[EDIT]If you don't read ANYthing else, read this. It is the single-most comprehensive, realistic, analytical report I've been able to find so far.[/EDIT]
The Federal Government is hiding something from you, and it's far more sinister than most people realize. It's possible that Bush's own adminsitration doesn't even realize it's happening. These are the principle's of a Shadow Government which is exactly what it would take to pull this off and achieve plausible deniability. I've been saying it all along. Here's another thread I was involved in a LONG time ago that is on this same topic, but lookie what sowhatsthetruth just forwarded to me:
Although it moves quickly, it's a pretty good compilation of photos, research, video and data concerning the supposed 757 that impacted the Pentagon.
This is not a joke. It is not clever photoshop work. It is real information that actually appeared on T.V. news station across the country and in print. I think it's fairly conclusive, coupled with the information that I'll link in herre momentarily, that a 757 never struck the Pentagon. It did not happen. Something blew up there, to be sure, but what you are seeing are not the effects of a 100+ passenger jetliner travelling over 500MPH at 2ft off the ground - that's the official story that the Feds are giving.
They are lying through their teeth. That much is apparent. What is not immediately apparent is WHY would they lie about that, and what else might they lie about?
I have always had a suspicion that 9/11 was perpetrated by dirty, rotten crooks within our own government. If this 757 never existed then it is apparent that no stakes were too high for this operation. I can honestly see some dirty bastard soliciting the assistance of Muslim fundamentalists and enabling them to take the planes and run them into the twin towers. That much they could trust to amateurs. All they wanted to do was kill a bunch of people in Manhattan - that goal was easily met by slamming planes into the tallest targets in sight. If one of them overshot and hit something else, well no matter - the goal would still have been achieved.
But the Pentagon? That target was too important to entrust to amateurs. No, they used a professional for that. And they didn't use a 757. Most eye witnesses report an aircraft capable of carrying perhaps 8 to 10 passengers. Load a plane like that up with some high explosives and paint it up to look like an American Airlines passenger jet and you have a clever disguise for something that'll make a big hole in the side of the building - and fairly well disintegrate on detonation.
Why else do you think there are NO aircraft parts to be found? There's no other 757 or similar aircraft crash in history that failed to locate parts for the plane. Why has the FBI confiscated all known video/photographic sources and not released them? Maybe they're spending toomuch time in the editing room trying to make it look like a real 757 actually did this..? How, in the first reports of the impact did they come to explain that there were huge pools of jet fuel resting out on the pentagon's lawn? What!? That big of an explosion and volatile liquid fuel gently flows out and make a nice, serene duck pond nearby? Who makes this crap up!?
Please accept the possibility that there is something much bigger and lethal going on here than what the Feds are admitting to. This event has been part of their plans for decades to "galzanize the nation" with a "catalyst event" that will put the people in support of hte neocon agenda to push for a New World Order in which the U.S. will be a dominant player. It has started with Afghanistan and then Iraq. Don't believe everything you are told, see and hear! Use your brain! Don't just stubbornly refuse to believe this because it's all so fantastic and incredible tht it couldn't possibly be true! There is some serious hard data here that draws questions which, if they can't be absolutely 100% certain responded to with verifiable, scientific facts.. they must cast some doubt on what you are seeing!
If I wake up dead tomorrow, y'all know what happened.
Interesting video, raises a few good questions. A lot of unnecessary music and "shaky" text used to frighten, but the rest of it is quite compelling. I'm always willing to keep my mind open to anything, it doesn't cost me a thing to do so.
I don't think people who say "it sounded like a missile" are really reliable witnesses however, but from part of the video (though unclear) the "plane" is flying at a very unusual speed for such an incredibly low altitude. Defies logic, really.
It's absolutely impossible to judge the speed of the plane based on that video. The frame rate is so low that the plane is mearly a shadow figure for ONE single chopped up frame before the fire comes out of the building. As for the witness accounts, it's not hard to find a variety of different perceptions of what happened. I know I could find dozens of credible quotes from witness who contradict the quotes from that video. Just google "pentegon 9/11 witnesses".
The video it's self looks like an ameteur's first crack at premier and after effects. The clips used were very calculated, too. If you didn't notice, the video only showed the immediate aftermath from a couple of narrow angles, and then used numerous pictures of the place DAYS or WEEKS later to show the lack of wreckage.
For the record, I have not been to the pentegon in my life. I wasn't there when the plane hit and I doubt anyone in this forum was there either.
I wouldn't rule out a conspiracy, but I won't consider it unless something consistant and conclusive pops up.
BTW - photos of the Pentagon crash site have never revealed wreckage. Even within hours of the incident. I can pull out some newspaper front-page photos, scan and put them online for you to see with your own eyes..
There is a recount from a fella by the name of Frank Probst who says he saw first hand the right engine take out a chain link fence. As you can see from the photo above, when the aircraft is at rest with the landing gear bearing the weight of the vehicle, the fuelage is (estimating) approximately 9ft off the ground. The wings appear to start around 11 ft up (from the bottom side at the fueselage) and extend out to perhaps 15ft off the ground. The engines appear to be perhaps 5ft off the ground.
Now, I don't know if you know anything about portable 750KW generators, but I happen to know that they don't stand 15 ft off the ground. Unless the plane was engaged in a tight turning maneuver or was at the time lower than an aircraft sitting on the ground at rest then this account is impossible. The generators stand 12 ft tall at the highest, usually only 10ft. The aircraft was reported on all accounts to be flying quite level and straight so it was not in a turning maneuver. Thus in order for this recount to be true, the wings must have been at least 3 ft lower than where they sit at rest. Oh and by the way, when a plane this size is in flight, the entire weight of the craft is ON the wings which forces them to extend UP more than 12" at the tips. That puts us a full foot lower to the ground in order for that wingtip to come in contact with the generator. Given that the landing gear was retracted according to reports, this is still plausible so far. It puts the bottom, leading edge of the jet's engines between 12 and 24 inches off the ground at this point in the flight. There were accounts that reported the plane being "no more than 2ft off the ground", so this is consistent with that story. Ultimately for the plane to crash into a building on the ground, it had to be close to the ground at SOME point, so this all stands to reason.
Now, let's look at one more thing from Probst's recount before I move on and find other things to debunk. He says he saw the right engine take out the fence around the portable generator. Referencing once again the photo above, with the dimensions already discussed, it's apparent that the engine is no less than 25ft away from the tip of the wing. So you're telling me that the fending compound surrounding a relatively small portable generator extended a good 25ft past the generator such that as the wing's tip took out the generator, the engine was in line with the fence? That's the biggest darn portable generator compound I've ever heard of - I'd like to see photos of it.
I'll continue reading now..
[EDIT] Some of my approximations are incorrect as I read further, but the scale remains the same and thus the same result occurs. Here are some measurements of the 757 pulled from later in the document:
Check out these five points laid out by the French author "Meyssan", which are a source for the rebuttle in the next section I'm getting into:
quote:
• Witness testimony indicates that a missile was responsible for the damage. "In all cases," the book concludes, "these testimonies concerning the sound and the trajectory also correspond perfectly with the manner in which a missile flies in the final phase of flight, just before it strikes its target."
• There is no debris from the plane, and the wings, which should have sheared off, are nowhere to be seen.
• The damage at the Pentagon could have been caused by a missile but not by a plane. "The building was not smashed into as if it had suffered from a classic plane crash," Meyssan writes in Pentagate, "but was perforated as if struck by a missile."
• Civilian sources did not know where Flight 77 was after 9:09 a.m. on 9/11. Consequently, civilian flight control, the FAA, "could not have known that the plane turned back [toward Washington, D.C.] since it had become, by the agency’s own admission, invisible to its eyes...."
• The U.S. military did not destroy the plane, despite having the capability to do so.
We have witnesses who say they saw a plane, and others who say they heard a plane. And then we have witnesses who say they saw a missle, and others who say they heard a missile. I'm sorry, but I'm not just going to take some story from a father/priest just because he says so, as if writing that adds any credibility. People can't be trusted. I don't trust witnesses from either side. I'm looking for empirical evidence, something irrefutable. I don't buy the story that it was a missile. Too many people would be able to see and recognize a missile to be able to hide that. I'm not saying it's impossible, just unlikely. I find it more likely that explosives were set in the building to emphasize the severity of the impact and that a much smaller craft was used.
In the section before they say that victims' remains were indeed found at the site, documented by the ASCE (why THEY were involved in this is WAY beyond me..). But this disregards the fact that those remains could have belonged to any of the 100+ people who were in the building and died, and could furthermore have been bodies loaded onto a smaller aircraft as the delivery package. Finding body parts is not evidence. Show me aircraft parts and reconstruct a Boeing 757.
To take it to the next step and prove that such an event actually occurred, it would be necessary to cite evidence supporting the assertion. It has already been noted that witnesses unambiguously reported seeing a plane hit the Pentagon and not a missile. Likewise, there is no physical evidence that would both support the missile theory and undermine the official explanation that Flight 77 was responsible for the damage.
You know, the FBI could clear this up real quick by actually releasing the surveillanve footage that was captured of this event which shows the aircraft - what's so top secret about that, exactly? If it's no secret that an aircraft hit the building, why not release the evidence and lay to rest all the false accusations? Their failure to release this evidence is highly suspicious.
Here's something else I find distastefully humorous:
quote:
Overall, however, the Meyssan theory fails its most important test. A 14th century philosopher, William of Occam, formulated the principle ("Occam’s razor") that the best explanation of observed phenomena is the simplest. Of the two competing explanations for the events at the Pentagon and on Flight 77, one posits that the plane struck the building at a high rate of speed causing both the disintegration of the plane and the destruction on the ground. The other, Meyssan’s theory, argues that the plane did not hit the Pentagon but disappeared. Not only does the extant evidence run counter to this theory, but it does not account for some of the observed phenomena, does not explain what happened to the plane and its passengers, and is manifestly more complex.
Occam's Razor, indeed. You tell me which is manifestly more complex:
A) An underground, international terrorism organization has plotted and trained for years in order to make a single, powerful strike against the United States because they "hate our freedom" and "they hate democracy". They hijack four commercial airliners and pilot the with unprecedented skill and accuracy despite having no experience handling such large aircraft and all but one strike their targets, two of which slam into skyscrapers, one of which slams into the Pentagon and vaporizes, leaving no trace of major structural components that would allow reconstruction of the aircraft in order to demonstrate the sequence of events.
B) A "shadow government" determined to bring about the New World Order, the latest incarnation of "Manifest Destiny" is minipulating political figureheads and the people of America into advancing their plans for perpetual world domination. They fabricate a terrorist event, though they underestimate the investigative capacity and intelligence of the people to expose their handywork, involving several aircraft and the sacrifice of hundreds or thousands of civilian and government workers as a "catalyst event" in an effort to "galvanize the nation" into support of taking reformative action in the Middle East and around the world, justifying global efforts of reform and establishment of control where none existed before, ultimately laying the foundation architecture for their global strategy.
So which sounds more plausible to you? Both explanations sound equally plausible to me, not being one to dismiss an idea for sheer ridiculousness. Desperate times call for desperate measures. As I see natural resources drying up in the next 50 years, I see people desperately clinging to old-hat business and politics to secure their future. They may even think that what they're doing is right, that ultimately it will lead to world peace.
In fact I too think that a New World Order of sorts would be tremendously advantageous and really get us on the right track to unifying the world in a more harmonious balance - but I happen to think that this cannot be accomplished through the use of force.
I'm going to start including images in this thread hosted here on the site so that there is not a risk of them becoming deleted or out-dated on remote sources. So my apologies to those sources for ripping your images, but I'm not claiming ownership - they are too important to risk losing:
That contradicts the security video that was taken showing the plane hitting the building. That video was all over the news the next day and for weeks following the crash.
I'll believe that not conspiracy THEORY.
Here's a biggie, but an important shot from an analysis standpoint. I had to significantly reduce it to get it to attach here, but here's the unaltered original.
Man, it's painful to look at this stuff and dig it back up again, but even more painful to think of the possibility that the truth has not been revealed yet..
I would buy the explanation that the wings folded backward and slid into the building along with the rest of the craft. But that being the case. they wouldn't have found parts of the nose gear and some pieces of the engines in the building - they would have found an entire damn aircraft in there. Where is it? Don't tell me it vaporized because I don't buy that for a minute.
The official explanation seems to indicate that that the wings did in fact hit the side of the building and that the damage inflicted upon the building reflects this. Well you know, I'd buy that story too because the extremities of the wings are quite light in weight, low mass so they wouldn't cause THAT much damage to a building, even at 500MPH. But where did they go? Did they splinter in to dust that is now fertilizing the lawn? How stupid do they think we are? The space shuttle blew up at 15,000 MPH and we recovered parts from that - we can find the parts for a plane that smacked an object at a measley 500MPH?
The picture pentagoncrash05.jpg was altered with a photo editor.
How much else was edited? Who knows.
Also there is a pile of Airplane wreckage being searched by HazMat just to the left of the opening. They wear the hazmat suits because of bio hazards from human remains.
I did this for a time in the Airforce. My job was to cleanup and pick up crash sights.
Also, the estimated speed was so high, not much was recoverable. This is the same thing that happened in Penn. They could only recover a minor amount of debry.
How much was recovered from the WTC? Not much.
Well lookie here at all the glass in the windows that miraculously survived the force of an impact which reportedly sent a percussion wave that witnesses back out at the street felt in their bodies. Again I have reduced the image, the original is here:
USA1 said this in post #22 : The picture pentagoncrash05.jpg was altered with a photo editor.
How much else was edited? Who knows.
In what way? I didn't edit it - I merely cropped it down and reduced it a bit to fit from the original which is linked. The site it's linked from which is one which is providing a photo-recount of the entire event and never touches on the idea of conspiracy. What do you see that makes you think it's edited and what possible motive would there be? As I said, I'm just looking for facts.
Thanks for the info on the hazmat suits though - I had wondered about that and indeed in the bigger version of the photo that does appear to be a pile of wrecked parts.
quote:
USA1 said this in post #23 : Also, the estimated speed was so high, not much was recoverable. This is the same thing that happened in Penn. They could only recover a minor amount of debry.
How much was recovered from the WTC? Not much.
Not so sure I buy this. The wreckage is all there. It doesn't just vanish into thinn air. We're talking about at least 50 tons of metal per aircraft. That's half the spec weight of the plane which I figure could contain that much weight in non-metallic, combustible materials. Where does 50 tons of metal go? If they had a problem collecting debris from this then it was either because they did not spend enough time separating it from the building wreckage, or the wreckage didn't exist in the first place.
As for the planes that hit the WTC - that problem is amplified a thousand fold - that pile of wreckage couldn't possibly have been gone through sufficiently to separate plane parts from building parts. That is understandable. The plane that crashed in Pennsylvania is also understandable given that it fairly well exploded on impact and sent parts flying for miles in all directions. They'll probably be randomly discovering bits and pieces of that plane for decades, but I expect it's all there: where else would it be?
The pentagon site, however, defies explanation. There's not that much rubble. The plane didn't shatter and sent pieces flying for miles. It was all sitting right there. The debris HAD to be there if the event truly took place.
This next image is too large to put inline with the page (almost 1MB) - It is a satellate image of the Pentagon location reportedly from 9/7/2001. The significance of the image is that it illustrations damaged lawn which exactly matches the flight path for the impact into the building. Such a path could be created by poisoning the grass in those areas over time. It could be used by a pilot to take a bearing and come in at the planned location. It cam be seen from space. You can bet it can be seen from the sky:
The only problem with getting verification on the Satellite photo of the all seeing eye is the simple fact that they found it necessary to cover the Pentagon Lawn with stone and sand. I can understand the need of building a road into the area to get heavy equipment in, but the whole lawn? Wouldn't you want to do a through check of the Lawn first for debris etc.? Perhaps also you might find a passport sitting on the Lawn like they found a passport of one of the Hijackers in the debris at the World Trade Center, right?
USA1 said this in post #29 : First of all the plane wasn't in the position you show when it hit. It was angled with one wing up as the pilot was trying to stear the plane.
Not possible. All witnesses have reported that it was moving straight and level. Banking would have put a wing into the ground, and furthermore banking would not be possible at that speed. What's more is I am not producing any of thesse images myself. The one above with the red trajectory projections was generated by the purdue simulartion (if I'm not mistaken), the red lines which account for perspective/parallax added after that by some unknown author.
There are some leaps in conclusions in this page that I do not agree with, particularly those that suggest the impact was caused by a missile.
An example:
quote:
You can clearly see from this video that there was never a huge gapping hole created in the Pentagon wall. The hole is only one story high, first floor and all the other floors collapsed down on top of it. There is no way a Boeing 757 could ever have gone through there.
I beg to differ. The 757's dimensions do support that it could have made that hole, but there should have been further damage and complete wreckage from the aircraft extracted which has not occurred.
Also, later:
quote:
The Global Hawk has one engine and it is very quiet. Look at the size of the engine on the 757 in the picture just before this one and compare that to the size of the engine of the Global Hawk. Which plane do you think this part would more likely come from? It seems too big to be part of a cruise missile but would seem better fit again on the Global Hawk.
He is suggesting that the engine part came from a much smaller engine because it appears to be a small part. My response is that he must not be entirely familiar with turbojet engines because the stack of rotating parts contains varying diameter wheels, some of which, even on a large engine, may be quite small like the one depected from the wreckage as they get closer to the turbine end of the engine. His suggestion is misleading and non-conclusive.
If he is seeking information, he's baiting owfully hard. It is not consistent to say you are seeking information and then suggest it was a missile. And then suggest it was a small aircraft. And then suggest that nothing hit the street poles and that they were "tossed" out into the street by other means. He seems to be leading, but have no idea where he's leading TO. Anywhere but what the Feds say, apparently. I agree that the Feds are not telling the truth and that it is inlikely that a 757 hit the building, but I wouldn't go so far as to make the suggestions he's making, especially where there is only a weak connection between elements and his understanding of physics is clearly limited.
Sayzak brought tonns of eyewitness accounts which support the official version: a Boeing flew right into the building. There are so many people saying it was a passenger plane, no analysis can prove it wrong. To be honest, the pictures and the lines with all the angles and distances looked suspicious..... Where did the wings go? But then i thought that, it was impossible to make hundreds of recovery personnel be quiet about not finding the jet; and whats even more important, even if the admin was involved in the attack, it would be much easier to let the arabs fly into Pentagon, than staging an attack artificially.
Yes i looked at all the pictures and watched every video and read everything related to it, and yes these materials are very fishy - where did the wings go, for real? But think about it, would they stage such a "low-tech display"? Wouldnt it be easier for Bush and co. to let the arabs do the work and fly the real plane into the building?
And what's wrong with the eyewitness accounts? You mean they were all paid off? Or maybe they all were so stupid and blind and deaf that have mistaken a boeing and a missile/smaller jet?
I agree. But hey, there is something fishy with everything. And most of the times, people ignore the 'fishy' stuff, and move on. That's what we can and should do this time as well, IMHO.
remember way back in the day when Hitler staged attacks against his own country and blamed it on Poland and used it as an excuse to invade? Starting the worst war in humanity's history?
If only the German people had investigated the fishiness... a lot could have been avoid.
Now I'm not saying yay or nay that this is a conspiracy, but your attitude of "just moving on" is dangerous.
Do you compare Hitler to Bush here? I mean, that could be possible; there is like 0.005% chance. That happened back in 30s, and now is the 21st century. It's not easy to fool people nowadays. In order for Bush to stage such an attack to "galvanise the nation", a lot of people had to be involved - including military, president's aides, leaders on the terrorists' side who are not trustworthy at all - i mean, even if Bush wanted to carry out such a thing, he wouldnt be able to do it and after weighing all the pros and cons and chances of failure and success, he wouldnt even give it a try.
MrJukoVette said this in post #43 : Do you compare Hitler to Bush here? no conclusions is being drawn, only questions asked. Questions that NEED to be asked.
I mean, that could be possible; there is like 0.005% chance. Probability and statistics have NOTHING to do with this.
That happened back in 30s, and now is the 21st century. It's not easy to fool people nowadays. that's so stupid. People are people are people. We don't change. On what evidence do you make this outrageous claim? Were people stupider back then? Or would it hurt your ego too much for you to even consider the possibility that you could be a part of something evil.
In order for Bush to stage such an attack to "galvanise the nation", a lot of people had to be involved - including military, president's aides, leaders on the terrorists' side who are not trustworthy at all - i mean, even if Bush wanted to carry out such a thing, he wouldnt be able to do it and after weighing all the pros and cons and chances of failure and success, he wouldnt even give it a try.Once again, no one's making any accusations (well I guess some people are) but somethings are raising an eyebrow. You can't just shrug this stuff off. Well I suppose you can, if you jsut want to get on with your everyday life, but for those who care about the OBJECTIVE TRUTH, these questions must be asked, ugly possibilities must at least be considered. If they are disregarded, they must be disregarded through facts, not some silly little faith in the basic decency and intelligence of humanity.
I mean, that could be possible; there is like 0.005% chance. ---- Probability and statistics have NOTHING to do with this.
I meant its VERY unlikely that there was a plot to fool americans and the world, the number was cherry-picked out of my endless tunnels of thought.
that's so stupid. People are people are people. We don't change.
But the technology changes and significantly. Here we are discussing evidence, looking at the pictures, drawing conclusions - people who dont know each other, from different parts of the states and Canada in my case - i mean, it's harder to fool people because we know much more in today's world. Besides, Hitler built up a regime of hate and terror and world wide domination and captured the whole Europe and even went for the USSR - there is plainly no comparison whatsoever - quite opposite. Hope you understood my point.
On what evidence do you make this outrageous claim? Were people stupider back then?
Not any more stupid, but they certainly knew less. They didnt have all the communication, surveillance, open-ness we have today. Besides, germans who just recovered from a humiliating defeat in WW1 are easily swayed to believe their leader after another attack.
Or would it hurt your ego too much for you to even consider the possibility that you could be a part of something evil.
Me? Not at all. Also, in no way i could be a part of something evil no matter which way you put it.
Once again, no one's making any accusations (well I guess some people are) but somethings are raising an eyebrow. You can't just shrug this stuff off.
Like what, the Pentagon attack? OK, say it was not a Boeing but a small jet or a missile. Where did the Boeing go then? It has to be somewhere because it was hijacked. Why are there no reports of a plane flying other parts of the country/world? It had to pass some distance before reaching for the ocean - why didnt border patrol notice an airplane which wasnt supposed to be there at a time of attacks?
Well I suppose you can, if you jsut want to get on with your everyday life, but for those who care about the OBJECTIVE TRUTH, these questions must be asked, ugly possibilities must at least be considered. If they are disregarded, they must be disregarded through facts, not some silly little faith in the basic decency and intelligence of humanity.
OK then lets find out what happened to that damn Boeing and it's passengers. Lets start with a simple question: all the eyewitnesses, both civil and on-site personnel and emergency staff, didnt they see that it was/wasnt a Boeing?
i'm not saying it WAS a missle, but the initial reports where that they saw a missile. Probably they had no clue what it was and figured it was a missle. When reports came out about the whole story they probably were like "oh, it was a plane"
but good point about the Boeing having being somewhere... that kind of makes me think that this is all making something out of nothing now.
And they said "it sounded like a missile"; nobody saw a missile, however a lot of people saw a Boeing flying into the Pentagon, making cars roll, knocking down poles and shaking the ground with it's mass. That, IMO, is enough to "shrug this stuff off" and get on with our everyday lives.
2) The trajectory of the aircraft couldn't possibly account for the felled street lamps
3) Video evidence has been confiscated and treated as SECRET - why!? What video have you been watching (Juko)?
4) Dozens of 'witnesses' don't interest me. Anyone can be duped or coerced. I want to see the unedited videos that were shot of the incident. There is NO reason to retain them unless there is something to hide.
5) They wouldn't need to keep rescue workers & staff silent because those people don't know what they're looking at. The make a pile of some off bits of wreckage and they're convinced well enough that the 727 which they are told impacted the building in fact did occur. What reason would they have to question it when they are not presented with all the compelling evidence? There's nobody to keep silent.
Sean Kelly said this in post #48 :
1) I didn't see any cars roll
2) The trajectory of the aircraft couldn't possibly account for the felled street lamps
3) Video evidence has been confiscated and treated as SECRET - why!? What video have you been watching (Juko)?
1. How can you be sure cars would roll at all?
2. Can you explain that to me, cuz I'm not sure what you mean.
3. One time my tires got slashed at a best buy parking lot. I went and asked security to look at the tape, but they said the camera was not facing my car at that moment (it was revolving). I didn't accuse them of holding secret tapes from me.
One of the videos showed cars inclining at the edge of rolling; few eyewitnesses said the same. The priest said he was shocked how such a huge aircraft flied so low. There were a lot of people who saw a commercial airplane.
2) The trajectory of the aircraft couldn't possibly account for the felled street lamps
Why? Who said so? French experts? Come on Sean.
And if we dont have a video, how can you tell it's trajectory? Who knows maybe stupid arabs were hardly keeping the plane under control, going up and down, to the left and to the right, hardly making it into the building?
3) Video evidence has been confiscated and treated as SECRET - why!? What video have you been watching (Juko)?
Yes i agree that its very suspicious, as well as the size of the hole and other things. I am not saying everything is perfect here. But hey, if it wasnt a Boeing that flew into Pentagon, then where is it? Did it fly into open space? Or a huge crater opened in the ground and sucked the plane in? WHERE DID IT GO, IF NOT PENTAGON?
4) Dozens of 'witnesses' don't interest me. Anyone can be duped or coerced.
Yes, but not everyone. There is a big difference between anyone and everyone, you know.
I want to see the unedited videos that were shot of the incident. There is NO reason to retain them unless there is something to hide.
FBI always does that. I dont know why they do it and I agree that its highly suspicious. But the idea of a small jet or a missile hitting the Pentagon in a plot to fool the world? No. As i said before, even if they were invovled (the Bush admin), staging an attack would be trying to scratch the left ear with your right hand.
5) They wouldn't need to keep rescue workers & staff silent because those people don't know what they're looking at. The make a pile of some off bits of wreckage and they're convinced well enough that the 727 which they are told impacted the building in fact did occur. What reason would they have to question it when they are not presented with all the compelling evidence? There's nobody to keep silent.
Come onn, you are brushing off questions now. Ofcourse people would ask where did the plane go if there really was NOTHING.
OK, if there is the slightest possibility of commercial plane NOT hitting Pentagon, you have the right to investigate it. Find out who worked there at that time and interview them. Ask them what they saw there, how bad was the impact, etc. You wont find anything out and answer questions by trying to prove it to me.
After you know for sure what happened, or at least have enough information to draw conclusions, you can come out and say: my fellow americans, here is what happened, whether Bush was involved or no. Your nation surely would be proud of you. Im not joking now. Come on, go for it.
And yes the jet fuel smells very fishy. It doesnt explode rather starts burning and leak all over the place causing huge fires.
Sayzak:1) If a 80 tonn aircraft flies 3 feet above your car at a speed of 500mph, your car would at least bend to the side by the wave of air following the plane.
2) There were poles hit by the plane on it's way to Pentagon; conspiracy claims those were broken on purpose to make it look like there really was plane.
3) Its not like camera was facing it or no; tapes were taken by the FBI and never released, and that is indeed suspicious.
Btw, they might have had explosives onboard of the plane. Maybe they paid the labourers at the airport and loaded just couple of tonns of explosives too....
I didn't say they "would not", I specifically said I didn't see any rolled vehicles referring to all of the photographic coverage. Please don't try to change the meaning like this - I don't see how it could be misconstrued.
quote:
2. Can you explain that to me, cuz I'm not sure what you mean.
The explanation of the aircraft's trajectory and the impossibility of striking the street lamps is explained in depth at the first link at the top of the first post of this thread. It is a comprehensive analysis that examines the technical feasibility of this story based on flight path data, satellite photos and some fairly intelligent environment projections based on single frame shots extracted from a security camera on the Pentagon grounds, distances and geometry. It's actually a rather simple proof. It demonstrates a couple things including that the aircraft may have been travelling at about Mach 2.7, that the video footage was in fact edited, and that the air craft could not have come in contact with the street lamps without a physically impossible instantaneous 20 foot aeorbatic descent. See the page for details, I'm not going to attempt to re-prove it here.
quote:
3. One time my tires got slashed at a best buy parking lot. I went and asked security to look at the tape, but they said the camera was not facing my car at that moment (it was revolving). I didn't accuse them of holding secret tapes from me.
.. that's nice, but national security is not at stake in a possible government corruption coverup where the FBI confiscated the evidence and subsequently refused to release it for public review. This personal experience of yours doesn't change anything in the course of this analysis.
MrJukoVette said this in post #51 : 1) I didn't see any cars roll
One of the videos showed cars inclining at the edge of rolling; few eyewitnesses said the same. The priest said he was shocked how such a huge aircraft flied so low. There were a lot of people who saw a commercial airplane.
Have you seen this online somewhere or are you just recalling from live media coverage at the time? I'm not doubting you, just wanting to see the same thing for myself if it's around..
quote:
2) The trajectory of the aircraft couldn't possibly account for the felled street lamps
Why? Who said so? French experts? Come on Sean.
And if we dont have a video, how can you tell it's trajectory? Who knows maybe stupid arabs were hardly keeping the plane under control, going up and down, to the left and to the right, hardly making it into the building?
The trajectory was revealed all over the news and by the government's own reports of the incident. French experts? Do you think all French are stupid or something? I've got no problem with Frnech experts or experts from ANYwhere in the world as long as they're experts. The data laid out in the link at the top of the thread which I pointed Sayzak to as well speaks for itself mathematically. If you don't understand the math, I can't help you, but I understand it and actually found it to be a sharp piece of investigative work.
The document lays out why it would be impossible for a 727 travelling 500Mph to drop the 20 ft that it must have dropped in something like 50 ft of distance. It would have required vertical G-forces that the flaps on the craft cannot deliver in a descent. Had the craft gone nose down for that part of the descent, it would have impacted the ground and the flight would have been over with most of the destruction running into the lawn and hitting the wall, but not destroying the building.
quote:
3) Video evidence has been confiscated and treated as SECRET - why!? What video have you been watching (Juko)?
Yes i agree that its very suspicious, as well as the size of the hole and other things. I am not saying everything is perfect here. But hey, if it wasnt a Boeing that flew into Pentagon, then where is it? Did it fly into open space? Or a huge crater opened in the ground and sucked the plane in? WHERE DID IT GO, IF NOT PENTAGON?
It wouldn't be that hard to make a plane disappear, murder the occupants, dismantle and destroy it permanently. Don't forget that this aircraft was outside of FAA/Air Traffic Control's tracking systems for quite some time.
quote:
4) Dozens of 'witnesses' don't interest me. Anyone can be duped or coerced.
Yes, but not everyone. There is a big difference between anyone and everyone, you know.
I haven't gotten the impression that there were that many witnesses to begin with. ten? twenty? that doesn't seem like that big of a group to sit down one by one, make like you're taking a statement from them and feed them a bit of brainwash (or payoff) as needed..
quote:
As i said before, even if they were invovled (the Bush admin), staging an attack would be trying to scratch the left ear with your right hand.
Perhaps, but don't forget that it's not the first time this strategy has crossed the President's desk. JFK had the same exact plan to frame Cuba leading up to the Bay of Pigs incident and there was HUGE coverup in that ordeal. I find it disturbing that the whole fiasco originated from paranoia that Communism was bent on taking over the world and that "something had to be done." I feel this mentality persists today without reason.
quote:
Come onn, you are brushing off questions now. Ofcourse people would ask where did the plane go if there really was NOTHING.
There wasn't "nothing" - there was certainly debris.. but not enough to account for that aircraft.
quote:
OK, if there is the slightest possibility of commercial plane NOT hitting Pentagon, you have the right to investigate it. Find out who worked there at that time and interview them. {...} Come on, go for it.
Don't be silly. Other people are already heading up this investigation and it's their analysis that I've posted here for discussion. I have no intention of launching my own investigations that I can't afford to pursue..
Have you seen this online somewhere or are you just recalling from live media coverage at the time? I'm not doubting you, just wanting to see the same thing for myself if it's around..
Yes, Sayzak posted a lot of them and they appeared to be pretty truthfull to me.....
The trajectory was revealed all over the news and by the government's own reports of the incident.
Does that mean the government contradicts itself in making up a cover-up story? If the govt. revealed the trajectory which does not match the hit poles.... it means they are very stupid or made a mistake either by knocking down the poles or when writing the story.
I didnt quite catch the trajectory part and how it doesnt correspond to the poles that were hit. Any links plz?
French experts? Do you think all French are stupid or something?
I didnt say they are stupid; they however might have a biased opinion projected against the Bush admin, thus the "discoveries".
I've got no problem with Frnech experts or experts from ANYwhere in the world as long as they're experts.
That is doubtfull, too. I for one can not be sure if they are experts they pretend to be or not.
The data laid out in the link at the top of the thread which I pointed Sayzak to as well speaks for itself mathematically. If you don't understand the math, I can't help you, but I understand it and actually found it to be a sharp piece of investigative work.
I understand math pretty well, i was actually solving equations with variables in third power in grade 7. The solution i used is usually taught in college in advanced math science. I also participated in math championships, took 2nd place thou. Oh well, back to the business.
In paragraphs titled: "Why there are "lost" frames"; "Why, if there is no lost frame, this can't be a 757"; "If this was a 757, how many frames have been lost ?" there is indeed very interesting material regarding the speed of the plane. It's also interesting why the plane is hid behind the yellow cabinet, ie. the only photo showing the plane has it behind a box! Strange, eh? Also that video was released in Mar. 02, full 6 months after the attack. I would do a better photoshop job in less than a week. But seriously, all this info - if it is truthfull, ie. if we trust the french experts - is very interesting.
The document lays out why it would be impossible for a 727 travelling 500Mph to drop the 20 ft that it must have dropped in something like 50 ft of distance. It would have required vertical G-forces that the flaps on the craft cannot deliver in a descent. Had the craft gone nose down for that part of the descent, it would have impacted the ground and the flight would have been over with most of the destruction running into the lawn and hitting the wall, but not destroying the building.
I didnt understand that part either. Crazy arabs probably did some unrealistic maneuvering with the blessing of Allah and made it possible. But seriously, i didnt get where it says that plane has to lose 20ft in height while covering only 50ft of distance. Thats not possible at all, no arguement here.
It wouldn't be that hard to make a plane disappear, murder the occupants, dismantle and destroy it permanently. Don't forget that this aircraft was outside of FAA/Air Traffic Control's tracking systems for quite some time.
It wouldnt be hard to do that; however, somebody would have seen the plane flying over their heads, especially right after there was a terrorist attack in NY, i bet everybody was looking out the windows every once in a while. You mean nobody has seen a commercial jet?
See where the red line ends? That's the last point the plane has been seen on radars. Why dont investigators go there and try to find the plane or its remainings? What you mean NOBODY lives in that place? Somebody have probably seen something, be it a big plane landing and a commuter jet taking off, or something - but it cant be done so easily without anybody seeing it, you know what i mean?
I haven't gotten the impression that there were that many witnesses to begin with. ten? twenty? that doesn't seem like that big of a group to sit down one by one, make like you're taking a statement from them and feed them a bit of brainwash (or payoff) as needed..
No, i dont think that would be possible. Moreover, the admin wouldnt take such risks.
Perhaps, but don't forget that it's not the first time this strategy has crossed the President's desk. JFK had the same exact plan to frame Cuba leading up to the Bay of Pigs incident and there was HUGE coverup in that ordeal. I find it disturbing that the whole fiasco originated from paranoia that Communism was bent on taking over the world and that "something had to be done." I feel this mentality persists today without reason.
I havent read much about that. Have to look into it a bit.
There wasn't "nothing" - there was certainly debris.. but not enough to account for that aircraft.
Lets say these guys who were carrying debris off the site; are they so stupid to not understand that something is missing? I mean, why none of those who worked there spoke out? There were hundreds of emergency personnel including police and ambulance and fire and FBI who came there in a matter of seconds. Are they all blind and stupid? Or they are all paid off?
Don't be silly. Other people are already heading up this investigation and it's their analysis that I've posted here for discussion. I have no intention of launching my own investigations that I can't afford to pursue..
Mostly french websites, thats interesting too. Lets start a fundraiser, make some money, i'll move to US, you take a holiday and we both go and find out what happened. Deal?
A pilot who saw the impact, Tim Timmerman, said : "The nose hit, and the wings came forward and it went up in a fireball." Coming forward, which is normal from a structural point of view in case of a shock on the nose, the wings should have hit the building and broken on their whole span the glasses and the window crossbars at least !
Not at all. There might have been some contact remaining between the wings and the body of the plane, thus making the wings go forward and hit the building NOT in it's full span.
However, i dont think it's realistic that wings broke off the body. They are designed to be very strong and reliably mounted to the body, because the whole weight of the jet plus the air friction rests on it.
I did see the surveillance video on TV. It captures a millisecond of the plane and the explosion. This was taken by a guard shack video.
Can you explain what happed to the people on the flight that all died? Did they all get put into a witness protection program along with their families? Remember the HazMat suits on the guys at the scene? It’s required garb for body cleanup.
We also know from the ATC that the plane turned off its transponder and briefly spoke to the ATC tower. These are all recorded events.
I have seen crash sights up close that had crashed at much less speed. Let me tell you, aluminum compresses very easily when you slam it into concrete at 500 mph. When you put it all on the truck, you wonder where the rest of it is. We spend days cleaning them up. We had to pick up computer board parts. No the board but the parts like transistors, diodes, and very small resistors. The plane shatters into thousands of small parts. The largest part is the engine and remains about 80 intact most of the time. The crash sights I’ve been to are from 150 mph to 250 mph. Mostly take-off and landing crashes.
I have never seen a crash sight that impacted a concrete wall from 500 mph. I can’t imagine even the engines surviving at 80% intact.
They are probably still finding parts in the grass of the courtyard at the Pentagon.
Why is there such a powerfull explosion? That beats me. Lets be realistic here. There is nothing on the place to cause such a powerfull explosion which can only be caused by an explosive/oxygen mix. Kerosene doesnt explode. What happened to 5,300 gallons (thats something like 20 tonns - a lot!) of kerosene? Where is the all-out fire? None.
Steve Patterson, 43, said he was watching television reports of the World Trade Center being hit
when he saw a silver commuter jet fly past the window of his 14th-floor apartment in Pentagon City.
The plane was about 150 yards away,
approaching from the west about 20 feet off the ground, Patterson said.
He said the plane, which sounded like the high-pitched squeal of a fighter jet, flew over Arlington cemetary so low that he thought it was going to land on I-395.
It was flying so fast that he couldn't read any writing on the side. The plane, which appeared to hold about eight to 12 people, headed straight for the Pentagon but was flying as if coming in for a landing on a nonexistent runway, Patterson said.
"At first I thought 'God, there's a plane truly misrouted from National,'
"Then this thing just became part of the Pentagon ... I was watching the World Trade Center go and then this. What's next?"
He said the plane, which approached the Pentagon below treetop level, seemed to be flying normally for a plane coming in for a landing other than going very fast for being so low.
Then, he said, he saw the Pentagon "envelope" the plane and bright orange flames shoot out the back of the building.
What? You have never heard of vaporizing a liquid to achieve combustion?
You can throw a match into a pail of diesel fuel and it doesn't ignite. Vaporize it and try that again. Boom, Oklahoma city all over again. Diesel fuel and ammonium nitrate were used there. Separately they are non-combustible, together and vaporized with a detonator and there you have it, BOOM. Cheap and effective.
Fuel air mixture isn't an issue in open air with vaporization.
Jet fuel is the same but, reacts worse. It's flash point is half of diesel fuel and closer to kerosene and not as low as gasoline.
When a plane has a full load and basically vaporizes on impact at 500 mph. It vaporizes the liquid jet fuel. Big flame, big cloud because of the vapor. The explosion isn't what damaged the building. It was the plane matter at that speed. The explosion comes after with little or no destruction, just black soot caked on everything.
A missile uses compounds like RDX, C4 etc. No big cloud, unless it hits fuel. This isn't the movies here. Those are special effects using gasoline and soap. (cheap Napalm). It makes a big flash and cloud.. oooh ahhhh.
A missile wouldn't do that to a building. That explosive is a reactive explosive. That means it displaces air quicker than other explosives. The quicker the air movement the more power it has to blow crap appart. Fuel bombs, rely more on concussion theory than C4 or missiles.
Case in point. Daisy Cutter used in Vietnam. Diesel fuel and Amonium nitrate. Lots of it. Enough of a concussion to suck the oxygen out of the air in a 300 meter radius and create little damage doing it when detonated above the ground. At ground level it will push over trees in the same 300 meter radius.
Compare that to C4 of the same size and it would clear everything in a thousand meters. Flat but the wrong application and too expensive for clearing brush.
It was planes and not a missiles that hit the Pentagon and WTC
USA1 said this in post #61 : What? You have never heard of vaporizing a liquid to achieve combustion?
You can throw a match into a pail of diesel fuel and it doesn't ignite. Vaporize it and try that again. Boom, Oklahoma city all over again. Diesl fule and Amonium nitrate were used there. Seperately they are non-combustable, together and vaproized with a detonater and there you have it. Cheap and effective.
Fuel air mixture isn't an issue in open air with vaporization.
Jet fuel is the same but reacts worse. It's flash point is half of diesel fuel and closer to kerosene and not as low as gasoline.
When a plane has a full load and basically vaporizes on impact at 500 mph. It vaporizes. Big flame, big cloud because of the vapor. The explosion isn't what dammaged the building. It was the plane matter at that speed. The explosion comes after with little or no detruction, just black soot caked on everything.
Watch the video again, you will see that there was not enough time for vaporization of 20,000 litres to take place; the plane exploded as soon as it hit the wall.
I'll have to see if I can find it, but there were some early photos of the Pentagon disaster site that pointed to large pools of liquid out in the lawn that were identified as pools of jet fuel. That explanation completely dumbfounded me. For an aircraft that vaporized and exploded - wouldn't it have been the fuel that did the exploding? How could it come to a peaceful rest in a pool on the lawn. I will accept the possibliity of a mistake and that it was water from the fire hoses, but I have to find the thing first. Might be in one of my newspapers that I saved..
Who says so? How long does it take? You think you can see a vapor created in 2 milli-seconds? I'll bet you can't but, I bet you saw the fire ball though.
USA1 - you should read some more of the information that has been analyzed rather than simply try to debunk everything a bit at a time. If you don't believe any of it, take a crack at systematically debunking every bit of it in sequence - I, for one, would certainly read your report..
The pools could have been cause by hitting the light poles and tearing open the fuels cells.
Keep in mind, I'm not say that ALL of the fuel get's vaporized. Maybe it was only one tank and the other poured out. Like I said, it doesn't lend itself to burn as well unless it's vaporized. It could just sit there on the ground.
The jet fuel has an additive to prevent fuel spill fires. This was designed about 20 years ago to prevent plane crashes from spreading the fire. It doesn't affect it when it's vaporized.
Is this starting to make sence to you? I can go on all night with reasons why this wasn't a missile.
I don't suggest it was a missle. That's what that French author suggested. I do suggest that it may not have been a 727, but not that it was a missile. I'm merely pulling from the French author's research the sets of facts that I regard as suspicious and am steering away from his own conclusions. There are also other sources I've linked in aside from that one author.
Why would I even consider a missile in the first place? I saw pretty much everything about it when it happened. I saw the security video. Sorry, I just realized I called it survailance video before. My mistake.
I saw the animations, the pictures similar to the above.
I'm sorry if I spoiled your conspiracy theory theads here.
I will leave now and leave you guys to it.
Sorry.
USA1 - ok lets say the explosion was caused by vaporised jet fuel. What about the videos? The FBI and the administration are aware of the frenchman's book that accuses them of liing. Why didnt they release ALL the videos clearly showing the plane and end this guagmire?
It's not the fuel that burns folks. In fact you can put a lit cigarette out in a drum of Jet Fuel. Jet Fuel is a lot like Kerosene. About the same Flash Point etc. When the Air Force Fire Department trained on aircraft fires they would use lots of Jet Fuel in a simulated plane haul and the resulting smoke was black like kerosene.
So when the aircraft hit the building the wings which holds the fuel disintegrated, when that happened all that fuel would have to go somewhere. Some of the fuel is contained in the fuselage would have entered the building with the fuselage. Have an ignition source thus ignited. The Fuel that was in the disintegrating wings must not have entered the building an if there was no ignition source where the fuel landed then the Fuel Vapors would not ignite. Just like when you spill gas on your driveway when you fill your lawn mower. Gas vapors having a much lower flash point don't even ignite unless you have a pretty hot engine.
USA1 said this in post #68 : I saw the security video. {...} I'm sorry if I spoiled your conspiracy theory theads here. I will leave now and leave you guys to it.
He saw what they wanted him to see. What he does not ackowledge is the evidence that the security booth video has undeniably been edited and frames removed. there are more frames of that aircraft prior to impact and they have ALL been cut save for one. But he accepts what they show him at face value, it all makes perfect sense, case closed, yet another easy-to-appease American satisfied that the government isn't hiding anything. This, to me, is a tragedy in and of itself.
quote:
Ron Ackerman said this in post #70 : It's not the fuel that burns folks. In fact you can put a lit cigarette out in a drum of Jet Fuel. {...} The Fuel that was in the disintegrating wings must not have entered the building an if there was no ignition source where the fuel landed then the Fuel Vapors would not ignite.
Did you see the size, intensity and color of that fireball? Did you know that the color is directly proportional to temperature? That white flash in the first phase of the explosion had to be hot enough to flash gasoline, kerosene and just about anything else you could think to put in front of it - it wasn't some wimp of a cigarette ember..
So when the aircraft hit the building the wings which holds the fuel disintegrated, when that happened all that fuel would have to go somewhere. Some of the fuel is contained in the fuselage would have entered the building with the fuselage. Have an ignition source thus ignited. The Fuel that was in the disintegrating wings must not have entered the building an if there was no ignition source where the fuel landed then the Fuel Vapors would not ignite. Just like when you spill gas on your driveway when you fill your lawn mower. Gas vapors having a much lower flash point don't even ignite unless you have a pretty hot engine.
Can you say that the wings disintigrated before they could hit the building.....leaving no marks on the walls....merely leaving a perfectly round hole?
Because my friend, it's only a quagmire to the French. Not America. Who the heck cares about what some Frenchman wants to believe or conspire?
I am sure the American people don't need to spend time and money defending a conspiracy aligation of such a rediculous nature.
That's why.
We beat the JFK conspiracy to death and nothing changed.
You are beatinga dead horse here. For the sake of entertainment, go ahead and continue.
Did you see the size, intensity and color of that fireball? Did you know that the color is directly proportional to temperature? That white flash in the first phase of the explosion had to be hot enough to flash gasoline, kerosene and just about anything else you could think to p
