Regarding AA Flight 77...

According to the official story, AA Flight 77, a Boeing 757, took off from Dulles Airport in northern Virginia at 8:10 a.m bound for Los Angeles, with between 50 and 58 passengers. It flew west for about 45 minutes, making a curious detour to the north, west and south, before turning around and flying for another 45 minutes back to Washington. Why hijackers would allow a jet which they planned to crash into a target in Washington to fly for 45 minutes away from its target is not explained. Why did they not commandeer the plane ten minutes after takeoff when the plane was only ten minutes flying time from its intended target? The official story ignores this question, as it does all other questions.

As reported by the New York Times (International Herald Tribune, 2001-10-17, p.8), as AA 77 approached the Pentagon it executed a 270-degree 7,000-foot descent over Washington while flying at 500 mph. It approached the Pentagon on a horizontal trajectory so low that it clipped the power lines across the street then (so the story goes) it smashed into an outer wall of the Pentagon.

We were told (and, of course, expected to believe without question) that this maneuver was executed by an Arab pilot, Hani Hanjour, who in August 2001 was judged by the chief flight instructor at Bowie's Maryland Freeway Airport as not having the piloting skills required to fly a Cessna 172 solo. (Is there something fishy here?)

In contrast to the attention given to the collapse of the Twin Towers, the attack on the Pentagon received little attention until in February 2002 a French website (by Thierry Meyssan) appeared which reproduced images obtained from U.S. Army websites: Hunt the Boeing! These images cast doubt upon the official story that the Pentagon was hit by a Boeing 757 jetliner. For example, here is a picture of the Pentagon crash site taken about two hours after the impace, with the fire still burning. Can you see any remains of the approximately 100 tons of metal (including engines, wings and tail section) which makes up a Boeing 757?



Spot the Boeing 757 in this picture


The entire text (along with some very interesting photos) can be found at www.serendipity.li/wtc.htm

Witnesses:
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77w.htm

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

Truth scares tinfoilers.

They only read what they want to believe.

Except you post nonsense and lies.

"I mean it was like a cruise missile with wings, went right there and slammed into the Pentagon,' eyewitness Mike Walter said of the plane that hit the military complex."

a lot of those other folks said something along the lines of "it happened so fast I could hardly process it"

(which makes me question whether the witness actually saw what he thought he sawe so close to the airport)

and witnesses are notoriously unreliable.

Not that I know for sure what happened there--I just don't know for sure, unlike some others who are absolutely sure, even tho most of the evidence has been withheld.

Or jetliner. Or plane. Or "American Airlines jet".

I checked out your link.From "hundreds" of eye witnesses they post 19 or 20 and only half of those state definitively that they actually saw an airplane strike the building and many of those at long distances....hardly overwhelming proof.

says something much different.

Mike Walter, USA Today, on the road when a jet slammed into the Pentagon:

"I was sitting in the northbound on 27 and the traffic was, you know, typical rush-hour -- it had ground to a standstill. I looked out my window and I saw this plane, this jet, an American Airlines jet, coming. And I thought, 'This doesn't add up, it's really low...And I saw it. I mean it was like a cruise missile with wings. It went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon...Huge explosion, great ball of fire, smoke started billowing out. And then it was chaos on the highway as people tried to either move around the traffic and go down, either forward or backward...We had a lady in front of me, who was backing up and screaming, 'Everybody go back, go back, they've hit the Pentagon...It was just sheer terror." (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/CAREER/trends/09/11/witnesses/)
...it turned and came around in front of the vehicle and it clipped one of these light poles ... and slammed right into the "Pentagon right there." "Now there are some people who say that it skipped and went into the Pentagon and it may have gone that way, but that’s not what I saw. What I saw was the jet went very low into the Pentagon and it went straight." "It seemed like it was a slow, graceful bank and then once it straightened out, that's when it sped up." "...you could see chunks of the wreckage on the ground, pieces of the plane.... It literally disintegrated on impact. It hit, and as it went into the side of the building it sheared off the wings." (Digipresse interview, May 22, 2002)


See also:

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/mike.html

And from another source:

"Walter was stuck in traffic near the Pentagon on Sept. 11. He watched the jet slam into the Pentagon and was interviewed widely. "Referring to the American Airlines jet metaphorically as a weapon," explains Walter, "I'd described it as being like 'a cruise missile with wings.'" This quote was taken out of context to support the conspiracy theories. It was even cited in Thierry Meyssan's "L'Effroyable Imposture," a book that became a No. 1 bestseller in France. Walter says, "It's tough being in journalism and seeing your own words being used to persuade people to believe something that simply isn't true. Anyone who has seen the full text of that interview knows that I was clearly talking about the American Airlines jet. Because that's what I saw.

"I hear from the conspiracy people on occasion," adds Walter. "I had one track me down, call me, question me, and then call me a liar before hanging up on me. I've also read online that I'm a shill for the CIA."


By the way, he still works at USAToday, as far as I know. You could call him up and ask him personally about what he saw and what he said, if you're so inclined.

check it out with the Dept of Transportation I did. It's easy to do.

If you are interested, do the digging like I did. Go to Dept of Trans. they make it easy for you to check out past flights and all the flights and times for any given day. But don't tell me I don't know what I am talking about if you don't check it out. I did and I know what I found they are NOT listed flights for that day.
Peace

Else you would provide a link. Phoeey.

I was just polishing my tin-foil hat nice & bright - I can practically see my reflection in it now! :D

I don't understand why anyone buys the offical story for a second.

...

I've already admitted I haven't a clue what happened. But I do find it odd that people who slam the administration for lying about every damned thing under the sun and bemoan the lack of journalistic integrity these days cling hard and fast to the conventional wisdom regarding September 11. And I use term conventional wisdom in the freakonomic sense.

A Boeing 757-200 belonging to American Airlines, N644AA, is missing. Where is it? If something other than N644AA hit the Pentagon, where is N644AA now? Where are the 64 people? I'm not saying the official explanation for 9/11 is the whole story, but I'd be more likely to believe some other theories if somebody could come up with a plausible explanation for where else it might have gone, and how it got there.

This explains it very well. It's a must see video!

Special pleading, straw man argument (they like those a lot, apparently), bad science, cherry picked facts, and all the rest of the illogical arguments.

That's what "Loose Change" is.

Anybody who says that Flight 77 did not strike the Pentagon is ignoring the hundreds of commuters stuck in rush hour traffic on the three major highways adjoining the Pentagon. This is the most compelling evidence of what happened that morning. The totality of these witnesses describe what happened in detail. Many of them were experienced observers: news media, pilots, and military folks. Their stories leave no doubt as to the fact that an airliner hit the Pentagon.

I don't know what is going on with those who claim it was a missile. They are certainly wrong. Plus, their claims make all sorts of other problems, like what the fuck happened to a huge airliner that was seen in the immediate vicinity of the Pentagon at the time of the disaster?

I think we can be very sure that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

But the tin foil mad hatters wave their hands, jump up and down, and screech, "Did not. Did not! Did not!"

There was a lot of confusion in the air that morning. Air traffic controllers were going nuts trying to bring down all the planes that were up in the air. It has been reported that Flight 77 did go off radar and that there was confusion about which blip actually was Flight 77 during the attack.

then 911 was a totally contrived Bushco plot, beginning before the first WTC plane hit at 9:05am or whatever. (I mean they did it all--it was a premeditated plot not a diabolically freaked out reaction on their part to an attack. Let's say I don't know many people who would have a cruise missile to fire at their own military headquarters that they could put their mitts on AND decide to deploy it in about one fucking hour's notice after being attacked unexpectedly by terrorists AND arrange for Flight 77 to go missing, all in the same short time. It's just not a rational plausible response to an attack, I think that at least must be granted. It's a bit nutty and would require months of twisted thinking beforehand to conceive and plan out--not to mention to convince yourself that it's somehow the right thing to do.) So, 911 including the WTC hits was all part of a Bushco plan. (Of course, many tinfoilers accept that axiomatically) If that's the case, then surely they must have remotely piloted the other two airliners into the World Trade Center earlier that morning.

(Or do you dispute that the missing jet airliners, which are seen to hit the WTC towers on multiple videotapes and were witnessed doing so by thousands of people are real?. Very clearly jet airliners hit the WTC towers, and if the Pentagon strike was a Bushco plot, then the jet airliners that hit the WTC towers were part of that plot, too.)

Now then, if the WTC videotaped attacks are genuine (real planes hitting the towers, not mass hallucinations and photoshopped videotapes) but they were not conducted by terrorist hijackers from inside the cockpits, but instead of Al-Quaeda, "they" remotely piloted those two WTC planes into their targets, (they meaning Bush & co.) why the fuck wouldn't "they" just do the same thing for the Pentagon and Flight 77?

The whole Pentagon-hit-by-a-US-missile-not-airliner thing is an answer ludicrously in search of a problem. If "they" did 911 at all, it means they can remote pilot airliners, and if they (Bush & co.) can remote pilot airliners, why not just do it in the instance of the Pentagon hit along with the WTC?
While they were at it, they could have arranged to capture some better video of the plane streaking into the side of the building.

about what I think?

I have never posted anything that implies that real planes did not fly into the WTC.

However, losing Flight 77 under the circumstances of that day, probably wasn't that difficult. No one on board was going to live to tell the tale anyway.

that was to show the absurdity of the position of believing that Bush & company hit the Pentagon but not the WTC. I rather expected that you do accept that real airliners hit the WTC towers, after all it's easy to see, much easier to see and believe than the 1 fps security camera at the Pentagon gate.

If you accept that the WTC was hit by real planes, and you think Bush & co. hit the Pentagon, then you must think that Bush & co. made those other jets hit the WTC too. You must because--what is the alternative if it wasn't Bushco from start to finish?
Bush doesn't hit the WTC but he does order a hit the Pentagon as his first response to the terrorist attack in NYC: that's the alternative and it makes absolutely no sense, even for him.

It makes no sense even on a practical level, forget psychology or ideology. Even if you can find an explanation of why Bush would attack the Pentagon, it fails to add up as even POSSIBLE let alone explicable. It's inadmissable for the simple reason that if someone else like Al Quaeda hit the WTC with hijacked airliners, then Bush & co. have less than an hour to decide on a plan to hit the Pentagon for whatever incomprehensible reasons as their response to being attacked, and they have only the same hour to detail and implement that plan. That's simply beyond belief, so it must be that Bushco did it all, WTC included, if they did any. If they did the second part they must be responsible for the first part too.

But if they did plan and execute the first part of the 911 attack that means they can remotely fly and crash airliners. And if Bush & co. can remotely pilot jets into the WTC at 9:05, then they can just as easily do the same thing for the Pentagon at 9:55, and there's no reason to use anything other than the American Airlines Boeing 757 Flight 77 which is otherwise unaccounted for and which is an aircraft of the type many people claimed to have seen fly into the Pentagon.

They went to Comet Halle-Bopp!

Or, is it the Canadian Triangle?

I can never remember which one.
:eyes:

all this time. That's the part I can't buy.

A plane is missing, 64 people are missing, and many eyewitnesses on the ground saw a plane hit the Pentagon.

Sorry to say, that's the likeliest explanation of what happened.

The facts and evidence are so mixed up, confused, absent, false, fabricated with some real, others just plausible, others misleading, others so implausible or illogical as to demand discarding them. How do we know any part of the story is real. Are there ways to fake the evidence that indicates it exists. What do we know about the passenger. How many are verified? Are there any family organizations for these victims? What do they think, if and when they get together.

For me, the government has succeeded only in leaving me unsure of what happened and skeptical of everything. Realizing that even the most damning evidence that no full airliner hit the Pentagon, which appears unlikely, could very well have been designed to appear "fake"--such that when conspiracy researchers lock onto it, they can be made to look silly with other, more solid evidence. I've come to doubt everything and would need some really impressive, consistent, believable evidence before I'll even believe something is evidence.

Still, we can't know who, if anyone was on any airliner when it hit the Pentagon and we can't even know whether one did hit. It could have been anything from a combination of a planted bomb with a low flyover to a small military airliner type craft or a cruise missle. Some modern aircraft takeoff, fly, navigate and land with no input from a pilot, so who knows. We find some of the "identified" terrorists alive and well, the identification was altogether too fast to be believed (unless there was some advance investigation, knowledge or complicity).

We know an enormous number of things, some true some false; many of which contradict. All in all, we just don't know what happened and can only speculate unless the government decides to reverse course and share the vast archives of evidence they collected (which they also probably destroyed).

All we know for sure is that significant parts of the "Official" story is utterly false or omits key details. The committed an enormous Cover Up. Even without the details, we can agree on that. The question is, why? Why did they cover everything up except for misleading, confused, contradictory versions and stories--and scarcely any evidence (seems only the evidence they couldn't manage to coverup is shared; and much of that isn't shared)? Argh. Again, why?

LIHOP/MIHOP and the obvious lucky "coincidence" for this neoconian Presidency. There is no such thing as a coincidence (at least they're alot more rare than we think, and when referring to certain kinds of events--they become about as rare as being struck by lightening on your birthday while wearing an elephant costume and chewing on a bananna while hopping on your left foot because you broke your right ankle dancing with the First Lady of the United States, having encountered her at a local bar the night before, and agreeing to dance with her because you were plastered to the point you were seeing double, but only on the particular birthday when you were 8 years old (and subsequently couldn't go out to the bars)... in other words, not very likely.)

two key points with reference to phantom aircraft.

What key points? 1. Cheney's shootdown order, allegedly issued in response to false
reports that flight 93 was still airborne and headed for DC. 2. Scrambling of
F-16s from Langley, allegedly in response to false reports that flight 11 was still
airborne and headed for DC.

and that is why it disintegrated?

But that doesn't matter much. It could be 400 mph and the results would be basically the same--disintegration of the airframe when it hits.

can zero in on a building the size of the Pentagon, close to the ground??

maybe.

Designed to detonate a fraction of a second before impact... leaves nothing but tiny bits and no detectable wing marks. Other explosives in the building took care of the pretty round holes.

Then again, it could be in outer space for all we know--and probably all we'll ever know, if it was ever even an actual airline flight.

Did someone say "where is it"? Planes can be stripped, and rebuilt or recycled, or simply discarded (under 10,000ft of ocean if need be). Where is it is kind of... unlikely to have an answer; if it did exist and still does exist it would be highly surprising considering the thoroughness of the coverup.

Why does there need to be explosives on the plane? Do you guys make this shit up just for entertainment?

A 757-200 in Flight 77's configuration and passenger and fuel load dissipates between 2 and 3 billion joules of energy when it collides with an object (inelastic collision).

There is no need to create non-existent explosives to explain what happened to the plane. It disintegrated on impact.

Of course, we all want to see the evidence... all of it.

The need for explosives is not actually so much to explain the conversion of the plane into confetti (anyone who's researched enough has found the aircraft structural tests in which the video the results and answer the question of what happens when a fast moving aircraft encounters an immovable object... I forget the numbers, but at some several hundred miles per hour (or as much as 500-600mph, again I don't recall), with a two passenger military jet, the result was spectacular--poof--expanding cloud of burning fuel and the whole area littered with little tiny pieces, none much bigger than a postcard), as to explain why there were no wing and/or tail marks on the walls--because obviously they didn't bend back and get pulled in (duh).

I'm sure if you're interested, you'll find this explanation 'out there'--actually on some of the more well-researched theory sites, and explained much better than I have done.

Personally, I don't know what happened. I'm just confident that whatever it was, the government is not telling us everything. I also resent their secrecy on the issue.

I resent the very same things as you. There. We've come to a very reasonable concensus on the matter.

However, I am sick and fucking tired of having to explain simple things to people who are so wrapped up in their pet conspiracies that they get angry and call names and fling accusations when their absolutely ridiculous claims are challenged.

Nobody knows exactly what happened on 9/11. But we can be damned sure that the damage was caused by the three planes without explosives, that a fourth plane crashed in PA probably due to direct passenger interference with the highjackers, that a fourth building collapsed due to severe damage from the collapse of the two big buildings. The trail of evidence for these events is wide as any I've seen. The eye witnesses alone rule out completely many of the lunatic speculations floating around.

Now, on the conspiracy side of things. There are plenty of questions, but none of them demand changing the interpretation of the strictly physical evidence or the conclusions in the previous paragraph. Very few of these questions deal with "how?" However, a significant number of them deal with "why?" Those are the questions we need to continue to ask.

"However, I am sick and fucking tired of having to explain simple things to people who are so wrapped up in their pet conspiracies that they get angry and call names and fling accusations when their absolutely ridiculous claims are challenged."

the main reason that some of us resent the repeated bleating of ridiculous tinhat theories so much is that because as long as they keep being perpetuated, the corrupt Bush regime can laugh it all off and never have to address the real questions - the "whys".

Another reason why some of us spend time here on the opposite side of the CTers is that some feel genuinely embarrassed for the CTers and although nobody expects to change the minds of those with the thickest gauge of tinfoil already firmly attached, they may at least, by injecting rational, analytical and critical thinking into the forum, at least have some salutory effect on newcomers to the forum before they get to the tinhat stage.

(Which is not to say that all of the CTers here lack any rational, analytical and critical thinking skills. Some do exhibit the capacity for logical, rational, analytical and critical thinking. Unfortunately, so many of the CTers, if they have those capacities in other facets of their lives, seem to leave them all at the door when it comes to this forum.)

Another reason that some spend time on this is because they feel embarrassed for DU and feel that it is important to make it clear to outsiders looking in that not everyone here is a tinhatter.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

OCT Spin Doctors (aka OCTers) are advocates. As such, like lawyers, they earn their living by representing the point of view of their paymaster. Which is not to say that all of them lack the kind of rational, analytical and critical thinking skills which are commonly found in those that recognize the absolute absurdity of the OCTers stories.

We all have to make a living, but it really is embarassing to have to point out that even on DU, it's necessary to make it clear to new members, children, and impressionable adults, that not everyone here is motivated by a desire to know the truth.

Fortunately, OCTers are easy to spot. Their tactics are, for the most part, not very sophisticated, and maybe some of their venom is because they feel they are underpaid for their efforts.

Classic #5, #6 and #17 from:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=90763#90863

to respond to them, that is why you see those long "subthreads" within a thread with the OCTer insisting the poster give irrefutable proof and constantly engaging others in pointless arguments,etc...

coming from the likes of you, someone who insists that others answer your questions and who then runs off and never responds to the answers given; someone who does not respond to the issues raised but likes to pretend otherwise days later in hopes that nobody will notice; someone who blatantly lies about those who disagree with you; etc. etc.

Sheesh.

Yeah, just go look "out there" :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

This place is batshit crazy!!

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

If so, THAT is rediculous.

They could have been to the pentagon in 3 minutes!

The point is



Oh, fuck it. I give up.
Never mind.

in PA? And AA77 is a fictitious flight #? Why?

Go ask Paul Begala. He worked for Clinton and hosted Crossfire on CNN.

He saw the whole thing happen on his way to work that day.

It was an airplane.

It hit the Pentagon.

He didn't see the plane hit. Looks like some witnesses saw a helicopter crash? Never seen this..

"Reuters news agency was first on the scene of the Pentagon attack. Based on the information they gathered there from eyewitnesses, they announced that the Pentagon had suffered damage from a helicopter explosion. Associated Press confirmed this with Democratic Party consultant, Paul Begala.

2:41:05 PM "The Pentagon is being evacuated in expectation of a terrorist attack. It is believed a fire has broken out in the building." -TCM Breaking News (9/11/01)

2:47:43 PM "There are reports that a helicopter has crashed into the Pentagon. An eyewitness said that they saw the helicopter circle the building and after it disappeared behind it, an explosion occured." -TCM Breaking News (9/11/01)

2:52:26 PM "Paul Begala, a Democratic consultant, said he witnessed a explosion near the Pentagon shortly after two planes crashed into World Trade Centre. ‘‘It was a huge fireball, a huge, orange fireball,’’ Begala said. He said another witness told him a helicopter exploded." -TCM Breaking News (9/11/01)"

http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/boeing.htm

chirp chirp. Pesky uncollaborated eyewitness accounts.

Or if he thinks it was an airliner, then.

I love faith-based science!

Rocket fuel melted titanium sections of the plane...yep, that's right! Rocket fuel, which burns at 1000 degrees in PURE oxygen settings, melted completely without a trace titanium engine turbines, which melt at 1600 degrees! Woo hoo! And add that there is no wreckage of the wingspan or any trace of the tail fins anywhere on the site! How about that hole that the missile, I mean, plane made when it crashed into the side of the building without any trace of wings hitting the walls! No strewn luggage anywhere on the site! Man, ya gotta love that kind of science!

Were there any spottings of David Copperfield at the site? Maybe he did some really cool magic tricks!

that a helicopter hit the Pentagon?

The only flightpath I've seen on the internet is a map that shows the 270 degree turn as the plane heads in from a bearing that took it almost over the WH. I'd like to know where that came from, because, if that is the true flightpath, 77 did more like a 180 degree turn in order to hit the Pentagon from the direction it did. I really don't know whether there is an official flightpath, but it would make more sense if it came into Washington on a bearing over the Patomac.

right now I'm embarrassed for DU because of all of these conspiracy threads!

Here's some evidence against the lame-brained missile theory:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1

in the "conspiracy" theories. It's suspected that it was arranged do display conflicting characteristics for just this purpose--to discredit "conspiracy theorists"; the Pentagon can be explained without the "missile" theory. Besides, whatever happened there--it's obvious the government is both lying about it and hiding the evidence (well, actually, it's probably long since been destroyed).

It's highly apparent that you're both so much smarter and better informed than all these poor deluded souls, perhaps you should make an effort and help them resolve their confusion over the WTC collapses and other questionable events.

Everything is speculation, from the official report to tinfoil haberdashery, as long as the level of secrecy we have is maintained. There's still conflicting lists of who was on what plane and whether or not the people ID'd as hijackers were actually on the plane or just victims of identity theft.

Before anybody says "it had to be a missile" or "it couldn't have been anything but that jetliner", I think we all need to agree that this administration's stonewalling and obstruction of the official investigation has rendered this question largely unanswerable. Christ, we don't even really know who the hijackers were -- we've already found some of the identities used alive. It's fruitless to expect an answer that ties up all the loose ends until we actually collect and verify what all those loose ends are.

I'll come out and say I'm a LIHOA proponent: I believe several (probably 19) people hijacked 4 planes and crashed them into three buildings and Pennsylvania (they probably didn't mean to hit that last one). I believe they were able to do this because this administration was so focused on China or North Korea shooting a missile at us that quite literally they took away all intel and security "distractions" from that question. That's just my opinion from what I've seen. I know there are still loose ends and unanswered questions with that theory -- there are loose ends and unanswered questions with every theory I've seen. But I'm not saying the "conspiracy" theories I've seen are impossible; I'm just always more willing to credit incompetence than malevolent competence. But my theory, like the others, is only speculation as long as the basic frigging data like who was on what plane, when each plane crashed, what their flightpaths and statuses were at what time, who the hijackers were (if there were hijackers), how they got A) into the country and B) onto planes, how we know they were the hijackers, and what the appropriate security protocols in place at the time were, are made public.

Look, guy. The fact of the crash of flt 77 into the Pentagon is about as well proven as any public event CAN be.

You've got the missing plane and passengers, not heard from these 5 years. You've got the testimony of family members who talked to their relatives on the plane. You've got hundreds of eyewitness who give relatively consistent descriptions of a jetliner hitting the building.

AND

You've got remains of all but one of the passengers INSIDE the Pentagon

AND

You've got pieces of the plane INSIDE the Pentagon. Small pieces, but that's what you'd expect.

AND

you had hundreds of rescuers and firefighters and investigators and congressmen and military officers climbing through the remains of the building and believing they saw the crash site of a jetliner.

THEN

You have some puerile fool claiming there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE. That's as pure and stinking crock of BS as ever there has been.

Nobody claimed that John Kennedy was strangled and his body thrown into the sea. Nobody was that crazy. Another gunman, yes. But not a story that contradicts obvious facts and physical evidence.

not prove that flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

You don't have hundreds of eyewitnesses to 7 hitting the building. You may have hundreds who
saw an airplane, but proximity is not impact.

What proof is there that the passengers' remains were found inside? Given the fire damage,
that seems unlikely.

you had hundreds of rescuers and firefighters and investigators and congressmen and military
officers climbing through the remains of the building and believing they saw the crash site of a
jetliner.

And with a little heather on the hill and a little dry ice, they'd think they saw Brigadoon.
Stagecraft is easy.

The airliner and passengers are missing.
They recovered remains of all but one of the passengers. DNA.
They recovered parts of the jetliner. Small parts, but that's what you would expect.

HUNDREDS of people from multiple agencies participated in the rescue, recovery and identification. Immediately after the crash. There was no time to fix up a fake scene.

There is no plausible evidence that anything ELSE happened to the plane and passengers.

There WERE eyewitnesses. They saw a jetliner, not a fighter or missile.

There is no motive that makes even half-assed sense: They hit the WTC with jetliners, but faked a jet hitting the Pentagon? WTF?

Stronger proof than this just isn't POSSIBLE.


This is like claiming:

"John Kennedy was STRANGLED, and his body has never been found."
"Vince Foster was POISONED, and his body was recovered from Hillary Clinton's bedroom."

They did the the year before!

http://www.assassinationscience.com/911links.html

Click on Jack White's Pentagon studies and enjoy!

They recovered remains of all but one of the passengers.

That they recovered remains doesn't mean the remains were recovered at the Pentagon.

They recovered parts of the jetliner.

THE jetliner or *a* jetliner? Why won't they release the parts for examination by
independent experts? Why won't they release the serial numbers?

There is no motive that makes even half-assed sense

Certainly there's a motive. The attack on the Pentagon deflected criticism about the
lack of air defense. The motive for not using a plane is that it was practically impossible
to pull off that maneuver. Relying on it would leave to much top chance.

Stronger proof than this just isn't POSSIBLE.

Meaning what? You think there's ironclad proof?

Pardon my language, but you are a fucking moron. If flight 77 didnt hit the pentagon , then tell me, where in the fuck is my wife's cousin who was on said plane. Who was it that she buried? Tell me, where are the rest of the passengers?

Tell me about how my friends in the Gannet building were lying to me when they told me about seeing the plane hit the pentagon. What the fuck is wrong with you people? You must all live in Kansas or something to buy into this bullshit. Maybe you should talk to some one who was actually there!

It was a plane that hit the goddamn pentagon. I dont doubt that were other forces at work on that day, but unless you know what happened, SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT IT. It was not a missle. It was a goddamn plane!

you haven't - and most likely won't - get a rational response from the likes of petgoat on that. Most of the CTers here don't "do" reality and have no concept about how to deal with it when it slaps them in the face.

Condolences to you and your wife on your loss.

And is your "friends name" Steve Anderson?


In the words of Steve Anderson:


From my office on the 19th floor of the USA TODAY building in Arlington, Va., I have a view of Arlington Cemetery, Crystal City, the Pentagon, National Airport and the Potomac River. ... <SNIP>

I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball. Then black smoke. Then white smoke.
http://www.jmu.edu/alumni/tragedy%5Fresponse/read%5Fmes...

Problem is that Steve Anderson and the Gannet building he was in was over a mile away!

At least according to this map( where the star is):

http://maps.yahoo.com/maps_result?newFL=Use+Address+Below&addr=&csz=VA+22209+&.intl=us&name=&lat=&lon=&srchtype=a&qty=&new=1&trf=0&getmap=Get+Map

SRI International
1100 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 2800 (28th floor)
Arlington, VA 22209

The office is located in the North Tower of the Twin Towers (formerly the Gannett/USA Today building) in Arlington (Rosslyn), Virginia.

http://www.sri.com/contact/wdc.html

In 2001, the newspaper moved into its new 30 acre (120,000 m²) headquarters in McLean, in Fairfax County, Virginia, a suburb of Washington, D.C., not far from its former headquarters in the old USA Today building in Arlington County, Virginia.


http://www.bizapedia.com/UstoVo/usa_today.php

In short....your friend is talking a sack of horse shit.

Prove me wrong.

I'm afraid you may be simply chasing ghosts regarding the pilot's skills and the "missing" plane. These questions will only lead you farther into the dark, IMO.

I would strongly suggest to you that the pilots (all four of them) may have very well had training that we are currently unaware of. There's been no real investigation, and our government is not very forthcoming with the information they do have. The fact that we only know about their Cessna fiascoes, doesn't mean they didn't have other training at other times.

The plane that hit the Pentagon probably had it's wings shattered on impact, hence the huge fireball, the nosecone then continued to penetrate with the body being shredded behind it. The titanium engines may/should have been found inside the building. At last one should be the thing that made that "punch out" hole you see in pictures. I think there are actually titanium spindles in the engines or some such, but I could be wrong.

It's just my humble, and relatively uneducated opinion, that to really get answers you have to ask the right questions. Like why did Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld continue their meeting, thinking there was nothing they could do, after WTC 1&2 were hit, and we were obviously under attack, until the Pentagon was hit?

The wing fuel tanks did penetrate the wall, as did the fuselatge and engines (only parts of the engine is titanium, not the whole thing). The last 10-15' of each wing tip did disintergrate.

http://www.osamawasframed.com/pentagonvideos.html

Seems pretty straightforward.

The recent FOA Pentagon videos show an A3 Skywarrior hitting, not a 757.

Why the media blackout about this?

An obvious smoking gun.

we've been arguing this for years. We don't need another "no plane" nut job. DU doesn't need you. shoo, go back where you came from...

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=BUN20060519&articleId=2473


The author analyzes the newly released Pentagon photos and concludes that a single engine flying apparatus of some kind is what struck the Pentagon.

and all the eyewitnesses? Shouldn't you be peddling this nonsense elsewhere, or will you be happy calling those of us with brains (i.e. non tinfoilers) "spin doctors"? as for me, I'm happy adding you to my ignore list with the rest of the nutters,

bye bye

Ignore morons that are rude in this forum (or any other). I've noticed that quite a few of them rarely post anywhere but the 9/11 forum or post to put someone down in other threads. Some here have inferiority complexes and think they are impressing others with their comments.

They still have yet to explain the Amazing Pentalawn. I was watching all day on 9/11 and for days after. The lawn was so untouched you could golf on it.

I also wonder why a huge airliner flying close to the ground at over 500mph didn't cause cars to flip over, trees to be destroyed, poles knocked down on it's path. A good gust of wind makes my little Focus feel as if it's taking off. I would expect a path of destruction.

I'm sure someone will correct me soon.

:hi:

identical, in fact. Did he do anything other than resize the photo?
This site has a photo you can enlarge really big
http://www.migandi.org.uk/news/news.htm

Five of them. Perfect. Six would have been vulgar, four would have
given the impression that you lack conviction.

The fact that it is nevertheless presented by the govt as evidence for the OCT is in itself rather suspicious.

The excellent Russell Pickering from Pentagon Research shows evidence the video was manipulated.

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/videoframes.html

to CNN years ago might have been to show the manipulation.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/03/07/gen.pentagon.pictures/
Note how the commentator says "..images we obtained from.... that were recorded by...".

As some in this forum already have pointed out the 'wrong' date and time in that footage are probably a result of the video editing software (either the software used to do the actual manipulation or the software used to created to clip that was leaked). The time stamp shows very obviously that one whole second is skipped in that sequence.
Anyway, both the old clip and the newly released footage seem to show the same discontinuity in the velocity of the object that crashed into the Pentagon.

They think that the "no-plane" theories are being deliberately fueled by the gov't's refusal to release tapes that would show the actual plane.



http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/video.html

but flying a military aircraft drone that looks nothing like an AA 757 in to a government building (to anyone who knows aircraft, and the DC area is populated with quite a few people who would know the difference!) in a major urban area in broad daylight, and expecting no one to notice is the height of stupidity.