For conspiracy theory buffs.

[Ruffhowse]

http://www.scothew.com/~fastred/pentagon%5b1%5d.swf

[ParisFrance]

1. Interesting

If that were a small aircraft, what happened to the 757?

[rman]

3. "what happened to the 757?"

Same question applies if it *was* a 757 that hit the Pentagon.

[DemWitch]

2. I always wondered... am I'm not a tinfoil hat kinda guy...

but in the WTC... Both planes left "wing marks" in the sides of the buildings, and when they came out the other side, it was just rubble moving at a high rate of speed.

The Pentagon though... it was a hole, and then another, and then another, and then a last hole.

But then the question needs to be asked... Where is 77? And particuarily it's intriguing because Barbara Colson, Chuck's wife was on board.

BUT... Why isn't the video tapes from the hotel, gas station and VA DOT available... Did the 9/11 commision get to see them? Did anyone other than the FBI?

[ParisFrance]

4. endless strings

The 757 was flown to a European terrorist state and the Bush administration didn't want to deal with hostages. I'm clueless on the part about the FBI confiscating the video tapes though. What do they have to hide if it was a small air craft?

[WoodrowFan]

23. WHAT European "terroroist" state ???????????

and how did it sneak through the Air Defense systems of all the other European countries along the way, and did it have enough fuel to fly that far.

total foolishness.

[WoodrowFan]

21. you have to discount the many, many

witnesses who SAW the passanger plane hit, etc. sorry, saying Flt 77 didn't hit the Pentagon is like insisting the world is flat.

[Beam Me Up]

32. A LOT of witnesses said

The world IS flat for a VERY long time.

Quite a few say they see the sun COME UP every day, even though they know it doesn't.

Funny that.

Oh, and by the way, not ALL the witenesses saw what you say they saw. SOME saw what looked like a "missle with wings" others saw "a small communter jet". ETC.

What do the pictures show?

Edit to add:

[theboss]

22. Have you ever compared the structure of the Pentagon to the WTC?

One's a freaking stone fortress, the other was a glass skycraper. Of course the damage would different. Drive your car into a brick schoolhouse and then drive it into a pane glass window. Compare the damage.

[alittlelark]

49. Great point!!!!

If the plane went through the equivalent of a plate glass wall, the wings would stay on and break up after impact

But.... If the plane went through a 'steel reinforced fortress' The wings would FALL OFF. They are fragile, and would NEVER be able to breach the fortress. They would be on the ground - outside the fortress.

I rarely wear the tin-foil, but this one and Flt 93 just aren't right.

[theboss]

55. But the plane itself would breach

Those planes were essentially guided missles. They would easily breach the outside walls of the Pentagon at the point of impact. The above poster wanted to know why there wasn't a plane shaped hole, which is just a silly comment.

[alittlelark]

58. The plane would breach - the weight of the body would certainly

push it through. The wings would shear off....no question in my mind.

Where are the wings?

[DemWitch]

60. No, not silly.... you all just made my point...

the wings WOULD NOT penetrate the reinforced concrete... they would "snap off"...

Look at the pic... where are they? There should be an engine or two somewhere...

Like I said, I'm not a tinfoil hat guy... but there are some odd things that havn't been explained...

[alittlelark]

64. Dudette, we're on the same page here

not sure where I got confused - I'll re-read.

There is no way the plane went through that building with it's wings attached - they would have to have snapped off and be visible. My bottom line.

[WoodrowFan]

82. they DONT snap off

they fold to the side and get carried inside with the rest of the wreckage

whats the use, it's like arguing with Creationists..

bye bye/.

[DemWitch]

91. they fold to the side and get carried inside with the rest of the wreckage

by what, suction? It's not like the Titanic going down... So a piece of aluminum hit a reinforced concrete wall at 500 mph... punched a hole the exact same size as the fuselage through 10 reinforced concrete walls, and the wings and engine just fold up and slide along side.

Two Rolls Royce engines, each weighing in excess of 3 tons, with titanium blades just bounce off of concrete and follow neatly through the rabbit hole...

I'm NOT saying 77 didn't slam into the Pentagon, I am saying there are several inconsistancies...

what's the use, it's like arguing with contradicting bible passages with Fundies...

[WoodrowFan]

81. they how do you explain

the eyewitnesses that SAW the passanger plane HIT the building

never mind, I'm sure it's simular to the way Creationists explain away fossel evidence.

bye bye

[bobbieinok]

29. Barara was Ted Olsen's wife

[DemWitch]

61. stand corrected thankyou... pulling my head outta my ass

:)

[Blue Wally]

47. Pentagon

The Pentagon is built in "rings. If you hit an exterior wall, like the airplane did, you have to go through ten masonry walls (exterior and interior wall of each ring) just to get to the inner courtyard. The building is also very low and sqaut. It isn't a skyscraper. If you have ever been inside the place, it is like a dark and dank dungeon (except in the light and airy E-ring offices occupied by the civilian and military "nobility").

[Sterling]

56. Yes it was Babs Olsen not Colson

And yes that is strange. Especially since her aledged call to Ted was the first report of "Arab hijackers". Something smells funny for sure.

[DemWitch]

62. For some reason had Chuck Colson on my mind which

translated into Barbara Colson (Olsen) being his wife...

:silly:

[LearnedHand]

70. Do you all remember that the first reports...

...from the Pentagon said that a SMALL PLANE hit it -- it was much later that the news reports began to say it was a passenger aircraft.

[WoodrowFan]

83. and we ALL know

that the first reports from a disaster are the most accurate!

sheesh

[lapfog_1]

5. OK, lets say this is not as we were told

Fine.

It was a cruise missile or small plane.

So what did they do with the passengers? Someone took them
and the plane (a 757 is a large object) and did what with them?
killed them and stuck the place in the Atlantic? All without
any leaks, no trace? Large conspiracies almost never work.
I can see the PNACers needed to have the military "on their side"
and motivated by a direct assault on their own... easier to get
them to do an "Abu Ghraib" if they believe the people behind it
stuck a plane into their HQ. But, again, what happened to the
passengers and the plane?

[rman]

6. conspiracies do work for some time before being exposed...

remember watergate, iran-contra?

[lapfog_1]

9. Yes I actually DO remember those.

Most started falling apart within 6 months of execution.
Watergate was within weeks (although it came apart slowly).
People involved often develop a need to "come clean" (Deep
Throat, John Dean). And Watergate didn't involve anybody
getting killed (well, that we know of), it's harder if innocent
people die, especially innocent military people. Ends justify
the means is not something that most people live with very well.
And it's been THREE years, and all we got is that this was an
unusual plane crash. All of the "evidence" of it not being a
plane impact on the building could be explained by the type of
building (big massive concrete walls)... which could possibly
pulverize the plane even more than a nose impact on the ground
(but I'll admit you should find debris of an engine somewhere).

I don't know, but this would be a HUGE secret, held by more than
a handful of people, and involving the execution of hundreds of
innocent Americans. Hard to believe.

[Pallas180]

26. Watergate took more than a year - a year and 1/2 and Iran Contra

was years and years going on before being caught....

No one got killed? Gee, I thought Martha Mitchell went down in
an airplane accident - dead - of course that was only after they
couldn't shut her up by drugging her..then having her committed...
but - maybe no one did get killed.

[WoodrowFan]

34. Martha Mitchell

Martha Mitchell died in 1976, long after the scandal was over.

typical conspiracy "facts"

bye bye

[HFishbine]

41. No facts please

You'll ruin the story.

[Pallas180]

69. My bad - she died at the age of 57, 57 , of a RARE type of malignancy

In 1975 former Attorney General Mitchell was still involved in 38
lawsuits for his misdeeds as Attorney General and being sued by
Martha Mitchell for support payments. Martha Mitchell in 1975 was doing the talk show circuit about Watergate,about her kidnapping, about being held down by four men and being injected. It was in 1975 while she was doing these talk shows and suing Mitchell that she contracted cancer.

Below are two newspaper articles on Martha Mitchell - one by Helen Thomas captioned"She never gave up the idea that those guys had induced her illness".

[Pallas180]

75. One of the wives went down in an airplane - was it Colson's?

can't remember which, but one of the guys involved with Watergate

[LearnedHand]

71. You mean a HUGE secret...

...like the Manhattan project?

[LunaC]

72. The execution of hundreds of innocent Americans is no big deal

when you're the PNAC and there are countries to plunder and fortunes to be made.

And all you'd need to pull off the Pentagon/plane scam would be a pilot willing to bail out and ditch the planeload of passengers into the ocean. I'm not saying this is what happened but with the Mayberry Machiavellis, anything is possible. (I'm in the MIHOP camp, btw......read the link in my sig line to find out why....you might find it an eye-opener!)

[HannibalBarca]

73. Hmmmm

Whats always surprised me about this incident is the fact that a Jet airliner the size of a 757 moving at 530mph could slam into the side of what is admittedly a fairly low building. The skill required to pull that off is something else, I would dearly like to ask a pilot how difficult that would be.

[Zan_of_Texas]

107. Remember Enron?

Remember that NUMBERS of traders were stealing money and electricity from the State of California, and NUMBERS of gas company people were also manipulating gas prices. The "7th largest company" was a house of cards. It was a wide-ranging conspiracy to steal and god only knows what else -- perhaps to weaken California and cost Grey Davis his job.

After a conspiracy is proven, the media refuse to call it a conspiracy. They call it a scandal.

Thus, it SEEMS that no "conspiracy" is ever proven. Even though by a dictionary definition (and by the indictment papers against the Enron crooks), it WAS a conspiracy.

[FighttheFuture]

7. There in Guatmo, and that's why Ted Olsen is som helpful and ...

compliant. His wife, Barbara, is still alive and so he knows he's serving a greater cause for der Fatherland!! Heil Bushler!!

Hey, it has some plausibility.

[ParisFrance]

8. The policy is not to negotiate with terrorists

The two towers were hit and the 757 may have been highjacked and flown overseas. The government rather than risking Bush's reecletion in regards to Carter's hostage crisis staged a small aircraft to do as little damage as possible. The hostages also would have been a derterent for war because they likely would have been killed had at the time we decided to go with invasion of afghanistan and Iraq. Could we have blown the plane up, which would not have gone well with Americans and staged a small plane into the pentagon, where a renovation was being done, thus having the least amount of people.

[Sterling]

57. That is too stupid.

And I never say that. I always give everyone a chance and don't assume things about theories but that one is just too dumb.

[TrustingDog]

12. you have to ask how dark the dirty can be???

So what did they do with the passengers? Someone took them
and the plane (a 757 is a large object) and did what with them?
==
They were just minor details in the big PNAC plan, plenty more where they came from.

[Pallas180]

27. If the *ushco killed hundreds of thousands in South America attempted

coups, and allowed 58,000 to be killed in Nam when they knew it
was a lost war, and 3000 to go down in the WTC -and thousands of Kurds to be gassed, and thousands more Iraqis when they backed out of
supporting insurgents against Saddam in 1991 --uhhhhh - what do you think they did with a couple of hundred people on airplanes.

Some eyewitnesses insisted one of the planes was not an American plane
with an American emblem...That the plane had no windows like a passenger plane, but was like a cargo plane.

I don't know...I haven't reseen the tape to check.

But if it had no windows, and was a cargo plane ???

[Ameridansk]

17. Key Section of Operation Northwoods planning document

Luckily we have insight into exactly what the Pentagon thinks it can do when creating a fake terror campaign. This is taken directly from a Pentagon document recovered through the FOIA:

a. An aircraft at Elgin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area.

At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases.

The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.

b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida.

From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Elgin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status.

The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan.

When over Cuba the drone will being (sic) transmitting on the inter-national distress frequency a “MAY DAY” message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft.

The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal.

This will allow ICAO radio stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the US what has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to “sell” the incident.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf

--------
Gives a pretty clear indication of why transponders were turned off on all four planes, ay? "Minimum altitude".

Maybe Barara wanted out of her marriage with Ted and now has a new face and name?

[Beam Me Up]

35. No one has EVIDENCE to work with re 'what happened to F. 77'

We have evidence which contradicts the official story that Flight 77 struck the Pentagon. This evidence does NOT account for what may have actually happened to that flight. The answer is, we do not know what happened to Flight 77, but what ever happened to it didn't happen at the Pentagon. At least we have evidence to suggest that possibility.

As to what DID happen, who can say? All that WOULD be total conjuecture and mere "theory". What's the point of even beginning to go in that direction when we can't even people to admit what there eyes tell them. Yes, a major confligration occured at the Pentagon on 9/11. No doubt. But what, precisely? Why don't we have solid, obvious EVIDENCE? With all the security cameras, why aren't we allowed to see for ourselves?

We know that the video SUPPOSEDLY showing the Boeing impact DOES NOT show any such thing.

Edit to add:

And, get this, NO ONE seems to know where this video of the plane crash came from.

A series of five photos obtained Thursday by news organizations shows the first available images of the Pentagon as a plane hijacked by terrorists slammed into the building the morning of Sept. 11.

The photos, which depict a fiery explosion on the building's northwest face, are each dated Sept. 12. Officials say the date may reflect when the images were catalogued by investigators since they are not the actual date of the attack.

CNN first obtained the images and broadcast them Thursday afternoon. Reporter Jamie McIntyre said the photos were captured by a camera at security checkpoint on the grounds surrounding the Pentagon. A bright orange fireball is visible in the photographs but the hijacked American Airlines plane is not clearly visible.

The photos, taken by the camera positioned north of the section of the Pentagon, cover a span of four one-hundredths of a second. The first photo shows a small, blurry, white object near the upper right corner – possibly the plane just a few feet above the ground. The second shows a white glow immediately after the impact. In the three remaining photos, a mountain of orange fire and black smoke rises above the building.

Officials from the Pentagon said the photos were not released officially by the Department of Defense. A Pentagon spokeswoman could not verify that they came from surveillance cameras. "The Pentagon has not released any video or any photos from security cameras from the terrorist attack of Sept. 11," said Pentagon spokeswoman Cheryl Irwin.

A spokeswoman at the Department of Justice, which reviews taped and photographed evidence obtained by federal security cameras, said she could not comment on whether the photos are legitimate, adding that the photos "were not disseminated by the FBI or the Department of Justice."

The URL is fragmenting: here is the 'Tiny URL' version:
http://tinyurl.com/4qg46

[MadProphetMargin]

10. You ask too many questions, citizen. Please report to your local

Ashcroft Center(tm) for re-education.

[DemWitch]

63. Why is than van parked there?

And why are there 5 guys in black suits coming to my door?

[FighttheFuture]

11. It's is perfectly plausible that what happened is as stated...

With all that is going on, this is more in the UFO realm. Nice speculation, but irrelevant. It is one of the more out-there theories, but with this bunch of fascist Nazi criminals...err Bushler Republicans in charge, I cannot dismiss it totally. Still, snopes does:

http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

and, A guy debunking the theory site in a pissy way.

http://www.geocities.com/roboplanes/757.html

Some interesting photos:

big photo of crash site, plane debris where guys in white are.

Impact area and angle of plane

-- big photo of Pentagon provides scale and shows side, on left, where plane hit. Do not forget the scale of the Pentagon. It is huge.


I've seen plane accidents and one thing with aircraft, they are not all that sold. It is mostly aluminum and plastic and, given its size vs. weight ratio, pretty unsubstantial. Planes aren't tanks, they are more like cars which do not always hold up well in high speed accidents as you may have seen.

For example, two M1-A1 Tanks would be around 120 tones and 8000 cu ft. (32ft .5in L, 12ft 6in W, 9ft 6in H).

A 757-200 body only: 12 ft wide (will take as diameter) x 155 ft long = 22320 cu ft. I am guessing this would be about 60% of their weight, not counting the wings and tail (60-70 tons).


There's more photos at: http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Other/Pentagon/

scroll down to 9/15/2001 area.

[TrustingDog]

13. nice pics, too bad...

I don't have an IMAX screen.

[FighttheFuture]

20. Change your screen resolution, or save it and bring up only the ...

jpg in IE. If you have a newer version, it should rescale it to the IE window.

[reorg]

46. okay

now I can see there are huge parking lots all around the Pentagon. That is really interesting. And what exactly do you want to show by that?

And we can see it is a four storey building. Uh, I think it is a long time ago that I may have worked in a building that low. You think four storeys is large?

So it was quite a remarkable feat to hit such a small building, right into the first floor! Seems it was a one hundred percent hit. The plane was actually of almost the same hight as the building. I am, of course, no expert. I am not even a reasonably good Flight Simulator pilot. But I heard what some people said who might count as experts:

Niki Lauda, multiple Formular I World Champion, owner of an airline and Boeing 757 pilot (paraphrased): To crash a large Boeing into the Pentagon like Hanjour did is an astounding feat. It is very difficult to keep the plane on course in such a steep turn, and just one minor mistake will cause the entire manouvre to fail.

Spokesman of the German pilot's union (paraphrased): The flight manouvre performed by the pilot of the plane that hit the Pentagon is one of the hardest things to do with an airliner. Only a very skilled and experienced pilot is able to achieve such a thing.

Of course, we are being told that it may have been just an accident, that the pilot may have wanted to hit the Pentagon somewhere else and was just lucky not to miss it entirely. Or he may have wanted to crash into the White House and changed plans when he accidentally saw the Pentagon right before him. Well, these Arab students are one lucky bunch!

Or maybe some people want to see plausibility where there is none.

[WoodrowFan]

53. the same height

I've stood next to the Pentagon. Only someone who knows zilch about it would say it's the same height as the plane. It's fucking HUGE.... Join us again when you have something to add,,,,

bye bye

[reorg]

90. okay

I would always speak to the doorman, even though I might hesitate to let him in ...

So the HUGE Pentagon is 77 ft high against the 757's 44 ft., and Hani had that HUGE wiggle room of 33 ft to hit his target. This explains everything, of course. Except to Niki Lauda and the German pilot's union spokesman! But what do I know.

[reorg]

14. what plane debris?

where the white guys are I can see a heap of rubbish (there was a fire and a crash, remember? -- but no plane debris.

What parts can you identify?

[FighttheFuture]

19. Why would you think it would be identifiable?

The plane was loaded with fuel and went up in a fireball, incinerating much of it very quickly. The rest impacted and disintegrated into the Pentagon. However, I do recall seeing an engine (one of the more survivable parts) in one of the pics on the DOD site.

[reorg]

42. you're the one making claims, so what I am thinking is

if you say it is plane debris, you might know what you're talking about?

So what you show us in this picture is "unidentifiable" plane debris? :-) I see.

I know of this picture with a small part of some engine, maybe it was taken at the Pentagon, who knows. This small part hardly reaches the knee of some worker standing in front of it.

Do you know what it is? Has it been shown to be a part of a 757?

I do not feel the need to take a stance in this whole thing, BTW. I liked the animation linked at the beginning of this thread. There are some questions asked, they should be answered.

What you are saying is that it may be plausible that a 757 crashed into the Pentagon. Plausible as in "plausible denial"? Enough to reduce the obvious lie to mere suspicion? I would not take up the task of the government to make anything plausible. They should. They needed some pretext to go to wars. THEY are the killers, there can be no reasonable argument about that.

So if you want to justify what they do, if you want to help buttress their fairytale of the really very very dangerous terror threat from Arab students, go ahead, but you need to work a little harder. As it stands, we do not know to what extent the US government or parts of it were complicit or authored this thing.

[Pallas180]

28. Thanks for the pics...but why would the plane be standing straight up

instead of pointed inward and downward???

and where's all the plane wreckage?

no wings - no fuselage shell?

wha?

[FighttheFuture]

37. Standing Straight up? What are you talking about?

Keep in mind the plane hit the ground first, started disintegrating and exploding, then hit an extremely hardened and reinforced building. All at 350+ MPH within the space of several hundred feet which is traversed in a second. . Add to this high heat/fire from vaporizing/flashing jet fuel.

Think about what happens to cars when they hit a wall at 60, 80 or 100MPH. If there is an explosion or fire it is even worse. There are accidents where you cannot tell what it originally was.

The planes that hit the WTC pretty much disintegrated with it, and the WTC external shell, strong as it was, was not as strong as the Pentagons.

[merh]

44. I'm not trying to be difficult, but where in the photos does it

reflect that the plane hit the ground first? I don't see it, maybe I am overlooking it.

[truth2power]

94. On my computer screen it's standing straight up.

I can't figure that out either. <sigh>

[merh]

48. Okay, where are the photos for 9/12 - 9/14/01???

Why did they wait and only provide 9/15/01 photos?

:shrug: just wondering?

That site depicts the collapse and fails to note the smaller entry hole.

Also that debris is furniture and equipment from inside, removed by fire fighters during the attempts to put the fire out. The pentagon was not an empty building.

Plane debris would not be piled up in that manner.

(of course, this is just my personal opinion)

[Sterling]

65. Snopes is very sloppy.

And tends to dismiss 9-11 stuff out of hand without objective scrutiny.

They went off on M Moore and called him a liar re: the Saudi exodus flights. Look how wrong they were then.

[tuckessee]

76. Look at the "Pentagon Renovation Program" photo

I wonder why the crudely drawn airplane has such small wings.

Certainly an even roughly to scale representation would have a much wider wing span especially when we consider the aircraft had to be flying very level otherwise it would've ripped a wing off and/or begun cartwheeling from ground contact.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757family/pf/pf_200tech.html

According to Boeing's own specs, a 757-200 has an exterior body width of 12'4" and wing span of 124'10".

That would mean each wing tip is 56'3" from the exterior body.

By my crude estimate, based upon a 12'4" body width, the superimposed aircraft in the photo has wings which extend only 30' from the exterior.

So there's 50' missing from the aircraft in the drawing.

[WoodrowFan]

92. it's a crude drawing

plus the plane is clearly tilted slightly to the left. Sheesh.

[tuckessee]

97. That's my point.

Why even bother to insert such a crude and misleading image of the aircraft?

Heck, why not draw a Sopwith Camel or a Mitsubishi Zero or the Space Shuttle or a even paper airplane since the image of supposed 757 is useless as far as scale?

Plus, was the plane as tilted to the left as the image leads one to believe?

Maybe the hijackers were doing barrel rolls as they skimmed the ground in front of the Pentagon.

It's kinda convenient that the crude, not to scale drawing fits nicely into the hole.

[WoodrowFan]

100. oh please

why not argue that the Earth is flat next, I bet THEY want you to believe that too. The whole "discussion" about whether Ft 77 hit the Pentagon is at about the same level...

bye bye

[tuckessee]

104. OK, spinmeister

You can easily put me and others at ease by simply finding a photo or diagram showing the Pentagon damage with a to scale representation of a 757-200.

We'll be eagerly awaiting your "reply".

[left is right]

15. My favorite conspiracy theory:

on 9/10, Ted Olsen killed his wife in a fit of passion. And all of 9/11 was instituted as a cover-up to explain the missing wife. I mean, sooner or later someone was bound to ask, "Where's Barbara?" But you can't have the Solictor General being tried for murder. That's my theory and I am sticking to it.

[bobbieinok]

30. one of funniest 'put downs' of 9-11 discussions

[Sterling]

66. Well I'm glad that's not mine.

But you are welcome to have it as your own.

[JSJ]

16. an actively "uninterested" press can sustain a conspiracy...

... forever, if it wants.

[rman]

18. yep;

big difference there between the times of Watergate, and now.

[WoodrowFan]

24. totally foolish

for those who believe this crap, here's a bridge I can sell you, CHEAP!!

[bacchant]

31. So... W-Fan, how do YOU think it went down?

Granted we haven't seen all the physical evidence, but do you feel the films and pictures we do have access to, square with the official record? Could it be you who's believing in crap?

[drdtroit]

79. And Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman! n/t

[Pallas180]

25. Can't get the link open - not even in new window??? address?

thanks

[HFishbine]

33. That crap

is so full of logic holes, disingous assumptions, and outright contradictions, it's not even worth a second look.

[WoodrowFan]

36. then you must be

PART OF THE CONSPIRACY!!! (dramatic music)

[HFishbine]

39. Damn! You've found me out!

I'm the pilot of flight 77 who flew it undected to Fiji, where all onboard are content to live out their lives on breadfruit without ever contacting their families again. (Oh, we had to feed a few trouble-makers to the sharks, but they were Democrats anyway. The rest are taking one for the team.)

On edit: "Fiji" not "Fuji" although it might as well have been.

[Sterling]

67. Be specific plz.

For me the jury is still out on this topic so I am looking for good arguements on both sides. It would be good if you made one.

[Catherine Vincent]

38. Thanks for that. I'm emailing that flash video to friends.

I wonder what they'll think about that. Eerie.

[Desertrose]

40. Thank you...same questions I've asked...will share this

website.

Yup...just makes you shake your head....how could they hide such a big plane? And never ANY mention of any bodies...oh yeah and the pilot?
Just too many questions......

:tinfoilhat: maybe not.....
DR

[slutticus]

43. Do you see a plane in these pictures?

I see what might be a tail section....but it just looks like a bunch of rubble to me.

This is the site of a plane crash...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Southwest/08/03/plane.crash.ap/

[truth2power]

52. Article says "a small plane" crashed

Not like a 757.

edit: Sorry. 757.

[name not needed]

59. So a small passenger plane smashes into a house,

it is wrecked beyond recognition. A large commercial jet smashes into a much larger building, which happens to be built much stronger than that house, and you are supposed to be able to see identifiable wreckage? Care to explain that one?

[truth2power]

74. Name....I'm talking out of my expertise here, but

the whole thing just doesn't make sense to me. Something's rotten. I'm just an ordinary citizen -- no training in aviation or engineering. But over the course of my life I've seen pictures and read accounts of a lot of plane crashes. For the life of me I can't remember one account where the plane just vanished, or nearly so.

Also, and this bothers me almost as much...how could the supposed hijacker have made what's said to be a very difficult maneuver to bring the plane in as he did? Sorry. It just doesn't jive.

Also, about a year ago I was talking to an acquaintance who is a captain with a major airline. I asked him how he thought these guys did it (flew those planes into the towers and the pentagon). He seemed to be reluctant to talk about it, but what he did say was that if there had been a little less visibility or any number of other factors that didn't fall inot place, it couldn't have been done.

Then he dropped the subject. Maybe he was just creeped out by the whole idea. Or maybe he knew something I didn't. :tinfoilhat:

[WoodrowFan]

84. but then

many many witnesses SAW it happen. What is WRONG with you people!!!!!!!!!

[rman]

89. eyewitness reports are contradictary

All speak of a large explosion at the pentagon - that part of the events is not under discussion.
Some speak of a large plane hitting the pentagon, some speak of something that soudned like and/or looked like a missile or drone.

So beased on eyewitness reports no definitive conclusion can be draw as to what actually happened.

[truth2power]

95. Where are identifiable parts of the plane?

How long did the initial fire last? How long does it take to cremate a body? No, how long does it take to vaporize a body?

And also: not answered in this thread. How did the supposed hijacker perform that difficult maneuver?

[midwayer]

45. Where in the hell are the skid marks?????? (eom)

[Sterling]

50. Nice is that your work?

Good stuff. Well done.

[Revolutionary Mama]

51. Conspiracy theory???

I don't view that as conspiracy theory, but a lot of unanswered questions and observations.

[WoodrowFan]

54. try reading the 9-11 report

that's be really revolutionary!

[Sterling]

68. Most who have followed the comish know.....

It is a whitewash. Even the head of the panel has connections with the Saudi's and OBL. If you put all your eggs in that basket you probably are not a very skeptical person.

[Revolutionary Mama]

105. Thanks Sterling

That shadowgov.info link is a new one for me.

You're right about the 9/11 report being a whitewash. With guys like Thomas Kean (Kissinger's replacement) as "Mr. Fixit"...and also tied to Osama's brother-in-law through oil interests, I suspected from the start that this panal was nothing like what former Congress member Cynthia McKenney had in mind when she first suggested...a no-holds-barred independent panal to investigate.

Place all blame on the intelligence community in spite of key testimonies from defense and W.H. insiders...I'm sure, Karl Rove is pleased.

[sofa king]

77. Good lord, what a waste of good intellect.

Look, for those of you who are new to this, just do me a favor, ignore what the moron on this page linked below is saying, and look at the photographs. It's all there. Plane wreckage in the debris, a hunk of aluminum skin with part of the "American" logo on it, knocked over light poles, and C-ring the punch-out hole from one of the engines.

http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm

And here's a fairly decent graphic of the damage.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/graphics/attack/pentagon_7.html

Of course, none of this will convince some of you lunatics out there. You'd probably crap your pants if you ran into a real conspiracy, like when Richard Mellon Scaife and the American Spectator teamed up to smear President Clinton.

(You're also denying yourselves one of the supreme ironies of the 9-11 tragedy. Barbara Olson likely wouldn't have been on Flight 77 had it not been for her husband giving legal advice and representation to the shadowy Scaife-funded Arkansas Project--at the same time that Barbara was investigating Travelgate for the House. Ted Olson's reward was the position of Solicitor General under the Bush Administration, which forced Babs to leave her job in the House. Her non-government practice required frequent travel, even on her birthday: September 11.)

Today there are real questions out there. Why are electronic voting machines being primarily distributed to minority and historically Democratic districts? Why are the polls being greased with "likely voter" figures instead of traditional registered voter figures? Why isn't Scooter Libby in jail yet? Who leaked the Sandy Berger story? What does Gannon International have to do with the Swift Boat vigilantes?

Instead you folks are like children trying to make a 757 disappear like you're an army of David Copperfields. It's a damned shame, because you could actually be helping us instead of peeing in the wind.

[WoodrowFan]

85. THANK YOU!

FINALLY, someone with a brain that's actually in gear!

[rman]

88. all there?

nothing but a few scraps of debris, no damage to the lawn, not enough light poles knocked over given the wing span of a 757.

And why would anyone new to this do you a favor?
What kind of argumentation is that?

[politicat]

98. agreed... but there's a weird coincidence....

Ground breaking was on Sept 11, 1941.

Maybe they got tired after 70 years of the weird hallways and the ability to wander in circles?

Pcat (tongue firmly in cheek....)

[praeclarus]

78. large conspiracies falling apart

The JFK conspiracy has held together pretty well
for over 40 years. Was that a big one or a little
one?

Does anybody actually still buy the magic bullet
and whatnot?

[sofa king]

80. Yes, dagonit, I do.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt.htm

Edit: And welcome to DU, praeclarus!

[WoodrowFan]

87. great link!

thanks! I love when the conspiracy nuts are shown to be as big a liars as Newsmax!

[NecessaryOnslaught]

106. Try this

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0451403460/qid=1093789008/sr=5-1/ref=cm_lm_asin/102-8274914-6644126?v=glance

[WoodrowFan]

86. sheesh

so the fact that after 40 years the "JFK Conspiracy" has held up means that large conspiracies can stay together. geee, MAYBE it means that there was no large conspiracy there either.

bye bye

[praeclarus]

102. you're kidding right?

what's up with this "bye bye" shit all the time?

[praeclarus]

103. what about what these cats had to say about it?

The House Select Committee on Assassinations, 1978:

I. FINDINGS OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS IN THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY IN DALLAS, TEX., NOVEMBER 22, 1963
* C. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee is unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy.


No doubt the fact that so many potentially useful witnesses
started killing themselves en masse leading up to this hearing
helped them to not be able to identify the extent of it.

[Jester_11218]

93. There is a difference...LINK

between conspiracy theory and reasonable suspicion.
http://tvnewslies.org/html/conspiracy_.html

[WoodrowFan]

96. yes but

these have left "reasonable" way, wayyyyyyyyyyy behind in the dust.

[politicat]

99. link is now dead.

the owner of the site is a bit miffed apparently.

Pcat

[WoodrowFan]

101. OOPS

from that site...


"Now I think its pretty cool that my website got this many hits, but however this has put me at over 700% my alloted bandwidth for this month. This has caused major issues for myself as well as my website host, Webhostdigital.com.

As passive aggressive as I am normally, this has really pissed me off. So to anyone that did not have my direct permission and consent to view these files, take a step back and realize how rude and disrepectful that is to others. But then again it is the internet and its a free country. So not much more I can do than say that. By the way, please dont try to access those files again. They have been removed and will not be made public again."


good job conspiracy dudes!

[Apple Smoothie]

108. ummm...

URL not found.