sigh.... Why must I believe that a Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon?

[Tweed]

http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911/Eastman/m18h05.html

I saw a video on the whole deal too. There were several security cameras in the area from various places like a gas station, a hotel, and the Virginia department of Transportation. The FBI confiscated all the videos and refuses to release them.

Can anyone debunk this? I would appreciate it. I'm not big into conspiracy theories.

[LeighAnn]

1. Because it didn't, you've seen the evidence.

They were showing some 9-11 footage on TV tonight (I think they were talking about Tom Ridge) and there was the Pentagon in flames, but where was the Boeing?

[Rumba]

2. Well,

Someone posted recently that there were a number of eyewitness accounts that clearly stated that it was a 757; and I've also heard that it hit turned on its side so one wing hit the outside of the building and the rest of the fuselage hit further in, hence the damage pattern; and then there were the people on the plane, one of whom was from my company, and a number of whom phoned people to describe what was happening.

[Tweed]

5. The plane hitting it on its side would sense then

and my big question for all the conspiracy theorists is where the real Boeing flight is? That's what I don't understand.

[__Inanna__]

43. According to Colonel Donn De Grand Pre

who was in the military for years and in charge of leading a 72 hour symposium with a variety of pilots in WA, and who issued a report on this to 500 govt officials following the symposium, the plane was flown over the Atlantic and that's it. A missle or some other kind of govt aircraft hit the pentagon. You can google on his name and learn more. I leave it up to you whether you believe what he has to say. But he was in the military his entire life and talks to the joint chiefs of something or other on a regular basis, has written three books on the subject, and had a stroke himself after learning the truth behind 911. He is now fully recovered.

[MercutioATC]

49. Yes, AAL77 flew over the Atlantic without leaving a radar return....

...and the missile left aircraft parts behind when it hit.


:tinfoilhat:

[DulceDecorum]

76. Where is Jimmy Hoffa?

If you cannot tell me where his body is
then stop saying that he is dead.

The same goes for Adolf Hitler.
And Jesus Christ.

And now that I have your attention,
since you cannot show me the bodies of HUNDREDS of WTC victims,
then they are not dead either.

The people you call "conspiracy theorists"
did NOT take that plane anywhere.
Why do you think that they will be able to produce it?
Or Jimmy Hoffa?

[readmoreoften]

3. Don't Even Focus on That

I've seen the pentagon info debunked by photos that showed the craft, but then I saw an even MORE plausible photo that proved that the 'debunking photos' were pure fabrication. There is a ton of disinfo out there.

For more information go to www.septembereleventh.org or check out this thread. There are apparently 200 former FBI and CIA agents that have come forth and are willing to testify that the official report is a gloss over the truth.

FBI translator Sibel Edmonds is under a gag order from the US AG office to not speak about the information she uncovered on US corporate prior knowledge.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2769122

Believe me, I don't want to be a 'conspiracy theorist' either. But what do we do when all 'rational' analysis and 'reasonable doubts' point towards a dark conclusion?

Happy Hunting.

[RagingInMiami]

4. have you seen this

http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php#Main

[cosmicaug]

12. Yup, seen it.

Yup, seen it. A lot of absurdity and self contradiction (one part of the clip claiming nothing owent beyong the first ring and the next claiming that because stuff went beyond the first ring a missile must have done it, misleading out of context shit --that sort of stuff).

[jdots]

6. some conspiracy theory is well researched

why it is called conspiracy is for the same reason there are repukes,lack of wanting to think deeper than a puddle.Granted alot of it is garbage written by fools,but there is some truth in there, read left & right conspiracy books and try to weigh the scope of the fringe.The U.F.O. stuff is really funny,it beats T.V.

[cosmicaug]

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

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

[Tweed]

9. I always forget

Snopes something first

[readmoreoften]

15. snopes itself is pretty damn debunkable on this one

okay... the image of the "twisted piece of identifiable American Airlines logo" in front of the Pentagon has been debunked.

It is a clean silver shard. Why isn't it burnt black? Only a tiny area of an 757 has the AA logo on it. How lucky that this piece of wreckage is a perfectly clean piece of metal with the AA logo.

The one thing that holds me back more than anything else though (I completely agree) where the hell did the flight go? (NO it did not safely land).

[WoodrowFan]

26. no, it hasn't

the "debunking" you quote is total crap. bye bye.

[tngledwebb]

52. Hey ' would pay to see as sledge-hammer to the head of fellow DU'ers fan'

Please mean what you say and GO. You're no fan of Woodrow, and you have no fans here.
(Co-workers maybe.)

[Must_B_Free]

14. problems:

the pentagon crash made a hole in the rings, but the WTC crash fanned out and emerged larger on the other side where it came out.

the fire that melted the steel that made the pentagon collapse - what was it fueled by that gave it a temp high enough to melt steel?

[Liberaltarian]

41. it didn't "melt" steel...

it softened it enough to bend under the weight it was supporting.

[tngledwebb]

53. You might be reading too many graphic novels

or watching too much NOVA. Think harder.

[RH]

72. read the ASCE report.

Ground floor columns at the Pentagon were demolished by the initial imnpact.

[gatorboy]

30. Snopes says that the plane was going in so low

that it actually hit the ground first, before hitting the Pentagon. Now if that was true, wouldn't it have left a hell of a skid mark somewhere?

[napi21]

8. The people who died on that plane were real, so are their survivors.

I've seen all the video shots that you have, and they do look real, but how in the world can you explain that the relatives of the people on that plane wouldn't complain that this crash wasn't true?

I'm willing to buy of on a lot of the conspiracy theories, but there were just too many passengers involved to squelch this one.

[Tweed]

10. Yeah, if the plane didn't crash into the Pentagon, where the hell is it

[RagingInMiami]

11. I read on one of these websites

That the plane was taken to Ohio, the passengers were de-boarded and killed before their bodies were flown to Dover.
Weird shit, I know.

[napi21]

13. Oh please! I have a crystal ball that works too!!!

This flown to Ohio thing is the craziest story I've heard so far. Those who believe that one should really just have a boor or a nice glass of wine and chill out.

[RagingInMiami]

16. I'm not saying I believe it

It's just one of the theories out there on the "internets"

[napi21]

17. Yea, I know...all those internets too! n/t

[readmoreoften]

18. So this is the problem we've come to

A) The crime scene is inconsistent with the physics of a Boeing crashing into it.
B) There is NO trace of a Boeing on the crime scene.
C) There is a video that shows a significantly smaller plane colliding with the Pentagon.

But we are certain that the government did not orchestrate a 'burning of the Reichstag' of sorts because:

1) The people on the Boeing are missing (presumed dead)and we don't believe our government would murder.
2) If the government was going to commit murder anyway, why go through all the hassle of blowing up the Pentagon w/ a fighter jet?

I think that A-B-C are deeply problematic, but I am still skeptical of the debunking because I just don't get the motive for using a fighter jet to cause the explosion.

[RagingInMiami]

19. some say it was a guided missle

[readmoreoften]

20. okay

But if they have to kill the plane full of kids anyhow, and that's their aim, why use a missle?

I mean, the whole thing is fishy. The official report is fishy. And the missle/fighter plane story doesn't seem to make sense either in a practical way (although that's EMPIRICALLY what I see in that video and what would logically fit in that there flaming P-hole). Why use a missle when you're gonna have to off the people in the plane anyhow?

[RagingInMiami]

21. I just think it's all weird

I'm not denying the plane flew into the pentagon, but I am not going to say I'm completey sold on it either. The government should release those videos. What do they have to hide?

[RH]

62. What do they have to hide?

What would they have to show?

What would a video possibly show that was not already evident to the hundreds of people who saw for themselves?

[magellan]

23. To be sure you don't miss?

Think about it. You're flying a 757 Boeing. You're not that great a pilot (by all accounts, at most you've only learned how to land heavies via simulator); you've never actually flown a plane this size before. Your mission: hit the broad side of a 71ft high building with this bulky, 44ft high plane going hundreds of mph -- on manual.

Don't overshoot the target. Don't nosedive it or cartwheel it across the lawn.

I'm no commercial pilot but that doesn't sound very easy to me. Of course it's possible, and may well have happened exactly like the government says. But if it was a set up, and you wanted to be absolutely positive the Pentagon was hit, a missile or some other remote controlled device/aircraft would be far more reliable than a 757 Boeing with a human flying it.

[gatorboy]

25. I've been wondering about this myself.

I mean, if you look at the dramatizations of how the plane hits the Pentagon, it's coming in pretty straight, almost to the ground.

Now considering how large this plane is, how fast it was going, plus how hard it probably would be to maneuver, to get it that straight to the ground seems to me, would take a quite a distance to start your landing. Not to mention, the control you'd need just to keep it from hitting the ground. Coming in that low seems to have the potential of so many mistakes yet this pilot who had never actually flown this type of plane before, pulled it off like a pro....probably better then a pro.

Back to coming in so straight: If it was as low and straight as it was suppose to be before the crash, wouldn't the plane have taken out parking lot lights or phone polls or even clip the cars?

[WoodrowFan]

29. IT DID

It took out five light polls and some cars were damaged by the debris. Sheesh.

[gatorboy]

33. But JUST the Pentagon parking lot?

The plane was going 350 MPH. At that speed, to come in so straight, it would have had to make it's decent at quite a distance. Think about at an airport how low planes come in and that's with slowing down.
Now here's a plane coming in a full speed! The distance it would have to cover to come in that straight had t be more then just the Pentagon parking lot. Coming that low and that fast would do alot more damage then a few poles.

[WoodrowFan]

34. not just the parking lot

it took out the poles on the highway Maybe you should do some reading on some non tinfoil sites before asking questions like this.....

Father Stephen McGraw was driving to a graveside service at Arlington National Cemetery the morning of Sept. 11, when he mistakenly took the Pentagon exit onto Washington Boulevard, putting him in a position to witness American Airlines Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon. 'I was in the left hand lane with my windows closed. I did not hear anything at all until the plane was just right above our cars.' McGraw estimates that the plane passed about 20 feet over his car, as he waited in the left hand lane of the road, on the side closest to the Pentagon. 'The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car. I saw it crash into the building,' he said. 'My only memories really were that it looked like a plane coming in for a landing. I mean in the sense that it was controlled and sort of straight. That was my impression,' he said. 'There was an explosion and a loud noise and I felt the impact. I remember seeing a fireball come out of two windows (of the Pentagon). I saw an explosion of fire billowing through those two windows.'"
- "Pentagon Crash Eyewitness Comforted Victims." MDW News Service, 28 Sep 2001

[gatorboy]

44. Simmer down man.

People here were just asking questions. If it gets your panties in that much of a bunch, find another thread. Sheesh. :eyes:

[Abe Linkman]

55. Appearance of light poles is inconsistent with having been hit by anything

The light poles in question weren't cut in half, and they weren't violently torn from their base. Saying that "it" took out five light polls (sic) would only be accurate if by "taking out" you mean gently unscrewed from their base...which is probably exactly what happened. How they came to be found where they were is unknown, but most likely they either fell or were pushed out the back of a truck.

[RH]

57. Light poles were cut in half.

sliced in two and violently torn from their base:

[Abe Linkman]

66. Looks like it was unscrewed from its base.

Maybe that's how one looks if an F-16 clips it. The other photos show bent poles, but maybe there are some authenticated photographs you'd like to share with us. The one you posted looks like it's from the scene of an vehicle accident. Got any authenticated photos from the Pentagon?

If the one you posted had been hit by the wing of a 757, then the engine would have scraped the ground or that railing next to where the accident occurred.

Modern light poles are designed and built so as to easily bend. That base looks pristine, doesn't it.

[RH]

68. The photo was visible

on 'Spot the Lamp Poles' since summer 2002.

Did you really never see it before? It is as authentic as any other. The street furniture is recognisable. Did you not even think to check the weblink?

http://renovation.pentagon.mil/Phoenix/9-11-2001/Page.html

In more than two years your quest for the truth doesn't seem to have got you too far, does it?

If the damage was not consistent why did nobody at the scene ever notice that? Were they extremely stupid?

If you take the trouble to study the actual dimensions of a B757 you will find that the height of the impact is consistent.

[Abe Linkman]

73. No evidence that a 757 struck light poles, or anything else ...

at the Pentagon. The light poles story promoted by OCT supporters most likely fell or were pushed out of a truck. I'm surprised you didn't know that.

[RH]

82. How could it possibly have been more evident.?

It happened in broad daylight amidst a traffic jam on the busy Boulevard.

Why do you talk about a truck but with not the slightest evidence of any sort to show that any truck was anywhere to be seen in the vicinity? Who is going to be fooled by that? The northbound traffic was at a standstill and the vehicles actually on the Boulevard are to be seen in photos e.g. by Steve Riskus.

No truck. No shortage of witnesses.

[Abe Linkman]

87. How could a ghost 757 have been evident?

Even with special glasses, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to see a 757 where none was.

757 OVER the Pentagon. Yes.
757 knocking over light poles. OCT with only the weak as water "power" of "if this, then this" reasoning. Why anyone would fall sway to such nonsense is beyond me. Group-itis?

[RH]

89. Who said that any ghost was evident?

There is no question of any Ghost. The witnesses are real. The aircraft was real. The event was real. Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

The essential difference with the opinon of the witnesses is that the witnesses were there to see. So which version then should one prefer?

:shrug:

[Abe Linkman]

91. Who said Pentagon video shows a 757 anywhere?

There is no question about ("best evidence") videotape showing a 757 ANYWHERE near the Pentagon at or near the time of the unpleasantness.

The essential difference with OCT supporters and those who say: "show us the proof", is that (authenticated) videotape evidence would result in a pandemic of laughter. Weaker souls (OCT supporters) might even succumb to a case of the heebie jeebies. Is THAT what you prefer?

[RH]

94. Who said anything about any video?

:shrug:

I have never seen any authentication of any video.

[Abe Linkman]

101. No Pentagon eyewitnesses reported ......

having seen any MUSH outside the building (or inside it, either). No eyewitnesses reported seeing even one piece of luggage. No eyewitness reported seeing a pilot's uniform or that of a stewardess. For that matter, no eyewitness reported finding a passport of any of the alleged perps.

Are ALL of the eyewitnesses blind?

[RH]

104. I made no claim

about mush outside the building. Why would mush be outside the building? Passenger remains were positively identified. They were found inside the building.

What may or may not be in any report that you may or not have seen is proof of nothing but the extent of your ignorance.

How many witnesses did you talk to?

None?

I'd thought not.

:eyes:

Did you ever hear from anybody who had actually talked to witneses who nevertheless subscribes to your fiction?

I'd thought not.

[Abe Linkman]

107. NO ONE has made any claims (to my knowledge) that eyewitnesses...

actually saw MUSH, luggage etc. but refrained from saying so. Neither have any eyewitnesses come forth with a claim that they were paid or threatened to keep quiet about having seen any MUSH, luggage, uniforms, passports or any of the rest.

Did one of them tell YOU otherwise?

[RH]

109. Paid to keep quiet?

That's typical isn't it.

When backed into a corner, invent a yet more ridiculous fantasy.

What sort of fantasy do you invent to explain this away?

"Rose, then an Army sergeant major serving at the Pentagon, was helping secure the still-smoldering wreckage of American Airlines Flight 77 when he noticed the hand of a small child being washed away toward a drain in a rivulet of water and jet fuel.

"This was not some forensic show on TV, so there were no body bags. We were just trying to place remains that we were taking out of the water anywhere that we could to keep them from being lost as the water went down the drain," Rose said.

"Both of my hands were already full, and the only place I could put this child's hand was in my right pocket. I became so violently angry inside to think that someone could do this to someone so small and so innocent."

http://www.courier-journal.com/localnews/2004/09/12ky/B1-byron0912-5635.html

[Abe Linkman]

114. Eyewitnesses: credible accounts with key omissions? Could it be?

None of the alleged eyewitnesses have ever given an account in which they claim to have seen MUSH, luggage, pilot uniforms, hijacker passports etc.

That's typical, isn't it? When backed into a corner, duck the question.

Think maybe the reason why no eyewitnesses claim to have seen any credible evidence of MUSH, luggage, 757 engines etc. is due to the fact that wasn't any there to see? That's the only thing that makes sense, isn't it?

You don't doubt the credibility of your own eyewitnesses, do you?

[RH]

115. Did you never see this for instance?

http://onlineathens.com/stories/091104/new_20040911030.shtml

"During an interview earlier this week, Koch delicately handled eerie mementos of the crash found during cleanup: Whittington's battered driver's license. One granddaughters' luggage tag."

"...a burnt luggage tag and a wedding ring lie on a book dedicated to those lost in the events of Sept. 11, 2001. The wedding ring belonged to Ruth's daughter and the luggage tag belonged to one her granddaughters."





What sort of fantasy do you invent to explain that?

[Abe Linkman]

116. Blind eyewitnesses at the Pentagon. Which WTC site are you talking about?

You cited some kind of funky outfit that requires registration and intrusive personal questions. No matter which WTC site it is referring to, that has nothing to do with the Pentagon eyewitnesses who failed to give any account whatsoever of MUSH, 757 engines, luggage,
pilot/attendant uniforms, body parts etc. where they would be expected to be located if AA FL77 had crashed at the Pentagon as the OCT allege.

Your vaunted eyewitnesses either lied or they didn't. One thing is for sure: none of them gave an account that included having seen the above-mentioned on the pristine Pentalawn.

Were you there yourself?

[RH]

117. Instant Karma

Try the google.com cache

[onenote]

31. yes, and it did

"Back to coming in so straight: If it was as low and straight as it was suppose to be before the crash, wouldn't the plane have taken out parking lot lights or phone polls or even clip the cars?"

It did take out parking lot lights, as well as street lights. A colleague of mine (who lives very close to the Pentagon)and I were travelling to New York (by train) the morning of 9/11 and he got a call from his next door neighbor shortly after the Pentagon was hit, describing how he saw the plane crossing the highway and taking out light poles. That report literally was given to us less than an hour after the event.

See also: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A37942-2001Sep15

onenote

[LifeDuringWartime]

46. autopilot?

maybe the plane was functioning on autopilot, with a preprogrammed set of instructions set to perfectly hit the pentagon?

i dont know...maybe the guy just got lucky

[RH]

83. perfectly hit the pentagon?

According to what was anything perfect?

[WoodrowFan]

32. not the eyewitnesses

the eyewitnesses say it was an American Airlines 757. The only people who say it was a "missile" are loons sitting at home writing crap on the internet who have no first had experience with the events..

[Zero Gravitas]

35. Physics

A) The crime scene is inconsistent with the physics of a Boeing crashing into it.

If this were true it would be very easy to find bona fide aeronautical/structural engineers who could demonstrate why the observed damage is not consistent with the "official conspiracy theory". Yet, amazingly, none of the deniers have found a single such person.

Math and physics do not lie. The structural make up of a 757 and the building are known. The density and tensile strength of aircraft grade aluminum, of steel reinforcement girders, concrete and stone are known quantities. If the damage is not consistent with a 757 crash surely the deniers could dredge up a calculation to show this. In addition there are several studies and simulations from reputable sources that explain exactly how the Pentagon damage occurred. If the observed damage is not consistent with physics it should be easy to refute these studies.

[MercutioATC]

50. You're completely incorrect, readmoreoften.

A) The physics are completely CONSISTENT with a B757 crash:
http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.html

B) There were planty of pictures of debris which fit a 757 (a gear strut, a wheel, a high-pressure rotor from an engine, a piece of fuselage, etc.).

C) There is a 5-frame blurry time-lapse "video" that shows SOMETHING. It's hardly conclusive.

What we have SUPPORTING a 757 crash are:

1) The ASCE report.

2) The aircraft parts found at the scene.

3) The eyewitness reports (scores of them) of a commercial airliner crashing into the Pentagon.

We also have a lack of radar returns for any other aircraft approaching the Pentagon or AAL77 leaving the Pentagon area, five downed light poles, DNA identification of victims at the crash site, and the fact that AAL77 NOT crashing into the Pentagon leaves the question of what happened to it, the crew and the passengers.

[Sweet Pea]

58. A Few Questions?

"A) The crime scene is inconsistent with the physics of a Boeing crashing into it. "

Could you explain what would be considered "consistent" with the physics of a Boeing crashing into a building?

"B) There is NO trace of a Boeing on the crime scene."

Many crash sites have no recognizable part of the aircraft available. The Pennsylvania crash comes to mind. Does this mean that a plane never did crash there if there is NO trace of a Boeing aircraft? Or, conversely, if a crash scene has NO trace of a Boeing, does that automatically mean that a missile is what crashed there?

Just trying to get some additional info on these things.

[JusticeForAll]

96. Hypothesis only

A fighter jet or missile or something of much smaller proportion would leave less evidence for a news photographer to capture. You would see what we saw at the pentagon. Providing less evidence means less leads to follow up on. A "clean" catastrophe site leads to millions feeling sorry for the victims, and distrust of any person who questions the actual incident, because there is no evidence left behind to really question.

Where are the 757 aircraft wings for god's sake, let alone the other carnage normally left by an aircraft impact?

This is only a hypothesis and could possibly explain why a smaller craft would be used to carry this out.



Let's go back to the bigger picture too, why on earth would any rational person not want to investigate 9/11? Why did * continue to block these efforts at every step? I cannot remember any plausible reason that he gave for wanting to avoid getting to the bottom of the events and responses to 9/11.

[slaveplanet]

38. you mean this one

http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=323

Among the disturbing new details are two flights, which apparently had been part of yet another "mirror flight" scenario. "Both" got grounded in Ohio.
One of them was Delta1989, the other one was identified as, most shocking: "Flight 93"!
But there are also many new questions about some "200 passengers" of that day...

The Cleveland Airport Mystery

200 passengers got lost on 9/11 - by Woody Box

[RobinA]

24. Lost

Lost in the Bermuda Triangle. Duh.

[LisaLynne]

40. This is what gets me.

I mean, there were PEOPLE on those planes. Where are they? I'm not trying to dismiss this at all, but that is one thing that makes me wonder...

[WoodrowFan]

42. their remains

were identified at the site, you know, the one that eyewittnesses SAW hit by the plane....

[LisaLynne]

45. Oh, I should have phrased that better.

I wans't trying to suggest that there were no bodies found at the crash site. I just mean I've never seen what anyone thinks would have happened to the people on the plane if it didn't really crash.

[WoodrowFan]

71. CTers couldn't care less

Do you really think the CTers actually CARE about the victims? All they seem to care about is their death-grip on denial of the evidence to keep their faith intact. The victims seem to be nothing more than puppets to be moved around on their fantasy stage.

[gandalf]

22. This thread is doomed (I repeat myself...)

to be moved to the 9/11 forum...

[Zero Gravitas]

36. Unfortunately

there is no 9/11 forum at the moment. I have no idea why.

[WoodrowFan]

37. it's still there

but tucked away in the Archived and Leftover Forums group.

it's a plot I think. :)

[WoodrowFan]

27. idiocy

the whole idea that the airline didn't hit the Pentagon is so stupid I am amazed otherwise reasonable poeple don't laugh it back into the loonie bin where it belongs..

there are
- eyewitnesses, literally HUNDREDS
- remains of the plane, the passangers and their belongings
- telephone poles knocked down where the aircraft hit them
- the eyewitnesses who saw the "mysterious" videotpa etaken from the nearby hotel don't doubt that it was an American Airliner that hit the Pentagon.
- the damage at the Pentagon is consistant with what THE HUNDREDS OF EYEWITNESSES saw.

sheesh.


Some Links..


http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33 /

http://www.criticalthrash.com/terror/crashthumbnails.ht ...

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/pentagon_20020316 ....


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


Eyewitness Accounts...

"USAToday.com Editor Joel Sucherman saw it all: an American Airlines jetliner fly left to right across his field of vision as he commuted to work Tuesday morning. It was highly unusual. The large plane was 20 feet off the ground and a mere 50 to 75 yards from his windshield. Two seconds later and before he could see if the landing gear was down or any of the horror-struck faces inside, the plane slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon 100 yards away. 'My first thought was he's not going to make it across the river to National Airport. But whoever was flying the plane made no attempt to change direction,' Sucherman said. 'It was coming in at a high rate of speed, but not at a steep angle—almost like a heat-seeking missile was locked onto its target and staying dead on course."
- "Journalist Witnesses Pentagon Crash." eWeek.com, 13 Sep 2001


"On a Metro train to National Airport, Allen Cleveland looked out the window to see a jet heading down toward the Pentagon. 'I thought, "There's no landing strip on that side of the subway tracks,"' he said. Before he could process that thought, he saw 'a huge mushroom cloud. The lady next to me was in absolute hysterics.'"
- "Our Plane Is Being Hijacked." Washington Post, 12 Sep 2001

"I was supposed to have been going to the Pentagon Tuesday morning at about 11:00am (EDT) and was getting ready, and thank goodness I wasn't going to be going until later. It was so shocking, I was listening to the news on what had happened in New York, and just happened to look out the window because I heard a low flying plane and then I saw it hit the Pentagon. It happened so fast... it was in the air one moment and in the building the next..."
- "U.S. Under Attack: Your Eyewitness Accounts." BBC News, 14 Sep 2001

"As I approached the Pentagon, which was still not quite in view, listening on the radio to the first reports about the World Trade Center disaster in New York, a jetliner, apparently at full throttle and not more than a couple of hundred yards above the ground, screamed overhead. ... Seconds before the Pentagon came into view a huge black cloud of smoke rose above the road ahead. I came around the bend and there was the Pentagon billowing smoke, flames and debris, blackened on one side and with a gaping hole where the airplane had hit it."
- "Eyewitness at the Pentagon." Human Events, 17 Sep 2001

"Frank Probst, an information management specialist for the Pentagon Renovation Program, left his office trailer near the Pentagon's south parking lot at 9:36 a.m. Sept. 11. Walking north beside Route 27, he suddenly saw a commercial airliner crest the hilltop Navy Annex. American Airlines Flight 77 reached him so fast and flew so low that Probst dropped to the ground, fearing he'd lose his head to its right engine."
- "A Defiant Recovery." The Retired Officer Magazine, January 2002

"'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. 'Huge explosion, great ball of fire, smoke started billowing out, and then it was just chaos on the highway as people either tried to move around the traffic and go down either forward or backwards,' he said."
- "Witnesses and Leaders on Terrorist Attacks." CNN, 11 Sep 2001

"'(The plane) was flying fast and low and the Pentagon was the obvious target,' said Fred Gaskins, who was driving to his job as a national editor at USA Today near the Pentagon when the plane passed about 150 feet overhead. 'It was flying very smoothly and calmly, without any hint that anything was wrong.'"
- "Bush Vows Retaliation for 'Evil Acts'." USA Today, 11 Sep 2001

"Aydan Kizildrgli, an English language student who is a native of Turkey, saw the jetliner bank slightly then strike a western wall of the huge five-sided building that is the headquarters of the nation's military. 'There was a big boom,' he said. 'Everybody was in shock. I turned around to the car behind me and yelled "Did you see that?" Nobody could believe it.'"
- "Bush Vows Retaliation for 'Evil Acts'." USA Today, 11 Sep 2001

'I saw the tail of a large airliner. ... It plowed right into the Pentagon," said an Associated Press Radio reporter who witnessed the crash. 'There is billowing black smoke.'"
- "America's Morning of Terror." ChannelOne.com, 2001

"Omar Campo, a Salvadorean, was cutting the grass on the other side of the road when the plane flew over his head. 'It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane,' Mr Campo said. 'I was cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact. The whole ground shook and the whole area was full of fire. I could never imagine I would see anything like that here.'"
- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001

"Afework Hagos, a computer programmer, was on his way to work but stuck in a traffic jam near the Pentagon when the plane flew over. 'There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. Everybody was running away in different directions. It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts on the way in.'"
- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001

"A pilot who saw the impact, Tim Timmerman, said it had been an American Airways 757. "'It added power on its way in,' he said. 'The nose hit, and the wings came forward and it went up in a fireball.'"
- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001

"Steve Eiden, a truck driver, had picked up his cargo that Tuesday morning in Williamsburg, Va., and was en route to New York City and witnessed the aftermath. ... He took the Highway 95 loop in the area of the Pentagon and thought it odd to see a plane in restricted airspace, thinking to himself it was odd that it was flying so low. 'You could almost see the people in the windows,' he said as he watched the plane disappear behind a line of trees, followed by a tall plume of black smoke. Then he saw the Pentagon on fire, and an announcement came over the radio that the Pentagon had been hit."
- "Sept. 11, the Day America Changed." The Baxter Bulletin, 2001

"Traffic is normally slow right around the Pentagon as the road winds and we line up to cross the 14th Street bridge heading into the District of Columbia. I don’t know what made me look up, but I did and I saw a very low-flying American Airlines plane that seemed to be accelerating. My first thought was just 'No, no, no, no,' because it was obvious the plane was not heading to nearby Reagan National Airport. It was going to crash."
- "September 11 Remembered." University Week, 4 Oct 2001

Father Stephen McGraw was driving to a graveside service at Arlington National Cemetery the morning of Sept. 11, when he mistakenly took the Pentagon exit onto Washington Boulevard, putting him in a position to witness American Airlines Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon. 'I was in the left hand lane with my windows closed. I did not hear anything at all until the plane was just right above our cars.' McGraw estimates that the plane passed about 20 feet over his car, as he waited in the left hand lane of the road, on the side closest to the Pentagon. 'The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car. I saw it crash into the building,' he said. 'My only memories really were that it looked like a plane coming in for a landing. I mean in the sense that it was controlled and sort of straight. That was my impression,' he said. 'There was an explosion and a loud noise and I felt the impact. I remember seeing a fireball come out of two windows (of the Pentagon). I saw an explosion of fire billowing through those two windows.'"
- "Pentagon Crash Eyewitness Comforted Victims." MDW News Service, 28 Sep 2001

"I witnessed the jet hit the Pentagon on September 11. 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. ... Shortly after watching the second tragedy, I heard jet engines pass our building, which, being so close to the airport is very common. But I thought the airport was closed. I figured it was a plane coming in for landing. A few moments later, as I was looking down at my desk, the plane caught my eye. It didn't register at first. I thought to myself that I couldn't believe the pilot was flying so low. Then it dawned on me what was about to happen. I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball. Then black smoke. Then white smoke."
- Steve Anderson, Director of Communications, USA Today

"Henry Ticknor, intern minister at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Arlington, Virginia, was driving to church that Tuesday morning when American Airlines Flight 77 came in fast and low over his car and struck the Pentagon. 'There was a puff of white smoke and then a huge billowing black cloud,' he said."
- "Hell on Earth." UU World, Jan/Feb 2002

"Northern Virginia resident John O'Keefe was one of the commuters who witnessed the attack on the Pentagon. 'I was going up 395, up Washington Blvd., listening to the the news, to WTOP, and from my left side-I don't know whether I saw or heard it first- I saw a silver plane I immediately recognized it as an American Airlines jet,' said the 25-year-old O'Keefe, managing editor of Influence, an American Lawyer Media publication about lobbying. 'It came swooping in over the highway, over my left shoulder, straight across where my car was heading. I'd just heard them saying on the radio that National Airport was closing, and I thought, "That's not going to make it to National Airport." And then I realized where I was, and that it was going to hit the Pentagon. There was a burst of orange flame that shot out that I could see through the highway overpass. Then it was just black. Just black, thick smoke.'"
- "Terrorist 'Situation'." American Lawyer Media, 11 Sep 2001

[leesa]

28. Who told you you had to believe it??

I'll bet you believe the whopper about some guy in a cave, on dialysis, masterminding 9-11. Thank God you don't fall for conspiracy theories!

[JusticeForAll]

47. oh my god, awesome response.

OBL on dialysis...

A big plane like that doesn't disintegrate into nothingness.

show me any non-9/11 crash, and you will find gobs of wreckage, remains, personal effects, etc.

There's plenty of people who will hog a microphone during a national tragedy...

[patcox2]

48. They don't disintegrate? Google "valuejet crash scene"

And that plane hit a nice, soft, waterlogged muddy swamp, as opposed to a reinforced concrete and steel building.

[JusticeForAll]

60. I did! Oh, I am so happy you challenged me

By the way, the impact of hitting water is in effect the same as hitting a building- If you think it is like landing on a velvet cushion, please go do a lakeside belly flop from a cliff. You can pretty much kiss your ass goodbye "in the event of a water landing"

70% of remains were recovered

and this plane had EXPLOSIVES on it!! Please tell me where any amount of recovered materials from the Pentagon flight was recovered from the site.

http://aviation-safety.net/backgrounder/19960511-0/timeline.htm

1 June 1996:
Recovery workers begin using heavy equipment including a backhoe
The remains of 24 victims identified so far.

5 June 1996:
Heavy soot damage on a rear portion of the passenger cabin suggests the passenger cabin quickly filled with toxic cyanide-laden fumes from burning interior panels and cargo bins.
Evidence now strongly points to "a major fire in the forward (cargo) bay that spread quickly to the cabin."
70% of the remains of ValuJet Flight 592 have been gathered, including crucial fragments from the DC-9's main circuit breaker panel.
Investigators said the leading theory is that the crash was caused by the ignition of an oxygen generator, leading to a cargo hold fire. Sixteen oxygen generators and parts of two others stored in the cargo hold have now been recovered.

10 June 1996:
NTSB says that the crash was probably caused by an "intense in- flight fire" which possibly started in cargo area.
The search for wreckage has been called off; a total of 75% of plane has been recovered.
The remains of bodies of 36 people are identified.
The crash site is to be closed to public for 90 days.


Keep drinkin' the Kool Aid.

[LARED]

67. By the way, the impact of hitting water is in effect the same as hitting a

building

May I suggest if you seriously believe that is true you should go to the local pool and do a "cannon ball" off the diving board. A good jump should get you about ten feet in the air. Other than annoying other swimmers the effect is rather fun.

Then go up to a single story roof and do a cannon ball on to the driveway or sidewalk. Then after you get out of the hospital (assuming you live) let me know if the effects are the same.

[RH]

61. The big plane did not disintegrate into nothingness.

The black box flight recorder was discovered.

The autopsy positively identified passengers.

[JusticeForAll]

63. And the rest of the plane?

Like big sections of the tail and the fuselage and all those other big parts?

Why weren't there more broken windows at the site...I know we are talking about the Pentagon, are they diamond reinforced?

And there is a disturbing missing path of burns and incineration on the Pentagon lawn from this explosion.

[Abe Linkman]

65. MIA

Luggage, body parts, MUSH, 757 jet engines etc.

[RH]

69. Read the archive.

It was all gone over and over ad infinitum in dozens of previous threads.

At a sufficient speed aircraft do distegrate when they hit solid objects. Check out the Sandia Phantom jet experiment.

The renovated Pentagon windows were built to be blast resistant, nearly two inches thick.

The lawn within 100 feet or so of the building did burn.

[Abe Linkman]

74. Spot the MUSH

No MUSH, no luggage, no 757 engines: no evidence of a 757 flying INTO the Pentagon. You must be confusing the one that allegedly flew OVER the Pentagon.

[RH]

85. Mush luggage and engines

were seen.

There is no shortage of witnesses to that effect.

Nobody saw any B757 fly over the Pentagon.

To this day they insist that they saw it hit the Pentagon.

[Abe Linkman]

88. No MUSH , no luggage, no 757 engines (attn: Lost & won't be Found dept.)

To this day, supporters of the JFK assassination lone-nut conspiracy theory still answer the question of "how can you be two places at once, when you're not anyplace at all?" by insisting anything is possible.

"A horse divided against himself cannot stand."
A. Linkman

[RH]

90. According to who?

Who said so? Were you there to see?

Do you have any standing at all in that respect? Apart from the hollow slogans, the parrotted thesis and the mindless heckling, that is.

If not your opinion may be of some use for the sake of your masturbation. What is it worth to anybody else? You have obviously not even bothered to aquaint yourself with the case.

An autopsy was condicted. You have not even attempted to show any fault with the conduct of it. You have not even bothered to find out how it was conducted, have you?

[MercutioATC]

51. What prevents a well-connected, well-financed man from planning an attack?

How does a remote location and the need for dialysis have the slightest effect on OBLs ability to organize terrorists?

[JusticeForAll]

64. It has absolutely none...

The original poster was pointing out the fact that when our government/media says something, and says it long enough we'll believe it, without question.


This thread is distracting our focus on finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq! Oh, and the Dems lost the election because of an exit poll that claimed "values" was the most important issue in this election.

[WoodrowFan]

70. because he's a aaa-rab.

Didn't you know, only westerns can plan complicated attacks?? CTers seem to think them A-rabs is too stupid or lazy or disorganized or something... The fact that the attack planners were intelligent, college-educated man (as well as fanatics) is discounted.

[JusticeForAll]

75. What a stupid retort

Please, no one is using racism as an argument...no one until you.

Nope, simply the fact that when our government, especially thisadministration wants the public to believe something it is just repeated.

It must be difficult for non CT'ers to believe that * is a compassionate conservative.

[MercutioATC]

80. Actually, the "caveman" label used by one DUer could be considered racist.

This same poster frames his argument in exactly the way described...as if a "wacky caveman" (OBL) was incapable of coordinating the attacks.

I believe the post was a response to that sort of thinking.

[WoodrowFan]

81. exactly

thanks, that is exactly the type of think I was refering to. The fact that the attacks seemed to have been largely planned in Germany and in Kabul doesn't matter to certain CTers who prefer to refer to them as "cavemen."

[JusticeForAll]

92. Sorry...I retract my stupid remark...

I didn't catch the earlier stupid "caveman" post. I'm not about to go look for it either.

Anyway, the whole point is our government lies. Barbara Starr had some awesome Pentagon reporting last night on Aaron Brown's Newsnight that is really digging into the "government lies" story. I think Barb is getting pretty pissed at being a journalist at propaganda central. Another great piece of reporting was the ridiculous news conference held during the missing explosives in Iraq controversy and the peon they marched out to disseminate the "truth". It was pretty transparent that the Pentagon was attempting a cover-up.

I don't care if I am lumped with the other CT-ers. The fact is people lie, and for things as insidious as 9-11, they will continue to lie to protect themselves or further themselves.

[MercutioATC]

112. It wasn't stupid, you just hadn't seen the posts we're talking about.

I agree that people lie to protect themselves. For me, this isn't proof that the government had a direct hand in 9/11, though.

[tngledwebb]

102. I await the day that the BushCo's PC police penalizes

us for calling some ME terrorists 'cavemen', yes even way down here in the bowels of the 9/11 DU forum, of all places.

Especially since BushCo has tortured and kept thousands of innocent until proven guilty young ME men in open air cages in Gitmo for three years, whilst slaughtering 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians in an illegal, immoral and unjustified war, and still shows no intention of stopping the bloodbath 'til the entire region's been bombed back to before the Stone Age.

Yes, that would be rich.

Or maybe BushCo PC police are 'just lurking' and hoping the moderator will step in and kick some of us out for obviously ironic or satiric remarks...

Btw how are all of us feeling about the latest election, anyone overly surprised or depressed? Just curious.

[vincent_vega_lives]

133. Where is good ol' Abe when you need him?

Thats one of his favorites!

[tngledwebb]

98. Check the posting history of

'Would like to see a sledgehammer hit the head of a fellow DU'er' Fan, if you have the stomach for it. The credibility of those that seemingly support 98% of BushCo's version of 9/11 is terminally compromised by similar attacks on 9/11 skeptics.

[MercutioATC]

113. Yes, overboard statements have been made by both sides...

...that doesn't excuse the "wacky caveman" label nor does it have any bearing on the actual facts involved.

[DulceDecorum]

78. US MILITARY College-educated Aa-rabs

who ate pork,
smoked cigarettes,
drank alcohol,
petted strippers,
and did all the other other things really devout Muslims do.

Arabs came up with calculus and chemistry.
The damn numerals you use are Arabic.
If REAL Arabs had done this
-- AND THEY HAVE NO NEED TO --
you can bet your bottom dollar
there would have been debris wherever debris was supposed to be
and there would have been black boxes where black boxes were supposed to be
and not one single hijacker would have dared to show his face if he remained alive.

[vincent_vega_lives]

134. US Military education?

What's your evidence of that?

BTW: "and did all the other other things really devout Muslims do."

They knew they were conducting a martrdom operation, and all of their sins would be erased in one fell swoop.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

39. ummmmmmmmmmmm?

[tngledwebb]

54. You are free to believe what you like of course.

But I suggest you google Killtown for a start, and look at the photographs that you may not have seen, and check their links to this issue. This will take some time, a week or more of steady looking and research. Please check out both sides of the story, and their web-sites, even the DoD will be of use. You need to keep an open mind, rule nothing in or out. There are two basic CT's you can choose from- the BushCo Official Story CT, or the 9/11 skeptics CT. You are free for now- go and discover the truth.

[RH]

59. Why?

what does Killtown possibly know that those at the scene were not fit and well enough to know?

[DulceDecorum]

79. Pentagon hit by hijacked plane

http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/911/pages/barbers.html

Unlike the actors above,
Killtown knows the proper response to an incident like that.
For example,
Killtown would NEVER support
squirting WATER -- for crying out loud -- on a JET-FUEL FIRE.

Fire truck 345 from Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Fire Department throws a stream of water into the collapsed point of impact as smoke billows from the Pentagon shortly after an airplane slammed into the west side of the building.
http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/911/pages/firetruck.html

[RH]

84. Actors?

The yellow Airport Firetrucks used foam, as can be seen clearly enough in the earlier photos.

The absolute failure to suggest anything extra that Killtown would possibly have to contribute by way of evidence is neverthess noted.

I have not yet heard of anybody who was at the scene to see for themselves and with the slightest doubt that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

If people elsewhere then have nothing to add that is not known to those at the scene, why waste any time on them at all?

What makes them think thay know better?

[tngledwebb]

97. Two choices for newbies.

Listen to RH, he knows which evidence is best.
Or seek your own answers here and elsewhere, then come back with your findings.

[RH]

110. What about the question?

If people want to know what happened they are well advised to talk to those who were there to see. Is that somehow supposed to be a controversial suggestion?

:eyes:

If people elsewhere then have nothing to add, that is not known to those at the scene, why waste any time on them at all?

What makes them think thay know better?

:shrug:

[RH]

56. Can anyone debunk this?

Yes.

See the dozens of previous threads.

Not one person who was there at the Pentagon to see for themselves has since been seen to express the slightest doubt that Flight 77 hit the building.

There is no serious case to any other effect, just a totally useless surfeit of risibly idiotic sensationalist sophistry.

[DulceDecorum]

77. BRIGADIER GENERAL ARTHUR F. "CHIP" DIEHL III

Retiring effective Jan. 1, 2005.

Brig. Gen. Arthur F. "Chip" Diehl III is Deputy Director of Engagement, Plans and Policy Directorate, Headquarters U.S. Central Command, MacDill Air Force Base, Fla. As Deputy Director, General Diehl is responsible for building and maintaining military-to-military bilateral relationships with 22 countries in the commands area of responsibility. Additionally, he is responsible for the guidance and sustainment of more than 70 coalition partners supporting the global war on terrorism and Operation Enduring Freedom.
General Diehl received his commission from the U.S. Air Force Academy in 1975. A command pilot with more than 4,000 flying hours in the C-130, KC-135 and C-141, he commanded the 6th Air Mobility Wing at MacDill AFB, and the 62nd Airlift Wing at McChord AFB, Wash.
Early in his career, he served as the operations and staff officer for Headquarters Pacific Air Forces, the Joint Staff and Air Staff. General Diehl also served as the Air Force Director of Marketing, Chief of the Mobility Forces Division, and as executive officer to the Air Force Vice Chief of Staff.
http://www.af.mil/bios/bio_print.asp?bioID=5226&page=1

Commentary by Brig. Gen. Arthur F. "Chip" Diehl III
Secretary of the Air Force director of marketing
9/17/2001 - WASHINGTON (AFPN) -- As I walked into the Pentagon on Wednesday morning, the sight of our American flag flying at half-staff, silhouetted against a brilliant orange sunrise, brought home the pride and emotions so caught up inside all of us.
The sorrow, anger, compassion and patriotism came together in heartfelt sympathy for those who are suffering, our own family and our nation. In a moment, while we were spellbound watching on CNN the tragedy at the World Trade Center, our lives in the Pentagon changed forever. This massive building shook, a loud explosion was felt, terror descended upon us all, and evacuation ensued. We couldn't believe it -- an attack on the Pentagon!
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123004570

Brig. Gen. Arthur F. "Chip" Diehl III, Air Force director of marketing, was able to get a look at the crash site.
"No one could believe the catastrophic damage - it was horrible. A whole "wedge" had collapsed; the aircraft had penetrated about three of the five "rings" of the building. There wasn't a single piece of the jet to be seen anywhere."
http://www.af.mil/news/airman/1101/terror.html

RH (who was conspicuously absent at the Penta-site) says:
Not one person who was there at the Pentagon to see for themselves has since been seen to express the slightest doubt that Flight 77 hit the building.

Brig. Gen. Arthur F. "Chip" Diehl III, Air Force director of marketing says:
There wasn't a single piece of the jet to be seen anywhere.

FURTHERMORE,
the few pieces of lime-green metal that are alleged to have come from the Boeing 757 are highly suspect. So suspect, that at least one entire website has been pulled because of its abundance of photographs and statements of lime-greenness.
Low VOC lime-green paint was not qualified by Boeing for use as a primer until 2000. The primer used when the Penta-plane was built was DARK-GREEN.
There was no lime-green-primed metal on the Penta-plane.
You can draw your own conclusions about how lime-green-coated crap got onto the Incredible (and we DO MEAN INCREDIBLE) Penta-lawn.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph ...

FURTHERMORE,
the plane that "crashed" into the Incredible Penta-lawn is supposed to have been registered by the FAA as N644AA.
According to FAA records,
N644AA remained on the US civil Aviation registry until the owner,
whose identity remains secret,
asked that it be removed from the US civil aviation registry.
Apparently the plane, N644AA, was destroyed on January 14, 2002.
Now there are those who sneer at the BTS (and other federal) databases.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph ...
And yet,
when the FAA compels airports to run disaster drills
like those which were being carried out on the morning of September, 11, 2001,
those same people have nothing but admiration and respect for that same federal agency.
Since some of you have no idea what these FAA-mandated exercises entail, here is a description of one.

Friday, June 8, 2001
Jetport passes FAA drill of 'disaster'
By OSAMU TSUKIMORI
Portland (ME) Press Herald
United Airlines Flight 1230, a fictional flight carrying 89 passengers, "crashed" at the Portland International Jetport on Thursday, kicking off an emergency exercise held every three years at the airport.
Hundreds of people from Portland schools, the Portland Fire Department and
more than 40 other agencies participated in the drill. It followed eight months of planning and used fake bones, blood and intestines to make it authentic.
"This is as real as it can get," said John Beatty, the fire department's public information officer. "It makes us conscious of what a mass casualty would be."
The simulated aircraft, which is one-fifth actual size, was soon engulfed in flames. Two fire engines put out the fire with 4,500 gallons of white-foamed water within two minutes of the call, satisfying an FAA requirement.
One of the fire engines, the Snoozle, can pinpoint the location of a fire and pierce the outer layer of an aircraft. Portland's Snoozle is one of only two in New England and 250 in the world, Beatty said.
http://archives.californiaaviation.org/airport/msg15464 ...

The other American Airlines plane,
whose owner hides behind a different trust company,
met a similar fate on precisely the same day.
As for the two planes operated,(but not owned) by United Airlines, they continue to be registered as viable planes and at least one of them, N591UA which is alleged to have crashed in Shanksville, has been seen flying the friendly skies since September 11, 2001.

There are so very many things WRONG with this story
that one is hard pressed to find ANYTHING about it that approaches reality.
If you are truly interested in finding the truth
(or debunking it)
this is as good a place as any to start.
The Pentagon Thread 5.1
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph ...

The Passengers and the Planes
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph ...

RH, old boy,
consider yourself debunked.
There is no serious case to any other effect,
just a totally useless surfeit of risibly idiotic sensationalist sophistry.

[RH]

86. Dont be so silly.

The witnesses opinion is not even ambiguous: "the aircraft had penetrated about three of the five "rings" of the building"

[DulceDecorum]

120. The BTS and the FAA each maintain OFFICIAL DATABASES

that are NOT controlled by the neo-cons.

Aaah,
that is precisely the problem.
THERE WASN'T A SINGLE PIECE OF THE JET TO BE SEEN ANYWHERE.
And the databases confirm this.

RH himself admits:
The official version talk is flagrant sophistry. It happened in broad daylight. The event was seen and communicated immediately, officially and unofficially. Often enough people turn up on these threads to cite people they know who were there. Nobody who was there doubts the fact.

THERE WASN'T A SINGLE PIECE OF THE JET TO BE SEEN ANYWHERE.

RH,
you did not quote the good Brigadier General correctly.
You used a truth suppression technique
and took one sentence out of context.
But it is good to see that you accept that the Brigadier general
WAS ACTUALLY THERE,
and also that the Brigadier General
IS TELLING THE TRUTH.
This is the complete quote,
and the link is provided so all may go read the article in its entirety.

The next day, the Pentagon was back in business. We took a hit but no one wavered. Our nation needed us.
We went to see firsthand the damage, the aftermath of this tragedy. No one could believe the catastrophic damage to the Pentagon - it was horrible. A whole "wedge" had collapsed; the aircraft had penetrated about three of the five "rings" of the building. There wasn't a single piece of the jet to be seen anywhere.
Everyone prayed and prayed. We wanted to start digging and help the search for survivors.
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123004570

Oh, and one more thing RH,
how come that jet blew papers and other flammables
OUTSIDE the holes it made?



AND, more importantly,
AFTER
"the aircraft had penetrated about three of the five "rings" of the building"
WHERDY GO?



THERE WASN'T A SINGLE PIECE OF THE JET TO BE SEEN ANYWHERE.
-- Brig. Gen. Arthur F. "Chip" Diehl III

[MercutioATC]

129. Obviously, some people STILL haven't read the ASCE report.

It explains how damage is caused without big, inentifiable pieces (oh, and they're professionals who specialize in this sort of thing not laypersons scratching their heads saying "Gee, I don't get it").

"The damage pattern throughout the building and the locations of fatalities and aircraft components, together with the deformation of columns, suggest that the entire aircraft disintegrated rapidly as it moved through the forest of columns on the first floor. As the moving debris from the aircraft pushed the contents and demolished exterior wall of the building forward, the debris from the aircraft and building most likely resembled a rapidly moving avalanche through the first floor of the building."


http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.html

Think of a shotgun shell, Dulce. Lots of little pellets make a BIG hole. You don't need a big single projectile to cause a lot of damage.

[RH]

130. THERE WASN'T A SINGLE PIECE OF THE JET TO BE SEEN ANYWHERE

on the Wednesday morning because, of course, in the arfternoon of the day before the pieces had all been gathered up by teams of people especially assigned to do so.




We await an answer to a previous question: If the witness did not intend to refer to Flight 77 as the aircraft in question, what do you think he did thus intend to refer to?

[Abe Linkman]

131. Must have been a very small jet, indeed (what's in the bag, boy?)

General Diehl
Did NOT say:

* He was SHOWN ANY pieces of a jet (in a grocery bag or anything else)
* He was TOLD that ANY pieces had been removed
* He was told that there had been teams of superfast (or not so fast)
teams working feverishly all afternoon and all night to remove ANY
pieces of ANY aircraft and its human and other cargo
* He saw any MUSH
* He saw any luggage
* He saw any uniforms
* He saw any proof that a plane had crashed into the Pentagon
* He was shown any photos or video of a plane crash or a crashed plane

General Diehl's statements ring true and do not come across as being an attempt to mislead anyone. If anything, unfortunately for Official Conspiracy Theorists (and their supporters), General Diehl unwittingly gave powerful testimony to the notion that AA FL 77 did not crash at the Pentagon. His direct, blunt and crystal clear language makes mincemeat of the notion that a B757 got any closer to the Pentagon than the distance between it and the roof of the building. Perhaps the SAM crew assigned to protect the Pentagon could give a more exact estimate of just how close to the building it was when it flew over it on 9/11.

[Name removed]

132. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JusticeForAll]

93. Why do these planes still exist in the registration databases?

Can it really be considered a clerical error on the FAA aircraft tracking databases?

Would a clerical error be conceivable for aircraft involved in the 9/11 incidents?

The mere fact that these planes have never been re-classified as something other than "viable" is really disturbing.

I hope someone posts the link for where the tail numbers can be researched...it is really interesting to see it for yourself, and then compare it with other aircraft that really did meet their demise.

Eye-witnesses have seen the aircraft since 9-11. I bet the media isn't rushing to find these people to shove a microphone in front of their faces...but BOOM, there they were if you had a story to tell like: "It was a big plane! There was a loud explosion...Man, It is so sad."

So-called eye-witnesses are a dime a dozen during tragedies like this.

[RH]

95. Planes do not exist in databases.

:eyes:

A registration is not an existence. This was all gone over thoroughly in previous threads. No need to repeat it all again.


"Eye-witnesses have seen the aircraft since 9-11." is silly crap.

Put up or shut up. Do you have a name to quote?

Thought not.

Which witnesses were a dime a dozen? Those I heard from were absolutely pro bono, no fee or sundry consideration expected. Steve Riskus gave his photos away for nothing, and what thanks does he get for that?

[seatnineb]

100. Riskus Vs Narayanan

Ah yes!

Ron's friend...Mr Riskus......

The one and only Mr Riskus who had this to say:
"It did impact the Pentagon... There was none of this
hitting-the-ground first crap I keep hearing... It was definitely an American Airlines jet... "

....great .........

Why doesn't Riskus go and tell that to fellow Penta-Eyewitness star ,Vin Narayanan, who had this to say:
"The plane actually skidded off the ground before it hit the wall."

These Penta-eye witnesses are full of shit!

[RH]

105. Riskus was in a car on the Boulevard

From where he I doubt that he had a direct view of the ground immediately in front of the building.

So?

[seatnineb]

128. Narayanan the liar.

Another reason not to trust another bull-shitting Penta-eye-witness.

In the words of Vin Narayanan:
"The tail of the jet clipped an overhanging exit sign above me on it's way down. Then it slammed into the Pentagon wall."

"The overhanging exit sign that the jet hit on the way down was 15-20 feet above the ground. The jet came in low and fast, it's tail clipped the overhanging exit sign on the way in, before hitting the Pentagon wall. "

I cant see any damage to the the indestructible Penta-Exit sign.....can you?





P.S.

Vin you forgot to mention Ron's lightpoles!

[JusticeForAll]

103. ohhhhh

Glad you agree that eye-witness proof is silly crap.

You just 86'ed your own Post #86!


a registration is not an existence? huh?

a status of plane is not a status?

sounds like you are developing your own conspiracy of your perceived reality.

:hi:

[RH]

106. You fail even to name

your eye witness.

You have no eye witness proof to show.

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MercutioATC]

119. You are correct. A valid registration is NOT proof of anything.

...well it's proof that the registration holder hasn't requested removal, but that's all.

We've discussed this before.

[DulceDecorum]

123. When Atta registered his car

he provided an address and other information.

Funny how THAT information is considered useful
but the plane registration info is simply bogus.

[MercutioATC]

127. When United and American registered the planes

they provided an address and other information, too.

So what? That's not the issue here. The issue is that the FAA doesn't remove a registration from its database unless the registration holder makes the request. I've explained this to you many times in the past.

So what's your point?

[tngledwebb]

99. Only in America

an all sorts of 'Official Reports' be used to prove everything and nothing.
And only in the basement of the DU do such strange contradictons get the high school debating squad treatment from so many similarly single minded OCT-ers. :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:

[RH]

108. You can trash every official report

and there will still be an abundance of non official evidence to the same effect: Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

The official version talk is flagrant sophistry. It happened in broad daylight. The event was seen and communicated immediately, officially and unofficially. Often enough people turn up on these threads to cite people they know who were there. Nobody who was there doubts the fact.

[DulceDecorum]

121. RH, you routinely trash official DATABASES

that PROVE YOU WRONG.

Flight 77
is not listed on the BTS database as having taken off on September 11, 2001.

Results of Searching Detailed Statistics
"Departure Statistic(s):Scheduled Departure Time,Actual Departure Time"
"Airport(s):IAD"
"Airline(s):AA"
"Month(s):September"
"Day(s):11"
"Year(s):2001"
"Airport: Washington, DC-Washington Dulles International (IAD)"

Carrier Code, Date (MM/DD/YYYY), Flight Number, Tail Number, Destination Airport, Scheduled Departure Time , Actual Departure Time
AA, 09/11/2001, 0075, UNKNOW, LAX, 18:00, 0:00
AA, 09/11/2001, 0077, UNKNOW, LAX, 8:10, 0:00
AA, 09/11/2001, 0135, UNKNOW, LAX, 11:15, 0:00
AA, 09/11/2001, 0143, UNKNOW, LAX, 15:00, 0:00
AA, 09/11/2001, 0371, UNKNOW, DFW, 16:10, 0:00
AA, 09/11/2001, 0397, UNKNOW, DFW, 12:55, 0:00
AA, 09/11/2001, 0510, UNKNOW, DFW, 17:51, 0:00
AA, 09/11/2001, 0573, UNKNOW, DFW, 9:23, 0:00
AA, 09/11/2001, 0599, N871AA, DFW, 7:56, 7:49
AA, 09/11/2001, 0771, N3BFAA, SJU, 7:00, 6:57
AA, 09/11/2001, 0975, N3CAAA, MIA, 7:34, 7:34
AA, 09/11/2001, 1217, N2ANAA, ORD, 6:25, 6:26
AA, 09/11/2001, 1223, UNKNOW, ORD, 9:45, 0:00
AA, 09/11/2001, 1229, UNKNOW, ORD, 13:25, 0:00
AA, 09/11/2001, 1247, UNKNOW, ORD, 20:21, 0:00
AA, 09/11/2001, 1309, UNKNOW, DFW, 14:20, 0:00
AA, 09/11/2001, 1319, UNKNOW, DFW, 19:32, 0:00
AA, 09/11/2001, 1361, N493AA, DFW, 6:15, 6:17
AA, 09/11/2001, 1787, UNKNOW, ORD, 16:55, 0:00

The total number of records: 19

This omission has caused SO MANY QUESTIONS to be asked
that the BTS has succumbed to pressure
and issued this disclaimer:
On September 11, 2001, American Airlines Flight #11 and #77 and United Airlines #93 and #175 were hijacked by terrorists. Therefore, on-time statistics are not available for these flights.

BWAHAHAHAHA.

UA 09/11/2001 0093 N591UA SFO 8:00 8:01
UA 09/11/2001 0175 N612UA LAX 8:00 7:58
The two United Airlines planes had no difficulty
getting up up and away
on that September morning.

But neither one of the American Airlines planes EVER made it off the runway.
AA 09/11/2001 0011 UNKNOW LAX 7:45 0:00
AA, 09/11/2001, 0077, UNKNOW, LAX, 8:10, 0:00
And THAT, sir,
is what we refer to as a FACT.

RH, old boy, look closely at those BTS records.
What ACTUAL PROOF does ANYONE have that N644AA or N334AA were in any way involved in this caper?

And before you commence sneering,
you should know that American Airlines uses a very reputable private firm
to report its data directly from its aircraft into the BTS database.
This company has very close ties
with the industrial military complex and with civilian lawmakers. Trashing the BTS is trashing international aviation as we know it. And for what?

[RH]

124. On the contrary

The willful ingorance is demonstrably on the part of DulceDecorum.

I have repeatedly pointed out that the BTS publish an unabiguous disclaimer.

Consider once again this for instance:

"...BTS makes no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the contents of this website and expressly disclaims liability for errors and omissions in the contents of this website."

http://www.bts.gov/disclaimer.html

RH shall therefore continue to be happy to distinguish between the validity of legitimate evidence and flagrant sophistry.

Furthermeore, with regard to the moot issue, the BTS has clarified its position beyond any doubt, i.e.

"On September 11, 2001, American Airlines Flight #11 and #77 and United Airlines #93 and #175 were hijacked by terrorists. Therefore, on-time statistics are not available for these flights."

http://www.bts.gov/cgi-bin/ntda/oai/DetailedStatistics/OAI_B1.PL

[MercutioATC]

118. Because the FAA doesn't remove a registration without being asked to.

The registration holder must ask the FAA to remove the registration from the database. The FAA doesn't do it otherwise.

This was actually covered in a rather long thread a couple of months ago.

[DulceDecorum]

122. BUT the FAA will yank it if the triennial is not sent in

just the same way that the DMV yanks a registration if the insurance or road fees go unpaid.

The United Airlines planes have not returned their triennials and yet the FAA has not seen fit to yank the registrations.

The FAA knows something.
And that something
is the reason why those planes are still allowed in US airspace.

If the planes were scrapped,
the FAA would NOT STILL have them up on their website.
the FAA leaves crap like that to the FBI.

[RH]

125. May one ask

who appointed DulceDecorum as a spokesperson for the FAA?

If such an appointment is not demonstably legitimate would it perhaps be a good idea for the FAA to speak for itself as to what it knows?

[MercutioATC]

126. You're woefully mistaken, Dulce.

The FAA does indeed send out triennial aircraft registration reports to registration holders (triennial=every three years). If no response is recieved, the registration may be revoked.

Where you're first mistaken is that nowhere in the report does it require that the aircraft still be operational.

http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part47-51-FAR.shtml

The second misconception under which you're operating is that revoking a registration will necessarily remove the entry from the FAA database. If that registration number is reassigned (it can be reassigned two years after it's been revoked), the entry in the database would change.

If not...

once again for the people in the back...

THE FAA DOES NOT REMOVE REGISTRATIONS FROM THE DATABASE UNLESS THE REQUEST IS MADE BY THE HOLDER OF THE REGISTRATION.

Don't believe me? Call the telephone number I posted the LAST time this tripe was discussed. The woman at the FAA was very nice...