What the $#@!%& Hit the Pentagon????

[spooked911]

Yesterday I spent a lot of time (too much time actually) here arguing with a supporter of the official story about whether flight 77 hit the Pentagon. This person basically thinks I am crazy for not accepting the official version of events, and maybe I am. But then again, maybe I am not.

In any case, I thought it would be worthwhile to go through the possibilities for what hit the Pentagon in a somewhat systematic way, and perhaps this will shed some new light on this problem.

A. Problems with the Official Flight 77 Scenario:
1) how did the incompetent Hani Hanjour pilot the plane in such a tight circular descent and come in perfectly at ground level without hitting the ground?
2) what happened to the wings upon impact? In particular, the right wing must have broken off in large pieces but is nowhere to be seen.
3) what happened to the tail upon impact? The tail should have suffered the least damage and considering its size, should not have entered the impact hole.
4) how did the plane, with its engines just inches off the ground, navigate around the large cable spools and large electrical generator in front of the pentagon but sitll manage to hit between the first and second floors?
5) how come so little plane debris was found?
6) what happened to the black boxes? Wouldn't they be of interest in reconstructing the plane's path? If they were damaged as to be unreadable, how could human remains be found that could produce viable DNA? (the same can be asked if the plane debris disappeared by incineration.)
7) why the hijacker crash in such an odd, sparsely populated part of Pentagon?
8) what produced the large, round, soot-singed exit hole on the A-E drive?
9) why didn't the air defenses for Washington DC and the Pentagon intercept this hijacked plane?
10) why is the FBI hiding videos of this crash?
11) why didn't people on the ground who witnessed the jet say anything about the incredible loud noise a 757 would make going so fast so low to the ground?

All these problems present major problems for the official story, and thus the official story is almost impossible (but not completely impossible).

B. Problems with a Scenario Where Flight 77 is Piloted by Remote Control:
1) what happened to the wings upon impact? In particular, the right wing must have broken off in large pieces but is nowhere to be seen.
2) what happened to the tail upon impact? The tail should have suffered the least damage and considering its size, should not have entered the impact hole.
3) how did the plane, with its engines just inches off the ground, navigate around the large cable spools and large electrical generator in front of the pentagon but sitll manage to hit between the first and second floors?
4) how come so little plane debris was found?
5) what produced the large, round, soot-singed exit hole on the A-E drive?
6) who or what was piloting the plane remotely and how was this orchestrated?
7) why didn't the air defenses for Washington DC and the Pentagon intercept this hijacked plane?
8) why is the FBI hiding videos of this crash?
9) why didn't people on the ground who witnessed the jet say anything about the incredible loud noise a 757 would make going so fast so low to the ground?


This scenario is better than the official story, it can explain the plane's flight path better and why the black boxes might be covered up, but cannot explain the physical evidence. This scenario is feasible but not highly likely.

C. Problems with a Scenario Where a Remote-Controlled Boeing 757 that is not Flight 77 Hits the Pentagon:
1) what happened to the wings upon impact? In particular, the right wing must have broken off in large pieces but is nowhere to be seen.
2) what happened to the tail upon impact? The tail should have suffered the least damage and considering its size, should not have entered the impact hole.
3) how did the plane, with its engines just inches off the ground, navigate around the large cable spools and large electrical generator in front of the pentagon but sitll manage to hit between the first and second floors?
4) how come so little plane debris was found?
5) what produced the large, round, soot-singed exit hole on the A-E drive?
6) who or what was piloting the plane remotely and how was this orchestrated?
7) what happened to the real flight 77 and its passengers?
8) the cover-up must have involved planting tissue remains into the coroner's specimens that were used to identify the victims.
9) why didn't the air defenses for Washington DC and the Pentagon intercept this hijacked plane?
10) why is the FBI hiding videos of this crash?
11) why didn't people on the ground who witnessed the jet say anything about the incredible loud noise a 757 would make going so fast so low to the ground?


While this scenario is better than the official story-- it can explain the plane's flight path better and why the black boxes might be covered up, but cannot explain the physical evidence. This scenario is less feasible than Senario B, and thus is not highly likely.

D. Problems with the Scenario where a Bunker-Busting Cruise Missile Hit the Pentagon:
1) who stole the missile and programmed it to hit the Pentagon?
2) what happened to the real flight 77 and its passengers?
3) the cover-up must have involved planting tissue remains into the coroner's specimens that were used to identify the victims.
4) scores of eye-witnesses say they saw a large jet
5) plane parts must have been planted somehow.

Thus, this scenario can explain the physical evidence much better but gets very sticky when it gets to what happened to the real flight 77 and the planting of evidence, not to mention the real problems with eye-witnesses. But certainly the missile theory can explain much that the Flight 77 theory can not. Overall this scenario is possible but relatively unlikely.

E. Problems with the Scenario that an A-3 SkyWarrior Firing a Missile (a la Karl Schwarz) Hit the Pentagon:
1) who or what was piloting the plane remotely and how was this orchestrated?
2) what happened to the real flight 77 and its passengers?
3) the cover-up must have involved planting tissue remains into the coroner's specimens that were used to identify the victims.
4) who or what was piloting the plane remotely and how was this orchestrated?
5) the 757 landing gear must have been planted.

Thus, this scenario can explain the physical evidence much better but gets very sticky when it gets to what happened to the real flight 77 and the planting of evidence. But certainly this theory can explain much that the Flight 77 theory can not. Overall this scenario is surprisingly the best fit so far.

F. Problems with the Scenario that some other sort of military plane carrying a bunker-busting bomb or missile hit the Pentagon:
1) who or what was piloting the plane remotely and how was this orchestrated?
2) what happened to the real flight 77 and its passengers?
3) the cover-up must have involved planting tissue remains into the coroner's specimens that were used to identify the victims.
4) who or what was piloting the plane remotely and how was this orchestrated?
5) the 757 landing gear must have been planted.

Again, this scenario can explain the physical evidence better but gets caught up when it gets to what happened to the real flight 77 and the planting of evidence. But certainly this theory can explain much that the Flight 77 theory can not. Overall this scenario is a surprisingly good fit.


G. Problems with a Scenario where pre-planted explosives were used to damage the Pentagon and a low flying 757 over-flew the Pentagon at the same time as the explosives went off:
1) who or what was piloting the plane remotely and how was this orchestrated?
2) what happened to the real flight 77 and its passengers?
3) the cover-up must have involved planting tissue remains into the coroner's specimens that were used to identify the victims.
4) who or what was piloting the plane remotely and how was this orchestrated?
5) the 757 landing gear and other plane parts must have been planted.
6) witnesses would have seen the plane fly over.

This scenario might possibly explain the physical evidence better than the official story but gets caught up when it gets to what happened to the real flight 77 and the planting of evidence. Overall this scenario is weak but not impossible.

Bottom line: I cannot rule out that flight 77 hit the Pentagon. However, the physical evidence is not strong for this. From other facts we know about 9/11, I think it is quite possible that there was a massive cover-up involving flight 77 and what hit the Pentagon. I don't think the government has proven its case that flight 77 hit the Pentagon and they will need to show more evidence to convince me. (Like I'm sure they care.)

[Kevin Fenton]

1. American 77

1) how did the incompetent Hani Hanjour pilot the plane in such a tight circular descent and come in perfectly at ground level without hitting the ground?
A: The circle was not tight, the circumference being over 10 miles. HH cannot have been flying the plane. One of the hijackers, for example the one using a false identity (Salem Al-Hazmi) must have been a proper jetliner pilot. Al Qaeda would not have mounted the attack if they did not have proper pilots.
2) what happened to the wings upon impact? In particular, the right wing must have broken off in large pieces but is nowhere to be seen.
A: The inner section of the wings passed through the 90ft wide hole. The outer sections of both wings were either (a) destroyed by items on the lawn (generator, heliport installations) or (b) destroyed on impact. The outer sections of the wings were obviously the weakest parts of the plane, so it is not unusual that they disintegrated on impacting the facade. The wingtips of the planes which hit the WTC were diced by the steel.
3) what happened to the tail upon impact? The tail should have suffered the least damage and considering its size, should not have entered the impact hole.
A: The lower portion of the tail passed through the 26ft high hole. The upper portion of the tail clearly did not make a hole in the Pentagon facade. It either (a) disintegrated on impacting the facade (the top of the tail is obviously not the strongest part of an aircraft) or (b) did not impact the facade due to the disintegration of the lower part of the tail.
4) how did the plane, with its engines just inches off the ground, navigate around the large cable spools and large electrical generator in front of the pentagon but sitll manage to hit between the first and second floors?
A: The plane was several feet above the ground when it passed over the cable spools. See: http://www.911review.com/errors/pentagon/obstacles.html
5) how come so little plane debris was found?
A: The plane disintegrated on impact, leaving relatively few large pieces of plane to be found.
6) what happened to the black boxes? Wouldn't they be of interest in reconstructing the plane's path? If they were damaged as to be unreadable, how could human remains be found that could produce viable DNA? (the same can be asked if the plane debris disappeared by incineration.)
A: Don't know. They must be there somewhere. I find it hard to beleive they were unreadable.
7) why the hijacker crash in such an odd, sparsely populated part of Pentagon?
A: The hijackers followed the normal approach path for planes arriving at Reagan National, flying along the river and then turning right. Instead of landing, the plane continued to turn and this left it facing the west side of the Pentagon, into which it crashed.
8) what produced the large, round, soot-singed exit hole on the A-E drive?
A: I saw a programme on National Geographic Channel, "Pentagon 9/11" or something, which said it was the shockwave. This seems fairly possible to me.
9) why didn't the air defenses for Washington DC and the Pentagon intercept this hijacked plane?
A: Hard to give a comprehensive answer given the lack of information. How about a combination of slow response times (supposed to be 15 minutes, even for a plane on strip alert), confusion as to whether it was a real world situation (war games going on), there seems to have been a problem picking AA 77 up after it turned its transponder off and the general incompetence of the US military (as we can see in Iraq).
10) why is the FBI hiding videos of this crash?
A: Impossible to say with certainty. How about an absense of hard information breeds speculation and speculation is often wild, discrediting more reasonable speculation.
11) why didn't people on the ground who witnessed the jet say anything about the incredible loud noise a 757 would make going so fast so low to the ground?
A: They were more surprised by the fact it hit the Pentagon than the fact that planes make loud noises.

[spooked911]

2. Response

Thanks for your responses.

A: The circle was not tight, the circumference being over 10 miles. HH cannot have been flying the plane.
Not so, the circumference was more like three to four miles. And that is fairly tight considering how fast the plane was going. It impressed the air traffic controllers at Reagan airport.
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/017.html

One of the hijackers, for example the one using a false identity (Salem Al-Hazmi) must have been a proper jetliner pilot. Al Qaeda would not have mounted the attack if they did not have proper pilots.
Why did the ocmmission say it was Hanjour then? And how on earth do you know what requirements Al Qaeda needed?

The outer sections of both wings were either (a) destroyed by items on the lawn (generator, heliport installations) or (b) destroyed on impact. The outer sections of the wings were obviously the weakest parts of the plane, so it is not unusual that they disintegrated on impacting the facade. The wingtips of the planes which hit the WTC were diced by the steel.
Wouldn't the wings leave large pieces of debris? Did anyone describe these large pieces of debris or take a photo of it? I doubt that the ends of the wings would disintegrate. I never heard that the "wingtips of the planes which hit the WTC were diced by the steel." Where did you hear that?

A: The lower portion of the tail passed through the 26ft high hole. The upper portion of the tail clearly did not make a hole in the Pentagon facade. It either (a) disintegrated on impacting the facade (the top of the tail is obviously not the strongest part of an aircraft) or (b) did not impact the facade due to the disintegration of the lower part of the tail.
This explanation obviously is speculation. You have no idea what happened to the 40 foot high tail. The plane should have slowed down quite a bit as the nose and then the wings hit the wall. There would not have been nearly as much momentum to hit the tail and destroy it.

A: The plane was several feet above the ground when it passed over the cable spools. See: http://www.911review.com/errors/pentagon/obstacles.html. This is not so easily dismissed. There was a large engine-sized hole in the fence next to the generator that indicates the plane's engine was only inches off the ground before it hit the Pentagon. The damage to the generator is not so easily explained as by the engine and wing canoe. See: http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight77/debunking/generator.html

A: The plane disintegrated on impact, leaving relatively few large pieces of plane to be found. That answer is a little too glib. As I indicated, the wings and tail should not have been subject to the same impact and destruction forces. Witnesses who first went to the crash scene all commented how little evidence of plane debris there was. AND, if the plane disintegrated and blew up into small pieces, how come no bodies or body parts or seats were found on the Pentagon lawn?

Again, why is there a cover-up over the black boxes which supposedly were found?

A: The hijackers followed the normal approach path for planes arriving at Reagan National, flying along the river and then turning right. Instead of landing, the plane continued to turn and this left it facing the west side of the Pentagon, into which it crashed. That is an interesting explanation. So it was just luck that they hit a recently renoavated and sparsely populated part of the pentagon?

The shockwave explanation for the exit hole is feasible but not entirely convincing.

10) why is the FBI hiding videos of this crash? A: Impossible to say with certainty. How about an absense of hard information breeds speculation and speculation is often wild, discrediting more reasonable speculation.
More reasonable speculation such as?

11) why didn't people on the ground who witnessed the jet say anything about the incredible loud noise a 757 would make going so fast so low to the ground?
A: They were more surprised by the fact it hit the Pentagon than the fact that planes make loud noises.
Actually I'm saying their hearing should have been damaged by the noise. I would think they would have said something about that.

[Kevin Fenton]

4. Responses to responses

(1) Circumference: the plane passed over the Pentagon at 9:35 and then began turning, hitting the Pentagon about 150 seconds later, if the plane was doing 400mph, it would have travelled well over 10 miles in this time.
I got this here: http://www.911review.com/errors/pentagon/aerobatics.html

(2) The commission is lying and or mistaken. They thought all the hijackers used their real names. This is demonstrably not true. Al Qaeda would have wanted somebody who could fly a plane to fly the plane, this is kind of logical.

(3) "Wouldn't the wings leave large pieces of debris?" The outer sections of the wings would not if they hit hard enough - the plane was travelling at several hundred miles an hour.
"I doubt that the ends of the wings would disintegrate." Why? they were made of fairly light metal. They hit stone going real fast.
"I never heard that the "wingtips of the planes which hit the WTC were diced by the steel." Where did you hear that?" Can't find the original place I read it now, but it says pretty much the same thing here under impact damage:
http://www.911review.com/attack/wtc/impacts.html
"Although the collisions left imprints that extended out to the wingtips of the jets, the ends of the wings destroyed only the aluminum cladding covering the perimeter columns, not the steel columns themselves."

(4) "This explanation obviously is speculation." Yes, it is speculation, what else can I do, given the complete lack of video/photo evidence?
"The plane should have slowed down quite a bit as the nose and then the wings hit the wall. There would not have been nearly as much momentum to hit the tail and destroy it." Is this not speculation? How much would the plane have slowed down on impact? How fast would it have to be travelling to destroy the top section of the tail? Neither of us has any idea.

(5) "There was a large engine-sized hole in the fence next to the generator that indicates the plane's engine was only inches off the ground before it hit the Pentagon." I cannot agree at all. Why can the plane not have hit the generator and then gone up a bit? This seems perfectly feasible, even likely to me.

(6) The majority of the plane was in the fuselage, which went into the building, so it's not on the lawn. I believe the relatively light sections (wingtips, upper tail section) disintigrated. The alternative is that some bozo swapped the planes but got the type of aircraft completely wrong (or got his truck bombing completely wrong).
"If the plane disintegrated and blew up into small pieces, how come no bodies or body parts or seats were found on the Pentagon lawn?" Mainly it is only the wingtips and upper tail section that would have disintegrated on impact, the rest of the plane went into the building.

(7) "Again, why is there a cover-up over the black boxes which supposedly were found?" To create speculation about a spurious issue - it's a tried and tested tactic, remember Roswell?

(8) "So it was just luck that they hit a recently renoavated and sparsely populated part of the pentagon?" Yes, given the number of people in Wedge 1 (reported to be under 1,000), it must have hit a relatively densely population section (of the underpopulated wedge). It is likely that there were even more sparsely populated sections. Further, had the plane hit higher, it would not have penerated so far. Are you saying the renovations reduced the number of fatalities?

(9) "The shockwave explanation for the exit hole is feasible but not entirely convincing." Why not? Are you suggesting that there shouldn't have been a shockwave, or that it should not have made a hole in the wall, or that it should not have made a hole in the wall there?

(10) "More reasonable speculation such as?" United 93 was shot down, the WTC was blown up with explosives, the terrorists had help in the US, the Saudi royal family finances Al Qaeda, that sort of thing.

(11) "Actually I'm saying their hearing should have been damaged by the noise. I would think they would have said something about that." Why would their hearing be damaged by a plane's engines passing overhead for a split second. Even if they got mild tinnitis, I think they would have though the crash into the Pentagon more worthy of comment.

[spooked911]

26. You're right about the circumference but it was still a fast turn for that

speed.

The point about the commission lying or being mistaken about Hani Hanjour is interesting. Why would they lie about him? I wonder why they chose him as the pilot in the first place?

It's funny how the wings were quite strong when they ripped through the steel columns of the WTC, but here at the Pentagon they disintegrate?

The tail issue and the other stuff is rather complicated and I will have to address that later.

[Kevin Fenton]

33. One or two points

"Why would they lie about him?" For example, because the pilot who was really flying the plane had been trained in the US and/or by a friendly airforce (say Saudi Arabia) and they didn't want the embarassment. The FBI originally picked HH as the pilot because he was the only one they knew had flight training (he got some of it in the US).

"It's funny how the wings were quite strong when they ripped through the steel columns of the WTC, but here at the Pentagon they disintegrate?" I'm saying that the inner sections of the wings penetrated both the WTC and the Pentagon, but the outer sections were diced by the WTC's steel columns and disintegrated on impacting the Pentagon's facade. You might disagree with "disintegrated on impacting the Pentagon's facade", but the idea seems internally consistent to me.

[spooked911]

39. The wings at the WTC cut through almost to the tips

whereas at the Pentagon, the right wing in particular hardly did any damage.

[Kevin Fenton]

76. Size

Each side of the WTC was 208 feet wide, with 60 columns on each side.
Assuming the columns were evenly spaced that makes one column approximately every 3.5 feet.
American 11 destroyed 31-36 columns, so the width of the impact (the part of the impact which was able to destroy steel columns) was between 108.5 feet and 126 feet.
United 93 destroyed around 23 columns, so the width of the impact (the part of the impact which was able to destroy steel columns) was 80.5 feet.
Impact date source: http://www.911review.com/attack/wtc/impacts.html

American 77, a smaller plane, had a impact width (again, only the part that was able to destroy the facade) of around 90 feet.
Source: 911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/Pentagon/what-hit-it.htm

I really don't see anything odd here.

[Sgt. Baker]

96. you are comparing

an office building to a reinforced structure. The pentagon has steel and concrete pillars spaced very close together on the outer walls. There was also kevlar sheeting in the outer wall and heat proof glass. The pentagon was built to withstand incredible impacts.

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

[philb]

30. I saw an article that said they recovered black box of Fl 77 but didn't

make it public in deference to not causing further anquish to the survivor families? Any one else know where this was discussed?

[Sgt. Baker]

3. I can cover A.

1. It was not that tight a circle and it is not very hard to fly a plane. Takeoff and landing are the hard parts. I was trying to become a pilot and could not complete my training because of money issues. I'll finish someday.

2. The wings of aircraft are incredibly flimsy. They are not made to withstand any significant impact. I would assume that they bent back parallel with the fuselage and continued forward into the hole made in the building because of the incredible amount of momentum. This is further seen from the size of the initial hole before the collapse of the upper floors. It was about 15ft. diameter. Strangely enough the fuselage of the airplane at it's widest exterior point is only 13ft.

3. Same as the wings.

4. It's not unreasonable to assume that it simply missed them.

5. Momentum. Physics is really cool stuff.

6. Black boxes are not 100% indestructable. It was a large crash site. The environment of different portions of the site would naturally be different. Meaning it could be 1000 degrees over there but only 300 degrees 50ft. away. The boxes used to be housed in the cockpit but were moved to the tail of the airplanes several years ago top help reduce the number of destroyed boxes. With the severity of this particular impact it's amazing anything survived it. The plane hit a structurally reinforced building at full throttle.

7. That was the easiest direction to make the approach from. The flight path took him almost directly over Arlington cemetery which is right next to the pentagon and has no buildings between them. Or he came at it from whatever direction he could and just happened to hit the wing being renovated.

8. I'm not sure but but it could have been from hot gasses progressing forward from the momentum I mentioned earlier. Or the shockwave from the impact or maybe a combination of both.

9. I don't have an answer for this. I do know that pilots are not in constant contact with a tower unless they are in the controlled airspace of an airport. You can technically fly across the country and not talk to anyone if you take the proper route to do so. But, this plane flew into the airspace of Reagan National Airport. By this time it may have been to late because they would have to shoot the plane down over the city risking hundreds of lives with fiery raining debri and then answer to the public why they made the decision to shoot down a commercial plane full of people and allow debri to rain down over the city. But again, I don't really know for sure.

10. They released the surveillance camera video from the pentagon grounds. There aren't that many videos of this out there. This one and the gas station one are the only two I've heard about.

11. The missile conspiracy actually has eyewitnesses who heard a missile sound before the impact. There are people who heard it. But they were incorrect in determining it was a missile. Have you ever heard a 757 at full throttle. It makes a whining sound almost like a missile. Plus these witnesses have probably never heard a real missile and are going by what they think one sounds like from TV.

[spooked911]

5. Yes, flying a 757 is EASY. Why do you even need to take flying lessons?

:eyes:

[Bolo Boffin]

6. For what the hijackers wanted to do, it IS easy.

The instruments are for pilots who care about their passengers having an enjoyable ride and taking off and landing safely. That's the hard part.

But it doesn't take much to push the throttle forward and aim for a target on the ground. It really doesn't.

[spooked911]

24. Except that what the putative pilot of flight 77 did was essentially land

the plane right in front of the pentagon wall after a fast circular descent.

[Bolo Boffin]

25. No. Landing isn't what the pilot of Flight 77 did.

Landing's complicated. You keep the nose up. Flight 77 went nose down into the Pentagon, or nose first, rather.

Not the same thing at all.

[spooked911]

27. Give me a break. Bringing the plane in fairly level to the ground

at exactly the right spot after a circular descent is plenty complicated.

[Bolo Boffin]

32. Nuh-uh.

[LARED]

35. exactly the right spot ???

How can anyone know he hit exactly the right spot?

No one know what the true intentions were. Perhaps he was aiming for the center of the pentagon, or thrity feet higher.

I could just as easily make the argument that the pilot had chickened out and was in reality aiming for the airport runway, just beyond the Pentagon, but screwed up the approach and crashed into the Pentagon.

[spooked911]

40. "He" was descending a few thousand feet in a circlular turn and

the Pentagon is only 60 feet high.

He could have easily undershot or overshot the building with that kind of descent.

I'm still saying his descent was akin to landing, even if it wasn't exactly the same.

[Kevin Fenton]

77. How high is the Pentagon

I seem to remember the Pentagon is 72 feet high, not 60.

I found this link, the author thinks so too:
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/pentagon/planesize.html

[Sgt. Baker]

95. flying close to the ground

is not landing. He came in with the intention of hitting the building anywhere he could. If you look at the flight path of the aircraft he also came straight in. He had about 2 miles of straight descending flight into the building. He did not pull off any incredibly difficult maneuvers in that plane.

[Zynx]

57. I'd say he rather failed to land.

That's most certainly a crash.

[Sgt. Baker]

10. It's really not that hard to fly

I swear. Go to your local small airport and take an orientation flight. The instructor will let you fly. It's not hard to hold the stick and make basic turns and maneuvers even with no previous training.

[spooked911]

23. Yeah, I actually piloted a Cessna for a bit when I was a kid but

I think piloting a jumbo jet is a bit more complicated

[Sgt. Baker]

34. Not really

I've never flown one but my father was a pilot for the coast guard. He did search and rescue in a C130. A close friends father was a United captain. They said the bigger planes are not that much different, they just go faster and take longer to maneuver because they are so much bigger. Think of the cessna as a miata and the jumbo jet as a suburban. That's how my dad described it to me.

[Ezlivin]

59. Yes it is.

I got my pilot's license in 1993.

Flying is a lot more than simply taking the stick and making basic turns.

The pilot of the 757 made a high-speed turn without crashing. He could have easily stalled a wing by banking too sharply and the plane would have gone into the ground. A wing stalls, or quits flying, when the inside wing doesn't maintain sufficient air speed to generate lift. At that point the wing drops and the aircraft tumbles. It's a very common accident, particularly among beginning pilots and experienced pilots with "get home-itis".

And flying any aircraft close to the ground is made more difficult by ground effect. Just as ground effect allows an aircraft to rotate (lift off) earlier, it also inhibits closing with the ground because, basically, the air between the wings and the ground is compressed.

If he passed over the center of the Pentagon before initiating his turn, he was aiming for a specific target. It would have been much easier to nose down the aircraft and aim for the center of the building. In fact, the Pentagon held drills concerning just such an occurence.

[Sgt. Baker]

97. The pilots

were supposed to have had some training as pilots so I'm sure they understood stalls. Ground effect does not affect larger planes as much as smaller ones especially when they are not actually landing and do not have the flaps down and the nose up. Ground effect only comes into play at the very last moment before touchdown in fixed wing aircraft. With rotary aircraft it is a bit different. The plane was also at full throttle doing I think about 500knots. There isn't much that will alter the course of a plane that big going that fast.

[Christophera]

7. Mind Controlled Witnesses Muddy The Obvious Inconsistencies

Due to the mind control potentials at the pentagon no eye witness info from there can be used.

Notice below as soon as we get away from the pentagon people hear sonic booms. The drivers on the roads, local residents could easily be programmed to be on scene and hallucinate. These things are proven as possible by research of psychology.
http://members.tripod.com/truthasaur/humanbehave.html

Posted by spooked911]

E. Problems with the Scenario that an A-3 SkyWarrior Firing a Missile (a la Karl Schwarz) Hit the Pentagon:
1) who or what was piloting the plane remotely and how was this orchestrated?
2) what happened to the real flight 77 and its passengers?
3) the cover-up must have involved planting tissue remains into the coroner's specimens that were used to identify the victims.
4) who or what was piloting the plane remotely and how was this orchestrated?
5) the 757 landing gear must have been planted.
Thus, this scenario can explain the physical evidence much better but gets very sticky when it gets to what happened to the real flight 77 and the planting of evidence. But certainly this theory can explain much that the Flight 77 theory can not. Overall this scenario is surprisingly the best fit so far.

ANSWERS:
1) Pilot was arranged by same people who ordered the ballistics hard facing in the remodel of that part of the pentagon.
2) 77 was bumble planed out and passengers are alive, abducted.
3) Since it was a government coroner and DNA lab, there is no need to plant tissue.
3) No reason to suspect the missile carrying plane was remotely piloted. If I recall, there was at least one witness that saw a plane rise steeply over the pentagon as it blew.
5) Yes, all the plane parts were planted.

The exit hole and the ballistics needed for that performance indicate a supersonic bunker buster and this is supported by eyewitnesses remote from the pentagon that heard a sonic boom. Is there any reason to believe that US missile technology was NOT given to India and that a missile shown below was not procured and modified as a bunker buster to test on the pentagon as well as ballistic hard facing on the building?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/12/1211_wirepentagon_2.html

Then a supersonic boom from somewhere in the sky hushed the playground and Yeannakis hauled the kids into the basement.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/F77penta04.html

Schickler, Rob
Rob Schickler, a Baylor University 2001 graduate and Arlington, Va. resident, said. "A plane flew over my house," (one mile away from the Pentagon). "It was loud, but not unusual because the is by my house, on the other side of the Pentagon. Occasionally planes that miss the landing fly over my house." "A few seconds later, there was this sonic boom," he said. "The house shook, the windows were vibrating." "There was a hole in the building, and you could smell it in the air. It's a beautiful day, but you can smell the burning concrete and burning jet fuel."

I calculated the speed for entry into this video frame, through 4 frames based on a distance travelled of 200 feet and came up with 1,200 MPH.



Here is a missile that can do it.

http://www.hindunet.com/forum/showthreaded.php?&Number=39337



Normally I do not argue pentagon issues because of the red herrings of the eye witnesses. Notice the WTC event does not have that problem. I think it is best to focus on that because those who beleive the official story are inclined to beleive official eye witnesses.

[hack89]

8. Have you ever seen a cruise missile impact?

they make nice little holes in the sides of buildings - their warheads have time delayed fuses to ensure the explode only after they are well inside. Secondly, they have relatively small warheads - usually about 500 pounds or less of explosives encased in a heavy, strong steel casing (this is what allows the "bunker busting" to happen.) The outside of the Pentagon does not show signs of a bunker buster because there is too much damage spread over too large an area. Remember back to all those photographs after the fall of Baghdad showing the damage done by US cruise missiles? In nearly every case the outside of the building was relatively intact while the interiors were gutted.

Think for a second - which has more explosive energy: a 100 ton aircraft loaded with jet fuel or a 1.5 ton missile with a 500 pounds of explosives?

[demodewd]

12. Except

Except that our explanations are coming much closer to the truth than yours.

[hack89]

13. What are you talking about?

It is very plausible that a large aircraft could have caused the damage to the pentagon - it is impossible for a missile to. To think that is to have a very misguided understanding on how missiles and penetrating warheads work.

Give me a reasonable scenario - type of plane , type of missile with what you think was its operational profile. Show me you know one thing about missiles beyond your ability to use google.

[demodewd]

21. no missile

I don't support the missile theory. It could have been a large aircraft near the size of a 757 and that aircraft was timed to go off just before it hit the building and was a replacement drone not Flight 77.

[hack89]

22. I see...

do you think it was beyond the ability of the government to dupe a group of Islamic militants into hijacking an airliner and crashing it into the Pentagon? Wouldn't that be the simplest theory for government involvement? Since terrorists operate in individual cells it shouldn't be too hard to convince them that they were working for OBL. It would certainly remove the layer upon layer of complexity that many on this board seem to embrace.

[demodewd]

43. re: dupes

do you think it was beyond the ability of the government to dupe a group of Islamic militants into hijacking an airliner and crashing it into the Pentagon?

No. I'm sure Intelligence has a ready supply of dupes. Supplying dupes and lying to the public is an operation fraught with complexity in itself.

[hack89]

45. So duplicate planes and possibly remote control simplifies things? (NT)

[demodewd]

52. yes...it does

They eliminate all the unpredictabilities associated with having human hijackers succeed in taking over the planes and meeting their given destinations.

[philb]

54. but its also possible to use gas to kill the pilots and take over control

of the aircraft by remote control. The technology is known to be feasable and used for some applications. And use remote controll to bring the "hijacked" flight into the desired target.

[demodewd]

60. I think

I think they gassed the crew and passengers,brought down the planes by remote and sent up drone replacements.

[ROH]

69. If you are correct that the crew and passengers were gassed,

wouldn't it add complications to send up drone replacements; wouldn't it be simpler (to the whole operation) to fly the original planes by remote into the targets?

[demodewd]

72. hijack -by-remote flying capabilities

Can you perform precise flying patterns when you hijack-by-remote a commercial airline? I'm thinking that the military would send up retrofitted military planes with state of the art remote guidance systems and self-destruct mechanisms.

[ROH]

134. If you are correct about drones being used, do you have any thoughts

on what happened to the original flights?

I know you suggested they were brought down by remote, but do you have any indications where that might have occurred?

[philb]

137. Group of military and commercial pilots conclude 9/11 by remote control

72 hour symposium of military and commercial pilots organized by Col. Donn de Grand-Pre unanimously conclude 9/11 by carried out by remote control technology

Colonel Donn de Grand Pre (ret), was the top US arms negotiator and dealer to the Middle East under the Ford and Carter administrations.
His book, concludes that the 911 terror attacks were done by government insiders and used remote control technology.

Col. Donn de Grand-Pre organized a symposium in Portugal for a 72-hour non-stop meeting of pilots to try to assess what happened on 9/11. the group of pilots were a wonderful mix of commercial, military and civilian pilots. At any rate, after three days, the decisions were unanimous. And I wrote my 24-page report up and submitted it to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. After deliberating non-stop for 72-hours the group has concluded that the flight crews of the four passenger airliners involved in the September 11th tragedy had no control over the aircraft. The planes were taken control of by remote control. And they get into how the military industrial complex clearly, that is elements of it, were in control of this . This is all explained in my books.

Book 2 is "The Viper's Venom," Book 3 which just came out is "The Rattler's Revenge

Portugal News Online- Portugal's National Weekend Newspaper in English 3-08-2002
(discussion of the symposium and of his books can be found on dozens of web sites)

[philb]

73. I agree that no changeout is easier; but either is possible & there is

some evidence consistent with either, such as Fl 77 & Fl 93 events about the time they were turning around. See www.flcv.com/offcompl.html

For a version of changeout, see for example
Operation Pearl A.K. Dewdney- (Airliner Flight Takedowns/Exchange and Replacement) http://physics911.ca/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2

[Sgt. Baker]

98. Allen Dulles

and other corrupt cia and administration officials during the Cuban missile crisis thought up this plan of remoting controlling a plane and blowing it up over Cuba so they could blame Cuba and use military action against them.

I don't believe this is the case with 9/11. There is no evidence at all to support it.

[demodewd]

107. what to you is evidence?

What do you include as evidence? Here's my reasoning.
1. I am doubtful that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon because the videos were consfiscated by the FBI to obviously prevent us from seeing what did hit the Pentagon.

2.The hole into the A-E drive is unexplainable in terms of the physical possibilities of it being created by a conventional commercial airline.

3. The initial blast as seen by those vodeo frames given to the public by the FBI is whitish yellow implying a bomb or shaped charges.

4.The fire damage north of the plane's entry point which is remarkable for its lack of smoke and fire damage.

5.The apparent lack of any body parts from the flight recovered in front of the building and on to the freeway when it apparently exploded at the very fore of the building.

6. The complicated maneuver of the alleged hijacker pilot with the level of difficulty quite challenging for an ace fighter pilot.

7. The recorded flash preceeding the alleged Flight 11 into the North Tower.

8. The initial blast coloration of the North Tower which implies shaped charges not a jet fuel explosion.

9. The mysterious "pod"| on the undercarraige of the alleged Flight 175 which is identifiable on various different photos from various different photographers.

10. The orange flare that is emitted by 175 immediately preceeding its entry into the South Tower.

[Sgt. Baker]

109. Saw a plane

1. A friend of mine saw an AIRPLANE hit while he was heading into D.C. on 395.

2. I believe I gave a good reason for this in my initial post on this topic. Physics backs me up.

3. the horrible video that's all blurry and discolored?

4. you contradicted yourself in the same sentence. How can there be fire damage and lack of fire damage at the same time?

5. Did you expect bodies to just fly out of an enclosed airplane in all directions? Momentum carried the plane and everything within it into the building. Jet fuel burns incredibly hot and will easily burn human remains.

6. No it's not. I've explained before but might as well again. He had about 2 miles of straight descending flight into the pentagon. The turn he made prior to that straight shot is not at all difficult. It's annoying when people who know nothing of planes and aviation make the claim that it would have been impossible for a professional pilot to do.

7. That's not the pentagon

8. That's not the pentagon either and everyone saw an airplane hit the towers.

9. I have never heard of any mysterious "pod" photos.

10. Again not the pentagon and people saw a plane hit.

If we are gonna talk about the pentagon keep it on the pentagon. If you want to discuss the towers start a new thread and I'll be glad to share everything I believe and why.

[spooked911]

111. Yeah, it's ALWAYS I have a "friend" who saw the airplane hit--

funny how that works.

Perhaps he could give a testimonial to us? Or could you transcribe his/her story and share it with us?



What kind of plane did he see? Where was he? How far from the Pentagon was he? Did he see the impact? Did he see the explosion?

Seriously-- I'd love to hear his story.

[Sgt. Baker]

113. I gave you all of that info

You might need to do a little research on your own to see where 395 is in comparison to the pentagon but it's all there. He said he saw an airliner, didn't know exactly what kind. Yes he saw the impact and explosion.

A plane hit the pentagon because there is no credible evidence to suggest otherwise. Gimme specific things having to do with something other than a plane hitting the pentagon and I'll give you my opinion on them.

[spooked911]

114. I know where 395 is, but it is a long highway.

So, how far was your friend was from the Pentagon when he saw this?

How long did he see the plane for? Could he make out the type of plane? Was it some type of Boeing wing-mounted engine jet?

Thanks.

I believe some flying object hit the Pentagon, the question of course is what kind of flying object.

[Sgt. Baker]

115. uh

Did you read my last post?
There is only one spot on 395 with a good view. Right there just before the bridge.

[spooked911]

116. Uh, sorry, people have claimed to have seen the Pentagon hit from

different locaitons on 395, see this post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=41380&mesg_id=41380

In any case, you didn't answer my other questions, such as how long he saw the plane for and what kind of plane he thought it was and since he saw the impact, what it looked like to him (since different people have described it differently).

I'm not trying to give you a hard time by any means, I really would like to know any details you know about what he saw.

Thanks.

[Sgt. Baker]

117. ok

He only saw it for a few seconds but he did identify it as an airplane. He told me he saw an airliner and when I asked he did not know what kind. For someone not into aircraft it can be hard to tell which jet is which.

[spooked911]

122. Thanks, I really appreciate your replies...

Just that we've had a couple people here before saying they know someone who saw the plane hit the Pentagon and when I've pressed them on details, they don't respond.

Thanks again.

[Kevin Fenton]

78. USS Cole

It would be even easier to lob a couple of missiles into Kandahar/Jalalabad/whereever, say in retaliation for the USS Cole attack, hitting a couple of mosques/schools/hospitals accidently on purpose. Or even send Delta Force in for an air assault on the camps. That would have had them queueing up to bomb every US embassy, consulte and business from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean.

[Christophera]

19. Pentagon Showed Fuel Bomb And Ballistic Penetration

This was not an ordinary missile. It was probably a test with NO warhead so the airframe and steel casing could be studied.

There was a fuel storage tank under the building at that location. Vibration sensors set of high explosives that caused the fuel bomb effect seen on video.

A total ruse.

[hack89]

20. I can't wait to see your proof for this one!

Show me proof of a fuel tank please.

[Christophera]

46. Links Gone- How About You Show Me Plane Engines

There was a link about a year ago that had a diagram but it's gone now.

The secret government loves your support.

[hack89]

55. Sure .. here you go.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html

[Christophera]

61. Ok, Nice Pictures. Not Like The WTC Where There Is No Doubt

about where the pictures were taken.

One real big question. Why has the government not done this documentation? In order to do this properly, reasonably so, a survey with actual measurements is done to locate identifiable components and the building plan overlaid.
That is the way the government would do it if they were going to. They haven't.

You have these photos, and they look good. But I do not know where they were taken. I need to see the engine plans with specified component dimensions and matches to parts located on the map above.

In all cases above, certifications of accuracy of information would be on file and viewable by the public.

Thats all I require and I'm convinced.

This is an aircraft crash and the NTSB has investigated all of them. All the pieces you see and tons more are stored in gov warehouses.
I've seen photos of the same lawn with no aluminum debri taken 4 hours earlier.

Then we have the missing videos from the Citgo Station and the Sheraton taken by FBI? Why were those taken and why aren't they released if the actual events are as you promote here?

The fact that you show up 4 years later and LEAVE OUT obvious behaviors that conceal information, makes me very suspicious of you.

[hack89]

67. Why do you insist of a standard of proof ...

that you yourself won't meet? You have some strong opinions built on some pretty shaky ground - are all your beliefs so strongly grounded in fact (lack thereof)? There will be a time where you will need more than a pathological hatred and suspicion of the government and you will have to produce real facts with real evidence.

As for your suspicion, I could care less. It does nothing more than to highlight the weakness of you views.

[Christophera]

83. I Do Meet My Own Standards-It Is Certain That This Is WTC 2

and what stands can only be a totally unexplained structural element by the official story.



I know it is the concrete core and I know IF the FEMA structure existed the steel core columns would be protruding from the top. They are not.

I meet my own standard of proof whereas the objects in your photos could have been placed there in a few hours. We do not even know that many of the objects are where you say they are.

Posted by hack89

"Why do you insist of a standard of proof ..."
that you yourself won't meet

It cannot be classified as "pathological" when no proper investigation and documentation was done ANYWHERE. Videos were confiscated and steel shipped overseas against the outcry of professional civil engineers seeking to examine the materials who were also denied access to the WTC.

You distort to enhance the value of your information and utilize further distortion to diminish the certainty of other information and you leave out the obvious evasions.

I don't hate the US government because it doesn't exist. What is there now is but an imposter comprised of infiltrators paying geeks to pretend they care about our Constitution and have integrity to reason.

[LARED]

84. infiltrators?

Where do these infiltrators come from? Who is sending them?

While I'm hardly a fan of this administration, and governments in general, you seem to imply there is an invisible hand at work rather than just ordinary corrupt men and women that mostly started with good intentions in public service.

[Christophera]

86. We Do Not Know Everything About The Mind

and don't claim we do or that we know enough because you do not know what you are doing with your mind for 1/3 of your life.

http://www.karenlyster.com/mindb.html

[LARED]

93. That we don't know everything about the mind

ia a given, and the sub and unconscious mind is an area that unknowingly (to the self) has a impact on our reality is also a given.

What does this have to do with infiltrators?

[hack89]

68. They never existed and you know it. (nt)

[LARED]

36. That very sensible of the Pentagon brass

Testing a missile to study airframe and steel casing on their own occupied building, makes all kinds of sense.

And of course using a fuel tank under the occupied building (what size was it anyway?) set to blow using vibration sensors is a sensible idea as well.

[Christophera]

47. Sensible Yes-Saving $ On Black Ops

Multiple purpose action. Justification for war, easy access to missile for study, totally documented structure and ballistic hard face = savings.

More money to pay you.

[LARED]

48. Come-on now

Multiple purpose action. Justification for war, easy access to missile for study, totally documented structure and ballistic hard face = savings.

All of these criteria are easily found without having to blow up your own place of work.

What makes you think I am on the Pentagon payroll?

[Christophera]

49. Not Reasonable = UnAmercian Sentiment-Anti Justice

A military target was needed to justify war. Hitting the pentagon put the test in very controllable conditions in every respect.

You have no idea of how much disinfo action I have seen and countered. Your behavior is typical.

[hack89]

50. "disinfo action" = people who disagree with me.

[Christophera]

62. People Who Are Not Accountable To Reason

You've ignored information. You've been selective.

That information was behavior by the FBI which removed video tape from the CITGO and the SHERATON that had the event them. That is/was serious evasion and you totally left it out.

What you are trying to do can only be done by an accountable authority and it is done with a very specific procedure when it is done.

I've posted about it more, here;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=42329&mesg_id=42557&page=

The true American is suspicious of government. They demand swift justice and accountability. They know there is and always has been all types of corruption in high places, they demand these things in reasonable time as "due process".

[LARED]

64. You believe you are accountable to reason, so

let me ask you a question.


Which conspiracy theory elements do you find unreasonable.

For instance, do you believe it's reasonable to believe flight 175 and flight 11 actually did hit the WTC's?

Do you believe there was a pod under flight 175 that was used to make the impact more hollywoodish or devastating?

[Christophera]

66. Confusion Tactic - Inverted Positive/Negative - Disinfo Technique;check

Below LARED states a very obvious fact in a tenor that indicates I might not believe that airlines whacked the towers.

Posted by LARED

"You believe you are accountable to reason, so"
let me ask you a question.
Which conspiracy theory elements do you find unreasonable.
For instance, do you believe it's reasonable to believe flight 175 and flight 11 actually did hit the WTC's?

Then, ......... then he continues to ask if I might believe the undocumentable notion of a pod.

Posted by LARED

Do you believe there was a pod under flight 175 that was used to make the impact more hollywoodish or devastating?

This distractive confusion tactic that is meant to flip the readers perceptions of the oppositions position in the argument.

[LARED]

71. Check???? LOL

Sure. It was a pretty simple question, sorry you got confused.

[philb]

74. I don't think many or any here think the Pod theory is supported

or needed for any of the arguments being considered.
This seems to be a diversion from the main topic here.

[LARED]

82. I think you're right

Most do not support the pod theory.

The original post claimed that only those that agree with the CT'er are using reason. I just wanted to see how "reasonable" he was.

[LARED]

53. Sure it was???

A military target was needed to justify war

Says who? You think if only the WTC was hit, America would be less justified? Please take a reality pill, you need one

Hitting the pentagon put the test in very controllable conditions in every respect.

No more controllable than a thousand other targets

You have no idea of how much disinfo action I have seen and countered. Your behavior is typical.

That really should read

You have no idea of how much disinfo action I think I have seen and countered. Your behavior is typical of the people that disagree with me. Hence you work for the government

BTW, The last time I worked for the government it was when I was 14 working under a grant for poor kids.

[Christophera]

63. Pill Distorts Reality - Check It Out!

A military target was needed to justify war

Says who? You think if only the WTC was hit, America would be less justified? Please take a reality pill, you need one

The directed, warlike military target strike definately escalates public perceptions and adds justification for war.

Hitting the pentagon put the test in very controllable conditions in every respect.

No more controllable than a thousand other targets

The above is a ludicrous distortion. Ignoring the full time security surrounding the military center.

You have no idea of how much disinfo action I have seen and countered. Your behavior is typical.

It stands and I'm still doing it. You can't change it.

[LARED]

65. It stands and I'm still doing it. You can't change it.

Heavens no. I wouldn't try to change that. The world needs someone to keep the dis-info agents at bay.

BTW, you're the guy that advocates the notion that the WTC had a massive walled concrete core, right. The notion where absolutely no photographic evidences exist. No written documentation exists either, do drawings, no specification. This notion that you claim you saw in a documentary years ago that you are sure proves you right; shows that FEMA and the NIST are involved in a massive cover up about this notion.

To me that's world class disinformation. Welcome to the club

[Christophera]

70. Lots Of Absolute Evidence Exists On WTC-Change The Subject Tactic

BTW, you're the guy that advocates the notion that the WTC had a massive walled concrete core, right. The notion where absolutely no photographic evidences exist.

Yes and you cannot find a single steel core column in ANY photo of the demolition. The demo photos would show the "super strength steel core columns" FEMA shows us as some of the last structural elements to fall. They should be sticking out the top.



They are never seen you haven't, nobody has, explained where they've gone.

You've tried to use construction photos that show elevator guide rails in the core area ignoring the fact they must stand if interior box columns stand as one does here. A corner piece just outside the core area



Now below all you can do is support the official information.

No written documentation exists either, do drawings, no specification. This notion that you claim you saw in a documentary years ago that you are sure proves you right; shows that FEMA and the NIST are involved in a massive cover up about this notion.
To me that's world class disinformation. Welcome to the club

Yes, massive coverup. guliani is helping by taking and hiding the structural plans in his personal warehouse.

http://www.nyclu.org/g_archive020602.html

Okay, I figured it was a club or something. The secret government club. Sorry, not a member, I do FAR too much expose to ever be given a membership.

[LARED]

81. What about this picture of the core columns

Also the last time I checked the NIST team has the plans and Giuliani would not have the WTC plan as part of his archival records.

[Kevin Fenton]

79. Military Target

"A military target was needed to justify war."
You absolutely cannot be serious. You mean that if the Pentagon had not been hit (but the WTC had) then Bush would just have shrugged his shoulders and said, "Oh well, we lost 3,000 guys, but never mind. Let's get back to work."?

[Christophera]

89. Perhaps Not Strong Enough-Justify Multiple Wars

He would have had to kick and snivel much more to get support.

It was to have clearer justification to conduct a number of wars, more public support.

[Bolo Boffin]

9. MIND CONTROL???????

Sorry, carry on. Thanks for playing. I'm not touching that one with an Edgar Cayce Ouija board...

[philb]

31. Mind control research is being done by Gov't and fairly advanced

not that I'm claiming it is relevant to this event.

but its also clear that there are a lot of true believers who can be
depended on to say whatever will further the cause they are a true believer in.

[hack89]

41. Don't be so hard on yourself.

" but its also clear that there are a lot of true believers who can be
depended on to say whatever will further the cause they are a true believer in."

[philb]

75. Mind control isn't an issue I'm interested in here; you are just playing

games methinks. But if were of interest, we could have an interesting discussion with lots of references. You might remember that I said the main mind control I see here is that of true believers saying what supports their chosen case.

[Christophera]

51. Psychology Showed The Potentials For MC In The 1960's

At the top of page 175. "The general tendency" of the subject to forget the events of the trance after emerging from it. (1) states that suggestion conducive to remembering is successful. If this is so it is reasonable to assume the reverse to be easier and more successful because of the "tendency to forget".

The implications of; (2) reversed as well of (4) with regard to cognitive reinforcements creating severe distortions and the consideration of multiple subjects, given conditional, reciprocal suggestion motivated by disassociation's or repressed parental complex, fears or desires and phylogenically driven affectations; can be extreme in memory control as well as action.

Consistently post hypnotic controlled memory or action, elements of behavior, are shown as easily attainable when instinctual needs parallel to survival or evolution are invoked that are phylogenically correct. in addition the extreme becomes moreso in potential with consideration to memory and post hypnotic action over long periods of time enabling drastic repression's, disassociation's, cognitive distortions and reflex conditioning.



INFERENCE ONE

Relating potentials for hypnotic performance to results of research, practice and experiments of hypnosis. Christopher A. Brown 8/17/01

BASIS 1 of INFERENCE

The first sentance of page 175 of EMOTIONS and MEMORY, 1964, by David Rappaport,

"The general tendency" of the subject to forget the events of the trance after emerging from it."

BASIS 2 of INFERENCE

(1) of the same paragraph states that, "The hypnotist can successfully suggest that no posthypnotic amnesia develop".

Basis 2 Restated; Suggestion conducive to remembering is successful or generally, suggestion effecting memory has effect against a general tendancy.

CONDITIONS OF BASIS

The first note page 175, EMOTIONS and MEMORY, Note #8 states (first note below main text) that the results of memory described "in general are valid only with subjects who are able to reach the somanmbulistic stages ofhypnosis."

INFERENCE ONE

Logical inference of BASIS 1 with BASIS 2, is that; suggestion to forget will have a greater effect on memory because of the general "tendency to forget". Research confirms with observations of behavior consistent with general hyperamnesia at the top of page 176, the end of a footnote that begins on page 175 stating;

"we find hypnotized people indignantly denying they have been hypnotized."

INFERENCE ONE

If the tendancy is to forget following hypnosis that induces a trance to the level of somanmbulism and suggection effecting memory is successful then suggestion to forget will be more effective than suggestion to remember.



Here is some research into "dangerous, antisocial or repugnant behaviros created with hypnosis. MC is ancient stuff.



If the perceptions of consequences are altered, the negative behaviors can be created. Creating wants or desires or compelling fears behind the behaviors can make them far easier or extreme.



It is not true that people will not do things they do not want to do or that people cannot be hypnotized if they do not want to be or without their knowledge.

[hack89]

11. Mind control should seal the case with the American public! (nt)

[spooked911]

16. Actually the real mind control was 9/11 itself. Fortunately it is

starting to wear off.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[Frederik]

14. The coroner

Somebody posted here about the coroner who identified the passengers by their DNA (which sounds rather implausible), he appeared to have been involved in the investigation of some other mysterious incidents too, but I can't recall it now. But perhaps planting tissue wouldn't have been necessary.

[spooked911]

15. Yes, I remember that story-- he was definitely involved in some shady

operation in the past. Here's the link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=30954

[ROH]

17. Thank you for the link. Illuminating!

Interesting comment in that thread from "Fusions_Minion":
This guy could have planted any DNA he liked. He was certainly in a position to do so. As for the FBI, well they've been in more coverups than i have digits to count on.

[spooked911]

28. Additional oddity: why would a human pilot come in at an oblique angle?

According to the official story, the plane came in at about a 52 degree angle to the wall.

If you were a suicide pilot, wouldn't your instinct be to ram the building straight on, at a 90 degree angle?

Hitting the building at an angle would dissipate some of the forward momentum of the plane and might even cause the plane to bounce off the building and not penetrate it.

[LARED]

37. Bounce off the building???

You might want to think that one through a bit more.

Also perhaps he was really aiming for the adjacent face, where he would have hit nearly perpendicular.

[spooked911]

38. Yes, obviously if you come in at a weak enough angle, then the plane

would carom off the building, or just deal it a glancing blow.

THAT is simple physics.

[LARED]

42. How do you define bounce off the building?

If you mean at a small enough angle it might not penetrate the building, then I agree, If you mean the jet bounces like a billiard ball, and stop on the lawn relatively intact, when you need to rethink this.

[spooked911]

44. I meant the first way

[Sgt. Baker]

99. it wouldn't bounce

Even if it impacted at an 80degree angle it would have destroyed the plane on impact. Wing hits and breaks off in a glorious fireball and pulls the fuselage into the building where the rest of it goes off. It would not have damaged the building as much but there is no way it would have bounced off the building.

[Kevin Fenton]

80. Angle

The angle is usually approximated to 45, I don't know what it is exactly.
If you were a suicide pilot, you would want to hit the facade at the place you decided on when you scouted the building.

Also, it's worth pointing out that if the plane had straightened up and hit Wedge 1 in the middle, rather than at the join with Wedge 2, all of the impact would be in the reinforced bit which was supposed to be sparsely populated, rather than having 30-40% of the impact damage in Wedge 2, which was not reinforced at all.

[John Doe II]

85. If you're a suicide pilot

you certainly would go for a straight attack and hit the side of Rummy. And certainly you would not go for a 330° turn and then hit the Pentagon 12 feet above the ground....

[Kevin Fenton]

90. Where's Rummy

I think Rummy's office is on the east side of the Pentagon. As the plane approached from the west, it would have to turn 180 degrees to hit it from the outside anyway. Why are you so bothered about the extra 150 degrees, especially as this manouvre would have meant American 77 would very obviously have had to depart from the normal flight path for planes in the area? Besides, why should Rummy be in his office counting paperclips in the middle of a terrorist attack? Shouldn't he be in a bunker somewhere?

12 feet above the ground
If the plane had hit higher, it would have penetrated less far, causing less casualties and doing less damage. The ground and first floors were linked together between E, D and C rings, but from the second floor up there were light wells between the rings. If the plane had hit between, say, floors 2 and 3, there's no way there would be an exit hole in C ring. It may not have even reached C ring at all.

[John Doe II]

91. Rummy was not bothered

Problem about Rummy is that he should have been indeed in the NMCC but he stayed in his office (with three different accounts what he actually did there although his assistant had told him after the first attack that they would go to the NMCC where Rummy like Myers btw appeared at 10:30). So, Rummy was in his office and his office would have been a much easier target.
And for the 12 feet. For somebody who wasn't even able to fly a Cessna this is very risky. How does the plane react close to the ground? Any street signs or bridges in the way? How to be able to fly a Boeing that precise and not hit the ground first? However we turn it a 330° turn combined with sprialing downwards from 2000 feet is certainly much more difficult than heading straight into this very big building.

[Kevin Fenton]

92. My point

My first point is that the hijackers may not have realised that Rummy is an idle, good-for-nothing so-and-so, so they may have expected him and the rest of the top brass to be in the NMCC.
Three accounts? Video conference, meeting with representative, what's the third?
12 feet. IMHO HH obviously wasn't flying the plane - he may theoretically have got lucky, but it's not reasonable to assume that Al-Qaeda would have launched an attack with him as a pilot - they're not that daft.
I think the final descent was 7000 feet, not 2000, see here: http://www.911review.com/attack/pentagon/index.html.
The plane came from the west, so if it went straight into the building it would have hit more or less where it actually did in the end. Rummy's office is on the other side. The approach path is very similar to the one planes landing at Reagan National usually take - approaching along the river and then turning right, I suppose they were trying to copy that.

[spooked911]

94. Do you believe in MIHOP or LIHOP or neither?

I can't tell.

[Kevin Fenton]

101. Neither

Probably
"(1) Construction of a false account: One possible view is that although US officials played no role in facilitating the attacks and did not even expect them, they constructed a false account of what really happened - whether to protect National Security, to cover up potentially embarassing facts, to exploit the attacks to enact their agenda, or for some other reson. Although this would be the least serious charge, it would be sufficiently serious for impeachment - especially if the president had lied about 9/11 for personal gain or to advance some pre-established agenda, such as attacking Afghanistan."

Maybe
"(2) Something expected by Intelligence Agencies: A second possible view is that although they had no specific information about the attacks in advance, some US intelligence agencies - such as the FBI, the CIA, and some intelligence agencies of the US military - expected some sort of attacks to occur. Although they played no role in planning the attacks, they perhaps played a role in facilitating them in the sense of deliberately not taking steps to prevent them. Then, having done this without White House approval, they persuaded the White House after 9/11 not only to cover up their guilt, by constructing a false account, but also to cary out the agenda for which the attacks were intended to gain support." Taken from The New Pearl Harbor

Problems with LIHOP and MIHOP:
The narrative doesn't make any sense: the neocons, after coming to power, killed 3,000 of their own people (let 3,000 of their own people be killed) to build an empire. No way. There's no urgency, why pick the "nuclear" 9/11 option, when they could get almost the same things using "conventional" means? I don't believe in good and bad people. Most bad things are done because people are desperate. Some are done because their value systems are skewed. My judgement is that the neocons value systems are skewed, but not enough to kill thousands of their own civilians.

Also, some facts claimed by the 9/11 revisionists are not, upon coser examination, true. Not just silly stuff like the pod theory, but other things like the size of the hole in the Pentagon (90 feet, not 17, as originally claimed) and the importance of Afghanistan - there's nothing there.

In addition, some of the arguments are not that good anyway. It's often pointed out that the argument for complicity is a cumulative one and that a cumulative argument is only as weak as its weakest link, so if you kick one strand away, the others are still standing. However, a cumulative argument is also only as strong as its strongest link, if you put two half-baked arguments together, you don't have a fully baked argument, you just have two half-baked arguments. This is best seen regarding the standdown order. Ahmed concluded his summary (one of the first and most influential) by saying that "... one cannot pretend that the documentation gathered here suffices as final proof of these conclusions" (that the US air force was stood down). There could be (and probably is IMO) a reasonable explanation of what went wrong with the airforce. Most revisionists content themselves with saying that the story keeps changing, so the administration must be guilty, but that doesn't seem to be a fully developed position to me.

I figure:
(1) Some of the hijackers are not who the FBI claim they are.
(2) The hijackers had some help in the US (after reading Hopsicker's stuff).
(3) There's nothing unusual about the Pentagon attack (except the hijackers' identities).
(4) United 93 was shot down.
(5) The WTC was demolished by the government with explosives.
(6) The government had no foreknowledge of the sort of attacks or approximate date, but covered up a whole bunch of stuff to spin them for its own ends.

I can see this is a somewhat unusual position, but it's what makes most sense to me right now.

[John Doe II]

103. I've no problems with unusual positions!

Normally they show that people think for themselves. Of course it doesn't say they're right.
Just two points:
There is nothing in Afghanistan? And what about the pipeline and what about the heroin production? Afghanistan produces 90% of heroin worldwide. That's REALLY a lot of money. What's about it's geostrategical position?
And how do you explain that the government didn't knew about the attacks yet you state the WTC was broughth down with explosives?

[Kevin Fenton]

104. Afghanistan / WTC

"There is nothing in Afghanistan? And what about the pipeline and what about the heroin production? Afghanistan produces 90% of heroin worldwide. That's REALLY a lot of money. What's about it's geostrategical position?"
The pipeline option is only one of 6 possible routes to get oil from the Caspian to the world market, two of these routes (to Ceyhan in Turkey and through Russia's existing network) are already operational. The other four are to China (very long), to Iran (best option), to a Russian port on Black Sea and then via Istanbul and through Afghanistan to a port in Pakistan. There's never enough oil in the Caspian to justify all six routes. The US's interest is to make sure that the only route is not through Russia (might give the Russkies too much market power), which they have done by building the pipeline to Ceyhan (the main shareholder is Unocal, who was also the main shareholder in the project to build a pipeline in Afghanistan). The oil pipeline in Afghanistan is not a hot project any more (although there is a lot of gas in Turkmenistan, and you have to get that to market somehow). I don't really see Bush as a heroin dealer - I thought coke was his thing. Geostrategical position - in the middle of nowhere. If you offered be Afghanistan or Upper Volta, I'd take Upper Volta.

"And how do you explain that the government didn't knew about the attacks yet you state the WTC was broughth down with explosives?"
My thought process goes like this:
(1) WTC must have been destroyed by controlled demolition. Reason: fires didn't burn long enough, weren't hot enough, etc. Shortlist of suspects: (1) Al Qaeda (too difficult, why use planes as well?) (2) Israel (too risky, they do what they want anyway) (3) US government - only realistic candidate.
(2) Bombing in 1993. The plot was to knock the North Tower into the South Tower, which, I guess, would then have fallen south/southeast. I looked how tall the towers were and then checked how far they could fall, and what they could hit if they fell, on a map of New York. I figure they could just about reach a certain building in Wall Street, you know, the one opposite the Greek temple-looking former customs house, the one that was damaged in the attack anyway. It's not just the number of people who would be killed if the WTC (partially) toppled or the value of the buildings that would be destroyed, it's also the value of the information in the buildings that has to be protected. United 175 hit the south-east corner. Maybe it's a coincidence, but maybe it isn't.
(3) Conclusion: the Twin Towers should have been taken down in 1993 - they were a liability, but doing this would be visibly giving in to terrorism, so the issue was fudged. "Hell, we'll put explosives in the towers, just in case. But we'll redouble our efforts against terrorism, so we'll never have to use them."

So it's basically a sort of horrible screw up which is then relentlessly exploited by a bunch of crazies.

[John Doe II]

105. Afghanistan/WTC

Caspian Sea was considered second biggest oil reservoir back in 2000 and 2001. Of course estimation have been changed today. And as far as I know the whole drug market is financially as important as oil. Moreover it's "hidden money".
WTC:
If the government didn't knew in advance of 911 and al Qaeda did do it then how could exlosives have been placed? And if the government knew in advance then certainly they had a very big interest that everything works fine for the alleged hijackers ...

[Kevin Fenton]

108. Replies

There is lots of oil in the Caspian, but building pipelines is not cheap. My understanding is that great reliance cannot be place on the Caspian oil estimates, so companies are currently relucant to invest loads in building a third pipleine.
Drugs are an important market, but I just don't see Bush and Cheney showing an interest in it. Although someone lower down the line might be.
I'm not saying they knew, I'm saying they put the explosives in "just in case", thinking they would never have to be used, but that they had to be sure lower Manhattan was protected. A lot of alterations were made to the towers after the 1993 attack "to strengthen them". It would be a perfect opportunity to put the explosives in.
Don't know about "big interest", but they certainly came out of it well. My thinking is that if you let the genie out of the bottle, then it can become hard to control. Escalating a 'conventional' situation to get a war in Iraq should have been more controllable, so the administration should have prefered it to 9/11 (then again, they are crazy). Besides, it doesn't seem realistic that they would leave such a big thing up to a crazy hijacker... what would have happened if Muhammed decided he liked the coke and preferred to make a couple more trips to Vegas, so maybe next year...

[philb]

120. See: A History of 9/11 regarding info relating to some of your statements

If you followed the events and news during the period of negotiations regarding the pipeline, its pretty obvious it was considered a pretty hot subject by Bush/Cheney and others in the lead up to 9/11 and Afghanistan invasion(which didn't come about due to 9/11)

http://www.flcv.com/911hist.html

[Kevin Fenton]

126. Not such a good idea any more

Before the pipeline to Ceyhan was built, the only way to get oil out of the Caspian was using the old Russian pipeline and the US was desperate to have at least one more route - there was a time when Afghanistan looked the most promising option. Logistically, the best option to get the oil to market (the concept is most Caspian oil will go to emerging markets in the far east, so if it doesn't have to go through the Suez canal, the journey is much shorter) is through Iran, but the US won't do business with Iran so that one is out. This is why the unfeasibly long Afghan route was considered at one point. My understanding is the deal fell through because Talian was recognised by neither the US nor the UN (didn't Russian block UN recognition? - Taliban controlled around 90% of Afghanistan at one point, why wasn't it recognised?). Unocal and Delta obviously weren't going to pay for the pipeline themselves, but wanted bank loans (especially the nice subsidised ones for developing countries from the World Bank) and they couldn't get bank loans without recognition.
Now there is a pipeline to Ceyhan, there's no real need for one through Afghanistan as well - there might not be enough oil in the Caspian to support three pipelines. Also, I seem to remember a lot of the Caspian facilities are aging and it would take a lot of investment to acutally produce enough oil to fill three pipelines.
If the US ever becomes pals with Iran, the Afghan route will be stone dead, although they still might build a gas pipeline there, but that's not such a hot topic.

[spooked911]

112. Thanks for the well thought-out reply

A couple of quick points:
1) there is a lot of opium in Afghanistan, and that is important becuase the CIA is heavily involved in drug trafficking
2) you should read Tarpley's "Synthetic Terror 9/11:Made in USA" book-- he describes really well how Anglo-American intelligence agencies manipulate Arab extremists and terrorists to suit Anglo-American interests
3) This, I think it is highly likely the 9/11 hijackers had CIA handlers and that 9/11 was a covert operation at the deepest darkest level.
4) I imagine most of the neocons had little knowledge of 9/11, but a few key ones may have been in on it.
5) the hijackings themselves, the slow FAA response and the lame NORAD response are all very suspicious; probably the 9/11 hijackings were part of the live-fly hijacking drill being run that day
6) apart from opiuim/heroin and oil, there were strong geopolitical reasons to extend US influence in central Asia

[Kevin Fenton]

127. We'll see

"There is a lot of opium in Afghanistan, and that is important becuase the CIA is heavily involved in drug trafficking"
Nobody really knows how heavily organisations like the CIA are involved in drug trafficking. Given they're making so much money anyway, why go for vertical integration.

"Apart from opiuim/heroin and oil, there were strong geopolitical reasons to extend US influence in central Asia"
I suppose you mean encircling China and bothering the Russians - I can't really see this as a priority.

"The hijackings themselves, the slow FAA response and the lame NORAD response are all very suspicious; probably the 9/11 hijackings were part of the live-fly hijacking drill being run that day."
Suspicious, yes. A live-fly hijacking drill sounds pretty complicated. Has one ever been done before?

[John Doe II]

129. Just a few thoughts

CIA is and always was heavily involved in drug trafficing. Iran-Contra is a perfect example. Peter Dale Scott wrote a great book on Drugs, War and Oil. It makes perfect sense as secret services can't ask money officially from congress but often need hidden money for covered operations. Hidden money can only be obtained with crimininal activity as drugs, arms etc.

Concerning the geo-politics: Have a look at "Grand Chessboard". Brzezinski points out that in Eurasia the world leadership will be determined. See also the geopolitical importance of this area for oil: See how much attention the PNAC, the Energy Report of Baker puts on this area.

[philb]

119. There's evidence of more direct complicity from officials testimony

http://www.flcv.com/offcompl.html

and Griffin's book on 9/11 Report Disinformation.

[John Doe II]

102. Yap, 7000 feet

You're correct. I got it mixed up with meters...
For Rummy's accounts: His assistant said that he answered he wanted to do some phone calls in his office. Rummy himself told Larry King that he got his CIA briefing.

Why do you think would many many officials cover up the fact that not Hani but somebody else (another al Qaeda member from your point of view) flew the plane?

[Kevin Fenton]

106. Hani can't fly

"Why do you think would many many officials cover up the fact that not Hani but somebody else (another al Qaeda member from your point of view) flew the plane?"

Perhaps they were mistaken:
(1) The FBI published their preliminary conclusions very quickly and were perhaps then reluctant to go back on them.
(2) The investigation was not especially thorough (various obstructions e.g. from Bush, Cheney, etc., agents diverted to anthrax scare, FBI is generally crap, FBI agents receive next-to-no anti-terrorism training).
(3) - most probably IMO - FBI investigation blocked by somebody else - e.g. a friendly country like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan who didn't want the world to know the pilot was trained by them and so didn't co-operate with the FBI. The Saudis didn't co-operate with the investigation into the financing, I doubt they co-operated with the investigation into the hijackers.

Perhaps they were lying:
(4) Foreign pilot trained in US - DoD's denial of this is hopeless.

[John Doe II]

110. Thanks a lot

for all your answers.
I understand better your position now.
Only one point: I think there are a lot of issues the government (whoever it exactly was) needed to help the crazy lapdance-loving, cocain-sniffing Attas.
Or in other words: If you really want to let something happen then you have to make it happen in case of some hobby hijackers.

[philb]

121. Rumsfeld's assistant was at the NMCC phone conference & briefing him

http://www.flcv.com/offcompl.html

[philb]

118. The plane was being monitored by both FAA and Pentagon and

White House radar. Thats a matter of record. There was a more direct and rational approach that would have done much more damage and caused much more casualties.

No one was fooled by the route. They knew where it was coming from. They have very good radar.
All commercial planes had been grounded by Mineta at 9:20.

[Kevin Fenton]

128. Plane being monitored

The plane was certainly being monitored by staff at Dulles, but where did you get the bit about the Pentagon and the White House?

What more direct and rational approach would have done much more damage and caused much more casualties?

The deviation was not to fool people as to where it was coming from, but where it was going to - Reagan National, not the Pentagon. I don't think the quality of radar is an issue - I would imagine an old 1950s radar would pick up a medium-haul jetliner at 7,000 feet.

Mineta says he issued a ground stop order at 9:20, but planes kept taking off for another 20 minutes or so. Given there were over 4,000 planes in the air when the order was issued, it would have taken them a long time to land anyway. Lots of aircraft were going to unusual airports, so an ATC may have assumed that AA 77 was such a plane (not especially likely in my view given the way it was flown and lack of IFF transponder signal).

[Sgt. Baker]

100. honestly

I don't think that was what the pilot was thinking about at the time. Hitting the building was the goal, it didn't have to be perfect and obviously wasn't.

[philb]

29. re: C7&D2&E2; what happened to the real Fl 77?

Operation Pearl at the physics911.org site has the following for its version of what happened at the Pentagon:

5.7 Disposal
Getting rid of the original aircraft was trickier than one might suppose. One could not simply wash off the paint with an acid scrub and sell the aircraft to a third world country. Nor could one break the aircraft up and sell the parts. Indeed the parts, thousands of them, were all stamped with serial numbers that were registered to their respective aircraft. They could be traced. For this reason, it would have been much cleaner to dump the aircraft in the Atlantic Ocean.

Perhaps it was not until nightfall of September 11 that the disposal operation started. By then each aircraft had been fitted with slave technology. The master aircraft had already flown out over the Atlantic, the signal from the data bus monitor having been transmitted back to shore and recorded. It would then have been a simple matter to replay the tape to each of the three "non-existent" aircraft at half-hour intervals. Each aircraft would have gone through exactly the same motions as the master aircraft, continuing its flight out over the Atlantic Ocean - until the implanted bomb destroyed it. Under the Operation Pearl scenario, the three aircraft ended up in pretty much the same state as the Bush-Cheney scenario alleges. The locations are quite different, however.

Inspiration for the electronic tow technology came from the eyewitness account of two aircraft sighted by a New Jersey resident and his wife. (names witheld by request)

"Several days before 911, my wife and I were walking on Long Beach Island. It was late in the afternoon when I looked out over the ocean and saw these two passenger jets flying toward us, due west. They were flying amazingly low and amazingly slow. I was amazed to see these two jets were flying closely behind the other , nose to tail, and what was most amazing was that they were perfectly spaced, about fifty feet apart, with absolutely no fluctuations in their spacing. It looked just like one plane was towing the other. They flew right over our heads, and I watched them as they flew westward."

Under the operation Pearl scenario, the strollers witnessed a final test of the master/slave control system.

[Zynx]

56. You should add consideration for the damage done

There's no missile in the US (or any other) arsenal that can do close to that much damage to a structure of the size and composition of the Pentagon.

It's an added strike against the missile theories. They are simply nowhere near big enough.

PLUS, you have the issue of the explosion being visible to a standard camera, wheras high explosives such as in a missile cannot be captured on normal film.

[spooked911]

58. Really? I never heard that last bit. Source?

I personally think a normal missile is unlikely but a Boeing 757 seems unlikely too...

[philb]

87. Whatever hit Pentagon seems to have had high radioactivity???

A geologist had her colleague go out on her balcony in D.C. with a Geiger counter -

interview by Iconoclast

snip>
MORET: I’ll tell you what I did when 9/11 happened. I called all the doctors with Radiation And Public Health Project, and I said, "Get out of town, and don’t come back until it has rained three times." One lived 12 miles downwind from the Pentagon. She went out on her balcony with her Geiger counter. I said, "Get that Geiger counter out of your purse." We had just done a press conference in San Francisco, and I knew she had it in her purse. Well, the radiation levels were 8-10 times higher than background. We called the EPA, HAZMAT, FBI, and said, "Get all those emergency response workers suited up. They need to be protected." Two days after 9/11, the EPA radiation expert for that region called back and said, "Yup, the Pentagon crash rubble was radioactive, and we believe it’s depleted uranium, but we’re not worried about that. It’s only harmful if it’s inhaled." He said, "We’re worried about the lead solder in the plane." Well, you know what’s in Tomahawk missiles? They have depleted uranium warheads. The radioactive crash rubble contaminated with DU is evidence of a DU warhead.
snip>

Entire article is chock full of extremely frightening info about Depleted Uranium
http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=6232

[philb]

88. Anyone seen any other evidence supporting the high radioactivity?

[philb]

123. Doesn't that support the missile theory? Or remote control military plane

with a missile?
which many think seems to fit the evidence best.

[philb]

124. More support for the original post re: plane hitting generator,etc.

Many have published webistes and articles about the Pentagon Investigation.
The Problem is, there were a few major points which have never been addressed.
First and foremost, there was a contractors trailor just in front of the Pentagon wall.
Form my understanding, this was included in the ASCE report, though the Purdue simulation (and almost all individuals who published articles and web pages) did not take this into account.
This trailor was likely to be over 30ft long, and is seen in an aerial photo from Aug 25th parked right in front of the supposed impact area.



Witness statement...
Mickey Bell, an electrical contractor's foreman was working to
renovate the second and third floors. Outside, and less than 100 feet
from the initial impact of the plane, he was very nearly struck by one
of the wings as they sped by him. He had just left the project trailer
(that exploded) when he heard a loud noise. The next thing he recalled
was picking himself off the floor, where he had been thrown by the
blast
http://www.necanet.org/whats_new/report.cfm?ID=1003
http://tinyurl.com/43pb3

It seems impossible that a plane could plow through that trailor and still create a large hole in the bottom floor of the Pentagon.
As with the plane, there is almost no debris left, except this crumpled piece and the frame laying on the ground. These remains lay at the area where the left wing is supposed to have damaged the wall.

The trailor is seen here damaged and crumpled, at least what is left of it...


The main problem being that the remains here seem to be about 6ft tall. With the height of the bottom floor of the Pentagon being about 10ft, it doesnt seem possible that a hole could be created with such an object left in the way....

http://investigate911.bravehost.com/trailor.html

The second item, while has been discussed, has not been resolved to my satisfaction at least.
There was also a generator which was at least 12ft tall.
On closeups, one can see a small ladder to climb up and gain access.
http://pentagongenerator.0catch.com/ (sorry for pop-ups)
This generator was in the way of the alleged right wing.
(not to be confused with the neo-con element)

We encounter the same problem here. The damage was done on the bottom floor, with the floor being 10ft tall, and the generator being at least 12ft tall, the wing could not pass through it as if it were a hologram. This generator is directly in the path of most accepted trajectories. Though there was a notch at the top, this can not account for the damage on the bottom floor.

If the wing clipped the top of the generator, it should have damaged the second floor instead.

This brings me to the next point, with the damage being done to the bottom floor, the engines should have dug themselves into the ground, as well as the nose and bottom of the fuselage.

The engines hang lower than the wings, it seems this has never been taken into consideration.


For the plane to "nose dive" and miss the generator, it could not have hit the light posts hundereds of feet away.

For the right wing to be over the generator, it would mean the left wing would have hit the ground, thus not damaging the wall to the left of the main hole.


One more point, while I am speaking of light poles. The plane that crashed while on its way to pick up Sr. Bush, hit a light pole on the way in. It ripped the wing off of the plane tossing debris 100 yards. The pole was left standing, although it was bent, it was neither cut in half, nor uprooted as in the 5 Pentagon poles.
http://analysis.batcave.net/pentagon.html


http://investigate911.bravehost.com/

Thnanks to Ralph O. for his graphics...
http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/exp.htm

Brad
www.911index.batcave.net/911.html

[philb]

125. a witness reported something different at the Pentagon

The second plane looked similar to a C- 130 transport plane, said. He believes it flew directly above the American Airlines jet, as if to prevent two planes from appearing on radar - while at the same time - guiding the jet toward the Pentagon.
Daily Press, September 14, 2001



There has been discussion of C-130 s having advanced electronics capable of doing unusual things

and the same C-130 discussed in D.C. was also reported to be at the
UA 93 site.


Anyone know anything about the pilot? And how this plane just happened to be at the site of 2 of the crashes?

[The Straight Story]

130. The pentagon video is a key

Using math one can calculate the size of what it was that hit the pentagon (see the tail fin in the video?).

Anyone have an analysis of that - I know it can be done :)

[spooked911]

133. It has been done but the calculation depend on how you calculate the

angle of the plane and the distance from the camera. Different people get different things, probbaly depending on their initial bias.

[The Straight Story]

135. I dunno

I think it is fairly easy to get the right distance using an overhead photo of where the camera was and the length of each wall and the point of impact.

here is one photo I saved:

[philb]

136. These aren't officially released videos. Why haven't videos been release

Pentagon had several cameras.
Gas station security cameras overlooked the approach but were immediately confiscated(how could they know to do that?)

Hotel security videos were also confiscated and not returned.

Who are they protecting by not releasing the videos?
If they confirm the official story, why not release them?

There can't be any legitimate national security reason.

[ROH]

131. Another point regarding the OS

mentioned by "demodewd" in a different thread:
"Why aren't there body parts randomly spewed across the yard and freeway when the passengers were allegedly herded to the back of the plane?"

If we accept the OS, we know that the passengers and crew were at the back of the plane because Ted Olson told CNN that his wife said all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers.

[spooked911]

132. That is an EXCELLENT point!