Bush and the Timing of the Pentagon Hit on 9/11

[spooked911]

The information here comes from a workshop run by Barbara Honegger at the Truth Emergency Convergence meeting on Sunday July 24, 2005 at American University in Washingon DC. This was the only workshop I was able to attend. I was actually very lucky to stumble on this workshop because it was on the Pentagon hit, a part of 9/11 I have been extremely interested in. I truly stumbled upon this workshop because I didn't know my way around and this was the first workshop I found.

I have decided to break the info I learned from Barbara Honegger (BH) into two separate posts. This is the first one.

BH is a former whistleblower and is now a military-affairs reporter. She worked with Mike Ruppert on his "Crossing the Rubicon" but does not endorse all of Ruppert's conclusions-- particularly about Cheney being the mastermind behind 9/11 (and I agree with her).

BH describes the Pentagon hit as the "Rosetta Stone" and the "Holy Grail" of 9/11 because what happened there was very important for understanding 9/11 in general.

A key point is that the hit on the Pentagon, the killing of military personnel, was critical for engaging the military in this new "war", as opposed to 9/11 merely being a larger version of the Oklahoma City bombing.

Okay, to the meat of it-- the exact time of the Pentagon hit has been in dispute since 9/11. Initially, the time was 9:47am, then 9:45am, then 9:42am, then finally 9:37am as the final time settled on by the 9/11 commission. So there clearly has been some doubt about the timing of the event.

BH has extremely strong evidence from several different sources that the Pentagon was hit between 9:31am and 9:32am, five to six minutes earlier than even the earliest time officially admitted. This is physical evidence (stopped clocks) and several witnesses to the Pentagon hit (as she calls it the "violent event" since it wasn't clearly a plane hitting-- this will be in part two).

So why is this five minutes SO IMPORTANT???

We don't truly know, but BH has a very interesting and feasible idea, and it relates to what Bush was doing on that morning.

Remember, he was sitting in the classroom after the first plane hit, was supposedly told the second tower was hit in the classroom but did NOTHING for many minutes. In fact, Bush lingered in the classroom for a long time, in part because his aides told him to stall and not to say anything yet about the WTC attacks.

Here's the interesting part: Bush left the classroom at 9:32am.

The idea therefore, is that Bush and his people ONLY reacted to 9/11 when the MILITRARY had gotten hit. They didn't really care so much about civilians dying.

The reason they are lying about the time of the Pentagon hit is that it gives Bush cover so it makes it look like he wasn't leaving the classroom just after learning the Pentagon was hit. The lie about the timing was all about public relations! They didn't want the public to know that Bush did nothing until it was clear there was an attack on the military and that he didn't react to "mere civilians" being hit.

I think this theory makes a lot of sense.

Of course, beyond this, a really interesting question is: what the HELL hit the Pentagon????

In the second post I'll tell you what I learned from BH about what HIT the Pentagon.

Hint: she doesn't think flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

[Woody Box]

1. Interesting

I'm looking forward to Part II.

[Borg]

2. Good point !

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

3. thanks for the intersting info...

cant wait for part 2!

[pberq]

4. Thanks for posting this - more evidence

As I've said elsewhere, it is not necessary to agree with any of Ruppert's conclusions. All we need to do is note the incredible amount of questions he raises in "Rubicon" that have not been answered by the government, or explained in the official story.

[mandog]

5. Stopped clocks?

I just walked around the office to check on the clocks. Of the 10 I looked at, only 4 were accurate while the remainder were off anywhere from 2 to 10 minutes (both early and late). Stopped clocks seems to be a pretty shaky foundation to prove anything with the precision you are talking about. The same for personal accounts - do you think your watch has exactly the same time mine does?

[spooked911]

7. They are VERY punctual at the Pentagon-- think about it:

it is the military, after all. Honegger interviewed a Pentagon officer who said they HAD to be to meetings right on time.

[mandog]

10. I am very familiar with the Pentagon...

Most of the people there are civilians - it is a large office building with tens of thousands of clocks.

The company I work for insists I be punctual too - but we don't run around trying to synchronize every clock. We do what rational people would do - we show up to meetings 10 minutes early.

Believe what you wish but it is still a shaky foundation.

[John Doe II]

12. Shaky foundation

Do you know the basis for the official attack time? The reason why two weeks (!) after 911 the attack time was changed to 9:37? A clock. A clock of a surveillance camera ..........

Listen to General Scott under oath:
"Now, the only thing that I would point out on this
chart is this says 9:43, American Airlines 77 impacts the
Pentagon. The timeline on the impact of the Pentagon was
changed to 9:37 -- 9:43 is the time that was reported that day,
it was the time we used. And it took about two weeks to
discover in the parking lot of the Pentagon this entry camera
for the parking lot, which happened to be oriented towards the
Pentagon at the time of impact, and the recorded time is 9:37. "

http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing2/9-11Commission_Hearing_2003-05-23.htm


During two weeks nobody realized any contradiction with radar information, eyewitnesses etc ....

[mandog]

14. Without a universal time standard..

it is very difficult to take so many moving parts with hundreds of different clocks and watches and synchronize them to within seconds. For example, what is the time source for Bush's activities in Florida - how do we know how accurate it was? And accurate compared to what? What is the reference time to which all other times are compared to? I just see this as a complex issue that can't simply be glossed over.

Time is a shaky foundation for both sides of the issue.

[spooked911]

15. the 9:32am time isn't just based on stopped clocks, okay?

Three people have confirmed the earlier time one way or another.

I think. moreover, in the Naudet brother's film, that a firemen at the station heard over the radio that the pentagon was hit and the clock at that point showed 9:30am.

see here:

http://www.911foreknowledge.com/tony/clocks.htm

[mandog]

18. Is your point that every clock in all these instances..

was set to exactly the same time? I think you are missing my point - for all of 9/11 not every time source was set using the same reference time so 9:30 in NY on one watch could 9:35 in DC on another watch could be 9:33 on the CNN studio clock. To nail this down to minutes or seconds is impossible and meaningless.

[janedoe]

19. Perhaps the point is that the official timeline

was "fixed around the policy" (or "official story").

[mandog]

21. But how do you know that any story that counters the official story

is accurate? What if your key eyewitness was using an old Timex that hadn't been set for months?

[spooked911]

24. oh come on-- we're not talking one or two minutes here but FIVE minutes

on which several sources agree and remember intially they said the Pentagon hit was 9:47am. I could see some leeway for two or even three minutes-- but five minutes or more? There's cover-up here.

[JackRiddler]

57. sorry, your idea is ridiculous

They have the radar route timed, they have many of ways of confirming the time of an attack. And this takes two weeks to correct, on the basis of a stopped clock? Well, the same argument could be used for 9:32.

In Bush's case, he was on live TV with a final statement at 9:31 and moving out of the school immediately. So I do not connect their moving out of this school at this time directly to the Pentagon attack.

[petgoat]

16. universal time standard

I've never worked for the government, so I don't know what their
practice is, but in my professional experience arriving at work on time
is very important and given the variability of the commute, an
accurately-set watch is important to knowing whether you have to hurry
in the last ten minutes or you have time to take a stroll or a drive
through the park.

If you've ever had to log your phone calls it becomes a habit that when
the phone rings, you look at your watch. People who bill their time to
different accounts also learn to watch the watch.

Maybe it's different in the government, but in my work experience all
the clocks are accurate to the minute. People want to go home at 5:00
o'clock, won't risk going at 4:57, and won't stay 'til 5:03 unless
they're paid for it.

[MercutioATC]

26. I'm glad you work at companies that care about this sort of thing.

They don't at my (Federal) facility.

None of the clocks agree...they're not set to any central system, so they're all slightly different.

[spooked911]

28. why was there initially so much confusion about what time the Pentagon

was hit and why did that time keep changing?

In any case, the stopped clock evidence is not the only evidence.

[MercutioATC]

29. A couple of reasons:

1) None of the clocks show the same time.

2) Whether the time of the incident was recorded as when it happened or when it was reported.

It's reasonable that it would take some time to sort out the most likely actual event time.

[spooked911]

33. But TEN minutes-- from 9:47 down to 9:37am?

If you're willing to give them that much leeway, how do you know the time wasn't 9:31am?

[MercutioATC]

35. What difference does it really make?

The times were adjusted later to reflect their best estimate of an exact event time. Since it makes no real difference whether it was at 9:37 or 9:47, why is this an issue?

Hell, initial reports of the first WTC strike were that a Cessna had hit...then a 737...early reports are frequently amended upon review.

[spooked911]

39. Ten minutes is a big difference for such a major event. Why exactly

WOULDN'T someone know when the Pentagon was hit? It makes no sense really. The WTC impacts are known to the minutes, even the flight 93 crash is only off by three minutes from official to seismic data.

[petgoat]

40. " flight 93 crash is only off by three minutes"

Some say that by NTSB standards, three minutes is practically a
lifetime. But then NTSB wasn't allowed on this one. Or any of the
other ones.

[spooked911]

49. Agreed.

[MercutioATC]

42. The official time is in the 9/11 report.

Reports as to the exact time varied. We've discussed why times might be different. What's the issue?

[demodewd]

97. it was decreed

The 911 decreed it "official". End of story.

:sarcasm:

[MercutioATC]

99. It makes a difference if they were off by a few minutes?

Since none of the 9/11 Commission members were directly involved in the event, they had to compile the various reports and come up with what they believed was an exact event time.

Again, what difference does it make?

[MercutioATC]

23. If that were true, the clocks where I work would be correct...

...they're not even close.

Yes, our ATC clocks on the scopes are, of course, synchronized. The rest of the clocks in the building are off. As a matter of fact, the computer terminal I use to sign in and out of work has the little Windows clock in the bottom right hand corner. That clock is a minute different than the sign in/sign out program's clock....and that's on the SANE FRIGGIN' COMPUTER.

After working in a Federal facility, I'm not buying the stopped clocks as evidence.

[Woody Box]

6. Some grains of salt

Thinking more about it, I'm becoming a bit suspicious if Barbara Honegger was "fed" with disinfo by her military sources.

This has happened before, to General Don De Grand-Pre for instance, who claimed he knew the name of the pilot who shot down Flight 93.

This info was complete BS (I don't want to elaborate now why). De Grand-Pre knew also from some "air traffic controllers from Boston" that Flight 11 and Flight 175 were shot down over the Atlantic. This was BS, too, and again, I will not elaborate due to lack of time.

My point is that insiders like the general and Honegger are a good way to spread disinformation. (I don't accuse these two brave people.)

Back to the subject: Concerning the impact time 9:31/9:32, the clocks have been the only evidence so far to suggest an earlier impact. I myself opened a DU thread on this issue. But time has passed away, and no additional evidence has emerged - Honegger's sources are the first one.

I have a special reason for being suspicious, that is the sudden evacuation of Reagan airport. Look at these eyewitness accounts:

http://www.team8plus.org/forum_viewtopic.php?6.300

Lindsey Kriete, 24, of Wellesley was scheduled to leave Reagan National on a 10 a.m. flight to Boston. About 9:30 a.m., all hell broke loose, Kriete said, as airport personnel began running through the terminal, telling passengers to leave quickly. By the time Kriete had rounded up her belongings and tried to calm people who were crying, all the taxis were gone and the subway had shut down.

The phone rang. It was my sister, on her cell phone from Reagan National Airport in D.C. She was within minutes of boarding a plane to Atlanta when U.S. airspace was shut down—and she was talking very fast:

"They're telling us to forget our bags and get out of the terminal!" she said. And then, as she got outside, she began to lose her composure. "I hear something that sounds like explosions . . . I'm afraid!"

It later became clear that the sounds she was hearing were actually coming from the Pentagon, which is near Reagan National.

The second statement especially suggests that the Pentagon crash happened some minutes after the begin of the evacuation.

This here is a spontaneous posting, I have to think about it again and ask you to do the same. But I think these statements contradict a 9:31 impact time.

If the 9:31 impact time is correct, this would also mean that the 9/11 report is flatly lying on the time data of the approaching plane. Knowing that the report contains uncountable omissions and distortions, I doubt it spreads wrong time data (which are documented in ATC and NEADS audio files).

So please be careful, but nevertheless, it's interesting. I'm looking forward to part II.

[spooked911]

9. I believe Honegger on the time but your point is well taken

Actually, see my post #8-- I think the whole thing fits together better

Honegger even had a tape-recording of Alberto Gonzales giving a speech to the military where he said the pentagon was hit at 9:32am. She had two other people who strongly supported the 9:32am time plus the stopped clocks. She claims that the 9:32am time is as solid as anything in 9/11 research, if you want to believe her.

[spooked911]

8. Correction on when Bush left the classroom-- IMPORTANT!

I didn't cross-check what Honegger was saying with other sources so just took her word that he left at 9:32am.

But according to actually, Thompson's timeline, Bush left the classroom at 9:29am, then at 9;34am was rushed out of the school-- it looks like after the Pentagon was hit at 9:31am did they realize Bush was in danger!

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&day_of_9/11=bush

This makes even more sense now! They must have been expecting the twin tower attack but not the pentagon hit. When the Pentagon was hit, they knew Bush might be a target as well.

This implies that the PENTAGON HIT WAS UNEXPECTED!

This also makes me wonder if the other hijacked planes, 77 and 93 were possible back-up planes for the WTC hit? Because the secret service had to know other planes were hijacked when Bush was in the classroom, but they didn't do anything UNTIL the Pentagon was hit!

[petgoat]

13. Were Flights 77 and 93 Backups

Also flight 23. Check out these threads for the theory that WTC7 was
meant to be hit by a plane but those strikes were thwarted and in the
end they decided to "pull it" anyway.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x48293

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[Kevin Fenton]

32. Yeehaw

Your timings are still off, but as to

"This implies that the PENTAGON HIT WAS UNEXPECTED!"

Yeehaw! I knew you'd see sense sooner or later.

[demodewd]

58. attn: spooked911

spooked911...I'm trying to obtain the website and posting of information in regards to the alleged Brady bond loans overseen by certain higher ups(GHW Bush,Greenspan,Clinton?)in which full payment was due on 9-12-2001.The site and author(can't recollect who)stated that the transcaction documents were under the control of a North Tower company located on a floor at or very near the crash site. Also the author stated that the ONI located in the West wing of the Pentagon had record of this bond transaction that was allegedly based on fraudulent financial instruments in the amount of 240 billion dollars and that the this was under investigation by the ONI at the time. He went on to say that that was the reason the West Wing was the target. Know anything about this or the site that goes into it?

[spooked911]

60. I don't really remember seeing anything about Brady bonds

I know there was a story about lots of financial transactions being rushed through the WTC computers right before the planes crashed. Some German company was supposed to rescue the data on the recovered hard disks but the story then disappeared.

Barbara Honegger says the Army financial auditing office was specifically targeted by the blast, and this may have been to cover up the huge sums of money that were reported missing by the Pentagon right before 9/11.

But I don't have any links or know anything more.

[janedoe]

11. Wow! That's the first reasonable explanation I've heard

about Bush's behavior on 9-11. It didn't make sense that with such an extensive plan on 9-11, that bush wouldn't have rehearsed his response. But, until now, his response didn't make sense. Now it does.

Thank you!

[spooked911]

17. Possible independent confirmation of an earlier time for the Pentagon hit

see here:
http://www.911foreknowledge.com/tony/clocks.htm

[Old and In the Way]

20. Doesn't that make the 77 flight time even more improbable?

11 mnutes shorter would make the return time flight even toughter to explain.

[petgoat]

22. Jet Exhaust and Pentagon Cable Reels

Look at this video of the effects of jet engine exhaust on a truck.

http://www.letsroll911.net/images/simulation.mpeg

Remember those cable reels by the hole in the Pentagon? Shouldn't they
have been rolled into the next county by the exhaust?

[philb]

25. Cable reels and a lot of other things

At 400 mph there would be a huge back blast. Did any of the witnesses the plane came in just over say anything about such. I seems I remember someone was blown a ways but I think that was from the explosion.

[Kevin Fenton]

31. Why?

Wouldn't they actually have to be behind an engine to be moved by it? They were actually to the side. Anyway, how do we know they didn't roll anywhere?

[petgoat]

41. Once again, you're right Kevin.

I thought the cable reels might be a smoking gun. Then it occurred to
me that they might have been right up against the wall, so the exhaust
force on them might have been minimal. I'd assumed that their final
resting place was where they'd started the morning. My bad.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

53. Were there any reports of cars being blown away too?

[vincent_vega_lives]

158. I can't open the pic

But I'll wager that the jet is standing still.

Can anyone tell me why it would make all the difference in jet wash if the jet was standing still at full throttle, or moving at 500 knots?

[spooked911]

27. Yes, I think so.

[Kevin Fenton]

30. What time was that?

What time does Bush leave the classroom?
"(9:16 a.m.): Bush Takes His Time Leaving Classroom Photo-Op
Bush continues to read the goat story. President Bush leaves the Sarasota classroom where he has been since about 9:03 a.m."

What does he do then?
He goes to what PT calls a "holding room" for 13 minutes, where he works on his speech and watches TV.

What next?
President Bush begins speaking at 9:29 in the library of Booker Elementary School.

And he leaves the school at?
"(9:34 a.m.): Bush Leaves Booker Elementary School for Sarasota Airport; Possible Threat En Route"

More specifically
I don't believe stopped clocks (often incaccurate) and I don't believe eyewitnesses (often wildly inaccurate). You can't disbelieve all those people who all say they saw a American Airlines 757, but believe a couple of people who say they remember a time, just because you want to. IMHO all eyewitnesses should be ignored, unless their testimony is corroborated by forensic evidence.

What's the point of saying Bush left the school in response to the Pentagon hit, why not just say he left in response to a rogue airliner approaching Washington, which has the benefit of being possible?

[spooked911]

34. how many eyewitnessesd actually saw an AA 757 versus something else?

Actually, I don't think there is even one credible eyewitness who specifically says they saw an American Airlines 757.

Also, how many witnesses gave a specific time for when the plane hit? Hint-- none that I know of.

On the other hand, we have two people give a specific time for when they felt an explosion at the Pentagon. We have stopped clocks. We have Alberto Gonzalez admit in a tape-recorded speech that the Pentagon was hit at 9:32am.

You don't have to believe any of this, but I find it quite plausible they are lying about the "violent event" at the Pentagon and the exact nature of what happened there.

[MercutioATC]

36. Witnesses:

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

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

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

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

"I knew it was a big commercial airline. I saw the AA on the side so I knew it was an American Airlines passenger jet." Mike Walters http://www.pentagonresearch.com/mike.html

...and a few more here:

http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/witnesses.html


That's only 3 websites' worth. There are PLENTY of witnesses that saw a large commercial jet (some specifically identified it as an American Airlines jet) hit the Pentagon.

[BeFree]

38. Ya gotta love this: From post above

"I saw a silver plane I immediately recognized it as an American Airlines jet,' said the 25-year-old O'Keefe, managing editor of Influence, an American Lawyer Media publication about lobbying. 'It came swooping in over the highway, over my left shoulder, straight across where my car was heading."

Ok, The plane is coming in over his shoulder as he was tooling along in his automobile. That means the plane is behind him, eh? Behind him. As he is driving down the interstate, at what, 60 mph?

While looking UP at the bottom of the plane he recognized it as an "AA jet". Tooling along at 60 mph, looking behind him, and up.

Man, that guy is amazing. Actually, he's incredible. Using his words in a post here pretty much secures the fact that those eyewitness claims are not to be believed.

Hell, I've posted one here about some clown seeing the jet come in at a steep, unrecoverable angle. It's all BS.

[MercutioATC]

43. That's the best you can do?

He's driving. A large low-flying plane comes from his 7-8 o'clock position. He sees it in his windshield at 1-2 o'clock as it passes. It's big and silver and has the American Airlines "AA" on the tail. Neither amazing nor incredible.

I provided quite a few "large airliner" witness quotes. Care to illustrate how they're "all BS"?

[StrafingMoose]

44. Isn't he...

supposed to have seen the bottom part of the plane if it was going from 7-8 o'clock to 1-2 o'clock position, no matter how high it was?

Do those planes have markings under them?

[MercutioATC]

45. I don't have a problem identifying any of these 757s as American planes:

I've tried to capture a variety of angles. It's not that hard to recognize AA livery, even from underneath. Even if the fuselage isn't visible, the tail nearly always is.

[spooked911]

50. Are they going by you a few feet off the ground at 530 mph?

I think that makes a difference.

[MercutioATC]

51. I don't know what his viewing angle was, do you?

The point is that American has a very recognizable livery and the tail (with the big red and blue "AA") is visible from almost any perspective.

I don't find it difficult to believe that somebody would recognize it.

[philb]

61. Many just said big jet but some said 737

Dobbs, Mike Marine Corps officer Mike Dobbs was standing on one of the upper levels of the outer ring of the Pentagon looking out the window when he saw an American Airlines 737 twin-engine airliner strike the building. "It seemed to be almost coming in slow motion," he said later Tuesday. "I didn't actually feel it hit, but I saw it and then we all started running. They evacuated everybody around us." http://www.abqtrib.com/archives/news01/091201_news_dcscene.shtml

Morin, Terry Terry Morin, a former USMC aviator, Program Manager for SPARTA, Inc was working as a contractor at the BMDO offices at the old Navy Annex. Having just reached the elevator in the 5th Wing of BMDO Federal Office Building (FOB) # 2. He heard "an increasingly loud rumbling" One to two seconds later the airliner came into my field of view. By that time the noise was absolutely deafening. The aircraft was essentially right over the top of me and the outer portion of the FOB (flight path parallel the outer edge of the FOB). Everything was shaking and vibrating, including the ground. I estimate that the aircraft was no more than 100 feet above me (30 to 50 feet above the FOB) in a slight nose down attitude. The plane had a silver body with red and blue stripes down the fuselage. I believed at the time that it belonged to American Airlines, but I couldn't be sure. It looked like a 737 and I so reported to authorities. Within seconds the plane cleared the 8th Wing of BMDO and was heading directly towards the Pentagon. Engines were at a steady high-pitched whine, indicating to me that the throttles were steady and full. I estimated the aircraft speed at between 350 and 400 knots. The flight path appeared to be deliberate, smooth, and controlled. As the aircraft approached the Pentagon, I saw a minor flash (later found out that the aircraft had sheared off a portion of a highway light pole down on Hwy 110).
Jim Sutherland, a mortgage broker, was driving near the Pentagon at 9:40 a.m. when he saw a 737 airplane 50 feet over Interstate 395 heading in a straight line into the side of the Pentagon. The fireball explosion that followed rocked his car. Drivers began pulling over to the side - some taking pictures - not quite believing what they were seeing.
http://www.abqtrib.com/archives/news01/091201_news_dcscene.shtml

[MercutioATC]

62. Yep, a 737 and a 757 do look similar to the untrained eye.

However, both are commercial jets, not bizjets or military aircraft.

[HughBeaumont]

46. If you read "The New Pearl Harbor"

There are also several eyewitness and ATC accounts of the plane NOT being a Boeing, but a "smaller plane", "holding 8-12 people" that counter your eyewitness accounts of the giant-ass Boeing that supposedly made that nice neat hole.

Not to mention the confiscation of ALL security footage in the surrounding area seems kind of fishy to me. If they have nothing to hide, why not show it?

[MercutioATC]

54. Have you read this?:

"9-11 Research extracted from the Eric Bart Pentagon eyewitness compilation those accounts that described the appearance of the airplane. It found 11 witnesses describing a large jetliner compared to only two describing a small jet. Furthermore the two small-plane witnesses were both considerable distances from the plane."

http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/witnesses.html




There are NO ATC accounts of what type of plane it was. Radar can't determine that. What was said is that the plane was moving like a military plane (not in a way that would keep passengers comfortable, which is how airlines fly). I don't think somebody who was going to crash the plane intentionally would care if the passengers were comfortable.

[HughBeaumont]

56. Um, there were definitely more than 2 accounts in DRG's book.

Matter of fact, there were over several accounts from both ATC's and regular witnesses. Didn't you read his book? Didn't THEY read his book? Doesn't the fact that there are several witnesses who are on two opposite ends of what they saw fly in the west wing kind of make this a weak argument for either side?

Do you only look at the "errors" section of that site, as all of the acceptors of the stacked-with-Bushco/Big Oil-Republicans 9/11 Commission report do? COME on. This DID not happen as they say it did. Again, WHAT is there to hide if it happened like they say they did? Why the destruction of evidence at the WTC? Why the quick confiscation of security footage?

[MercutioATC]

64. Again, there were ZERO ATC reports of what type of planes were involved.

Radar can't distinguish, and that's all they had.

...and there were decidedly many more people who saw a "commercial jet" than saw anything else. If you're using eyewitness testimony at all, you do kinda have to go with the overwhelming majority.

[petgoat]

65. more people...saw a "commercial jet"

But did they see it crash into the Pentagon?

I never took the Pentagon missile theory very seriously until Dr.
Griffin pointed out that the 757 (or 737 if you will) may have flown by
while the actual strike was by something else.

[MercutioATC]

66. If it "flew by", where did it go?

Why didn't anybody see it fly by? Why didn't radar show it?

Most importantly, it had to have gone somewhere. Where?

[petgoat]

68. "If it "flew by", where did it go?"

Personally, I try to avoid theorizing and stick to facts.

"Where it went" would be a theory.

The fact is that witnesses' sighting of a 'plane in the vicinity doesn't
prove that the plane hit the Pentagon.

I consider the whole missile/757 issue a waste of time because the
Pentagon's failure to mount a defense (assuming they had the missiles
John Judge says they had) proves complicity right there.

I am awaiting some clarification of Barbara Honegger's opinion that the
Pentagon strike is the Rosetta Stone of the whole case.

[MercutioATC]

70. I've seen nothing reliable confirming a missile defense at the Pentagon.

In fact, it'd be nearly impossible because of the proximity of Reagan Intl.

That aside, you're already theorizing that the plane "flew by". How is considering where it might have gone any different??

[petgoat]

71. "missile defense at the Pentagon."

John Judge told the Nat'l Press Club says he's seen the missiles at the
Pentagon. The White House SAMs have been reported in mainstream media.

"nearly impossible because of the proximity of Reagan Intl."

Not so. Inbound and outbound Reagan flights travel on stereotypical
vectors. Certainly radar systems could automaticly detect flights
deviating from or inconsistent with those vectors.

"you're already theorizing that the plane "flew by"."

"Maybe the plane flew by" is not a theory. That's a limiting
consideration in analyzing the data. The fact that I saw Joe in the
vicinity of the liquor store does not mean he robbed it.

[MercutioATC]

74. You're citing the MSM now?

If there WERE missiles at the White House, how did that Cessna fly into it a few years back?

Please provide a link to any reliable source that claims there was a missile defense system in place at the Pentagon on 9/11/01...I'd be interested to see it because whatever you believe, a plane definitely got close enough to activate it on 9/11 (whether it hit or not) and obviously wasn't fired at.

I'm well aware of how trafffic is routed away from sensitive areas (like the Pentagon). My point is that occasionally pilots make mistakes. Reagan is close enough that a missile system that had any chance of taking down a plane before it hit the Pentagon would have taken down a private pilot or two before 9/11.

"Maybe the plane flew by" is certainly a theory. You're theorizing that the plane that was sighted by many people MAYBE did not hit the Pentagon. By definition, that's a theory.

[petgoat]

91. "Maybe the plane flew by" is certainly a theory.

No it really isn't. It's inherent in an honest characterization of the facts.

Suppose I saw John C, a known hoodlum, at 40th and Brewster at 9:10.
At 9:15 a liquor store was robbed at 42d and Brewster. It's not a
theory to consider that maybe John C did not rob the liquor store.
I don't need to prove that John was really on his way to the movies.

It's a limitation of the data. "John robbed the liquor store (though I
didn't see it)" is a theory. "Maybe John didn't rob the liquor store"
is a fact.

This is the kind of thinking that fascinated me about Dr. Griffin's
analysis. You could see him sorting out the possibilities on the page.

[MercutioATC]

100. Fine, but I think it's an issue of semantics.

Maybe aliens teleported the plane to Bizarro World where it became a large orange fish...

...without any supporting argument, that's as valid a statement as "maybe the plane flew by".

[petgoat]

104. "Maybe aliens teleported the plane to Bizarro World"

Now that's a theory with no supporting evidence.

But "maybe the plane flew by" is a factual possibility just as "maybe
the plane flew into the Pentagon" is a factual possibility.

An eyewitness sighting of the plane near the Pentagon does not mean the
plane flew into the Pentagon. "Maybe the plane flew by the Pentagon" is
a fact unless you have incontrovertible proof that it flew into the
Pentagon.

[MercutioATC]

108. Without a theory as to where it went, the statement is worthless.

The fact is that if it had "flown by" there would most likely be an eyewitness record of it. There sure as hell would be a radar record.

If it did fly by, where did it go? It must have gone somewhere...

You're absolutely correct that there's no supporting evidence for my "alien" CT. There's also none for "the plane flew by".

[petgoat]

112. no supporting evidence for .... "the plane flew by".

And none is needed. If Jimmy C walks past with a gun in his hand and
disappears behind a hedge and two minutes later I hear a gunshot and
a guy staggers out bleeding in the abdomen, I don't have to tell you
where Jimmy C went. I can only tell you that maybe he didn't shoot the
guy and maybe he did.

The idea that maybe Jimmy C didn't shoot the guy is not a theory, its an
element of the facts until you have some evidence that he did shoot the
guy. The mere fact that the guy was shot doesn't mean Jimmy C did it.


"There sure as hell would be a radar record."

Given that they (claim they) lost flight 77 in Ohio the lack of a radar
record proves nothing. Besides, PTech was in the basement of the FAA
and I believe their computers were hooked into the system.

[MercutioATC]

113. "the basement of the FAA"? Where the hell is THAT???

"The FAA" has a basement now? :eyes:

Whether the controllers lost track of the primary target while the event was transpiring or not isn't at issue here. Everything is recorded. Investigators have ample time to track primary targets that the controller very well might have not.

Your robbery stories are becoming tiresome because you're not addressing what I'm saying. You don't think "the plane flew by" is a THEORY, fne. I'm not going to play semantics games. If it's not a theory, it's a statement of possibility. So is the alien "statement of possibility". With the supporting evidence you've provided, both statements of possibility are equally valid.

[petgoat]

114. The FAA Basement is Part of the Indira Singh Lore

and I don't know much about it, but I believe the suggestion is made
that PTech could have tapped into the FAA computers and inserted false
blips--if so maybe they could have removed blips.

I wouldn't trust FAA statements anyway after their stunt of destroying
the audio taped ATC statements.

""The plane flew by" is.... a statement of possibility. So is the
alien "statement of possibility". With the supporting evidence you've
provided, both statements of possibility are equally valid."

They're not equally valid because the aliens require that you posit
all kinds of factors for which there is no evidence.

The "plane flew by" possibility simply recognizes that it may have
flown to some unknown destination. I agree with you that it would be
a risky thing to plan, because the possibility that it would be
observed flying away seems pretty strong.

To return to the analogy of the shooting, to say your alien theory is
as good as the "plane flew by" possibility is like saying "a gang of
invisible Valkyries in leather bikinis shot the guy" is as good as
"Jimmie C walked away--to a movie, or the liquor store, or the
park--who knows?" I don't have to invent anything impossible to allow
it to happen.

At any rate, as Dr. Griffin points out, the missile/757 debate is moot
if there was SAM defense at the Pentagon that was not deployed. That
shows complicity more damning than a missile. Logically, the
possibility remains that it was a missile AND it was a terrorist
attack and the Pentagon is covering up the embarassing fact that
somebody snuck a missile into the country or stole one from a military
base.

[MercutioATC]

116. We're on the same page, they just don't seem to be in the same book.

"They're not equally valid because the aliens require that you posit all kinds of factors for which there is no evidence."

Just as "the plane flew by" does. Plenty of people saw a large commercial airliner flying very low approach the Pentagon (and heard/saw the crash) but not ONE person saw that same large low-flying jet flying away? Radar failed to show it flying away? It didn't turn up anywhere?

There's absolute ZERO evidence that the plane "flew by". There are things that make it impossible (radar) and improbable (lack of witnesses).


...and my point about the "FAA's basement" is that the media tends to sensationalize and oversimplify things. To insert radar targets into the system would require multiple points of access across a few states. It's not as easy as sneaking into "the basement".

[petgoat]

119. Same Page, Different Book

Cute image.

"There's absolute ZERO evidence that the plane "flew by"."

True, so I'm not theorizing that it did. My point was that the aliens
theory requires that you theorize that aliens exist, while the notion
that the plane simply flew away somewhere else does not require that
you theorize a somewhere that does not exist. The aliens take it out
of the realm of normal reality, while simply flying away doesn't.

Of course to make the theory plausible you have to deal with, as you
say, the radar problem, etc.

"To insert radar targets into the system would require multiple points
of access across a few states. It's not as easy as sneaking into "the
basement"."

I'm not real familiar with Ms. Singh's story so I could be all wrong
but my understanding is that PTech had been in the basement for two
years and their software involved the ability to monitor what was
going on througout the system. Ms. Singh got involved with PTech when
she was looking for software to monitor a bank's system so they could
look for money laundering.

Mike Ruppert talks about PROMIS software that involves secret
backdoors throughout the system, but I know even less about that.

[MercutioATC]

138. Each facility has its own "pipes" from the radar sites.

For bogus radar data to be introduced, it would have to be individually introduced into each facility (New York Center, Boston Center, Indianapolis Center, Cleveland Center, New York Tracon, etc.) - and all of the inputs would have to be precisely synchronized.

It's not a matter of plugging into a computer someplace...it would have to be done at many points at the exact same time.

I'd say that was unlikely.

[philb]

85. I posted URL documenting that the Capital Complex has surface to air missi

missiles; And they also have other defenses.

And they are protected by Air National Guard jets from Andrews AFB that can be there in about 10 minutes; as is a matter of record.

[MercutioATC]

101. Could you post that link again? I missed it.

[vincent_vega_lives]

159. missile defense at the Pentagon

It is most likely true that the WH, and maybe even the Pentagon has MANPADS (MAN Portable Air Defense System) in their security arsenal. But not deployed 24/7. The would have to deployed to the roof on order and spun up (cooling element in the heat seeker), that takes time.

Even then the missiles are LOS weapons, you need to have a direct eyeball on the target, short range, and it is doubtful one would bring down a 757. Take, at least two, and only if they don't both hit the same engine.

remember after 9-11 the Army deployed Avenger SAM Systems around the DC area. Same small Stinger missiles but those units can be data linked to an Air Defense network that will give the operator early warning and initial altitude/heading of a target.

[HughBeaumont]

77. DAMN IT, DON'T TELL ME WHAT I READ!!!!

While they didn't physically SEE the plane, what they tracked was NOT a 757.

And what you have is NOT an overwhelming majority. The fact that there are differing accounts is reason enough for me to believe that it wasn't.

Think I'll go with the word of Air Traffic Controllers who actually tracked this thing when it hit and who would know a hell of a lot more about the maneuverability and capability of certain planes than Joe Schmoe in a car. The way it flew was similar to a fighter, at least that's what THEY thought it was. Last I checked, Boeing 757s cannot maneuver like a fighter and LEAST of all by an incompetent pilot who sucked at Puddle Jumper U.

I mean COME on. Don't you find it silly and just a TAD ridiculous that they would fly that giant ass plane into the SIDE of a low-to-the-ground building that was under repair with barely any room for error? If they didn't care, why not a gradual descent into the roof? It would have caused far more obvious damage from the ensuing explosion.

Oh wait, I forgot, that would have been too EASY for Hani Hanjour, ace pilot.

:eyes:

[MercutioATC]

78. Again, it wasn't being operated the way airlines normally operate them.

"You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."

That's her quote. It's not IMPOSSIBLE to fly one that way, it's just unsafe (and uncomfortable for passengers). I've seen FedEx planes descend at over 6000fpm and turn on a dime...they don't have passengers to worry about. I've seen a DOJ 727 do mach .89 through moderate turbulence. Neither is the way large commercial airplanes are usually flown, but they were still airliners, not fighters.

Something tells me that hijackers who were going to crash the plane anyway wouldn't be concerned about safety or passenger comfort.

[HughBeaumont]

79. Bully for your stunt viewing.

NONE of those hijackers could pull off any of those moves, least of all the 270 spiraling bank into a 5000 foot descent with a Boeing 757 perfectly into the side of a low building without so much as a skid.

But hey, I guess I'll take the word of a ghost two towns over rather than the testimonials of pilots with decades of experience who also attest that those D student aces from Cessna Community College could have never pulled off that move as the 9/11 commission reported it, "not a chance in a thousand".

[MercutioATC]

83. Believe what you want. I still think you're reading too much into the

statement (which is mostly the press' fault - they like to sensationalize things).

You wanna believe it was impossible, fine. That leaves a whole lot of loose ends that nobody has been able to answer, however.

[Kevin Fenton]

81. Eyewitnesses, etc.

Eyewitnesses are often highly unreliable. I don't beleive them whatever type of plane they say they saw. You can't believe one eyewitness because he says he saw a plane who want him to have seen, but disbelieve another because he says he saw a plane you don't want him to have seen.

"...Boeing 757s cannot maneuver like a fighter..."
Yes they can, they don't usually for passenger comfort.

"why not a gradual descent into the roof? It would have caused far more obvious damage from the ensuing explosion."
The descent was fairly gradual. Why should they just try and flop the plane into the roof? If you hit the side, all the plane goes in - where else can it go? But if you hit the roof, who knows where the debris are going to fly off?

"Oh wait, I forgot, that would have been too EASY for Hani Hanjour, ace pilot."
You're cherry-picking. If you don't believe the FBI's claim that HH was flying that day, why do you accept without question their claim that none of the other hijackers could fly?

[Kevin Fenton]

80. Are you serious?

"WHAT is there to hide if it happened like they say they did? Why the destruction of evidence at the WTC?"
A: Are you seriously suggesting that if the WTC was destroyed by explosive demolition, then the Pentagon cannot have been hit by American 77?
That's really stretching credulity.

[HughBeaumont]

84. They're the ones that quickly destroyed or confiscated the evidence . . .

in both locations, not me. THEY'RE the ones that took 441 days for an official investigation, and then they stacked the committee with Bushco/Big Oil Repukes. Now how do you think they're going to call it?

Pretty much the only thing that happened AS IT WAS WRITTEN that day was that three buildings had fiery explosions as a result of flying objects colliding into them driven by Al-Qaeda of Saudi and Egyptian descent.

I'm getting off of this "I have to have the last word" train. Most likely every shitbag individual (we're not just talkin' terr'sts here, BTW) involved in this mass murder will go to their graves with their dirty little secrets intact, those 3000 or so victims will still remain unavenged and their eternal question of "Why" will continue to go unanswered . . . and it's all because people like me and others are deemed a bunch of fucking "crackpots, moonbats and conspiracy theorists" for, GOD FORBID, demanding the whole painful TRUTH and not accepting that 571-page steaming pile of bullshit those already-proven liars threw at us.

[Kevin Fenton]

89. Destruction/confiscation

What evidence was destroyed at the Pentagon?

You say "confiscate the evidence". Isn't that what the police/FBI/whoever is supposed to do? They're not supposed to just leave it lying around, are they?

If your argument is that the only explanation for 9/11 is a huge conspiracy where everything was stagemanaged, then I have to question your logic. Why is it impossible for, say, for United 93 to have been shot down and the WTC demolished, but for real hijackers to have hit the Pentagon?

If it was all planned in advance by the government, how do you account for the fact that Myers' excuse ("I don't have a cell phone") and Bush's excuse ("I was reading a story about a goat") are so bad? If they knew in advance, shouldn't they have thought of better excuses? It certainly looks like a cover-up, but it looks like a cover-up cobbled together after the fact.

[petgoat]

90. "it looks like a cover-up cobbled together after the fact."

Yes, fiendishly clever of them, isn't it? ;>)

I once had a lot of dealings with someone who used the "I'm so stupid I
just keep making mistakes that get me what I want" routine.

So stuff like the pet goat stunt forces the critics into the
self-dioscrediting circular reasoning that says that the appearance of
incompetence is actually part of the plot--because nobody could possibly
be so incompetent!

Which is why ultimately the safest course is just to point out facts
disharmonious to the official story, and call for a new investigation.
An independent Commission on 9/11 that is truly independent, and an
international commission of independent engineers on the WTC.

"What evidence was destroyed at the Pentagon?"

Have you seen that picture of all the guys carrying something out
about the size of a small schoolbus under a blue tarp? I'm sorry I
can't find it right now. It's been posted at the "no Pentagon boeing"
sites.

Also, the securicam tapes at the Pentagon that should have showed
flight 77 were seized and have never been releaaed.

[Kevin Fenton]

94. Coverup

Some people complain about limited hangout, but even the fact that United 93 was shot down is so bad that it would discredit everybody involved with it - all hell would break lose if many people believed that. I really don't think Bushco can offer the CTers something like this and get away with it. If it all was arranged by the government in advance, then what is the point of them pretending to be incompetent? Why not just think of a better plan (series of truck bombs, boat bomb against an aircraft carrier, whatever) where they didn't have to look incompetent? 9/11 just doesn't look like an operation that went right, it looks like an operation that went wrong.

The evidence at the Pentagon was seized, not destroyed (as far as we know). The police always seize evidence and then show it in court. Because there was no trial, the evidence hasn't appeared in public. I find it odd they haven't shown it, but there could well be reasons for this other than the no-757 argument. The WTC is a completely different kettle of fish.

[MercutioATC]

102. If a coverup was the goal, why did they let civilian engineers examine

the site?

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

They let six civil engineers (4 civilians if you want to exclude the guys from ATF and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) examine the site first-hand and issue a report that was published by the ASCE, one of the oldest and most prestigious engineering societies in the country.

If they wanted to cover anything up, why risk civilians? It's a Defense Department property.

[Kevin Fenton]

121. I'm saying

the coverup at the Pentagon related to the number and names of the hijackers - how could engineers at the site, after the bodies have been taken away, have found out who the bodies really were?

I'm satisfied American 77 hit the Pentagon.

[MercutioATC]

142. Gotcha

I misunderstood...sorry.

[petgoat]

109. "what is the point of them pretending to be incompetent?"

The official story is incompetence at every level. CIA got warnings
but didn't tell FBI, FBI got warnings but ignored them, Richard Clarke
was ignored because Condi was too busy, Bush was on vacation not
reading memos, the FAA didn't notify NORAD, NORAD flew out to sea
instead of where the planes were, the Pentagon didn't defend itself,
the WTC steel was recycled, the 9/11 Commission failed to ask vital
questions and clearly was a softball report in declining to assign
blame (except to FAA).

Maybe the impression of incompetence is to share the incompetence
around (even Clinton got a big share) and make the fact of it
believable and make the tolerance of it believable. Why was no one
fired at FAA? "We all make mistakes." "Let's move on together."

"9/11...looks like an operation that went wrong."

You'll remember that Dr. Griffin suggested that maybe flight 93 was
shot down because the passengers were about to recapture the cockpit
and one of them was qualified to fly the plane.

Some people suggest that WTC2 was exploded because the fires were
going out.

"The evidence at the Pentagon was seized"

The most convincing benign explanation I've heard is that just as they
don't want images of dead soldiers they don't want video of the
Pentagon attack released to give young muslim men wet dreams.



For all practical purposes the seized tapes have been destroyed
because now the gov't has had almost four years to create forgeries.

[Kevin Fenton]

122. But why not just bomb a battleship

or shoot down a plane over Iraq - if the government wanted an excuse for war? Then there's no need for any complicated division of incompetence, or inquiry, or any of this stuff.

Paul O'Niell says the DoD was planning war in Iraq in January 2001 following an incident involving a fighter in the no-fly zone there. Why would the neocons go to all the trouble of arranging a big operation like 9/11 to get war in Iraq, if they could just provoke the Iraqs into shooting a plane down by aggressively patrolling the no-fly zone? 9/11 was better for the Neocons than such an incident, but not that much better.

[petgoat]

126. An excuse for war

was not enough.

Look at the benefits that the "whole enchilada" brought.

USA Patriot Act
Everything is Different--Torture, Secret Searches and Courtless Jailings are OK
Glorification of NYPD and thus all PD (after shameful NY scandals)

Bush is the War President; Impugning his Legitimacy is Unpatriotic
Smokescreen for NORC Report showing Gore got more Florida 2000 Votes
Media Self-Censorship Including Election Fraud

Millenial Global War of Cultures
Our Historic Role in Iraq
Acceptance of Economic Sacrifice amongst Red-Staters

"With Us or Against Us" Thinking--Polarizing the World
An Opportunity to Remake the World

Purge in the CIA
Breaking Down the Firewall between CIA and FBI

Smokescreen for $2.3 Trillion Pentagon Untracable Expenditures
Perception that the World Hates Us so We Must Have Military $$$$
Huge Military Budgets (US Space Command ambitions for space weapons)

People really weren't that excited about the embassy bombings or even
the USS Cole. Only a major Hollywood blockbuster like collapsing
towers, the Pentagon Hellhole, 343 dead firemen, and "let's roll"
could bring about this great cultural change.

[Kevin Fenton]

127. Kitchen sink

I really don't think that "Glorification of NYPD and thus all PD" would be such a big deal to the planners (if there were any).

And I wouldn't put "Millenial Global War of Cultures" as something the administration wanted - it's bad for business.

"Perception that the World Hates Us" is just plain wrong, the US did not have that perception after 9/11 and it's only beginning to grow now that everybody realises what a mess Iraq is.

The CIA could have been purged anyway and, if it were a tool in a govt.-managed false flag operation, why does it need purging?

To my mind, the main "benefit" to the administration was that it got to invade Iraq, which it had been itching to do since Day 1.

I don't think the Patriot Act and the complete stopping of questions about Bush's legitimacy is enough to justify the step up from a lesser incident. You're right that nobody gave a monkey's about the USS Cole incident, I was thinking of a target in the US - on the eastern or western seaboards or even in Pearl Harbor itself (how symbolic). Or any other big attack on military institutions or civilians in the US - like suicide bombers in the subway. Obviously, it wouldn't produce the same cultural change, but a successful invasion of Iraq would have led to an invasion of Iran, and then to North Korea.

If Bushco could get the main thing it wanted just by manipulating events and giving them the occasional prod, then why do a false-flag operation at all? And if they did a false-flag operation, why not go for something that could be better disguised?

[petgoat]

129. You're Assuming Modest Goals, I'm Assuming Gradiose Plans

You assume all they wanted was to invade Iraq. I'm asssuming the PNAC
Statement of Principles is the plan, that they want a New American
Century, that this means they want to control Central Asia despite the
wishes of the Chinese and the Russians to control it themselves, and
that we are only just getting started.

Public support for such an effort is essential, and cultural change is
necessary for that. Hence the staging of a "disaster movie" event
after which nothing is the same and all the rules change. Torture is
good, freedom is dangerous, dissent is treason, and stealing elections
is justified to keep out of power the irresponisible cowardly
appeasers.

As to your specifics, glorification of the police goes along with the
desired cultural change of unquestioning respect for authority, and
aquiesence in invasive surveillance. "If we've got nothing to hide
we've got nothing to fear, let's just let our brave big brother do
whatever it takes to protect us."

The Millenial Global War of Cultures is good for business because it
motivates military spending. I can even speculate that the absence of
inflation despite the inflationary pressure of higher fuel prices and
an expensive war suggests that in the absence of this $300 billion
hole in the sand we might be looking at DEFLATION, as Japan
experienced. Deflation is bad for business.

The Perception that the World Hates Us was something that could have
been anticipated because Bush was going around abrogating treaties and
clearly intended to follow Reagan's lead in defying the World Court.
Certainly we had the perception that the Muslim world hated us, and
now that has been extended to the entire world. This increases the
natural xenophobia of the red-staters and is politically useful to
Bush. His red-neck base believes that the more the world hates us,
the better Bush must be, and the more protection we need from all our
enemies around the world and also the cowardly appeasers who would
negotiate with them.

The CIA needed purging because its research arm used to be an
institution with some academic integrity. Ray McGovern says that
under Bush it has become incredibly politicized. Cheney's 11 visits
over there were unprecedented. A lot of people objected to being
turned into political tools to "fix" intelligence.

You call it Kitchen Sink; I call it a program intended to aid an
campaign of global domination and suppress dissent at home.

[Kevin Fenton]

130. Iraq, Iran, N. Korea

"I'm asssuming the PNAC Statement of Principles is the plan, that they want a New American Century, that this means they want to control Central Asia despite the wishes of the Chinese and the Russians to control it themselves, and that we are only just getting started."
It's easy for the US to get control of Central Asia, the Central Asians are real worried about Russian influence there, in particular, and are absolutely gagging for the US to come in and buy up a bit of their country. Unocal built the pipeline to Ceyhan using "normal" means, the war on terror didn't come into it.

"The Millenial Global War of Cultures is good for business because it
motivates military spending."
And hampers ordinary investment, which would be far higher than anything military spending can do.

"I can even speculate that the absence of inflation despite the inflationary pressure of higher fuel prices and an expensive war suggests that in the absence of this $300 billion hole in the sand we might be looking at DEFLATION, as Japan experienced. Deflation is bad for business."
What? Bushco figured out its economic policies were so bad before 9/11 that they knew they needed 9/11 to keep them afloat economically?

Why do you think that invading Iraq, Iran and North Korea are "modest goals"? They seem fairly ambitious to me.

Do you agree with the idea that the government could have justified war with Iraq based on a smaller incident?

[petgoat]

133. Well of Course I was Just Wielding the Big Shovel

I can defend my opinions, but I'm not sure there's much point.

"Why do you think that invading Iraq, Iran and North Korea are "modest goals"?"

I don't think we're going to invade Iraq. Russia and China are both
arming Iraq and making major long-term investments there. I can't see
us invading N. Korea in a big hurry.

I don't think the Iraq war was justified at all. Certainly a smaller
incident could have been used as a pretext. You have to wonder if
they anticipated the "generational war" they're talking about now, or
if they believed their own bs about liberators' flowers.

Bush has created this climate of fear for the political gains it got
him. Our fear of our cold war enemies has been functionally replaced
by a fear of terrorists. It's the good old-fashioned
military-industrial complex excercising the unwarrented influence that
Eisenhower warned about.

[Kevin Fenton]

135. Revenge

"I don't think we're going to invade Iraq."
I guess you mean Iran. I don't think the US will invade Iran now, because the war in Iraq is where it is. I think the DoD actually believed its original 3 months' scenario, but had the troops pushing on for Tehran, rather than coming home. There are various reasons I put N. Korea there. Bush actually listed it in the axis of evil speech, along with Iraq and Iran. Also, when I look at the media, I see that every story is being spun in the way most deterimental to N. Korea (btw, I don't like N. Korea, I just don't think it should be invaded), for example, they found a hole in the fence in the DMZ and speculation immediately emerged that it was N. Korean spies going to the south, whereas IMHO it was just as likely to be people trying to escape the North or S. Korean spies going to the North (or a false flag operation). With the US bogged down in Baghdad, I doubt the troops will get to N. Korea at all, but I think it was originally the no. 3 target.

Why Iran, Iraq and N. Korea?
You can impute all sorts of motives to the White House, but my feeling all along has been that it has less to do with geostrategy, oil or encricling China and is just driven by a basic desire for "revenge". Saddam tried to kill GWB's dad, Iran took the hostages and kept them for as long as they wanted (coincidentally just long enough to make sure Carter lost the election) and the Korean War was hardly a complete success for the US. I don't think there's a policy apparatus in the White House worthy of the name - all their decisions are based on how they can be spun, not any serious analysis of the options. I'm currently reading "American Dynasty" by Kevin Phillips and one of his criticisms of Bush is his revenge-driven nature - remember the "silver foot" episode?

"Certainly a smaller incident could have been used as a pretext."
Glad you agree with me on this one.

"Bush has created this climate of fear for the political gains it got
him. Our fear of our cold war enemies has been functionally replaced
by a fear of terrorists. It's the good old-fashioned
military-industrial complex excercising the unwarrented influence that
Eisenhower warned about."
I agree completely.

[HughBeaumont]

96. Also, the cameras atop the gas station and the Sheraton

around that area. Confiscated within 2 hous time and never heard from again.

Curiouser and curiouser . . .

[petgoat]

55. "The New Pearl Harbor"

Dr. Griffin points out that unless somebody actually saw the plane
strike the Pentagon, it's possible that a 757 made itself conspicuous
and flew away leaving the damage to be done by some other agent.

As to the refusal to release the security footage, I can think of two
reasons:

1. to stimulate theorizing that the Pentagon was not hit by a 757 so
as to cause dissention in the 911truth movement and to facilitate the
assertion to the uninformed that the 911truth people are wacko

2. the Pentagon is reluctant to release to the public images of a
successful strike against the Pentagon, images that would surely be
widely copied and very stimulating to impressionable young men in
Muslim nations.

Dr. Griffin says the missile/757 issue is mooted by the fact that SAM
batteries in the Pentagon (John Judge claims to have seen them in the
courtyard back in the 50's) were deactivated and that shows complicity
right there. I'd like to hear more about the reasons Ms. Honegger
believes the Pentagon strike is the Rosetta stone.

[Kevin Fenton]

82. Very good reasons

(1) and (2) are both very good reasons with which I agree completely

If the last sighting of the SAMs was in the 50s, wouldn't they have been a little old on 9/11? Why does the fact they didn't fire prove they were deactivated? The plane was copying the flight path of ordinary aircraft arriving at Ronald Reagan until shortly before impact.

"The New Pearl Harbor" was what got me interested in 9/11, but DRG doesn't usually check his facts and examines everything from the viewpoint of "could it have been a false flag operation?"

[petgoat]

87. SAMs and DRG's Facts

"wouldn't they have been a little old"

Presumably they would have been updated. If they had them in the '50's
who would decide "oh we don't need these any more"?

John Judge told the National Press Club that in the late '90's he was
told that the Pentagon was getting bomb threats from muslims every day,
and told that "We have radar up there watching to see if any planes are
coming into the building."

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/UQPC061002.html


"DRG doesn't usually check his facts"

Right. His approach in The New Pearl Harbor was to simply examine the
assertions and their implications and their plausibility, internal
consistency, etc.... He examined the assertions as if they were true,
but didn't check them.

[Kevin Fenton]

88. Replacement decision

The initial ones would have had to have been replaced. When they came up for replacement, they could have been scrapped. The end of the cold war (I guess their placement there had something to do with the start of the cold war) would have been an impetus to scrap them. The end of the cold war led to lots of cuts in defence spending, for example the number of fighters on strip alert was reduced from hundreds in the 80s to 15 on 9/11 and the reaction time was lengthened to 15 minutes. If JJ says he saw them, I guess he did, but a 35-year-old sighting is hardly stone-cold evidence that they were there on 9/11.

[petgoat]

92. "a 35-year-old sighting is hardly stone-cold evidence"

John Judge told the Nat'l Press Club that he was told in the '90's that
they perceived a threat of aircraft being flown into the building.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/UQPC061002.html

The Cessna crashed into the White House in 1994.

In 2001, the Telegraph wrote:

"If the airliner had approached much nearer to the White
House it might have been shot down by the Secret Service, who are
believed to have a battery of ground-to-air Stinger missiles ready to
defend the president's home."

http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/16/wcia16.xml

[Kevin Fenton]

93. Where were the missiles?

I think it's better to intercept a plane heading towards its target using a fighter rather than to try and shoot it down at the last minute with a missile. Why wait until the last minute? Plus, if you do wait until the last minute, how can you be sure the missile will get there in time? Even if it does, the plane will keep on flying for a couple of minutes anyway. IMHO such missiles could only have limited application - are there many other countries that have similar arrangements?

I don't think a battery of Stinger missiles is possible (or, if possible, useful) - Stingers are hand-held. Also, just because the White House has missiles (if it does), doesn't mean the Pentagon does. If there was a battery there, how come nobody has a photo of it?

I'm not saying the Pentagon definitely had no missiles, but I'm yet to be convinced of it.

[MercutioATC]

105. There ARE actually vehicle-muonted Stingers..

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/stinger.htm

You're right, though. A permanent emplacement would probably be hard to keep a complete secret and nobody seems to have seen any.

[petgoat]

110. I'm not completely satisfied with the evidence for Pentagon missiles

which is why I'm looking for it, because Dr. Griffin's credibility is
an important issue to me.






Here's a portable stinger system deployed in 2002.

"nobody seems to have seen any."

Perhaps discussion of the defenses of military installations is not
considered something to discuss with civilians--especially when the
political implications are as explosive as the possibility that the
Pentagon failed to defend itself.

[MercutioATC]

111. Plenty of civilians work at the Pentagon...and plenty drive by every day.

I don't expect the military to disclose Pentagon security to the world. I'm just saying that I'd think somebody would have seen a Humvee with a missile rack on top.

[seatnineb]

123. Yep....plenty of people drive by the Pentagon each day.

I work with a guy that was driving past the pentagon when this occured. he never saw a plane, but thought a truck or something had exploded.

http://zenbeatnik.blogspot.com/2004_12_19_zenbeatnik_archive.html.

[MercutioATC]

139. Wow! Absolute proof that a plane did not hit the Pentagon!

:eyes:

[seatnineb]

140. That is the beauty of the Internet......

A guy I work with was there, pulling bodies out
of the damn building. He never saw a plane either. No
one I know who was there ever saw a plane.... and I
know a few people who work at the Pentagon. None of
them saw a plane.

http://www.v7n.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-17615-p-36.html

[MercutioATC]

141. Millions of New Yorkers didn't see planes, either...

Your point?

Oh, and from the VERY NEXT post on the forum you linked to:

"Of course it was an airplane. I was here at the Pentagon 911. I saw airplane parts on the ground the next day."

:eyes:

[seatnineb]

143. Who knows what they saw?

.....and from another post in the same Forum.....


He was very quiet for a few minutes and responded: "You
know, I did not see any indication at all that a plane
had hit the building."

http://www.v7n.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-17615-p-36.html

Funny how you forgot to mention that.

[MercutioATC]

144. I "forgot"?? It was YOUR reference...

I simply read your link and happened to see the very next post that refutre your contention.

Want something to "ignore"? Try this:

http://www.wtc-terrorattack.com/pentagon_eyewitness_accounts.htm

[seatnineb]

145. That is a formidable list you got there Merc...........

...and here is one more "unbelievable" eye-witness to add:

I spoke with a store worker who said he was in the parking lot smoking as the jet passed maybe 30 meters overhead. He said he witnessed faces filled with horror in the windows of AA flight 77 as it descended on the Pentagon.

http://ichat.thisislondon.co.uk/messageboards/threadnonInd.jsp?forum=113&message=590764&thread=221125&start=1&msRange=15

Tell me something Merc....

If a plane was passing at 400MPH+ over your head....would you be able to observe the faces(filled with horror) of the passengers?

[MercutioATC]

150. I'm not saying I believe ALL of EVERY account...

...I'm saying that plenty of people (the overwhelming majority) who saw something saw a large commercial plane. Some of them were able to see its livery and identify it as an American Airlines jet.

If we're going to include eyewitness testimony at all, and I think we have to at least add it to the mix, a large American Airlines 2-engine jet is the thing that was seen by most.

[seatnineb]

156. American Airlines jet

It was an American Airlines airplane
Richard Benedetto


About two minutes later one of my guys pointed to an American Airlines airplane 20 feet high over Washington Blvd.
Joe Harrington


It was close enough that I could see the windows and the blinds had been pulled down. I read American Airlines on it.
William Lagasse


I saw this large American Airlines passenger jet coming in fast and low
Lincoln Liebner

I saw a very low-flying American Airlines plane
Elaine McCusker

The plane had a silver body with red and blue stripes down the fuselage. I believed at the time that it belonged to American Airlines, but I couldn't be sure. It looked like a 737
I then confirmed that the aircraft had been flown directly into the Pentagon without hitting the ground first or skipping into the building.
Terry Morin


A silver, twin-engine American Airlines jetliner gliding almost noiselessly over the Navy Annex
Christopher Munsey

I saw a silver plane I immediately recognized it as an American Airlines jet,
John O'Keefe


saw the body and the tail; it was a silver jet with the markings along the windows that spoke to me as an American Airlines jet,
Joel Sucherman


Maybe I have missed a few......but that is only 9 witnesses(via the internet) who identified it as an American Airlines plane.

[hack89]

153. Well, in this case I say Griffen has no credibility

His statement:

"the Pentagon is ringed by anti-missile batteries, which are programmed to destroy any aircraft entering the Pentagon’s airspace, except for any aircraft with a US military transponder"

is nonsense on many levels. First, the Pentagon is right next to a major civilian airport whose airplanes fly within hundreds of yards of the Pentagon hundreds of times daily. These airliners do not have military transponders - how come the automated defense system hasn't shot down one of these planes? Surely over the years at least one has strayed off course and passed over the Pentagon. Secondly, Griffen has no understanding of surface to air missiles. A missile big enough to destroy an airliner is a big missile - a Patriot would be the best example. A Patriot missile battery takes up a lot of real estate - radars, missile launchers and control facilities. How do you hide them in such a crowded metropolitan area as Arlington? I challenge you to show me any evidence of missile sites around the Pentagon. Patriot missiles are also long range missiles - they have a significant minimum range inside of which it can't intercept a target. In order for Patriots to protect the Pentagon, they would have to be located several miles away in the middle of very dense urban development. If Patriot missiles are remove from the equation, you are left with short range, shoulder launched Stinger missiles that could be fired from the roof of the Pentagon. The problem here is that the Stinger has a 7 pound warhead. This tiny warhead will not stop a 757 heading at you at full speed. There were numerous reports of US tactical jets being hit by Iraqi shoulder fired missiles and still being able to fly back to their bases. Such missiles will protect the Pentagon from a Piper Cub but not from a 757.

[petgoat]

154. the Pentagon is ringed by anti-missile batteries

says CNN



http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/09/10/ar911.air.defense/

The question is, did it have them before 9/11. The fact that they
have them now would seem to indicate that they are not afraid of a
oops shootdown. Planes flying into and out of Reagan would fly on
very stereotypical flight paths, so I'd think that control machanisms
would easily be programmed not to target planes on those paths.

"There were numerous reports of US tactical jets being hit by Iraqi
shoulder fired missiles and still being able to fly back to their
bases."

True, but the power-to-weight ratio of the tactical jets makes them
more like missiles. I think I saw pictures of one that had an entire
wing shot off and made it back to base.

John Judge says he was told in the '90's that the Pentagon was
guarding against "planes flying in the building."

[hack89]

155. That missile launcher you show..

is an Avenger - it fires a stinger missile. It is unlikely it would have prevented a 757 at top speed from hitting the Pentagon - remember it has a 7 pound warhead.

Your link specifically states it was an exercise to "test the ability of small, portable air defenses to provide protection for key Washington installations." If there had been a missile defense in place for a long time why the need to test the ability of such systems? It also does not say that the systems remained in place or are in place right now. It was a short term exercise and nothing more. I think you will find that there is absolutely no proof of missile batteries protecting the Pentagon on 9/11.

As for John Judge's comment - who told him? Myth and folklore abounds when it comes to the government and the military. Not to question John Judge's character as I know nothing about him but I think a higher standard of proof is called for.

[Sweet Pea]

118. There WERE missiles present...

but they were the HUMVEE mounted type as Merc noted above and they were only present in the weeks after 9/11 - I saw them parked in the outer regions of the parking lots surrounding the Pentagon. They have not been there since late in 2001, however.

As far as other surface-to-air missile batteries, I have only seen 2 others in the Wash DC area - one located on the top floor of a parking deck over at the Washington Navy Yard in South West DC and one over at Fort Meyers in a field, next to Arlington a few miles to the west of the Pentagon. They are still there, as far as I know (haven't been to either of those facilities in over a year).

There are no SAM batteries within the Pentagon complex, inside the courtyard or elsewhere. I have posted before the absurdity of having such a point-defense weapon directly on the site you want to defend. It is not a tactically smart placement nor would it do anything other than possibly turn a whole aircraft coming at you into a few or a bunch of pieces of aircraft coming at you - either way you are still going to get hit bad.

The stinger being an passive-infrared targeted missile, trying to obtain an infrared lock on a low-flying aircraft with all the surrounding heat sources would be difficult at best.

[MercutioATC]

103. Having a radar display and having SAMs are two very different things.

[demodewd]

47. re:tail

Seeing an American Airlines logo on the tail does in no way prove it was Flight 77. It is quite feasible that the perpetrators would tart up a craft to look like an American Airlines plane. I would have been very surprized if they wouldn't have taken measures to do exactly this.

[MercutioATC]

52. Granted.

It IS possible that somebody painted a 757 to look like an American jet. You then have the problem of an unidentified commercial airliner flying around leaving big radar returns.

[demodewd]

59. War games

War games. Fake blips and drones. This is documented.

[MercutioATC]

63. And??

...I guess somebody'll see monsters in every closet if they're that determined to find them.

Military exercises are nothing new. Thousands of them have been conducted without airplanes crashing into buildings.

We know there are bonafide terrorists in the world. WHY is it so difficult to believe that they might have had something to do with a terrorist act that they freely admit?

[petgoat]

67. "Military exercises are nothing new."

These ones shifted the fighters to Iceland, Alaska, and Northern Canada.
These ones put false blips on the radar screens at a time when PTech was
tied into the FAA computers from their office in the basement.

"a terrorist act that they freely admit"

The early tape, the one found in a house in Jalalabad, may have been
faked. The later tape...well, people confess to crimes they didn't
commit all the time.

[MercutioATC]

69. Ok, two points...

1) Large-scale military exercises are nothing new. Remember 7 or 8 years ago when we moved a whole hell of a lot of ships near Taiwan to muscle China?

2) I may be naive, but when a known terrorist organization, which has committed verified acts of terrorism in the past...one that has been targeting us for some time, admits to another act, I don't have a major problem believing that they might have been responsible.

They had the means, the motive, a history of attacks on the U.S. and they ADMITTED to it. Why do some people insist that they had nothing to do with it?

[petgoat]

72. "Large-scale military exercises are nothing new."

Stipulated. Isn't the fact that the hijackers struck on the day of the
exercises peculiar?

"Why do some people insist that they had nothing to do with it?"

I don't think anybody insists that. Some people point out that the
evidence is rather weak given, for instance, that some of the alleged
hijackers turned up alive, and the fact that there are no arab names on
the flight manifests.

The supposed confessiona are not sufficient to justify the assumption
that Osama did it. It hasn't been proven.

[John Doe II]

73. Osama denied

on September 17 Osama denied any involvement.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/

That's his first reaction (and please keep in mind that no confession was made on 911).


It's kind of strange that so many people believe he admitted it.

[MercutioATC]

75. Well, he also admitted it...

http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/11/11/wbin11.xml

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/binladen_10-29-04.html

[philb]

86. Lots of confusion and contraversy over whether bin Laden admitted 9/11

http://www.911review.com/myth/binladen.html

But also whether you could believe what he says, given his historic connections and roles.

And what evidence is there that he is still alive? Given his known serious kidney problems and need for treatment in hospitals. Which one has he been getting treated at?

[MercutioATC]

106. Yes, he might be dead now.

And yes, it's also possible that he lied about having done it. However, after the other attacks against the U.S. that we KNOW he organized (the Cole, for one), I don't have a problem believing him.

[Kevin Fenton]

37. 911review

There are no credible eyewitnesses who specifically say they saw an American Airlines 757 because (IMHO) no eyewitness is credible. However, the body of eyewitnesses thinks it was a large, twin-engined jet and looked like an American Airlines plane. See here:
http://www.911review.com/errors/pentagon/witnesses.html

I think that even if it was not American 77, then the people who did it should at least have painted it in AA colours, so any argument it didn't look like an AA plane is odd to me.

As far as I know, you're right that no witnesses gave a time, I guess they were too busy doing other stuff.

I don't care who the two people are, I don't beleive them (even if they are Jesus and Buddha). Stopped clocks? You want pictures of the plane debris, bodies, etc. So you show me a picture of a stopped clock (or say who saw what stopped clock where for a start). Alberto Gonzales was out by five minutes, lots of people got the details wrong, but I don't see what that proves. IMHO Gonzales is usually wrong.

If it wasn't a 757, then why not? If the crashes of 767 into the WTC were real (real 767s), why not crash a real 757 into the Pentagon? What's the advantage of switching a 757 for another plane?

[demodewd]

48. re: advantage

The advantage of switching planes is that it allowed the perpetrators to enable the craft to hit at the exact determined location via a homing devise.

[MercutioATC]

76. You wouldn't have to switch planes to do that.

Any government powerful enough to silence SO many people (who would have necessarily been in on the coverup) would certainly be able to install a device in a legitimate commercial aircraft, no?

[MrSammo1]

95. Good post!

[spooked911]

98. Thank you-- that's exactly what I'm talking about!

[MercutioATC]

107. You DO realize that clock's stopped at 9:31, not 9:32 don't you?

Kinda takes away from the argument just a little, no?

[spooked911]

115. You gotta be kidding me.

[MercutioATC]

117. Well, you made a big deal about 9:32 being so important.

This clock is stopped at 9:31. So did this really happen at 9:31 or 9:32. It's obviously a major issue.

[spooked911]

120. Okay-- so does the clock being stopped at 9:31am support

the official time of 9:37am more or the 9:32am time I presented here?

I suppose you will say neither, but I say one minutes difference is no big deal whereas clocks being off by six minutes is more rare.

[rman]

124. Looks like it's 9:31:39

21 seconds short of 9:32

I mean, if we want to be precise...

[spooked911]

125. Actually, I should point out that Barbara Honegger thinks the event

at the Pentagon happened between 9:31am and 9:32am. Which fits this clock perfectly.

[rman]

128. There's a clock on the infamous Pentagon impact video

and a date: Sep. 12, 2001, 17:37:19

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/03/07/gen.pentagon.pictures/index.html

Either the Pentagon isn't always precise, or something's up with that footage, or both.
Actually i'm pretty sure it is faked evidence.

[spooked911]

131. since the date is wrong, it is hard to take that time seriously

people have speculated the time is actually when the pentagon analyzed the video, but that doesn't seem right to me either.

[rman]

132. There's a lot wrong with that image sequence

most glaring is a skipped second, it goes from 19 to 21 shortly after the start of the explosion. And there's more, it has been discussed on DU before, and i've had a close look at the footage myself. I think it's worthless as evidence.

[MrSammo1]

134. it's more of

a smoking gun than anything else. In fact it shows the level of outright deception the neocons will go to!

[rman]

136. That's true;

it is clear evidence that something's fishy about 9-11.

But it is useless as evidence to determine the exact time of the Pentagon event.

[MrSammo1]

146. something's fishy

By now..........fishy isn't even an option.
We are talking about outright lies and deceptions.
The physical facts that no 757 crashed there isn't even a rational debate.

[MercutioATC]

137. The point is that even the stopped clocks disagree.

I'd imagine a seismic reference would be the most accurate.

The 9/11 Commission had many differint possible event times to consider. They chose the one that seemed to most agree with the available data.

Again, where's the conspiracy? So WHAT if their time is 5 or 6 minutes off?

[janedoe]

148. Recall the timeline developed by the CAIB.

CAIB = Columbia Accident Investigation Board.

They could pin-point the timing of various events down to within a second, and often to within 1/100th of a second. They even used home video shots, etc., for pinning down the timeline in some places, even though the clocks may not have been exactly correct in those videos. The information was used to support the time more than the time stamp on the home video.

Wasn't 9/11 a bigger event than the Columbia disaster?
Surely they could have gotten it right if they had wanted to.

They have security cameras from the gas station, the hotel, VDOT highway cameras, which all have a better chance of a correct time stamp than the home videos used to pinpoint part of the timeline for the CAIB.

And if a Pentagon security camera really did take those photos, why hasn't the guy who set the clock on it been fired? Why have a security camera at the Pentagon if it's not going to record the correct time? Where's the "security" part of the camera?

[hack89]

149. Well, considering that they were receiving telemetry data..

from hundreds of systems in real time, the Columbia investigation was a piece of cake. Every major parameter and most minor parameters were recorded in real time by a single system with a master clock - there never was a significant problem with time as there as only one clock.
In this case, they probably disregarded the home video time stamps and went with the telemetry time.

As for 9/11, if all those video cameras are not synchronized to the same time source (and how often do you think the gas station checks the time on its VCR?) I can't see how for 9/11 it would be easier to determine a timeline. In fact, an investigation dealing with one clock is much easier than one that has hundreds(if not thousands) of clocks.

[MercutioATC]

151. Columbia researchers had the advantage of telemetry data being sent

directly from Columbia (which is pretty damn accurate).

I'll bet their times are based on that data, not whether somebody managed to get their camcorder time set correctly to the hundredth of a second.

[janedoe]

147. Did you read the original post, here?

Please review:

BH has extremely strong evidence from several different sources that the Pentagon was hit between 9:31am and 9:32am, five to six minutes earlier than even the earliest time officially admitted.

My interpretation of this statement is that it could have been 9:31am, or 9:32am, or somewhere in between, or even somewhere in that neighborhood, as opposed to 5 or 6 minutes later.

[MercutioATC]

152. Yes, I did. I was responding to Spooked, not you.

He's the one that was so adamant about the Pentagon clocks being so accurate and all showing the same time (which he stated as 9:32).

I was simply pointing out that the pic posted seemed to undermine that contention somewhat.

[k-robjoe]

157. 0935

Would like to know what you all think about this :


Page 1 :

"0935 Channel 9 televised that an a/c had hit the Pentagon."

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB165/faa1.pdf

( Which is document 1 at this page: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB165/index.htm
(From : http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/ ) )

[k-robjoe]

160. Just so people see that this is what´s new n/t

[spooked911]

161. Great catch!

I should also note that this WaPo story says something happened at the pentagon at 9:20am:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/daily/sep01/attack.html

At about 9:20 a.m., Lt. Col. Art Haubold, a public affairs officer with air force, was in his office on the opposite side of the complex when the plane struck.

"We were sitting there watching the reports on the World Trade Center. All of a sudden, the windows blew in," he said. "We could see a fireball out our window."

[atomic-fly]

162. what's an a/c?

nm

[MercutioATC]

163. aircraft n/m

[Old and In the Way]

164. Isn't there a simpler explanation?

Maybe Bush was waiting for the Pentagon event to happen. You've got Bush sitting around looking stupid. You have Ari Fleisher sayings "Don't say anything yet." We have Bush confirming, twice, that he 'saw the 1st plane hit on TV and he thought that was one terrible pilot.'...even though the CIA was telling him that terrorists would be striking major targets using airplanes. You have the Secret Service not doing their job at Booker.

Now we are told that our $400BB/year military, whom not only can't intercept airliners or protect HQ with a 45 minute "heads up, can't keep accurate time, either?

[philb]

165. I think the timing is more relevant to the story about the C-130

If the first big explosion(there were more than one) was at 9:32, that time can't be consistent with the story about the C-130. Only if the explosion was later could the timing be consistent with the story about the C-130, which supposedly was just taking off from Andrews AFB at 9:30.


9:36 National Airport instructs a military C130 (Golfer06) that had just departed Andrews Air Force base to intercept and identify it. Golfer06 reports it is a B767, moving low and very fast (http://professor2222.tripod.com/Flight-93/Fl93.Pentagon.htm).

This would imply the hit had to be at 9:40 or after since the plane must not have made its big loop yet, as the C-130 didn't say it hit the Pentagon, at this report.