or so sailors by himself. Another half dozen or so were saved by him and a Navy SEAL as they went through the wreckage to pull more out. It was a plane, trust me. He's got some permanent scares physically from the intial impact and additional scaring due to pulling people out of the affected area. Lots of fire, smoke and flying debris. Was not a good day at all, he and the SEAL were fortunate to get out in relatively one piece.....There is no conspiracy, trust me on this one...dman

[Rigs11]

I am friends with a Capt. in the navy who's office was destroyed by the plane when it hit the pentagon. He was fortunate and survived due to the fact he was down the hall way a bit when the plane came in. He ended up saving a half dozen or so sailors by himself. Another half dozen or so were saved by him and a Navy SEAL as they went through the wreckage to pull more out. It was a plane, trust me. He's got some permanent scares physically from the intial impact and additional scaring due to pulling people out of the affected area. Lots of fire, smoke and flying debris. Was not a good day at all, he and the SEAL were fortunate to get out in relatively one piece.....There is no conspiracy, trust me on this one...dman
Did your friend happen to see the plane coming in? If not why should we trust you that it's not a conspiracy?

[alkemical]

well, just playing along with the theory that it wasn't actually the 757 that hit, if they are gonna make an official report stating that it did, you'd think they'd express a plausible report. why add the minor detail that the plane hit the ground, which would just make their coverup more complex and complicated to pull off? i'd bet on the facts that if it did hit the ground, that there were skid marks - and i'd would like to see more pictures than the one or two vague ones from the video to support or deny this.

to answer your other question, i didn't finish the video. i started to lose interest and realized that i'd heard most of the theories covered in the video elsewhere. sort of how i felt when i watched f/911. i may watch the whole thing sometime, though.


it appears that there is no 'angle' to the impact, thus a poorly trained hijacker flying a plane that big, what 1-5 feet off the ground sounds much more plausible....

[defenseman]

Rigs, you are truley a godamn idiot. I don't make this **** up. It f**king happened. Talk about needing a healthy dose of reality, you know what , I'm wasting my time, you and the ones like you who truley believe there is a conspiracy need psychological help of some sort. I am done with you and the likes of you. What a waste of time, spin yourself into whatever egotistical maniacle schizo frenzy you want. Just don't comment like a goddamn schoolkid, " Weeellll, I didn't see it, therefore it must not be soooooo, I wasn't there so I don't belive the pictures" ...or " maybeeeee, they doctored the picturessssss" They sure as hell didn't doctor the burns on my buddies arms and neck now did they. Oh yeah, for the last f**king time, it was a goddamn plane, fuselages and the such are reasonably distinguishable, even in such a nasty enviroment.......last time I relay this info on this website....what a waste of time...dman

[bronco militia]

After watching the second film and realizing that the camera was not as close as I initially believed I am retracting my statement.

that's what I was wondering....I understand the Pentagon is a massive BLDG, but I still struggle to get a real sense of scale when viewing the two security videos. Bottom line, a half second frame rate is just to large a time gap.

[alkemical]

One question though:

how much more skeptical of the news are you - after seeing movies like forrest gump & commercials like the ford mustang?

[defenseman]

Take your conspiracies theories and stuff it. I'm outta here for a while. Maybe a few unsuspecting illegals at the border will quench my thirst for a while...dman

[Rascal]

The release of new video pictures of the Pentagon being attacked on 9/11 will not quell the endless claims in the world of conspiracy theorists that a missile or military aircraft hit the building instead.

The theorists do not believe eyewitnesses, physical evidence, engineering studies or even the claims of Osama Bin Laden, so it is unlikely that they will be convinced by grainy video frames.

The latest pictures are the missing frames from a series taken from two cameras at a filling station.

If you look closely, you do see what could be a plane, flying very low and then hitting the building, causing a huge fireball. It is consistent with the official account.

However, the new frames do not absolutely without doubt show that this was American Airlines 77 in its final moments, so hope will spring eternal for the conspiracists that they have not been knocked out.

And even if the pictures did clearly show the doomed airliner, the theorists would probably just change their charge.

After all, in the case of the Twin Towers, they argued that the attacks were carried out by, or tolerated by, the US Government. The Pentagon could easily be fitted into that category as well.


Claims

To understand the conspiracy theory, it is worth considering a film called "Loose Change: 2nd edition". Available on the internet, it reveals the full alternative version of what happened to the Pentagon in all its glory. It states:



AA 77 did not crash into the building. And if there was no AA 77, it must have been a missile, a military aircraft or a drone that did it.

The alleged pilot Hani Hanjour was not skilled enough to execute the manoeuvre and the plane would have stalled in the tight turn alleged.

Street lights were knocked down but did not bring down the plane; therefore there was no plane. They could have been deliberately lifted from the ground.


The damage was not consistent with the size of the airliner and therefore there was no airliner.

There were no remains of either the 757 or passengers and therefore neither existed.

Pieces of fuselage found nearby were planted.

Eyewitnesses who said they saw the plane were confused. Others said they saw a commuter jet or a helicopter.


Answers

There are, of course, answers to all of the above, to be found in the report of the 9/11 Commission, in other technical assessments and in common sense.

For example, the limited damage on each side of the impact zone was due to recent strengthening work on the building. Windows that survived were made of shatterproof glass.

Another obvious weakness in the film is that the eyewitnesses chosen are all treated as if they have equal value. And did nobody see the lampposts being lifted out of the ground?


And the passengers...?

The most glaring gap in the theory is surely this. If AA 77 did not end its flight hitting the Pentagon, what happened to it and its passengers?

This appears to be of little relevance to 9/11 theorists. In the course of an e-mail exchange with one of them I asked this question and was told that for all she knew, the plane could have been diverted somewhere and the passengers gassed.

One of the passengers was well-known. She was Barbara Olson, wife of Ted Olson, the US Solicitor general. However, I was told by the theorist that two calls she made to her husband from the plane probably never existed. Exactly where she might be now remains a mystery, it seems.

The film "Loose Change" also claims incidentally that United 93 which came down in a field in Pennsylvania, never crashed (the "crash site" was dug out by bulldozers) but landed at Cleveland and the passengers taken off. What happened to them, one wonders.

It also says that the Twin Towers were brought down by "controlled demolition". Again, great emphasis is placed on immediate eyewitness accounts of "explosions" within the towers, and almost none on later engineering examinations of the sequence of the collapse.


Plane comes into view at far right

The film is the work of three young American videomakers, who started off making a fictional film about how they revealed that 9/11 was a US government conspiracy.

One of them Dylan Avery has described what happened next: "It was that month that I began writing 'Loose Change', a fictional story about my friends and I discovering that 11 September was not a terrorist attack, but rather, an attack by their own government.

"Upon researching for the movie, it became apparent that the subject matter might not have been entirely fiction. Over two years time, adding more and more information, the fictional movie evolved into what it is today: a documentary."

The film is quite professionally done on a technical level, with sinister music and fast cutting. Avery said it cost only $2,000 to make and was done on a laptop.


Internet influence

It is proving popular on the internet in reinforcing beliefs that 9/11 might not have been all it seems.

The theorists are very small in number but are working in fertile soil. The events are endlessly fascinating.

And the fact remains that some people around the world believe that somehow the US Government might have been involved. Part, most probably, of that suspicion has to do with anger against the United States. There are always conspiracy theories involving the US right across the Middle East and beyond. Many people want to believe the worst.

The new pictures will not have much effect on that kind of thinking.

It might well be that, as in the case of the Kennedy assassination, it will take many years for a settled view on the events of 11 September 2001 to take hold.

[Rascal]

that's what I was wondering....I understand the Pentagon is a massive BLDG, but I still struggle to get a real sense of scale when viewing the two security videos. Bottom line, a half second frame rate is just to large a time gap.

Yeah I looked at a map of the Pentagon and the distance between the camera and the impact (not having a scale mind you) was large enough that I realized that I should have considered that.

[DBruleU]

Did your friend happen to see the plane coming in? If not why should we trust you that it's not a conspiracy?

Ubelievable.

::)

[Bronx33]

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/176895.php

http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/pentstrike-fake-example.gif

This link is suppose to be a fake

[Rigs11]

Rigs, you are truley a godamn idiot. I don't make this **** up. It ****ing happened. Talk about needing a healthy dose of reality, you know what , I'm wasting my time, you and the ones like you who truley believe there is a conspiracy need psychological help of some sort. I am done with you and the likes of you. What a waste of time, spin yourself into whatever egotistical maniacle schizo frenzy you want. Just don't comment like a goddamn schoolkid, " Weeellll, I didn't see it, therefore it must not be soooooo, I wasn't there so I don't belive the pictures" ...or " maybeeeee, they doctored the picturessssss" They sure as hell didn't doctor the burns on my buddies arms and neck now did they. Oh yeah, for the last ****ing time, it was a goddamn plane, fuselages and the such are reasonably distinguishable, even in such a nasty enviroment.......last time I relay this info on this website....what a waste of time...dman
Wow. Looks like we struck a nerve.In your previous statement you told us to trust you that it was a plane. I simply asked why. No one is saying that your buddy didn't receive burns or it didn't happen, The question is why should we trust you on it being a plane.If anyone is an idiot it's you for blindly believing everything the gov tells you.

[Rigs11]

Ubelievable.

::)
Another brilliant post by Dbrule. Bravo.

[alkemical]

here are my questions:

how does an untrained pilot, or poorly trained - fly a plane that big 1-5ft off the ground?

When we were attacked on 9/11, it was known where president bush was. It was a publicized event at booker elementary. If we were under attack, why did they not rush him out of there - since an airport is right near the school?

[Rohirrim]

The Anti-Christ did it.

[alkemical]

Ro,

It's my answer...... (sort of)

[bronco militia]

The Anti-Christ did it.


thanks again Algore

[Rigs11]

here are my questions:

how does an untrained pilot, or poorly trained - fly a plane that big 1-5ft off the ground?

When we were attacked on 9/11, it was known where president bush was. It was a publicized event at booker elementary. If we were under attack, why did they not rush him out of there - since an airport is right near the school?
Why were the jets scrambled 15 minutes after Norad was notified of the plane highjacking?Why were all those stocks sold prior ro the attack? Why did Dubya sit there like a dumbass when they told him of the attacks? But hey it was definitely a plane.You can tell from the crystal clear video the pentagon released.........

[enjolras]

it appears that there is no 'angle' to the impact, thus a poorly trained hijacker flying a plane that big, what 1-5 feet off the ground sounds much more plausible....

By that reasoning it would call into doubt whether or not two planes crashed into the World Trade towers? Same poorly trained hijackers after all... doing something equally as difficult.

[alkemical]

Why were the jets scrambled 15 minutes after Norad was notified of the plane highjacking?Why were all those stocks sold prior ro the attack? Why did Dubya sit there like a dumbass when they told him of the attacks? But hey it was definitely a plane.You can tell from the crystal clear video the pentagon released.........


You know whats even scarier.....

YOU SOUND LIKE ME! :) j/k

why can't we get the citgo, and other hotels tapes. I've heard there are about 80 CCTV cameras in the area and we got nada really.

[alkemical]

By that reasoning it would call into doubt whether or not two planes crashed into the World Trade towers? Same poorly trained hijackers after all... doing something equally as difficult.


Or....

those flying the planes weren't poorly trained hijackers......

[Rigs11]

By that reasoning it would call into doubt whether or not two planes crashed into the World Trade towers? Same poorly trained hijackers after all... doing something equally as difficult.
Flying planes into a building is one thing, but flying one into a building just a few feet of the ground would take some mad skills if it's even possible.

[enjolras]

When we were attacked on 9/11, it was known where president bush was. It was a publicized event at booker elementary. If we were under attack, why did they not rush him out of there - since an airport is right near the school?

Being indecisive is hardly evidence of being a conspirator. Keep in mind, those initial reports where rather sketchy. For the first few hours we had NO idea what was going on...

You don't just rush a president out of the building, particularly when the country is under an attack you don't truly know the scale of. No, you analyze the situation and try to ensure that your not putting the president (a 'prize' target) in any undue danger.. precisely BECAUSE the presidents location was well known. Its the same reason he stayed in the air (and away from Washington DC) for much of that day.

That makes PERFECT sense to me.

[alkemical]

Being indecisive is hardly evidence of being a conspirator. Keep in mind, those initial reports where rather sketchy. For the first few hours we had NO idea what was going on...

You don't just rush a president out of the building, particularly when the country is under an attack you don't truly know the scale of. No, you analyze the situation and try to ensure that your not putting the president (a 'prize' target) in any undue danger.. precisely BECAUSE the presidents location was well known. Its the same reason he stayed in the air (and away from Washington DC) for much of that day.

That makes PERFECT sense to me.


With his local known, and with planes being used as weapons, a school that is close to an airport seems pretty good target to me - when said local is known..

of course staying there, makes teachers and kids targets too.....

[Rohirrim]

Being indecisive is hardly evidence of being a conspirator. Keep in mind, those initial reports where rather sketchy. For the first few hours we had NO idea what was going on...

You don't just rush a president out of the building, particularly when the country is under an attack you don't truly know the scale of. No, you analyze the situation and try to ensure that your not putting the president (a 'prize' target) in any undue danger.. precisely BECAUSE the presidents location was well known. Its the same reason he stayed in the air (and away from Washington DC) for much of that day.

That makes PERFECT sense to me.

Besides, he wasn't finished reading "My Pet Goat" yet. ;D

[W*GS]

I wonder if the same folks who are True Believers in the "the gummint was behind it" 9/11 conspiracy (not because they are conspiracy-minded, like amesj, but because they hate Bush so much) also have a conspiratorial mindset about the OKC bombing. My guess is they don't, because Clinton (their hero) was President, and he certainly wouldn't have anything to do with something so horrible.

[Spider]

one would think that the luggage would have been consumed in the fireball... if anything that was on or a part of the plane was combustible, it would definitely be the luggage.
load of shít , even a small 4 seater that crashes in the side of a mountian there is luggage , every air plane wreck evedn in the ocean , there is luggage , nothing is ever disinergrated in that enviorment , even chared remains would be around .............

[bendog]

I wonder if the same folks who are True Believers in the "the gummint was behind it" 9/11 conspiracy (not because they are conspiracy-minded, like amesj, but because they hate Bush so much) also have a conspiratorial mindset about the OKC bombing. My guess is they don't, because Clinton (their hero) was President, and he certainly wouldn't have anything to do with something so horrible.
Come on, I grant you that the notion of bushii being capable of pulling off such a conspiracy is prolly giving the drunk wayyy too much credit, though by killing the dollar he's certainly made his oil patch friends even richer, so maybe I underestimate him, but if Clinton did this ALL FOUR Planes woulda hit.:sunshine:

[RaiderH8r]

After watching the second film and realizing that the camera was not as close as I initially believed I am retracting my statement.
Somebody got to Rascal!!

[Spider]

That object at the :07 time frame is nothing close to the front of a 757. It does resemble a missile though.

And I always thought it was a 757 till I saw that video, but I still haven't seen the second tape and apparently that is the oen that shows it's a plane (according to Fox anyway).
plane , missle , Rosie Odonell on a catapault , what ever hit the pentagon had to be hauling áss correst ? 300+ mph ............ so where is the air contraffic controlers statement ? somthing moving that fast is on Radar , Idont know the altitude it cuts off , but that damn thing was in a airports air control space

[alkemical]

load of shít , even a small 4 seater that crashes in the side of a mountian there is luggage , every air plane wreck evedn in the ocean , there is luggage , nothing is ever disinergrated in that enviorment , even chared remains would be around .............


Not to mention did they not find 9/11 hijacker passports at the WTC wreckage site?

[Rigs11]

I wonder if the same folks who are True Believers in the "the gummint was behind it" 9/11 conspiracy (not because they are conspiracy-minded, like amesj, but because they hate Bush so much) also have a conspiratorial mindset about the OKC bombing. My guess is they don't, because Clinton (their hero) was President, and he certainly wouldn't have anything to do with something so horrible.
Leave it Wigged to bring up Clinton while were talking about something that happened on Dubya's watch. Go on with your Libertarian way:rofl:

[alkemical]

Not to mention did they not find 9/11 hijacker passports at the WTC wreckage site?


Yes, Amesj, they did. Not to mention they found 9/11 hijackers alive in the ME & passport from flight 93 hijackers:

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=9%2F11+hijacker+passport+found&fr=FP-tab-web-t-1&toggle=1&cop=&ei=UTF-8



also:


http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/170506reallylook.htm


How Flight 77 Hitting The Pentagon Would Really Look?

Is this what Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon would really look like from nearby security cameras instead of the nondescript

blur footage we have been subject to?

This is obviously a crude collection of doctored frames but if the government had released something similar yesterday would

you have believed it? Many would.

Wary therefore we are of the potential for the government to eventually release clear footage of the impact from the 84 other

cameras that were dotted around the Pentagon and would have easily documented the event to debunk 9/11 skeptics.

[Spider]

Not to mention did they not find 9/11 hijacker passports at the WTC wreckage site?
yep ..........

[alkemical]

I got the links in the post above spider -

[elsid13]

Did your friend happen to see the plane coming in? If not why should we trust you that it's not a conspiracy?


How about this, I know a Navy LCDR that was parking his car at the Navy Annex and watch the plane strike the pentagon. He explained it was one of scariest thing he ever saw, and he had been involved in botched carrier landings. There was plane, and it hit. A lot of high ranking military and civilian lost friends that day. IF it was conspiracy do you really think they would stand silent???

This is why I hate the internet, everybody it f'ing expert.

[alkemical]

How about this, I know a Navy LCDR that was parking his car at the Navy Annex and watch the plane strike the pentagon. He explained it was one of scariest thing he ever saw, and he had been involved in botched carrier landings. There was plane, and it hit. A lot of high ranking military and civilian lost friends that day. IF it was conspiracy do you really think they would stand silent???

This is why I hate the internet, everybody it f'ing expert.


If you turn on the TV, it's no better.

I have no doubt SOMETHING hit the pentagon. I don't buy into the no plane theory - but i must admit - i am not sure and the lack of answers to questions i have are/have not been answered.

[alkemical]

I wonder if the same folks who are True Believers in the "the gummint was behind it" 9/11 conspiracy (not because they are conspiracy-minded, like amesj, but because they hate Bush so much) also have a conspiratorial mindset about the OKC bombing. My guess is they don't, because Clinton (their hero) was President, and he certainly wouldn't have anything to do with something so horrible.


Wags interesting post. I'd have to agree yes - those who did OKC by said groups above were 'right wing zealots' -

Personally, my question is why kill Tim McVeigh so fast - I think there was 'more' that went on (as in more people invovled) and the gov't just wanted to close the book as fast as possible while giving the public their vengence.

[elsid13]

If you turn on the TV, it's no better.

I have no doubt SOMETHING hit the pentagon. I don't buy into the no plane theory - but i must admit - i am not sure and the lack of answers to questions i have are/have not been answered.


Look, you don't know me from squat. But when I drove by the building that afternoon, I know for sure that what destroyed that section of the building was not a missle, plus I believe that pieces of the plane and the building are being stored to use in the memoral.

[alkemical]

Look, you don't know me from squat. But when I drove by the building that afternoon, I know for sure that what destroyed that section of the building was not a missle, plus I believe that pieces of the plane and the building are being stored to use in the memoral.


i wasn't meaning to be insulting Elsid - seriously -

and i said i know something hit, i just don't know what. Sorry if i am inquisitive - and trust me - i believe there were 9/11 terrorists - but i'm just not sure WHO they were.

[elsid13]

i wasn't meaning to be insulting Elsid - seriously -

and i said i know something hit, i just don't know what. Sorry if i am inquisitive - and trust me - i believe there were 9/11 terrorists - but i'm just not sure WHO they were.


I not upset with you, but this thread has hit a nerve for many reasons. I really pissed that President and Feds haven't explained why this happen, and why it so important that WE MUST WIN THIS WAR. I pissed at those bastards that took lives/injured of folks I knew, I'm pissed that those bastards scared the living sh!t out of my friends and family. I pissed that the bastards' heads aren't decorating spikes in our nation capital. Those bastards hurt us that day, and I want to hurt them bad. It wasn't bush, it wasn't the Israelis, it wasn't UN. It was bunch of fundamentalist that don't want the world to have chance for freedom. They want to create a world where few old men control everybody lives.

[Rigs11]

How about this, I know a Navy LCDR that was parking his car at the Navy Annex and watch the plane strike the pentagon. He explained it was one of scariest thing he ever saw, and he had been involved in botched carrier landings. There was plane, and it hit. A lot of high ranking military and civilian lost friends that day. IF it was conspiracy do you really think they would stand silent???

This is why I hate the internet, everybody it f'ing expert.
I hat the internet because I'm supposed to believe that people like you have friends whos saw a plane and I'm supposed to just suddenly change my opinion because your friend said so.This is a forum where people disagree, if it bothers you that much then why do you come here?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

load of shít , even a small 4 seater that crashes in the side of a mountian there is luggage , every air plane wreck evedn in the ocean , there is luggage , nothing is ever disinergrated in that enviorment , even chared remains would be around .............

Exactly.

Another problem is that when you look at the photos of the hole the "plane" left in the side of the building, you can see office furniture, books, papers, etc., that are still intact. If a 757 carrying a full load of fuel had hit the building, and if the fuel had ignited, causing a fireball, as claimed, then there is no way to explain the aforementioned intact objects immediately inside the point of impact.

[SteveTensi13]

Exactly.

Another problem is that when you look at the photos of the hole the "plane" left in the side of the building, you can see office furniture, books, papers, etc., that are still intact. If a 757 carrying a full load of fuel had hit the building, and if the fuel had ignited, causing a fireball, as claimed, then there is no way to explain the aforementioned intact objects immediately inside the point of impact.

Oh God, LABF just hit an all time low!! All sense of reality and rational thinking have just exited stage left!!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Oh God, LABF just hit an all time low!! All sense of reality and rational thinking have just exited stage left!!

You couldn't engage in rational thinking if your life depended on it.

All you know how to do is attack the messenger and pretend you have discredited the message.

You are a buffoon.

Even your fellow neo-cons are embarrassed by you.

[SteveTensi13]

You couldn't engage in rational thinking if your life depended on it.

All you know how to do is attack the messenger and pretend you have discredited the message.

You are a buffoon.

Even your fellow neo-cons are embarrassed by you.

YAWN!:oyvey:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

YAWN!:oyvey:

More like "DROOL."

:pity:

[minibronco]

Loose Change: 2 was the video I posted. Here it is, again.

http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/12047/9_11_Staged_by_USA_Evidence

[Bronx33]

Would a bomb leave books and furniture intact? or are those pictures seen of books and furniture further away from the point of impact? also jet fuel spilled and ignited during a crash amost ignites instantly and burns off even more so with a sudden impact.The pentagon is bomb proof and reinforced so this impact is much smaller and mor contained vs any other regular structure.

[ak1971]

Would a bomb leave books and furniture intact? or are those pictures seen of books and furniture further away from the point of impact? also jet fuel spilled and ignited during a crash amost ignites instantly and burns off even more so with a sudden impact.The pentagon is bomb proof and reinforced so this impact is much smaller and mor contained vs any other regular structure.


Yeah you ought to see my bathroom Saturday morning after a hard night of drinking. Nothing is left.

[enjolras]

Exactly.

Another problem is that when you look at the photos of the hole the "plane" left in the side of the building, you can see office furniture, books, papers, etc., that are still intact. If a 757 carrying a full load of fuel had hit the building, and if the fuel had ignited, causing a fireball, as claimed, then there is no way to explain the aforementioned intact objects immediately inside the point of impact.

Actually, yes that's exactly what I would expect. If it had been a bomb (or a missile for that matter.. at least one carrying a impact warhead) then you would be correct. However, as I attempted to explain before the very design of the pentagon did a very good job of moving energy in a controlled manner (notice the smoke plume moving narrow and up). The majority of the damage in this case is not chemical in nature (fuel), but from the momentum of the plane itself. This massive transfer of kinetic energy to static energy is what did the damage here...the resulting fires where likely more to do with heat generated from friction than anything else. This would be most apparent further into the impact zone (it was), but this allows much of the outer interior areas to come through relatively intact.

It looked to me that whatever chemical energy there was expended on the outside of the building (theres a really big fireball at the beginning of impact) undoubtebly caused by that massive amount of momentum encountering one tough structure.

There is nothing here that I can see that does not make tremendous sense physically.

[Bronx33]

Actually, yes that's exactly what I would expect. If it had been a bomb (or a missile for that matter.. at least one carrying a impact warhead) then you would be correct. However, as I attempted to explain before the very design of the pentagon did a very good job of moving energy in a controlled manner (notice the smoke plume moving narrow and up). The majority of the damage in this case is not chemical in nature (fuel), but from the momentum of the plane itself. This massive transfer of kinetic energy to static energy is what did the damage here...the resulting fires where likely more to do with heat generated from friction than anything else. This would be most apparent further into the impact zone (it was), but this allows much of the outer interior areas to come through relatively intact.

It looked to me that whatever chemical energy there was expended on the outside of the building (theres a really big fireball at the beginning of impact) undoubtebly caused by that massive amount of momentum encountering one tough structure.

There is nothing here that I can see that does not make tremendous sense physically.


Ya what he said.....;D

[Bronx33]

Yeah you ought to see my bathroom Saturday morning after a hard night of drinking. Nothing is left.

Where were you yesterday dude?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

There is nothing here that I can see that does not make tremendous sense physically.

Until you factor in the number of gallons of JP-4 a fully-fueled 757 has on board.

[ak1971]

Where were you yesterday dude?
Had to drive to Vail for work. Probably catch you at training camp

[mosca]

how does an untrained pilot, or poorly trained - fly a plane that big 1-5ft off the ground?

untrained? no, hani hanjour was trained - he was FAA licensed as a commercial pilot. the guy from the flight school in the video stated that he was either an average or mediocre pilot. so let's not jump to 100% conclusions that the guy was a poor pilot. the information is just not known unless you personally flew with the guy and observed him.

and for him to be able to fly it 1-5 ft. off the ground? wouldn't be that much different than landing, if you ask me. most pilots (whether average of mediocre) are trained in that particular flight skill. even if he was off, that explains why he hit the ground, as the official report stated.

[mosca]

load of shít , even a small 4 seater that crashes in the side of a mountian there is luggage , every air plane wreck evedn in the ocean , there is luggage , nothing is ever disinergrated in that enviorment , even chared remains would be around .............
small 4 seaters crashing into the side of mountains likely aren't going as fast as this plane was, with the pilot fully intending to destroy it and its destination object. they also do not have the jet fuel that the 757 did, which caused the fireball explosion upon impact.

same with planes crashing into the ocean... a jetliner crashing at high speeds into the pentagon is going to explode sooner and more forcefully than one simply crashing into water.

[Spider]

small 4 seaters crashing into the side of mountains likely aren't going as fast as this plane was, with the pilot fully intending to destroy it and its destination object. they also do not have the jet fuel that the 757 did, which caused the fireball explosion upon impact.

same with planes crashing into the ocean... a jetliner crashing at high speeds into the pentagon is going to explode sooner and more forcefully than one simply crashing into water.
you missed the entire point didnt you ........... the point is there is somthing left behind ,shoes, luggage , somthing , you can not tell me a jet at the altitude of 35 K feet , crashing into the ground is less devestating then flying into a building @350 MPH ............

[Spider]

untrained? no, hani hanjour was trained - he was FAA licensed as a commercial pilot. the guy from the flight school in the video stated that he was either an average or mediocre pilot. so let's not jump to 100% conclusions that the guy was a poor pilot. the information is just not known unless you personally flew with the guy and observed him.

and for him to be able to fly it 1-5 ft. off the ground? wouldn't be that much different than landing, if you ask me. most pilots (whether average of mediocre) are trained in that particular flight skill. even if he was off, that explains why he hit the ground, as the official report stated.
again ,wow is all I can say............. my granddad was a pilot so was my cousins , flying low and landing are 2 different thing , the bigger the plane , the harder it is , you dont not have the view as you do from your car windshield.......while landing you are slowing down , every airport has a speed limit , what ever smacked into the pentagon , was hauling áss , I doubt there are many non fighter pilots could have done this ......... not at that speed

[Bronco_Beerslug]

again ,wow is all I can say............. my granddad was a pilot so was my cousins , flying low and landing are 2 different thing , the bigger the plane , the harder it is , you dont not have the view as you do from your car windshield.......while landing you are slowing down , every airport has a speed limit , what ever smacked into the pentagon , was hauling áss , I doubt there are many non fighter pilots could have done this ......... not at that speed

He wasn't landing the plane, he was descending it into a building. They don't need to see the ground below them to tell them at exactly what altitude they're flying.

--------------------------------------------------------
9/11 Pentagon
Eyewitness Accounts

Mike Walter

USA Today's Mike Walter was driving near the Pentagon when he saw an American Airlines jet fly directly into the country's military nerve center. [544kB WAV download]

Steve Anderson, Director of Communications, USA TODAY
A few moments later, as I was looking down at my desk, the plane caught my eye.

It didn't register at first. I thought to myself that I couldn't believe the pilot was flying so low. Then it dawned on me what was about to happen. I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball. Then black smoke. Then white smoke.

Deb Anlauf
Anlauf was watching TV coverage of the Trade Center burning shortly before 9:30 a.m. when she decided to return to her 14th-floor room from another part of the hotel. Once in her room, she heard a "loud roar" and looked out the window to see what was going on.

"Suddenly I saw this plane right outside my window," Anlauf said during a telephone interview from her hotel room this morning. "You felt like you could touch it; it was that close. It was just incredible. "Then it shot straight across from where we are and flew right into the Pentagon. It was just this huge fireball that crashed into the wall (of the Pentagon). When it hit, the whole hotel shook."

David Battle
Battle, an office worker at the Pentagon, was standing outside the building and just about to enter when the aircraft struck. "It was coming down head first," he said. "And when the impact hit, the cars and everything were just shaking."

Omar Campo
Omar Campo, a Salvadorean, was cutting the grass on the other side of the road when the plane flew over his head.

"It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane," Mr Campo said. "I was cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact. The whole ground shook and the whole area was full of fire. I could never imagine I would see anything like that here."

Gary Bauer, former Presidential candidate
“I was going past the Pentagon, really inching a yard or so every couple of minutes. I had just passed the closest place the Pentagon is to the exit on 395 . . . when all of a sudden I heard the roar of a jet engine.

“I looked at the woman sitting in the car next to me. She had this startled look on her face. We were all thinking the same thing. We looked out the front of our windows to try to see the plane, and it wasn’t until a few seconds later that we realized the jet was coming up behind us on that major highway. And it veered to the right into the Pentagon. The blast literally rocked all of our cars. It was an incredible moment.

Mickey Bell
Bell, who had been less than 100 feet from the initial impact of the plane, was nearly struck by one of the plane´s wings as it sped by him. In shock, he got into his truck, which had been parked in the trailer compound, and sped away. He wandered around Arlington in his truck and tried to make wireless phone calls. He ended up back at Singleton´s headquarters in Gaithersburg two hours later, according to President Singleton, not remembering much.

The full impact of the closeness of the crash wasn´t realized until coworkers noticed damage to Bell´s work vehicle. He had plastic and rivets from an airplane imbedded in its sheet metal, but Bell had no idea what had happened.

Mark Bright, Defense Protective Service officer
Mark Bright, actually saw the plane hit the building. He had been manning the guard booth at the Mall Entrance to the building.

"I saw the plane at the Navy Annex area," he said. "I knew it was going to strike the building because it was very, very low -- at the height of the street lights. It knocked a couple down." The plane would have been seconds from impact -- the annex is only a few hundred yards from the Pentagon.

He said he heard the plane "power-up" just before it struck the Pentagon. "As soon as it struck the building I just called in an attack, because I knew it couldn't be accidental," Bright said. He jumped into his police cruiser and headed to the area.

James R. Cissell
''Out of my peripheral vision,'' Cissell said, ''I saw this plane coming in and it was low - and getting lower.

''If you couldn't touch it from standing on the highway, you could by standing on your car.''

In the next seconds dozens of things flashed through his mind.

''I thought, 'This isn't really happening. That is a big plane.' Then I saw the faces of some of the passengers on board,'' Cissell said.

He remembers the helipad the plane flew over before smacking into the Pentagon was close enough to him that ''I could have thrown a baseball at it and hit it.''

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

"It was no more than 30 feet off the ground, and it was screaming. It was just screaming. It was nothing more than a guided missile at that point," Creed said.

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

Don Fortunato
“Traffic was at a standstill, so I parked on the shoulder, not far from the scene and ran to the site. Next to me was a cab from D.C., its windshield smashed out by pieces of lampposts. There were pieces of the plane all over the highway, pieces of wing, I think.”

Afework Hagos
Afework Hagos, a computer programmer, was on his way to work but stuck in a traffic jam near the Pentagon when the plane flew over. "There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. Everybody was running away in different directions. It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts on the way in."

Tom Hovis
Being a former transport type (60's era) I cannot understand how that plane hit where it did giving the direction the aircraft was taking at the time.

As most know, the Pentagon lies at the bottom of two hills from the west with the east side being next to the river at 14th street bridge. One hill is at the Navy Annex and the other is Arlington Cemetery. The plane came up I-395 also known as Shirley Hwy. (most likely used as a reference point.) The plane had been seen making a lazy pattern in the no fly zone over the White House and US Cap. Why the plane did not hit incoming traffic coming down the river from the north to Reagan Nat'l. is beyond me. Strangely, no one at the Reagan Tower noticed the aircraft. Andrews AFB radar should have also picked up the aircraft I would think. Nevertheless, the aircarft went southwest near Springfield and then veered left over Arlington and then put the nose down coming over Ft Myer picking off trees and light poles near the helicopter pad next to building. It was as if he leveled out at the last minute and put it square into the building. The wings came off as if it went through an arch way leaving a hole in the side of the building it seems a little larger than the wide body of the aircraft. The entry point was so clean that the roof (shown in news photo) fell in on the wreckage.

Terrance Kean
Terrance Kean, 35, who lives in a 14-story building nearby, heard the loud jet engines and glanced out his window.

"I saw this very, very large passenger jet," said the architect, who had been packing for a move. "It just plowed right into the side of the Pentagon. The nose penetrated into the portico. And then it sort of disappeared, and there was fire and smoke everywhere. . . . It was very sort of surreal."

Charles H. Krohn
One of the aircraft's engines somehow ricocheted out of the building and arched into the Pentagon's mall parking area between the main building and the new loading dock facility, said Charles H. Krohn, the Army's deputy chief of public affairs. Those fleeing the building heard a loud secondary explosion about 10 min. after the initial impact.

Maj. Lincoln Leibner
Maj. Leibner drove in and made it as far as the south parking lot, where he got out on foot. "I heard the plane first," he said. "I thought it was a flyover Arlington cemetery."

From his vantage point, Maj. Leibner looked up and saw the plane come in. "I was about 100 yards away," he said. "You could see through the windows of the aircraft. I saw it hit."

The plane came in hard and level and was flown full throttle into the building, dead center mass, Maj. Leibner said. "The plane completely entered the building," he said. "I got a little repercussion, from the sound, the blast. I've heard artillery, and that was louder than the loudest has to offer.

Elaine McCusker
Traffic is normally slow right around the Pentagon as the road winds and we line up to cross the 14th Street bridge heading into the District of Columbia. I don’t know what made me look up, but I did and I saw a very low-flying American Airlines plane that seemed to be accelerating. My first thought was just ‘No, no, no, no,’ because it was obvious the plane was not heading to nearby Reagan National Airport. It was going to crash.

William Middleton Sr.
William Middleton Sr., was running his street sweeper through the cemetery when he heard a harsh whistling sound overhead. Middleton looked up and spotted a commercial jet whose pilot seemed to be fighting with his own craft.

Middleton said the plane was no higher than the tops of telephone poles as it lurched toward the Pentagon. The jet accelerated in the final few hundred yards before it tore into the building.

Mare Ann Owens
Looking up didn't tell me what type of plane it was because it was so close I could only see the bottom. Realising the Pentagon was its target, I didn't think the careering, full-throttled craft would get that far. Its downward angle was too sharp, its elevation of maybe 50 feet, too low. Street lights toppled as the plane barely cleared the Interstate 395 overpass.

The thought that I was about to die was immediate and certain. This plane was going to hit me along with all the other commuters trapped on Washington Boulevard.

Gripping the steering wheel of my vibrating car, I involuntarily ducked as the wobbling plane thundered over my head. Once it passed, I raised slightly and grimaced as the left wing dipped and scraped the helicopter area just before the nose crashed into the southwest wall of the Pentagon.
(CONTINUED)
http://tinyurl.com/3k3qu

[Spider]

He wasn't landing the plane, he was descending it into a building. They don't need to see the ground below them to tell them at exactly what altitude they're flying.

--------------------------------
I know they dont have to seee the ground , they have an altitude whatever it is called telling them how high or low they are , but in a 727 , to aim and hit an 8 story building doing 300+ mph ........... Yeah real easy for an intermediate pilot ...the bigger the plane , the harder it is to fly low , watch a crop duster , small plane but he doesnt stay low for long .......

[bendog]

FDR was lucky the internet wasn't around when he embargoed Japan's oil, moved the fleet from the WC to Pearl, and had all the airplanes lined up wing tip to wing tip in the middle of the fields there and in the Phillipines.

[Spider]

and what does single seater fighter planes have to do with large commerical jets ? is it because they both fly , you can fly them the exact same way ?

[W*GS]

Leave it Wigged to bring up Clinton while were talking about something that happened on Dubya's watch. Go on with your Libertarian way

Thanks for proving my point.

[Bronx33]

Had to drive to Vail for work. Probably catch you at training camp

The film was pretty cool the food was free and me and disco sneaked some beers in so we didn'e have to buy anything.

[mosca]

you missed the entire point didnt you ........... the point is there is somthing left behind ,shoes, luggage , somthing , you can not tell me a jet at the altitude of 35 K feet , crashing into the ground is less devestating then flying into a building @350 MPH ............
no, what i stated is beyond your point. a fully fueled plane 757 hurtling into the pentagon, of all buildings, deliberately, is not the same-case-scenario as most any other plane crash you cite as example. you saw the fireball on the video. jet fuel burns between 800-1500 degrees F. easily enough to destroy much of the luggage.

most other plane crashes would likely be at lower speeds, many of them emergency landings gone wrong, and are not headfirst into highly reinforced buildings such as the pentagon. likely they do not generate a huge fireball of the magnitude seen at the pentagon, capable of destroying luggage.

[alkemical]

untrained? no, hani hanjour was trained - he was FAA licensed as a commercial pilot. the guy from the flight school in the video stated that he was either an average or mediocre pilot. so let's not jump to 100% conclusions that the guy was a poor pilot. the information is just not known unless you personally flew with the guy and observed him.

and for him to be able to fly it 1-5 ft. off the ground? wouldn't be that much different than landing, if you ask me. most pilots (whether average of mediocre) are trained in that particular flight skill. even if he was off, that explains why he hit the ground, as the official report stated.




http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hanjour_history.html

Hanjour an Unlikely Terrorist

by Amy Goldstein, Lena H. Sun and George Lardner Jr. of The Washington Post
The Cape Cod Times
October 21, 2001



While in Oakland, he enrolled at the Sierra Academy of Aeronautics. He attended a 30-minute class on Sept. 8 and never came back. Dan Shaffer, the academy's vice president for flight operations, speculated that Hanjour was intimidated by the school's two-year training regimen and $35,000 price tag.

The next month, he turned up in Arizona, a magnet for aspiring pilots because of its clear weather and relatively affordable flight schools. Hanjour paid $3,800 by check and $1,000 in cash for lessons at CRM Flight Cockpit Resource Management in Scottsdale.

During three months of instruction in late 1996, Duncan K.M. Hastie, CRM's owner, found Hanjour a "weak student" who "was wasting our resources." Hanjour left, then returned in December 1997 - a year later - and stayed only a few weeks.

More instruction
Over the next three years, Hanjour called Hastie about twice a year, asking to come back for more instruction.

"I would recognize his voice," Hastie said. "He was always talking about wanting more training. Yes, he wanted to be an airline pilot. That was his stated goal. That's why I didn't allow him to come back. I thought, 'You're never going to make it.' "

The last time Hanjour called, sometime last year, he was asking to train on a Boeing 757, the kind of aircraft he is believed to have crashed into the Pentagon.

Rebuffed by Hastie, Hanjour went elsewhere. In 1998, he joined the simulator club at Sawyer, a small Phoenix school known locally as a flight school of last resort. "It was a commonly held truth that, if you failed anywhere else, go to Sawyer Aviation. They had good instructors," said Fults, the former simulator manager there.

'Disappeared like fog'

Sawyer's simulator is in a closet-sized room that students and pilots alike use to practice the basics of instrument flight. Fults remembers Hanjour as "a neophyte. ... The impression I got is he came and, like a lot of guys, got overwhelmed with the instruments." He used the simulator perhaps three or four more times, Fults said, then "disappeared like a fog."

___


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20A11FD35550C778CDDAC0894DA4044 82

Trainee Noted for Incompetence

By JIM YARDLEY (NYT) 592 words
Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 10 , Column 2

ABSTRACT - Hani Hanjour, who investigators contend piloted airliner that crashed into Pentagon on Sept 11, was reported to Federal Aviation Administration in Feb 2001 after instructors at Pan Am International Flight Academy in Phoenix found his piloting skills so shoddy and his grasp of English so inadequate that they questioned whether his pilot's license was genuine; FAA examined Hanjour's credentials and found them legitimate; his name was not on list of Arab men identified by FBI agent in Phoenix office as suspicious in July 2001; Marilyn Ladner, vice president at flight school, says staff never suspected that Hanjour was hijacker but feared that he posed safety hazard if he flew commercial airliner



___


At Freeway Airport in Bowie, Md., 20 miles west of Washington, flight instructor Sheri Baxter instantly recognized the name of alleged hijacker Hani Hanjour when the FBI released a list of 19 suspects in the four hijackings. Hanjour, the only suspect on Flight 77 the FBI listed as a pilot, had come to the airport one month earlier seeking to rent a small plane.

However, when Baxter and fellow instructor Ben Conner took the slender, soft-spoken Hanjour on three test runs during the second week of August, they found he had trouble controlling and landing the single-engine Cessna 172. Even though Hanjour showed a federal pilot's license and a log book cataloging 600 hours of flying experience, chief flight instructor Marcel Bernard declined to rent him a plane without more lessons.

In the spring of 2000, Hanjour had asked to enroll in the CRM Airline Training Center in Scottsdale, Ariz., for advanced training, said the center's attorney, Gerald Chilton Jr. Hanjour had attended the school for three months in late 1996 and again in December 1997 but never finished coursework for a license to fly a single-engine aircraft, Chilton said.

When Hanjour reapplied to the center last year, "We declined to provide training to him because we didn't think he was a good enough student when he was there in 1996 and 1997" Chilton said.

___


At a speed of about 500 miles an hour, the plane was headed straight for what is known as P-56, protected air space 56, which covers the White House and the Capitol.

"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe." [NATCA]

But just as the plane seemed to be on a suicide mission into the White House, the unidentified pilot [Hanjour] executed a pivot so tight that it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver. The plane circled 270 degrees to the right to approach the Pentagon from the west, whereupon Flight 77 fell below radar level, vanishing from controllers' screens, the sources said.

Less than an hour after two other jets demolished the World Trade Center in Manhattan, Flight 77 carved a hole in the nation's defense headquarters, a hole five stories high and 200 feet wide.

Aviation sources said the plane was flown with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm, possibly one of the hijackers. Someone even knew how to turn off the transponder, a move that is considerably less than obvious. [Washington Post]

“For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible – there is not one chance in a thousand,” said [ex-commercial pilot Russ] Wittenberg, recalling that when he made the jump from Boeing 727’s to the highly sophisticated computerized characteristics of the 737’s through 767’s it took him considerable time to feel comfortable flying. [LewisNews]

[Spider]

no, what i stated is beyond your point. a fully fueled plane 757 hurtling into the pentagon, of all buildings, deliberately, is not the same-case-scenario as most any other plane crash you cite as example. you saw the fireball on the video. jet fuel burns between 800-1500 degrees F. easily enough to destroy much of the luggage.

most other plane crashes would likely be at lower speeds, many of them emergency landings gone wrong, and are not headfirst into highly reinforced buildings such as the pentagon. likely they do not generate a huge fireball of the magnitude seen at the pentagon, capable of destroying luggage.
LOL yeah ok , you convienced me , nothing ever crashes as fat as the plane that hit the pentagon ............ it is literaly impossable a plane falling from 35 K feet to crash at a speed over 350 miles per hour , and lets not forget their are lowon fuel , it is a rule , you cant have full tanks unless you are crashing into a building .................. now that I understand the ground rules , care to explain why the found pass ports from the WTC ? wasnt they full of fuel ? dosent take great heat to burn paper now does it ? I wont get into the luggage being stored in the tail end of the fusselage , naw we just now established that the penatagon wreck was the fastest ever on record ........one step at a time thats why we have 2 feet

[Rigs11]

Thanks for proving my point.
That you're a closet republican? No problem.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Some more links for the "conspiracy crowd".

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

--------------------------------------------------
September 11 Pentagon Attack Simulations
Using LS-Dyna
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase1/

-------------------------------------------------
High-Fidelity Visualization of Large-Scale Simulations
http://tinyurl.com/h6xa5

---------------------------------------------
Pentagon
Hunt the Boeing! And test your perceptions!
http://tinyurl.com/r6i

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Back to the original claim...

This video isn't "new" - it's been circulating on the web for a couple years now.

You still can't see an aircraft in the video.

[mosca]

LOL yeah ok , you convienced me , nothing ever crashes as fat as the plane that hit the pentagon ............ it is literaly impossable a plane falling from 35 K feet to crash at a speed over 350 miles per hour , and lets not forget their are lowon fuel , it is a rule , you cant have full tanks unless you are crashing into a building .................. now that I understand the ground rules , care to explain why the found pass ports from the WTC ? wasnt they full of fuel ? dosent take great heat to burn paper now does it ? I wont get into the luggage being stored in the tail end of the fusselage , naw we just now established that the penatagon wreck was the fastest ever on record ........one step at a time thats why we have 2 feet
talk about missing (or should we say dismissing) the point. find me an example of a plane the size of a 757 crashing at high speeds into a solid object such as the pentagon or a mountain, head on, with as much fuel, with no effort to avoid the impact, and we can compare notes. i've looked for examples on google and haven't had any success... maybe you can help me.
i will grant you the point on the WTC wreck with the passports supposedly being found. however, keep in mind that the pentagon is a much more reinforced, sturdy building than the WTC, so the physics of the impacts are much more different. even with the luggage at the rear of the fuselage, i don't find it inconcievable at all for it to be propelled forward (especially travelling 350mph) into the fireball and being consumed.
just wondering - when did you join the conspiracy crowd, spider? didn't strike me as one subscribing to such theories.

[W*GS]

That you're a closet republican? No problem.

Actually, my point that your anti-Bush hatred has made your rational mind depart.

But, being a liberal, you were at least halfway to being irrational.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

A Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon - by George Nelson, Colonel, USAF (ret.)

by George Nelson, Colonel, USAF (ret.)

Sat May 20, 2006 02:33

Considering the catastrophic incidents of September 11 2001, certain troubling but irrefutable conclusions must be drawn from the known facts. I get no personal pleasure or satisfaction from reporting my own assessment of these facts.

Re: 9/11 - Conclusions must be drawn from the known facts
http://www.physics911.net/georgenelson.htm

Impossible to Prove a Falsehood True: Aircraft Parts as a Clue to their Identity

By George Nelson, Colonel, USAF (ret.)

The precautionary principle is based on the fact it is impossible to prove a false claim. Failure to prove a claim does not automatically make it false, but caution is called for, especially in the case of a world-changing event like the alleged terror attacks of September 11, 2001. The Bush administration has provided no public evidence to support its claim that the terror attacks were the work of Muslim extremists or even that the aircraft that struck their respective targets on September 11 were as advertised. As I will show below, it would be a simple matter to confirm that they were - if they were. Until such proof is forthcoming, the opposite claim must be kept in mind as a precaution against rushing to judgment: the 911 hijackings were part of a black operation carried out with the cooperation of elements in our government.

In July 1965 I had just been commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the U. S. Air Force after taking a solemn oath that I would protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that I would bear true faith and allegiance to the same. I took that oath very seriously. It was my constant companion throughout a thirty-year military career in the field of aircraft maintenance.

As an additional duty, aircraft maintenance officers are occasionally tasked as members of aircraft accident investigation boards and my personal experience was no exception. In 1989 I graduated from the Aircraft Mishap Investigation Course at the Institute of Safety and Systems Management at the University of Southern California. In addition to my direct participation as an aircraft accident investigator, I reviewed countless aircraft accident investigation reports for thoroughness and comprehensive conclusions for the Inspector General, HQ Pacific Air Forces during the height of the Vietnam conflict.

In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft -- and in most cases the precise cause of the accident. This is because every military and civilian passenger-carrying aircraft have many parts that are identified for safety of flight. That is, if any of the parts were to fail at any time during a flight, the failure would likely result in the catastrophic loss of aircraft and passengers. Consequently, these parts are individually controlled by a distinctive serial number and tracked by a records section of the maintenance operation and by another section called plans and scheduling.

Following a certain number of flying hours or, in the case of landing gears, a certain number of takeoff-and-landing cycles, these critical parts are required to be changed, overhauled or inspected by specialist mechanics. When these parts are installed, their serial numbers are married to the aircraft registration numbers in the aircraft records and the plans and scheduling section will notify maintenance specialists when the parts must be replaced. If the parts are not replaced within specified time or cycle limits, the airplane will normally be grounded until the maintenance action is completed. Most of these time-change parts, whether hydraulic flight surface actuators , pumps, landing gears, engines or engine components, are virtually indestructible. It would be impossible for an ordinary fire resulting from an airplane crash to destroy or obliterate all of those critical time-change parts or their serial numbers. I repeat, impossible.

Considering the catastrophic incidents of September 11 2001, certain troubling but irrefutable conclusions must be drawn from the known facts. I get no personal pleasure or satisfaction from reporting my own assessment of these facts.

United Airlines Flight 93

This flight was reported by the federal government to be a Boeing 757 aircraft, registration number N591UA, carrying 45 persons, including four Arab hijackers who had taken control of the aircraft, crashing the plane in a Pennsylvania farm field.

Aerial photos of the alleged crash site were made available to the general public. They show a significant hole in the ground, but private investigators were not allowed to come anywhere near the crash site. If an aircraft crash caused the hole in the ground, there would have literally hundreds of serially-controlled time-change parts within the hole that would have proved beyond any shadow of doubt the precise tail-number or identity of the aircraft. However, the government has not produced any hard evidence that would prove beyond a doubt that the specifically alleged aircraft crashed at that site. On the contrary, it has been reported that the aircraft, registry number N591UA, is still in operation.

American Airlines Flight 11

This flight was reported by the government to be a Boeing 767, registration number N334AA, carrying 92 people, including five Arabs who had hijacked the plane. This plane was reported to have crashed into the north tower of the WTC complex of buildings.

Again, the government would have no trouble proving its case if only a few of the hundreds of serially controlled parts had been collected to positively identify the aircraft. A Boeing 767 landing gear or just one engine would have been easy to find and identify.

United Airlines Flight 175

This flight was reported to be a Boeing 767, registration number N612UA, carrying 65 people, including the crew and five hijackers. It reportedly flew into the south tower of the WTC.

Once more, the government has yet to produce one serially controlled part from the crash site that would have dispelled any questions as to the identity of the specific airplane.

American Airlines Flight 77

This was reported to be a Boeing 757, registration number N644AA, carrying 64 people, including the flight crew and five hijackers. This aircraft, with a 125-foot wingspan, was reported to have crashed into the Pentagon, leaving an entry hole no more than 65 feet wide.

Following cool-down of the resulting fire, this crash site would have been very easy to collect enough time-change equipment within 15 minutes to positively identify the aircraft registry. There was apparently some aerospace type of equipment found at the site but no attempt was made to produce serial numbers or to identify the specific parts found. Some of the equipment removed from the building was actually hidden from public view.

Conclusion

The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view. The hard evidence would have included hundreds of critical time-change aircraft items, plus security videotapes that were confiscated by the FBI immediately following each tragic episode.

With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged. Similarly, with all the evidence available at the Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged. Regarding the planes that allegedly flew into the WTC towers, it is only just possible that heavy aircraft were involved in each incident, but no evidence has been produced that would add credence to the government's theoretical version of what actually caused the total destruction of the buildings, let alone proving the identity of the aircraft. That is the problem with the government's 911 story. It is time to apply the precautionary principle.

As painful and heartbreaking as was the loss of innocent lives and the lingering health problems of thousands more, a most troublesome and nightmarish probability remains that so many Americans appear to be involved in the most heinous conspiracy in our country's history.

Footnote: It will soon be five years since the tragic events of 9/11/01 unfolded, and still the general public has seen no physical evidence that should have been collected at each of the four crash sites, (a routine requirement during mandatory investigations of each and every major aircraft crash.) The National Transportation Safety Board has announced on its website that responsibility for the investigations and reports have been assigned to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, but there is no indication that mandatory investigations were ever conducted or that the reports of any investigations have been written.
http://www.physics911.net/georgenelson.htm

S.P.I.N.E. : The Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven
http://www.physics911.net/spine.htm

911 Investigative Sites
http://www.physics911.net/resources.htm

APFN 9/11 INFO AND LINKS:
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/wtc.htm

[W*GS]

Yup.

LABF has moved - from mere la-la-land to full-time resident of Loonyville.

[Taco John]

Wow. An airforce Colonel?

If his testimony isn't going to make anybody take pause, it's only because of their own irrationality about the evidence and events.

[mosca]

Wow. An airforce Colonel?

If his testimony isn't going to make anybody take pause, it's only because of their own irrationality about the evidence and events.
His testimony does make me take pause, and he has a definite point in mentioning the lack of serial time-change parts provided as public evidence. This does not convince me that it wasn't a 757 that crashed into the Pentagon - here's that precautionary principle again. I, for one, would at least like an explanation from the government on their secrecy and hoarding of much of the evidence.

[Meck77]

I only have 1 problem with this new video release. There isn't a ****ing plane in the video. They waited 5 years to show us another video that doesn't show a damn thing in it?

[alkemical]

His testimony does make me take pause, and he has a definite point in mentioning the lack of serial time-change parts provided as public evidence. This does not convince me that it wasn't a 757 that crashed into the Pentagon - here's that precautionary principle again. I, for one, would at least like an explanation from the government on their secrecy and hoarding of much of the evidence.


This is why i take so much interest in this. There were reportadly 80 or so camera's in the vicinity (citgo station across the st, etc - heyyyy maybe Chavez has it ;D , etc) - and there are no other tapes released.

To me, secrecy and silence is what helps to breed this situation. Look if the Gov't tripped over it's own dick, admit it - i can at least take solace in honesty.

[Rigs11]

Actually, my point that your anti-Bush hatred has made your rational mind depart.

But, being a liberal, you were at least halfway to being irrational.

So wait, you're the one bringing up Clinton when were talking about 911 which happened during the CURRENT president's term. You're the one that continues to deflect criricsm about bush by using the copout that "everyone does it".And yet I'm the one being irrational? Riiiighhhttt...LOL

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Wow. An airforce Colonel?

If his testimony isn't going to make anybody take pause, it's only because of their own irrationality about the evidence and events.

Bingo.

BTW, the colonel's area of expertise is aircraft accident investigation also.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

So wait, you're the one bringing up Clinton when were talking about 911 which happened during the CURRENT president's term. You're the one that continues to deflect criricsm about bush by using the copout that "everyone does it".And yet I'm the one being irrational? Riiiighhhttt...LOL


Exactly.

W*GS' only moral argument is "everybody is dirty, therefore no one should be held accountable (unless he's a Democrat, that is.")

W*GS is a poster boy for arrested moral development.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Bush's Biggest Fraud

Bush ignored hard evidence from top intelligence officials between April and September of 2001 about an impending attacks on U.S. soil. Why? If Bush really wanted Bin Laden, he blew SEVERAL opportunities. One of them in July, prior to 9-11. The Guardian and the French newspaper Le Figaro reported that bin Laden received dialysis treatment for a period of some 10 days at the American hospital in Dubai, and while there, he was visited by a local CIA agent. It was also about this time that U.S. State Department officials were
threatening Afghanistan with carpet bombing if the Taliban didn't come to terms on the proposed Unocal pipeline across Afghanistan.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,584444,00.html

Bush had other opportunities to seize bin Laden but didn't.

See: Alexander Cockburn: Bush was offered bin Laden and Blew It.

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11012004.html

Keep in mind, when the CIA was reported to have visited bin Laden in Dubai, 9-11 had not happened. But, already the Bush State Department was spoiling for a war. All it needed was a pretext that the gullible American public would buy! It got it —conveniently —on 9-11!

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_len_hart_060518_bush_s_biggest_fraud.htm

[W*GS]

So wait, you're the one bringing up Clinton when were talking about 911 which happened during the CURRENT president's term.

By way of example.

There's plenty of conspiracy-themed stuff out there on the Web regarding the OKC bombing, TWA 800, and so on (you know, the stuff that happened on Clinton's watch) yet I wonder if those here so convinced that 9/11 was an inside plot are consistent in believing the conspiracies about those other things. Or, as I believe, their anti-Bush mindset keeps them from being rational about it.

I apologize for having too complicated an argument for you - I realize that left-wingers of your ilk don't understand intellectual matters very well.

[W*GS]

W*GS' only moral argument is "everybody is dirty, therefore no one should be held accountable (unless he's a Democrat, that is.")

Hardly.

I demand accountability from everyone - even Democrats. You're the "poster boy" for hyperpartisanship and denial when it comes to the very real crimes from your (sick) end of the political spectrum.

Your inconsistency is truly staggering!

[Spider]

His testimony does make me take pause, and he has a definite point in mentioning the lack of serial time-change parts provided as public evidence. This does not convince me that it wasn't a 757 that crashed into the Pentagon - here's that precautionary principle again. I, for one, would at least like an explanation from the government on their secrecy and hoarding of much of the evidence.
again full of shít

[mosca]

again full of shít
Yet another classy response from spider... I guess your airforce colonel is full of shiat then too since he's the one that mentioned the precautionary principle in the first place?

[Spider]

Yet another classy response from spider... I guess your airforce colonel is full of shiat then too since he's the one that mentioned the precautionary principle in the first place?
no just you ........... Look for the last time , I know somthing hit , but I seriously doubt it was a 757 , things just dont add up , from the luggage , to the air traffic controler , not to mention low altitude , I forget what it is called , but the faster you go at a lower altitude the more dangerous wind sheers or what ever it is called ,and if me telling you , you are full of shít gets your panties in a bunch , then stop posting Bullshít

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

...If his testimony isn't going to make anybody take pause, it's only because of their own irrationality about the evidence and events.

Although the Bush administration continues to exploit September 11 to justify domestic spying, unprecedented spending and a permanent state of war, a new Zogby poll reveals that less than half of the American public trusts the official 9/11 story or believes the attacks were adequately investigated.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/20060522/bs_prweb/prweb388743_4

[mosca]

no just you ........... Look for the last time , I know somthing hit , but I seriously doubt it was a 757 , things just dont add up , from the luggage , to the air traffic controler , not to mention low altitude , I forget what it is called , but the faster you go at a lower altitude the more dangerous wind sheers or what ever it is called ,and if me telling you , you are full of shít gets your panties in a bunch , then stop posting Bullshít
ok... you seriously doubt it was a 757. and you've repeated things that others have already mentioned, which make you doubt this. fine with me, that's your opinion and you are entitled to it. but simply because not everyone (or even most anyone) agrees with you, doesn't make their opinions or views on the topic bull****. how old are you again?

talk about getting your panties in a bunch... seems to be that if someone doesn't buy into your theory of what happened (if you actually have a concrete theory on it) then you consider them to be full of shiat. deal with it, and stop acting like the left-wing version of watermock.

[Spider]

ok... you seriously doubt it was a 757. and you've repeated things that others have already mentioned, which make you doubt this. fine with me, that's your opinion and you are entitled to it. but simply because not everyone (or even most anyone) agrees with you, doesn't make their opinions or views on the topic bull****. how old are you again?

talk about getting your panties in a bunch... seems to be that if someone doesn't buy into your theory of what happened (if you actually have a concrete theory on it) then you consider them to be full of shiat. deal with it, and stop acting like the left-wing version of watermock.Again full of shít ...... see just like in real life , I dont pull punches ,If I feel someone is pissing on my leg and telling me it is raining well to a point , I will call bullshít , you let these things go soon people see them as truth , prefect example ,Dems want to take your guns , load of crap that went unchallenged , so what do we have now , bunch of half baked inbreds thinking we want their guns........If the oppisition point of view is worthy or plausible , i will listen .......

[mosca]

Again full of shít ...... see just like in real life , I dont pull punches ,If I feel someone is pissing on my leg and telling me it is raining well to a point , I will call bullshít , you let these things go soon people see them as truth , prefect example ,Dems want to take your guns , load of crap that went unchallenged , so what do we have now , bunch of half baked inbreds thinking we want their guns........If the oppisition point of view is worthy or plausible , i will listen .......
ah... so everyone that doesn't agree hook, line, and sinker with your theory of what happened is full of bullshiat? you must be of the "you're either with us or against us" school of thought.
back to the topic - what exactly is your theory of what hit the pentagon? don't know? just that it wasn't a 757?

[defenseman]

Somewhere on a thread the discussion of the particular camera involved "most likely" couldn't take the footage of the plane , because, it's not designed to. Plane is simply too fast...dman

[alkemical]

dman, if not on this thread, on my news thread there is.....

[defenseman]

dman, if not on this thread, on my news thread there is.....

thanks ames...dman

[Rigs11]

By way of example.

There's plenty of conspiracy-themed stuff out there on the Web regarding the OKC bombing, TWA 800, and so on (you know, the stuff that happened on Clinton's watch) yet I wonder if those here so convinced that 9/11 was an inside plot are consistent in believing the conspiracies about those other things. Or, as I believe, their anti-Bush mindset keeps them from being rational about it.

I apologize for having too complicated an argument for you - I realize that left-wingers of your ilk don't understand intellectual matters very well.

Hey genius, were talking about 911. Not the OKC bombing. So as much as you'd like to compare Dubya to Slick Willy it ain't gonna work in this thread.Maybe you can start a different "ex-president" bashing thread.Is that too complicated for ya?

[W*GS]

Hey genius, were talking about 911. Not the OKC bombing. So as much as you'd like to compare Dubya to Slick Willy it ain't gonna work in this thread.Maybe you can start a different "ex-president" bashing thread.Is that too complicated for ya?

I was talking about those who believe the "gummint (i.e., Bush) did it" and whether or not they also believe the same about OKC or TWA 800.

In other words, is their motivation for belief in conspiracy something consistent (irrational or not), or is it merely hatred of Bush.

I'm not comparing Bush to Clinton, ya doof.

[defenseman]

I was talking about those who believe the "gummint (i.e., Bush) did it" and whether or not they also believe the same about OKC or TWA 800.

In other words, is their motivation for belief in conspiracy something consistent (irrational or not), or is it merely hatred of Bush.

I'm not comparing Bush to Clinton, ya doof.

Well , the bottom line is some folks will hang it on either given their persuasion. Both have made their mistakes , that's for sure...dman

[alkemical]

I see wags point clearly.

[Taco John]

By way of example.

There's plenty of conspiracy-themed stuff out there on the Web regarding the OKC bombing, TWA 800, and so on (you know, the stuff that happened on Clinton's watch) yet I wonder if those here so convinced that 9/11 was an inside plot are consistent in believing the conspiracies about those other things. Or, as I believe, their anti-Bush mindset keeps them from being rational about it.

I apologize for having too complicated an argument for you - I realize that left-wingers of your ilk don't understand intellectual matters very well.


For my part, I'll admit that I believe there was more to the OKC bombing than simply Tim McVeigh.

http://independence.net/okc/janegraham.htm

[Taco John]

I find it amusing that Wags, a self proclaimed libertarian, spends so much time attacking people who don't trust the "gummint" given the fact that Libertarians on the whole are entirely based on distrust of the "gummint."

[alkemical]

TJ,

i'm actually w/you in regards to the OKC - i find it odd that mcveigh was killed so quick - oh i also think twa 800 had more to it.

[Taco John]

Can one of the defenders of government explain to me why every defender of government uses the spelling "gummint" when describing someone who distrusts the government? I see that all over the place, and I'm curious how in the hell it attracted so many robots parroting it.

[alkemical]

Can one of the defenders of government explain to me why every defender of government uses the spelling "gummint" when describing someone who distrusts the government? I see that all over the place, and I'm curious how in the hell it attracted so many robots parroting it.


We didn't get the memo TJ.....

[Taco John]

TJ,

i'm actually w/you in regards to the OKC - i find it odd that mcveigh was killed so quick - oh i also think twa 800 had more to it.



Have you read Peter Lance? http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0009K75PE/sr=8-1/qid=1148590344/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-4467947-0477421?%5Fencoding=UTF8


I'm always intrigued by defenders of the government story who haven't bothered to do any reasearch of their own. Peter Lance digs in deep to show why so much of this has gone uninvestigated in favor of neatly wrapped packages that don't raise the hackles of the American people with regards to just how much incompetence there is at the upper levels of government.

If you haven't looked at this one, I strongly reccommend it. He probes a lot of these issues, including OKC and TWA Flight 800...


Course, I'm just a whacky consipracy theorist who obviously has a lot to gain by asking tough questions. Nothing quite as rewarding as pissing citizen robots off.

[W*GS]

I find it amusing that Wags, a self proclaimed libertarian, spends so much time attacking people who don't trust the "gummint" given the fact that Libertarians on the whole are entirely based on distrust of the "gummint."

Not really.

[alkemical]

Have you read Peter Lance? http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0009K75PE/sr=8-1/qid=1148590344/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-4467947-0477421?%5Fencoding=UTF8


I'm always intrigued by defenders of the government story who haven't bothered to do any reasearch of their own. Peter Lance digs in deep to show why so much of this has gone uninvestigated in favor of neatly wrapped packages that don't raise the hackles of the American people with regards to just how much incompetence there is at the upper levels of government.

If you haven't looked at this one, I strongly reccommend it. He probes a lot of these issues, including OKC and TWA Flight 800...


Course, I'm just a whacky consipracy theorist who obviously has a lot to gain by asking tough questions. Nothing quite as rewarding as pissing citizen robots off.


I haven't read anything by peter lance. But for the most part TJ i agree with you on the issue at hand.

But then i'm just as whacky. I can't wait till i'm a congressman, so i can be above the law!

[defenseman]

I haven't read anything by peter lance. But for the most part TJ i agree with you on the issue at hand.

But then i'm just as whacky. I can't wait till i'm a congressman, so i can be above the law!

I was thinking the same thing too ames. My wife told me I'd be pretty good, my dad? he said I'd be dead if I ever made it to a position of significant authority. He said I'm too honest and trusting for my own good, ...he's probably right..dman

[alkemical]

dman,

my friends joke and say if i get in office, i'm killed the next week.

[Taco John]

Not really.



http://files.colonies.com/UserData/300555/BlogPhotos/ya%20really.jpg

[W*GS]

http://files.colonies.com/UserData/300555/BlogPhotos/ya%20really.jpg

Nope.

Libertarianism is based on individual rights and maximal personal liberty.

It isn't based on distrust of the government.

[Taco John]

Nope.

Libertarianism is based on individual rights and maximal personal liberty.

It isn't based on distrust of the government.



LOL :rofl: LOL :rofl:

That's like saying the game of basketball is based on a round ball... not on a round hoop...

But hey, reading Libertarian websites and blogs is some of the most enjoyable reading to me. I'm more than willing to read any of the gummint trusting "libertarian" web sites that you know about... I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for them though...

[alkemical]

LOL :rofl: LOL :rofl:

That's like saying the game of basketball is based on a round ball... not on a round hoop...

But hey, reading Libertarian websites and blogs is some of the most enjoyable reading to me. I'm more than willing to read any of the gummint trusting "libertarian" web sites that you know about... I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for them though...



TJ, they probably have a .gov addy.....

[Billy Clyde Puckett]

The trouble TJ is that the "Libertarian Party" and most of the blogs are not true to real libertarian ideas. They are all on some tangent like legalization of marijuana or some BS issue like that. True libertarians believe in minimal government involvement in daily life and taking personal responsibility for the decisions you make in your life.

[Taco John]

The trouble TJ is that the "Libertarian Party" and most of the blogs are not true to real libertarian ideas. They are all on some tangent like legalization of marijuana or some BS issue like that. True libertarians believe in minimal government involvement in daily life and taking personal responsibility for the decisions you make in your life.


I don't know what you're talking about. The sites I read are pretty true to Libertarian ideas. Also, how does the legalization of Marijuana not fit into a Libertrian idea? Wags is right that Libertarians advocate maximum personal liberty. The freedom to partake in the recreational substance of your own choice fits, no?

[alkemical]

and why does it always turn to legalization of drugs when people slander the libertarian philosphy?

Why can't the 44% of my money that's stolen in taxes be included, why can't eminent domain be my issue - and why does it always turn into people doing smack?

[Taco John]

and why does it always turn to legalization of drugs when people slander the libertarian philosphy?

Why can't the 44% of my money that's stolen in taxes be included, why can't eminent domain be my issue - and why does it always turn into people doing smack?


Because some conservatives believe that everybody should have just enough liberty to do whatever doesn't offend their religious sensibilities.

[alkemical]

Because some conservatives believe that everybody should have just enough liberty to do whatever doesn't offend their religious sensibilities.


This is where 'they' aren't any different than those that want a hemogonized theocracy in the ME.

Besides, with the drug issue, if it's not 'processed' and you can use it in it's natural state - it's not illegal.

To quote smokey:

"it's from da earf, god put it here for me...and you!"

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I find it amusing that Wags, a self proclaimed libertarian, spends so much time attacking people who don't trust the "gummint" given the fact that Libertarians on the whole are entirely based on distrust of the "gummint."

Good call. :thumbsup:

I've yet to see one libertarian on this board who believes W*GS is really a libertarian.

Most of them say he is a closet republican, and I quite agree.

[Spider]

ah... so everyone that doesn't agree hook, line, and sinker with your theory of what happened is full of bullshiat? you must be of the "you're either with us or against us" school of thought. No not at all I have a few Friends that are republican , they just know they come at me with Talking points , or some other half baked Idea , I tell them they are fulll of shít , they in turn do the same to me , I enjoy a good debate , but when they are full of Shít I tell them so .........
back to the topic - what exactly is your theory of what hit the pentagon? don't know? just that it wasn't a 757?I dont know , I dont think Bush wanted the pentagon attacked , But I wouldnt rule out a stray Missle fired at one of the other highjacked planes either ..........@ this point I dont have enough info of what happened , but I do know nothing matches up with the 757 theory either ..........

[W*GS]

That's like saying the game of basketball is based on a round ball... not on a round hoop...

Very poor analogy.

Government is the protector and defender of our innate rights. As such, libertarians are not anarchists. If you've read a lot of libertarian material that is more anarchistic, well, you haven't read enough.

Start off with Nozick's "Anarchy, State, and Utopia", for a reasonable solid theoretical foundation. Blogs and websites, even libertarian ones, tend to be pretty shallow.

[W*GS]

I've yet to see one libertarian on this board who believes W*GS is really a libertarian.

Anyone can believe whatever they want.

If I was a Democrat, I wouldn't want you representing my party or my ideology in any way.

You've labelled yourself as a "Clinton Democrat" - and if anyone here believes that, they've got some serious issues with reality.

[alkemical]

Very poor analogy.

Government is the violater and oppressor of our innate rights. As such, libertarians are not anarchists in terms of bloody violence.

If you've read a lot of libertarian material that is more anarchistic, well, you haven't understood it.

Start off with Walden.


Fixed it for you.

[mosca]

Fixed it for you.
judging by this post, i would take it that you lean far more toward the anarchist philosophy than the libertarian, ames?

[alkemical]

judging by this post, i would take it that you lean far more toward the anarchist philosophy than the libertarian, ames?


Libertarian is my comprimise. I understand that rule and gov't is needed, and libertarian is where i draw the line.

But HDT had a big influence on me.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Military Expert: Why the WTC Fell

http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/soldier5.htm

The airplanes did not a have true effect on the destruction of towers; they were needed to give an excuse for odd Orwellian wars at the same time when the USA is turned into a police nation, like the German Third Reich, to some extent. The towers took the impacts of crushing Boeing 767's. The towers were originally built to take impacts of Boeing 707's, which are approximately of the same size and was widely used in the 1970's.

Fires that kindled from the fuel in the planes were too shortlasting and weak to be able to severely damage the structure of the skyscrapers. Even in the extreme situation, the heat from a kerosene fire cannot threat the durability of a steel trunk. With the temperature of carbohydrate fires that reaches only 825 °C (approx. 1517 °F) steel weakens at 800 °C (approx. 1470 °F) and melts at 1585 °C (approx. 2890 °F). In the skyscrapers of the WTC the surroundings were not at all ideal as there were far too many steel columns and they led heat away from the burning area. WTC 1 burned for 102 minutes and WTC 2 for 56 minutes only. A fire burning much longer, from 10 to 20 hours, could slowly increase the burning temperature down to perhaps 1100 °C (approx. 2010 °F). Provided there is more substance to burn, such a fire will damage concrete and irons, but not severely heavy steel constructions.

Continued at link

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Remembering BushCo's pre-9/11 "counterterrorism program"...

Bush's Faustian Deal With the Taliban

By Robert Scheer

Published May 22, 2001 in the Los Angeles Times

Enslave your girls and women, harbor anti-U.S. terrorists, destroy every vestige of civilization in your homeland, and the Bush administration will embrace you. All that matters is that you line up as an ally in the drug war, the only international cause that this nation still takes seriously.

That's the message sent with the recent gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American violators of human rights in the world today. The gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the U.S. the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that "rogue regime" for declaring that opium growing is against the will of God. So, too, by the Taliban's estimation, are most human activities, but it's the ban on drugs that catches this administration's attention.

Never mind that Osama bin Laden still operates the leading anti-American terror operation from his base in Afghanistan, from which, among other crimes, he launched two bloody attacks on American embassies in Africa in 1998.

Sadly, the Bush administration is cozying up to the Taliban regime at a time when the United Nations, at U.S. insistence, imposes sanctions on Afghanistan because the Kabul government will not turn over Bin Laden.

The war on drugs has become our own fanatics' obsession and easily trumps all other concerns. How else could we come to reward the Taliban, who has subjected the female half of the Afghan population to a continual reign of terror in a country once considered enlightened in its treatment of women?

At no point in modern history have women and girls been more systematically abused than in Afghanistan where, in the name of madness masquerading as Islam, the government in Kabul obliterates their fundamental human rights. Women may not appear in public without being covered from head to toe with the oppressive shroud called the burkha , and they may not leave the house without being accompanied by a male family member. They've not been permitted to attend school or be treated by male doctors, yet women have been banned from practicing medicine or any profession for that matter.

The lot of males is better if they blindly accept the laws of an extreme religious theocracy that prescribes strict rules governing all behavior, from a ban on shaving to what crops may be grown. It is this last power that has captured the enthusiasm of the Bush White House.

The Taliban fanatics, economically and diplomatically isolated, are at the breaking point, and so, in return for a pittance of legitimacy and cash from the Bush administration, they have been willing to appear to reverse themselves on the growing of opium. That a totalitarian country can effectively crack down on its farmers is not surprising. But it is grotesque for a U.S. official, James P. Callahan, director of the State Department's Asian anti-drug program, to describe the Taliban's special methods in the language of representative democracy: "The Taliban used a system of consensus-building," Callahan said after a visit with the Taliban, adding that the Taliban justified the ban on drugs "in very religious terms."

Of course, Callahan also reported, those who didn't obey the theocratic edict would be sent to prison.

In a country where those who break minor rules are simply beaten on the spot by religious police and others are stoned to death, it's understandable that the government's "religious" argument might be compelling. Even if it means, as Callahan concedes, that most of the farmers who grew the poppies will now confront starvation. That's because the Afghan economy has been ruined by the religious extremism of the Taliban, making the attraction of opium as a previously tolerated quick cash crop overwhelming.

For that reason, the opium ban will not last unless the U.S. is willing to pour far larger amounts of money into underwriting the Afghan economy.

As the Drug Enforcement Administration's Steven Casteel admitted, "The bad side of the ban is that it's bringing their country--or certain regions of their country--to economic ruin." Nor did he hold out much hope for Afghan farmers growing other crops such as wheat, which require a vast infrastructure to supply water and fertilizer that no longer exists in that devastated country. There's little doubt that the Taliban will turn once again to the easily taxed cash crop of opium in order to stay in power.

The Taliban may suddenly be the dream regime of our own war drug war zealots, but in the end this alliance will prove a costly failure. Our long sad history of signing up dictators in the war on drugs demonstrates the futility of building a foreign policy on a domestic obsession.

http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/01_columns/052201.htm