We wen't working alone in Iraq. We would be working alone in the US. Can you imagine British and Spanish officials coming across the US planting evidence?

Well, to start the Spanish American War at the turn of the 1800-1900 century, we did blow up our own ship in Cuba and blamed the Spanish.

Damn good point!
Spanish American war is completely irrelevant.
Yes, there is a coalition, but if the US government could do all this, don't you think they could plant chemical weapons in Iraq that could fool the British? We had/have way more troops and support there and traffic going into and out of Iraq than all the coalition members combined. Any evil mastermind that could come up with a plot like this would surely have all his bases covered, including us "finding" WMD in Iraq even if they weren't there.

Nothing has been more embarassing or politically damaging to the Bush administration than the fact that no WMD have been found in Iraq. Surely if they concocted this grand scheme to go there, they would have thought through this contingency. They didn't because there wasn't a grand scheme or plot to create 9/11 and use it to go conquer some countries in the middle east. They may be mistaken, they may be stupid, but they are not plotting some conspiracy.

Of course, one must take into account the possibility that the conspiracy theory stated here is correct in some form, but also that the American government may not be behind it. Perhaps it was intended that we look like idiots in Iraq when no WMDs are found. There's just too many possibilities.

I really don't see how anyone in their right mind could believe the stories of 9/11 as told by the media.

YOU CAN'T HIJACK A PLANE WITH BOXCUTTERS. It's not possible. Everyone on the plane knew they were going to die if they let things go, and as a mob they could have effortlessly beaten the terrorists to death. You can't tell me that on an entire flight there wasn't a SINGLE guy who wanted to be the hero? It's ridiculous.

...........

On a similar note, ever notice how every single terrorist organisation suddenly has Al-Quaeda links? They make sure to point that out every time the mention one. Linked to Al-Quaeda. In contact with Bin Laden. Blah blah blah. Looking here, well, standing thirty meters behind one of those engines at full throttle will blast the skin off your body. That grass would have been obliterated. A friend of mine was at Pearce Airbase on a cadet course when the Singaporean Marchetti crashed. Strangely enough, the impact was about the same size as the Pentagon.

Bin Laden is starting to because synonymous with the boogie man!

or maybe he is Keyser Soze!

what about all the 9-11 commision censored references to the saudi family? and the now coming to light cheney energy commision pre 9-11 iraq plans? bandar bush? new diebold voting machines? just too much evidence showing that it ain´t paranoia, it´s reality folks. be scared. be very scared.

First time i've read up about any of that, fookin scary stuff.

CLAPS LOUDLY!!!!

Ok, tough guy, I hope you are on the next flight that gets hijacked. I bet you are the first one to shit your pants, if you aren't, I want to see a news report where braindamage351 just saved the US from a terrorist attack, due to his bravery and cunning. If I do, I will be the first to apologize.

To start, it wouldn't be beneficial to the economy to go in, find the WMDs, and then win the war. The longer they can drag out the war, the better it is for the money grubbing companies that sponsor the wars. Another reason they haven't found anything is because they are on enemy soil, surrounded by reporters, investigators, vengeful citizens, and enemy forces. If they were to say that they found WMDs and hadn't, it would have been disproven in a matter of hours by SOMEONE. At least on their own soil they can control the media.

Wow, I hope you're never put into a situation where you have to protect somone you love if all it takes is boxcutters to keep you down.

Well, if it is on a plane, and I am the only one I have to protect, I hope you are there to take the plane over and have it slam into the ground. I will thanky you in either heaven or hell. You a pilot?

Hrm. If I could actually understand what you just wrote, I may be able to respond. :hmm: Sorry buddy.

Here is a link that may help you.

You know people as a whole are sheep. Everyone is taught to not resist. Everyone is taught that resistance is futile and only makes the situation worse. Women are taught that if they are raped not to resist. People are taught if your being mugged never carry a gun, just give to muggers anything they want and they might let you live. With this kind of mentality it's easy to see why on the first two planes that noone resisted against box cutters. Who would want to get cut unnecessarily? How would you know that anyone else would back you up against 7 men armed with sharp boxcutters? They {the passangers} probably thought they was merely being hijacked to another airport where someone would negotiate their safe release. They had no idea they was all going to die. On the third plane that crashed people had actually learned what was going on and resisted because they knew there was no hope of survival if they didn't.

So your point is that people should learn to be less timid? I'm sure that's a good lesson, but there are people out there, not necessarily on a whole, but a decent number of people, who WOULD stand up for what is right. I think we should aknowledge that there is a possibility that someone would, upon realizing the grand scheme, try to defend his or her country. Box cutters and skinny terrorists are no match for a whole plane of angry, goofy americans. I think that, following the mob mentaility through to its end, if one person stodd up to them, there is a much better chance that this person would have support from other brave individuals, and then the rest of the passengers would follow in suit.
I would like to think that American people are not so stupid as to simply bend over and take it in a dangerous situation such as this one. I can't say, just as you can't, what really happened on the planes. We all wish we knew what transpired on the planes themselves, but we can't claim to know. I don't even claim to know the odds of this or that. I know that if some terrorist, or member of another illegal group tried to threaten me with box cutters, I'd laugh. We are talking about very small knives. That fact alone could have been enough for someone to think, [I] wait a minute, he doesn't have a gun, a bat, or a large knife, he has a little dinky pair of scissors or something. I don't have to be scared of this ass. [I]
Were there 7 hijackers? I don't really remember. Well the isles are narrow, and the seats make it very difficult to move, so even if there were 7 armed men, you'd only have to face 2 or 3 at once. I don't mind those odds, do you?
I could be wrong. My faith in the American people may be misplaced. I hope it isn't. I know that, after what happened, if I were ever in that situation I would be willing to sacrifice my life to try and save the lives of others. I hope everyone reading this would, too. That is Americas true deterrant.

Nevermind....

yeah i think a few guys with box cutters would look like a fuckin no brainer when the other option is fiery death slamming into a skyscraper. self preservation is worth some deep gashes here and there.

love conspiracy theories. Unfortunately I didn't like the misic either

You guys are forgetting that the hijackers were lying to the people on the plane in order to placate them.

It was only after the last plane found out about the plan, relised that they were all going to die, and did something about it that the hijackers were overpowered.

Movies and conjecture aside, before 9-11 no one had ever dreamed that a hijacked plane would be used as a missile against a building...the people on the first 3 planes probably thought that if they stayed calm, they would go free...as most other hijackings have ended.

which tom clancy book is it where the jet slams into the presidential inauguration? came out in 98 or 99? all his fault. al qaeda reads right wing propaghanda novels sold in airports near you.

Im trying to follow all these threds but a lot of these things you guys are saying dont add up! I mean it could have been some kind of cover up for something but I dunno. I mean why would they kill a whole bunch of more people to cover up killing other people, it just dont make since to me, but this is a messed up world. I also dont understand, if the plane was shot down else where, where did it go? and why didnt ne one else notice it? Dont you think something would have came up with some kinda evidence that it got shot down somewhere else, a plane and a whole bunch of passengers cant just disapper. Hmm im not really sure what i should belive but untill something comes up concret that the goverment is trying to fool us for some reason,im going to just live my life cuz really how much can I do bout it anyways? And knowing might lead to more desaster I erally dont want to see.

They directed the plane to a secluded area without any humans and shot them down.

So if it's a big conspiracy, then that would mean that everyone in Washington(politicians) is involved correct? Otherwise some politician surely would of come out by now and presented much evidence to the contrary. Surely these same Dems that were against the war would of stepped up and asked questions questioning who really was the culprit for 9/11.

Or have some politicians already done this and I was asleep?

this is rather interesting: http://www.kitcomm.com/comments/gold....bweeeeeee.htm

Wouldn't it have been easier just to cover up the shoot down by saying THAT plane was hijacked??? I'm not saying something isn't fishy, but all of the explanations that supposedly disprove it being a passenger jet are pretty easy to overcome. Anyone have a theory that actually makes sense?

Excellent, now when I am on a plane that is hijacked, I can make sure not to leave a dangling participle on the end of my the words I am yelling, as I bum rush the terrorists and become a hero!! Thank you.

You're missing the point.

The point is, you have what.. 4 or 5 terrorists with box cutters vs. 100+ passengers and... no one does anything? There had to have been more.. either more hijackers or more weapons.

Sorry, but if someone hijacked a plane with boxcutters, you can bet your ass they would get rushed to the floor. No one's willing to die over some moron with a razor blade. Get a few slices in your arm or... die in a burning inferno? Hmmm..

I see what you are saying Stompy, but nonetheless, in a pre-9-11 world, when terrorists are telling you that there is also a bomb on board...that you will be fine if you just wait it out...most people would assume that this is a "standard" hijacking....

I dont think this type of takeover would ever work again in the US as people know the ruthlessness of the Hijackers now, and at least some of them would be willing to give themselves to save others...

It was a different situation on the morning of 9-11...things changed after that for everyone.

VERY good point... and oh so true!

I found this on the other thread on Tilted Politics:http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
Link to the other thread: here

After passengers caught news of the other crashes, they did fight. That's why one of the planes went down in a field instead of hitting another building, I've read.

Also in defense of the passengers think of this: You're on a plane with a bunch of hijackers taking over the plane with nothing but box cutters. They tell you to remain calm and once your government concedes such and such you can go home. Or just as easily they could say that there's a bomb on the plane and if you resist everyone will die. Or better yet, one of the hijackers grabs a child. Holds the "box cutter" to his/her throat and threatens anyone that moves with having the child's blood spilled all over the place. What American "hero" is going to rush the hijacker's in that situation?

There are many ways to placate someone. There's a lot of people who have already mentioned some very good insights into the hostage mentality. Survival is the driving force and as long as there seems to be a way out self preservation will kick in.

bullshit. looks like an official white house press release. even quotes rumsfield. these are exactly the issues being debated. it´s not much of an argument.

bullshit. looks like an official white house press release. even quotes rumsfield. these are exactly the issues being debated. it´s not much of an argument.
oh sorry, thats all about the zenmasters smopes link.

On the conspiracy related topic. There are a few necessary needs for a conspiracy.

One: it needs to be as simple as possible. The more convoluted the conspiracy the less likely it is to succeed. Something of this nature, I will admit that we by no means have all the information on, would take many people involved from different organizations and different backgrounds. Unless the government has found a way to keep all of these people silent it wouldn't work. Killing them would be too obvious, as would paying them off. So I can't figure out how that would be done.

It seems too complicated.

Two: You need to have a patsy. I think this one is covered pretty well with Al Qaeda. Fanatical Islamic group, know for acts of terrorism across the world. But there's a problem with the idea of Al Qaeda being used as a patsy. Bin Laden would probably have been very happy with what happen on 9/11 if he hadn't been involved. But the instant that the American media/government singled out Al Qaeda as the perpetrator they would have done something to deny it. Only a retard wouldn't be expecting America to strike back. If they were responsible they would have nothing to do but take it. But if they were innocent of the attacks they would have tried to shift the blame, to deny it, to keep America from kicking their asses. A patsy only works if you silence him fast. We haven't silenced them. They haven't denied it.

Al Qaeda doesn’t fit the patsy role.

Three: Motive/gain. There has to be something for the perpetrators of the crime to gain from the act. This is perhaps the easiest, and hardest, concept to pin down. There are so many possibilities. Money, power, revenge. If your going to try to pin it on the American government then a few pop out as prominent theories. The best being that of finding a new post Cold War enemy to galvanize the American people. Fear is a powerful controlling agent. I don’t think anyone can deny that the American government has used this tactic in the past on its own people. Money is a little more convoluted idea, like someone posted earlier it’s not that easy to make assloads of money off of war anymore. Peace time seems to be more profitable. Now I’m sure there are those making money off of the war, if there’s a way for money to be made people will figure it out. But to plan it in advance, to provide the catalyst to kick start the war would leave too much of a paper trail for people to follow. My vote would be for the power/control theory.

One thing that really bothers me with the idea that the Pentagon attack was faked is that would have to mean that the WTC attacks were also faked. I cannot believe that terrorists on their own would attack the WTC in this incredibly calculated and well executed fashion. And then the American government cobbles together in a matter of hours/minutes (?) the idea to crash/shoot something into the Pentagon. Why? It doesn’t make any sense. If they shot down the plane as a preventative measure why fake the Pentagon attack? Having to shoot down a civilian plane is bad enough. But to cover it up you do something as stupid as to try and blow up part of one of your own buildings? Not to mention that why would you spend all of the time and precision necessary to fly two planes into the WTC and then go half-assed in attacking the Pentagon? It doesn’t add up either way.

Something sounds fishy about the Pentagon attack, but I have a feeling the reason it doesn’t match what we know about the WTC attacks is because the government is hiding something about that attack. Either something about the way it was carried out or the events that happened afterward. It may have something to do with the Pentagon itself. I’m stretching here. Any thoughts on the matter would be helpful.

I always thought that it would be scary if the U.S. goverment actually staged a majority of the attacks to somehow give them the justification to go to war. The facts just dont add up. I dont know what they are hiding or why, but they are hiding something, and I do not like it.

Is it not possible that they confiscated the video due to security reasons. Perhaps there were other things visible that would have comprised a security risk such as the location of existing security devices around the pentagon that they would have wanted to keep quiet?

I'd like to think that if our government were going to stage attacks to give them an excuse to go to war, they would at least stage attacks from the country they want to go to war with. Regardless of what the administration now wants you to think, Al Qaeda != Saddam Hussein

I agree with your statement here.....I still have some doubts about the pentagon issue though....my uncle flys test planes for the military and his office is actually in the pentagon and he wouldn't even give me the slightest tid bit on what happened....its like all hush hush crap....I still think it was a missile that hit the pentagon but maybe we will never know all the facts....as far as the planes crashing I dont remember seeing any wreckage accept for the 2 towers....it may also be that the government did stage these things which isnt totally out in left field....the government has been known to hide/do things before so why would they stop now....

Very good to point this out. Remember, though, it was not the government who named our attackers. It was the media that originally named ossama as the primary subject. In the first few months, the government tried to explain to keep an open mind, but bin ladden was already on the tips of everyones collective tongue. It's possible that they had to change their plan last minute to accomidate the bin ladden theory. That is why the connections between bin ladden and hussain are so weak.

In Plane Site... everyone who enjoyed this thread should watch that documentary.

also,, even if the rest of the plane is light, it is still quite sturdy to support the amount of pressure on the wings during turbulance in a flight, therefore if the wings were attached to the body (invariably, they are), then the wings would have done damage.

There's a video I saw just a few days ago, I'll try to dig it up, of a test that was done of a reinforced concrete wall. It had something to do with a nuclear reactor, I think, to protect the reactor against attack. To test it, they attached an F4 Phantom to a sort of a sled, and flew it straight into the wall. You can see it in slow motion and from several angles, the jet simply *disappears*. From the side, it looks like it is flying into a tunnel. The only thing left even somewhat intact are the tips of the wings, which stuck out beyond the edges of the wall. You can see them continue past the wall in a nearly straight line, as if they were still connected to a plane.

When it comes to an impact with a solid object, modern aircraft are not nearly as strong as you would think.

EDIT: Found it... http://www.big-boys.com/articles/concreteplane.html

.... the plane was "atomized" because the wall didn't give. if the wall had *given* (like in for example the pentagon) the plane wouldn't have simply turned to dust, it would have been scrapped, but not "ATOMIZED".

One fatal flaw in this theory involves comparisons between this crash and other crashes. This crash is most certainly different than most other crashes for a very big reason: Most airline crashes occur at low speeds in a situation in which the pilot is trying damn hard to land the plane or in the very least, minimize impact. The pilots on this one of course were doing the opposite - they wanted to maximize impact.

Thus, one would certainly expect the crash scene of an injured plane with a capable pilot to look much different than the crash scene of a plane in perfect operating condition moving at maximum velocity aimed at a single point of impact.

The "crashed" plane would leave lots of destroyed ground (the makeshift runway) and lots of plane parts where the plane comes to a rest/crash.

So to look at some normal crash sites, like the video does, and compare them, doesn't make much sense. A good crash site to compare this with would be the ValueJet crash in the Florida everglades. That one nose dived and hit the ground at similar speed to this flight 77. It also disintegrated to some extent, although much of the plane was found since swamps are much more forgiving than 16' reinforced concrete/steel walls. Absolutely no bodies or body parts were recovered from the ValueJet however.

This also is key in terms of the sound people reported. Everyone quoted as saying it sounded like a missle and not like a plane - well those people, just like you and I, have never actually heard an airplane going 500+ mph within a few hundred yards of them. It would most certainly sound like a missle. And no, it would not sound anything like a plane taking off or landing at closer to 200 mph.

Also, different subject, somebody mentioned some crap about no actualy list of passengers. Wasn't neo-con Barbara Olson on board?

Anyway, keep these thoughts in mind as this lively discussion continues!! It's a fun theory - I like it. I don't buy it, but I like it.

the video wasn't just a crash, it was a plane going at 500 miles on purpose into a reinforced concrete wall - sounds pretty simular?

Aha - found a couple of valuejet everglades pics.

http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/vj592/photo.shtml

http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/vj592/1.jpg

http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/vj592/2.shtml

http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/vj592/2.jpg

Gee whiz - where's the plane? Maybe this too was a conspiracy theory? I see less signs of an airplane crash in the second picture than I do in the pentagon.

I was referring to the crashes the video shows when it says "crashes leave debris and destroy land." No those would not be simUlar to a 500 mph plane steered into a single point of contact.

I have one question for all the folks quoted in the video that "it sounded like a missle." Exactly how many missles have they heard before? My guess is that they've never heard a missle, or a jet aircraft at 500+ mph from close range. Thus how would they know the difference when they heard one for the first time in their life? Answer: they didn't - it's just that the sound was so different to them than (1) a plane landing or taking off or (2) a plane traveling 500 mph that's 20,000 ft in the air; that they guessed it sounded more like what a missle would sound like.

Well, most peaople have seen movies.. and I believe most movies are fairly realistic in that matters.

Onewolf, in response to your sounds like a missle question, it's quite simple. How fast are you going if you are on a regular civilian communter flight? I would guess that you are somewhere between 350 and 500 mph. Bing in the cabin does decrease the decible level of the engines, but it does not change the pitch and general sound. Therefore, anyone who has ever been on a plane knows what a plane sounds like. As for what a missle sounds like, go ahead and watch CNN if you want to know what a missle sounds like. I'll bet that sometime in the next 48 hours, you will get to see, and hear, a missle. Aside from CNN, most people can safely assume that a missle sounds more like a jet fighter's engine than the engine of a 757.

I know that a plane sounds different when going 500 mph at a much much lower altitude, but it is not so much different as to sound like a missle. The 500 mph mark is also just an estimate, as no one but the pilot knows the actual speed.

As far as the atomization, the 'plane' was not atonized. Remember seeing the picture of the inner engine? Actually it was the wrong size to be the engine from a 757.

Now this is rich. You're telling me that the sound of a plane passing you at 500 mph is the same that it sounds inside the plane? You have some serious physics to read up on before any more "quite simple" answers. Start with the chapter on "sound and speed of sound." At 500 mph, you are hearing a fraction of what someone being passed hears. I live near a Navy flight pattern for F-15 fighters. About 3 days a week, a pair passes very low - it's an exciting event for anyone the first time they hear it - and their first reaction is always the same: they duck quickly, look up and around, and say (either verbally or with facial expressions), "what in the hell is/was that??" Trust me - it sounds like what we all assume a missle sounds like. And it doesn't sound anything remotely like the hum of engines that you hear inside the plane. Note that pilots don't hear the sonic boom their planes generate when they pass mach 1. It's because the sound is behind them.

My point is, the first time you hear a jet plane go by at 500 mph at reasonably close range, your first reaction is certainly not, "oh - a plane". My other point is that anybody who says, "it sounded like a missile" is only guessing since none of those people have ever heard a missile.

PA and Pentagon both Cover Ups
 

Both the PA plane and the Pentagon planes disappeared. I have been thinking this from the time the actual events were first reported. Especailly PA - I mean, plane crashes leave evidence of a *plane* and there are no planes evident in either of the supposed *plane crashes* in PA or at the pentagon. I loved this link. Thanks. I hope we find out the truth one day.

Again, the ValueJet everglades plane "disappeared" also. Is that a government cover-up too?

I am curious, just to get an idea of what we're dealing with here - how many of you don't believe the holocaust occurred, or that Neil Armstrong walked on the moon?

Wow...
Just... Wow...

1st things 1st... How fucking delusional do you have to be to believe this shit? They shot a plane down because they were afraid it was going to hit the White House, BUT instead of telling the American public that, they fucking covered up the wreckage from a downed 757-200, then immediately launched a missile to hit the Pentagon... Wow... That's the stupidest thing I think I have ever read... Consider this... Let's say that the gov't shoots the 757 down... Assuming that they would be reluctant to tell the American people that they followed protocol and took what could be assumed to be a hostile aircraft down over thoroughly restricted airspace... Why would they then send a missile to crash into the PENTAGON?!?!?!?!?! why not crash in front of it, into another building... into the ocean... That part of the theory doesn't hold true... Consider the heroics that we heard so much of from the Pennsylvania flight, would it be too much of a stretch to assume it happened on two separate flights?

That is, assuming that you can't see the simplest fact for the most likely one to be true... Keep it simple, stupid...

Edit:
Would some of you please start to give out at least partial résumé’s as to why you are qualified to say things like and other type bullshit... Do you design or assemble airplanes for a living? Are you an aircraft mechanic that specializes in commercial airliner work? Or are you some fat dweeb who thinks he knows everything?
Edit 2:
Untrue... The outer cabin would speed the sound waves and when they were released back into the inner, they would sound adversely lower, more of a "hum" And if you've ever heard an aircraft of that size take off; you would definitely experience the "scream" of the engines... Assuming the terrorists were trying to cause maximum damage to the Pentagon, they would have throttled all the way forward, therefore causing that same "scream" we are all so familiar with.

Edit 3:
To forestall any such remarks, here is my mini-résumé , as it pertains to what I have said. I am a physics/music education major in college, and I am currently enrolled in 2 different acoustics classes, so I DO know what I am talking about in my 2nd edit. And the rest is pure reasoning, and not a bit of fat dweebishness...

Calling people stupid on TFP is a personal attack and is against the rules.
Now, let's disect this. You say that the government shot down the 757 and shot a missle into the pentagon. The fact is that there was not a 757 that hit the pentagon, whether the plane was shot down is a matter of opinion. I personally have no idea what happened to the plane if there was one. As I am not a big fan of reposting, I suggest you read one of my lengthy posts for an explaination for my belief that a 757 ddid not hit the pentagon.

Of course not. Just as you probably have no direct knowledge of airline mechanics...therefore you can't say that we are wrong. The information such as the size of the engine is redaly availble online, so go look for it. In on of the pictures taken at the pentagon crash, the engine is next to a person; very useful for figuring out the size. Compare that to the specs you can find online, and you will see that even esaimations aside, it is not possible. I know as much as I learn. Don't call me a 'fat dweeb'.

Do you know what a missle sounds like?

Your dissrespect is blatent and uncalled for. I have not wronged you, as no one else on this thread has wronged you. You need to go and read the rules of TFP. http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=45061 (part II, Section B specifically) People can and do get banned for posts that are blatently dissrespectful. As you are new, I would just like for you to know the rules so that you do not get banned right off the bat.

If you have more questions you need answered, I'd be glad to inform you.

Everyone interested in this topic should go out and rent/buy the dvd called "911, in plain sight" it basically goes over all of this with some really good footage and fairly unbiased information, they present no conclusion just the evidence of "mistruths" about what we were told and other possibilities. I thought it was really well done, though the guy talking during the whole thing is kind of boring to listen to (I think he's the host of the radio talk show "The Power Hour".

Some things they mention that I havn't seen on here yet is the possibility that the plains were not passenger planes. Multiple witnesses close to the towers that reported seeing no windows on the planes.

There was also some live footage shown right after the first plane hit the tower (they were doing an interview with tom clancy) that shows a huge plume of smoke come from the bottom of the towers. This footage was never shown again on TV.

The one other good argument about the pentagon senerio is that the plane was supposedly a transcontinental flight, meaning there was a large amount of excess fuel on the plane when it hit. I think the number they gave was somewhere around 8,600 gallons. The fuel used in those planes has a BTU rate of something like 86,000,000 and if it had been ignited would have burned at around 3000 degress fahrenheit. A blaze like that would take a long time to put out. If for some reason it had not ignited, it would have called for a very large clean up as that much fuel is considered an environmental hazard.

Also, when the pentagon was initally hit by this "plane" the roof was still completely intact, it wasn't until later(not sure how long) that the building collapsed. The 757 is I think 44ft high and the pentagon is 73ft high. Unless the plane rolled into the side I am pretty sure there would have been some contact between the tail and the roof line. No damage was seen in those initial pictures (before it collapsed) to support a plane hitting it. Some of the windows above the hole made werent even broken.

There is a lot of other stuff in there as well, and they go into more detail about the stuff mentioned above, I just wanted to put in some of they key points incase you dont get to see it. I definately recommend watching it if you are interested.

Ignore any mis-spellings.. =P

Oh and if any of this is repeated, I'm sorry but I havn't gone through the whole thread yet... reading off and on at work, and am writing this during my lunch.

On the 'What happened on 911' thread, there is a link to a site where you can download a ~120 Mb movie file of In Plane Site. I would reccomend you show it to friends and family. It's a good way to see how open minded people can be.

One link that the video missed is that the FEMA report explains how the fire from the crash melted the frame of the building, however the same fire basically put itself out at the pentagon. They used the same fuel. Go figure.

IF the govt shot down flight 77 because it was hijacked and heading to the whitehouse or pentagon or what have you there would be no reason to cover it up. All the govt would have to say is, "Two hijacked planes crashed into the WTC, see. We had to shoot this one down to save the lives of people on the ground."

If they did shoot it down, thats all they would have to say and the American public would wholly understand. At least I would. There would be no reason for a cover up.

As for the rest of this thread, Do you remember the pictures of the Penn crash site? A black whole in the ground. I don't remember seeing any wreckage. The plane desintegrated on impact. Like opacfan said, the only dense part of a plane is the engines, the rest is nothing more than an aluminum tube and some apulstry. Aluminum melts at relatively low temperatures. I've melted aluminum tubes in fires in my back yard. I doesn't have to be that hot. Around 700 degrees I think.

BUT, to entertain this theory...I could think the only reason the govt would have covered up the pentagon crash is because a terrorist or terrorists had infultrated our military and it was a terrorist agent that attacked the pentagon with a military jet or missle. At the same time the Govt had to shoot down flight 77 because it was hijacked. Then the safest thing for the govt to do would be to say flight 77 crashed into the pentagon to save the fear that would be caused when the public finds out that our military had been infultrated. But I don't belive this. I still think it was a 757 that crashed into the pentagon. I saw the pictures and it looked like a plane crash to me.

The only problem I see with this theory is the actual physics of a plane crashing at those speeds. The video says the plane was going over 500 MPH. Do you know what happens to a plane that crashes into a wall at over 500 MPH? It atomizes. It turns into <I>dust</I>. This is proven with experiments of nuclear reactor defense systems.

If the plane really hit at over 500 MPH then I'd believe that there's nothing left in a heartbeat.

If the plane wasn't going that fast then it's an entirely different story.

-Lasereth

Tinfoil hats anyone. I've seen the video several times and it is compelling, but so is the X-Files. Makes for a good story, but stranger things have happened.

tsarman - Let's have some perspective here. This theory does not involve little green men being grown by the government. The X-Files is very entertaining, but if you think it's compelling you might not know what 'compelling' means. This conspiracy actually has some very serious, and REAL, questions that do not have answers.

Lasereth - that was exactly what I thought (great minds, eh?). The thing that doesn't fit with that is that only the wings and tail seemed to atomize. The hole punched in the steel reinforced building went through many walls. Then after it broke down walls it atomized. I can't accept the atomization theory with those facts. That leads me to think there's more to that.

That's just the thing Las, it is pretty much impossible for a 757 to be going that fast at ground level.

45 minutes before the "crash" flight 77 diasappeared from radar. One could speculate that they had time to remove a transponder from flight 77, and strap in on a
'smart" stinger. When the radar blip returned, the plane appeared smaller, faster, and more maneuverable. (like a fighter jet)
We've all seen the CNN footage of the "smart bomb" being remotely steered into it's intended target.

so what if...........

Some of these theories are well-founded, backed by evidence (whether you buy it or not), and stem from a healthy wish to question the government's motives in our everyday lives... some of them seem like nothing more than paranoid ravings. But through my own research and looking at the "evidence" posted here I am absolutely NOT convinced that a 757 hit the Pentagon. The main things that convince me are the issues of the nose-cone, lack of damage to lawn and rest of building, lack of wreckage, the circular punchout, and the fact that a 757 cannot fly that fast, that low. As for the atomization believers here, that jet "atomized" against that wall at a higher speed, and with a considerably stronger and sharper nosecone, than a 757, without punching a hole in the wall. How then did the 757 punch through MULTIPLE walls?

I grew up with military on both sides of the family, and especially around planes since one side was air force and the other eventually moved into working at the Lockheed Martin Skunkworks and Boeing. There is absolutely no way a 757 can punch a hole like that, and if you believe it is than you've obviously not done research on the subject, not seen flight and demolition tests, or just blindly believe whatever it is that you're told to. There are, however, a few types of missiles that are made to puncture such walls, some of them partially or completely classified. As for the people that died in the Pentagon, I would not completely rule out that they could've been considered "acceptable losses." Military strategists, unfortunately, factor in such things.

While I can't even begin to concieve what the purpose of it might've been, who did it, or if it was even for a cause, I wouldn't just knock it because it doesn't make sense. Much of the time, people do things that seem to have no real basis in logic originally but turn out to make sense in the end, for good or otherwise.

And though this on a tangent, I saw somebody mentioning the idea that the WMD were made up in Iraq. While I don't agree with how we did it or how we're running the show now, it shows ignorance to believe that Iraq didn't have them. Given, I don't know that I buy into the idea of nuclear weapons ar all, but do you know how small a virus bioreactor can be? I've seen research on ones about the size of your standard guitar amp, and that's just public sector work. But even assuming they were the size of an oil drum, do you know how many of those you could fit in an 18-wheeler? Enough that it should make you uncomfortable to think of them as a mobile unit. Because, really, it makes me more than uncomfortable to know that most of the people around me are as blissfully ignorant as sheep.

Thanks for your time

Glad you are able to keep an open mind about the Pentagon murders.

We're still waiting on WMDs. If they find them, Bush's re-election might be justified, but I doubt we'll find them.

Interesting thread, guys. Very interesting. :thumbsup:

I thought it was pretty much a given that they don't exist...

I don't think they had them, but I don't deny the possibility that there were. We have no proof either way. There could have been some that were taken to Syria or Iran before the start of the Second Gulf War. We'll probably never know for sure. Don't take that to mean that I supported our illegal attack on Iraq, though.

I have just one question for this topic.

Assumeing that all this is true, where would the goernment stop to get what it wants. Apperently human lives aren't a problem to sacrifice. What is the limit for the government to get what it wants?

The limit, assuming that the government as a whole is guilty, would be whatever they could get people to believe. People will believe that Jessica Lynch was mistreated by Iraqi doctors and that she was shot and stabbed by Iraqi soldiers (actually she was not shot or stabbed or mistreaded by Iraqi doctors, in fact she was actually given blood before dying Iraqi civilians were given blood). The thing is that you can't plunge people into something that is far fetched. If the tax rate were to suddenly skyrocket with some bogus story, people might not believe it (although some of the sheeple in America, and even the rest of the world, will believe anything they see on CNN or hear from the President of the Imperial States of America). It's a matter of convincing people that their cause is patriotic and is the right, christian thing to do. It's amazing what people will do if they think it's what God wants.

This thread is still running? You are all freaks.

What the hell was she given blood for if she wasn't shot or stabbed? I still stand by my statement. You are all freaks.

You will not refer to ANYONE on this board as 'freaks'. stevo22 JESSICA LYNCH WAS INVOLVED IN AN AUTO ACCEDENT. SHE SUSTAINED INJURY FROM THAT ACCEDENT. SHE WAS RUSHED TO A LOCAL IRAQI ER. SHE WAS GIVEN BLOOD BECAUSE OF HER INJURIES SUSTAINED BY THAT ACCEDENT. If you insist on arguing with people over something as common knowledge as this (the BBC already came out with a public apology for covering the false story), AND you call people freaks, AND you think that paranoia is a place for one sentence blanket arguments, you are very much mistaken.

The logical conclusion to draw from your statement is that unless someone is shot or stabbed in Iraq, they would not need blood. I think you need to do some research into human bloodloss and possible sccenerios that would result in bloodloss before you make more blanket statements.

Calling a roadside ambush an "auto accident" is a little disengenious, don't you think?

Are you serious?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...nt/3028585.stm
http://www.nbc6.net/news/2209690/detail.html
Don't you find it odd that she remembers NOTHING of what happened? And how if she remembers nothing that happened does the press KNOW hat she fired her gun like Rambo on Midol?!
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=217758

You've got to be kidding, whocarz. An excelent example of disingenuous is the story that everyone was force fed.

Where in the facts was it a 'ambush'?

Just to get both sides of the story.

I just saw this flash movie, and I must say it is troubling.

Looks like I have to jot this down in my "book of questions to ask God when I die."

Hmm...I'm not sure how you get that from snopes, actually.

Anyway. http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors...tagoncrash.htm

xxSquirtxx, thank you for actually contributing. Please allow me to address each of the points made by truthorfiction.
1. The article on the bomb oroginally used in the attack on the pentagon was removed from the internet promptly. Unfortunatally, none of the reports have been surfaced. Ruling: Tie
2. This question is obviously manufactured. No one with even a basic knowledge of the crash would ask this. The impact DID do damage to the inside of the building. The problem there is that the damage it did is not consistant with damage from a 757. The hole it poked was far to small, while still being very much circular, to accomidate the fusaloge of the 757. It could not have crumpled into a perfect cylander during the crash. Ruling: Conspiracy
3. I love how the author refers to "video from a security camera at the Pentagon", because there is only one video declassified, and it does not show the impact. That automatically undoes this argument. Although the supports of the pentagon are really really strong (they have a different design structure than normal reinforcement, using more of a corkscrew design). Also, there was NO wing or tail damage on the wall. There were not even marks! Sorry, kiddo. Ruling: Conspiracy
4. We all know there was basically no damage to the lawn from the attack. The sand and gravel being there is moot. Ruling: Conspiracy
5. Same as answer #3, indeed. While the wings did not have the tensile strength necessary to puncture the walls, the notion that they did not even make a mark on the walls is absolutely offensive to your intelligence. Ruling: Conspiracy
6. Stupid question. No one asked this. Of course it impacted. Ruling: Stop making up questions, truthorfiction!

Final ruling: Conspiracy wins!

As far as the other considerations listed, you need to accept the dacts about the crash before you can go on a wild goose chase. The simple fact is that on the information available, making an accusation would be a stab in the dark at best. It would be irresponsible for me to accuse the Bush administration or terrorists for this. There is NO evidence to point at either. People asking for an accusation usually are already dead set against this. Too bad.

Oh before I forget, radar has never been able to tell what kind of aircraft it is seeing. ll it can do is say there is a large object moving through the sky. Obviously SOMETHING hit the pentagon. It was probably not a 757.

Crazy stuff. There isn't really enough information to believe either way. Definetely seems to be some holes. Wouldn't be surprised either way. I consider myself mostly a realist, and in real life anything can happen.

Paranoia will destroy ya.
:cool:

Hey Willtravel (you appear to be the self-annointed leader of the conspiracy theorists on this subject at least, so I'll address you) - I have posted several arguments on this thread. How about addressing them?

Though provoking thread. I remember listening to the radio on 9-11 right after the Pentagon was hit, and the announcer said something along the lines of it looking "like it had been bombed"...no mention of anyone seeing a plane flying into it.

One other thing that has disturbed me since 9-11 is the limited coverage about the Pentagon. Yes, the buildings in New York killed more people, but the Pentagon is the heart of the American military; you'd think (at least I would) that there would have been more coverage about the attack on it.

Well yeah, but you'd also understand that the pentagon lets less journalists in due to national security ;)

Okay, onewolf. I’ll start with your first post on 10/14.
Yes this crash is very much different than other crashes in the fact that this crash was supposedly much faster than the average crash. This fact was released to us by the official representative of the crash back in late 2001, after much speculation from the news networks. The supposed speed was in excess of 300 mph (not 500+ mph). Unfortunatally, as I have stated before, this speed is almost impossible at that altitude. I don’t put any stock in what people said they heard. Most of my conclusions are drawn from the pictures, facts about planes, and general or specific physics and engineering. I could care less if people said it sounded like a missle or santa clause.

Second post on 10/14

Yes, a plane that went into the wet, soft ground was difficult to retreive parts from. Give me a break. There is no logical comparison between these two crashes.

I am not the self appointed leader of anything. I just give a shit. If you care to look back, I already addressed your questions.

Are YOU serious? Did I say ANYTHING about her being little miss Rambo and kicking ass? No, I simply mentioned that her unit was AMBUSHED and she and a few others were captured. Don't try to tell me some bullshit about how it was an auto accident. I saw the Al-jizzera footage, with a dead soldier lying behind the truck, and the warehouse full of American corpses, and the captured Americans. Whatever. You believe whatever the fuck you like, I'm done with this idiotic thread, and I'm done reading all your hostile responses to others with differing opinions.

Aparently your opinion of hostility differs from mine. I WAS taking an oppoisite view to your opinion, but I do not consider myself by any means your enemy or antagonist in this matter.

This thread is here for the sharing and DEBATING of ideas. If you don't want to debate, that's fine. Enjoy your read and move on. I never forced you you post. And, if I might make a suggestion, relax.

I was originally explaining to roadkill that the Jessica Lynch fairy tale is an excelent example of how the media is able to get what they want (war support) by manufacturing, controling, and shifting information. Then stevo22 chimed in about how the only way to bleed in Iraq is to get shot or stabbed, to which I explained how she WAS in an accedent (If you choose to do your homework on this: she was not actually injured directly by enemy weapons, but by a crash. I did not say what caused the crash, so I was not wrong. What caused the crash was an attack.). I hope this clears it up for everyone.

Keep the anger to a minimum, this is the internet, we don't know you personally so it just makes you look immature. Besides (not that I'm saying no one else does it) how can you let people you dont even know or have ever even saw get you angry?

It might be best to get back to the 747 and the Pentagon. Jessica Lynch already has a thread. I on ly brought her up to illustrate my answer to a question. Let's not forget the main focus of this thread.

That's why commerical aircraft have transponders. If you've ever seen a control tower's radar panel you will see the plane's blips and their code right next to it.

Nothing personal, but you've been preaching the forum rules everytime someone gets testy with you, yet looking back on your posts you act the same way. Calm down.

This was actually taken from a CNN report in which they interviewed the people who were monitoring the plane (I'll try to find it later). Unfortunatally neither the transponder nor the black box survived, thought the terrorist's passport meraculously did.

"...yet looking back on your posts you act the same way." I'd really like you to point out where I called people idiots or crazy, because I can't find those posts. I call bs when people say things like "My cousin was there!" because the facts they put down are not consistant with the facts that are made clear in the pictures. I also redily defend my position, but I've never been rude. I've not broken one forum rule since I joined TFP, except that I accedentally posted a dead baby joke in Humor before reading the rules.

Thanks for posting.

I probably jumped the gun, something made me think you were bitter in a lot of statements you made...
Looking back through that's probably what made me get a bad impression of you. My fault, sorry.
:icare:

All I know is there is a hell of a diffrence between a plane crashing into the ground and into the side of a building.

All add more later.

Um, thanks faygo?

Neeways, time for an update:
http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=10574

Aparently, those who are questioning the official report (those who have an inquisitive and skeptical nature, and are not insane conspiracy theorists) have some company. Jimmy Walter, a millionare activist, has say that he would pay $100k to anyone who could actually prove from a physics/engineering perspective that the pentagon and twin towers actually were damaged according to the official report.

"It wasn't 19 screw-ups from Saudi Arabia who couldn't pass flight school who defeated the United States with a set of box cutters," he said. He dismissed the official Sept. 11 commission report, saying, "I don't trust any of these 'facts."'

I thought that was intersting.

This next part is a commentary. It is a little rough, so only go in if you can take some critisism. Spoiler: I'm beginning to lose faith in a lot of people because of their readieness to believe whatever the government tells them. Before I started questioning what happened on 9/11, I was a republican who was devoted to my party and whatever it told me. As soon as I saw building 7 colapse, I knew it was controled demolition. When I heard the leader of my party say that it was a plane that caused this, I was heart broken. I had devoted myself to a group that is more than willing to lie to me for reasons that are still partially beyond me. People neeed to understand that this is not a theory. There is plenty of evidence that contradicts what was officially recognised as truth. Because of this evidence, there is reason enough to reopen the investigation into what really happened. Once radio contact was lost with the flights, why weren't jets immediately sent up ("scrambled") from the nearest military airport, something that according to the FAA's own manual is routine procedure? Why did the administration's story about scrambling jets change in the days following the attacks? How did building 7 collapse? How did the 757 that hit the Pentagon make an almost perfect 16 foot diameter hole in the 3rd ring with no visable wrekage and very little fire damage? Why are there no windows on the plane pictured hitting the WTC? Why are there reports from the heroic firefighters and policemen in the WTC saying that there were bombs going off when officially there was only one real explosion in each tower? There are plenty of contradictions that can be found by anyone willing to give reality a try.

So why are people defending the official story without question? Well, that's simple actually. People realize that the government and politics is something that is consistant in their lives, as well as being really complicated. It is something that people depend on and know only a small part of. We learn from the time we are in diapers to trust the government and that conspiracy theorists are crazy and should not be given the time of day because they are not patriotic. The problem with this? The government is run by people who serve themselves. They have agendas that run deeper than public service. The Haliburton question is an excelent example of how a political officer uses his post to serve himself (again, do your own research on this). When I ask people to consider what I am saying, and then proceede to question 9/11 - something that effected americans like very little ever has - people are sudddenly patriots with duty to disregard any possible fault in the governemnt. Every major political change in history has been carried out by citizens, the government is always the one to follow. The moment we start being led by the government is the moment the government stops being "of the people, by the people, and for the people". It's time for YOU to be a patriot. Thanks.

Did anyone catch this one?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/27/rum...t93/index.html

Whatever happened to Opie?


Mr Mephisto