For those troubled by the lack of visible wreckage at the Pentagon...

[benburch]

Just how solid do people think an aircraft IS?

They are the minimum amount of aluminum, plastic and composite that can contain the payload and fuel with a reasonable assurance that it won't fall apart in use.

Sometimes, however, they do fall apart in use;







And fire can easily destroy the materials they are made of;





Sometimes after a crash there is nothing big enough to recognize;

[Kevin Fenton]

1. First of all...

... it is necessary to establish whether there is a "lack of visible wreckage at the Pentagon". When you googled "Pentagon 9/11" and clicked on images, how many photos did you find, how much did they weigh and what percentage of a 757 does this represent?

[benburch]

2. Oh, there *is* some visible wreckage.

But many people, who argue that a missile was used in a MIHOP plot, claim that there was not enough to represent a 757.

[benburch]

3. For example....

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com.nyud.net:8090/pentagon/images/13.jpg

[Kevin Fenton]

4. Well...

If it's photos of debris outside the Pentagon you want, then you could have a look at these:









You might have to click on the third one to get it to work.

Just look at those guys stealing souvenirs!

[Snivi Yllom]

11. pics galore

note all the little pulverized pieces with green aircraft primer paint

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

[libertypirate]

46. Aren't you the believer bellow who suggested the hole in the

pentagon being roughly the size and shape of a passenger plane is evidence that in fact as suggested a passenger plan did hit the building.

Nice try with the pieces but how about showing me something a little more sexy like a wing or one of a couple 7 ton pieces of titanium screws that should have punctured holes next to your evidence.

If the pentagon was a casino we would have had video surveillance of the crash, but for some reason nothing but five frames of a hole being blown in the side of the Pentagon.

[Andre II]

94. Do you know by any chance

when the last pic was taken?
At what time of the day?

[Kevin Fenton]

132. It was taken by Carmen L. Burgess

Link: http://www.pentagonresearch.com/evidence.html

I don't know when it was taken, I would guess after 10, maybe after 11. Why?

[libertypirate]

45. Oh add up all the scraps

and you get a great load of horse shit...

The Pentagon, you see it in the back ground, right?

Where is the actual video of the airplane running into that spot. If they don't have at least 10 angles on video what does that say about the security infrastructure of the Pentagon? Not much...

Put away the pictures and stick to the questions....

If as suggested a passenger aircraft rammed into the Pentagon where is that video?

That is a pretty damn big credibility issue for a person who just wants to see the evidence we all know exists.

No video no passenger aircraft it's just that simple, put up or shut up…

PS. And those 5 frames are evidence that something was blown up, nothing more...

[benburch]

54. Add up all the scraps...

And you get a complete 757 with a bunch of dead people.

I know you don't want to believe this, and are deeply emotionally invested in maintaining your belief that a transport aircraft did not hit the Pentagon, but it did.

[petgoat]

77. OK, so you give us a picture of fifteen pounds of aluminum

Kindly provide pictures of the other 128,715 pounds.

[greyl]

83. Molten aluminum probably contributed to the 3 week smolder

of the debris.

http://www.911myths.com/html/other_contributions.html

[rman]

5. Which of the evidence you present is supposed to support

the idea that an airplane crash can end up leaving no visible wreckage?

[Colorado Blue]

6. Something you need to remember about the 9/11 crashes:

These planes were fully loaded with fuel for coast to coast flights. They were deliberately selected for that reason. They were, in short, flying bombs.

Often, if a plane gets into trouble, pilots will circle and dump fuel in order to avoid a catastrophic fire and explosion upon making a crash landing.

Also, they were all travelling at very high speeds when they crashed. The other pictures seem to show planes which crashed at takeoff or landing or apparently, attempting a landing - they were travelling at speeds only a fraction of those which crashed on 9/11. The one with the lid off was a Hawaiian airliner whose top basically unpeeled in flight, which somehow managed not to crash. But it shows the essential fragility of the structure.

Simple physics explains their disintegration or near-disintegration, and the incredible intensity of the resulting explosions was of a magnitude beyond that of the DC-10 crash, for example, which was basically pulverized even though it was only a short distance above the ground and travelling relatively slowly when it crashed due to an engine falling off the wing. There were little pieces scattered all over the place.

Now imagine the same plane travelling more than 500 miles per hour, fully fueled for a coast-to-coast flight, deliberately striking a building or the ground.

[Kevin Fenton]

7. Nicely written, shame about the facts

Fully fuelled?
American 11 had a capacity of about 23,500 gallons, but had 10,000 gallons on impact.
United 175 had the same capacity, but 9,100 gallons on impact.
Why on earth would a big intercontinental plane like a 767 be fuelly fueled for a coast-to-coast flight that is well within its range?
The two 757s had a capacity of 11,500 gallons and a range of 3,900 nautical miles. I haven't checked, but I doubt they were much more than half full.

As for "more than 500 miles per hour", the fastest was United 175 at 500 mph, American 11 was doing about 430, American 77 about 350-400. As for United 93 - on one engine?

[Colorado Blue]

9. Your point?

These were inventions? I know people who lost relatives on those planes.

[Kevin Fenton]

23. I think my point is clear

If you got your numbers right, your opinions would carry more weight. By exaggerating the numbers and making it seem worse than it was, you give the impression that the numbers have to be exaggerated for them to "work". They don't. The real numbers work just fine. Why anyone would claim the planes were inventions is completely beyond me.

[Colorado Blue]

31. I was going by the information I'd read previously, and I

checked with the flights, by number, in Wikipedia before I wrote my post.

I did not mean to exaggerate the numbers.

These conspiracy theories make me angry. But also I belonged to Civil Air Patrol and have studied plane crashes and people should be aware of what can happen when planes suffer catastrophic impact with the ground, and spin tales around groundless assumptions.

[AZCat]

75. Aircraft use a big chunk of fuel for takeoff.

Takeoff fuel use as a percentage of total fuel use varies depending on several variables including the aircraft type, trip distance, and payload, but for short trips it can be as much as 25% of the total fuel consumption. The tanks aren't filled all the way for every trip either - that unused fuel is just more weight that must be lifted from the ground. I wish I could find some good info on how much a B757 uses getting to altitude (on average - again there are lots of variables) but so far I have been unsuccessful.

[rman]

8. Bombs explode, fuel combusts -

the explosive force of combusting fuel is not nearly as strong as that of an actual detonation of explosives.


Imagine a plane hitting the surface of the ocean after an uncontrolled dive from several kilometers up. This has happened more then once, and in all cases much of the plane was recovered, including large pieces.

[benburch]

41. Depends on how the burning proceeds!

If the fuel is atomized on impact before ignition, you have an explosion.

[rman]

48. That's bullshit

There's no such thing as "atomization" of fuel. Maybe you mean mixing of fuel with air - which certainly facilitates combustion, but not explosion, and it's not "atomization".

When fuel ignites, you don't get a shockwave within the fuel that's faster then the speed of sound in that fuel.

[benburch]

49. Atomization...

is what occurs in an atomizer, spray head, or a carburetor. It is a technical term of art, and is used as such here.

Example; http://www.begellhouse.com/journals/6a7c7e10642258cc.html

I suggest using google next time, before you embarrass yourself; Google definition

[benburch]

52. Oh, and...

"Fuel combusts, vapor explodes." This is the basis of a Fuel-Air Munition. And also how your automobile engine works.

[MrSammo1]

67. Fuel-Air Munition

You're mixing apples and oranges.

Even if you could get the fuel to explode (which you can't) you would still have the debris equaling a jet........which we don't have.

Since we are on the subject........explain why there was no vertical stabilizer mark on the wall?

[benburch]

69. Oh, yes, you can get jet fuel to explode.

You are sadly misinformed on that score. If you dissolve it into air in the form of an atomized aerosol, that aerosol, even if below the vapor point of the fuel, will experience at least a deflagration if not an actual explosion when there is an ignition source, and there would have been sufficient ignition sources in any collision such as this.

And TWA-800 shows clearly the explosive potential of jet-B.

As for why no tail mark - I don't believe that the tail was standing intact when it reached the wall. The tail has inertia and when the aircraft struck and began to crumple would have pitched forward.

Or do you expect an aircraft to make a cartoon-style silhouette in a re-inforced concrete wall? Nope. That would NEVER be what was observed. Had there been such a silhouette, then I would believe that this was a put-up job.

I suggest reading through the accident reports on http://www.planecrashinfo.com/ and http://www.airdisaster.com/

Plenty of explosions after jet aircraft crashes! No need for shadowy CIA/Bavarian Illuminati/Bilderberger conspiracies.

[AZCat]

74. You don't even need traditional fuels.

Grain elevators in the Great Plains are susceptible to explosions generated when an aerosol (usually some grain powder, but it can be just about anything) is ignited. These explosions have been large enough to demolish large grain elevators and kill people in the vicinity. One outside of Wichita, Kansas, did just that in 1997 (IIRC). Since these explosions are so dangerous and the conditions so prevalent, safety measures have been developed to reduce the risk. Even so, they still happen.

[benburch]

99. Exactimundo! nt

[MrSammo1]

96. You better tell this jet......

....that it couldn't make a cartoon-style silhouette.
You've been reading the lies at snopes.

The outer facing of the Pentagon was limestone. At you suggesting that limestone is stronger than steel?

It amazes me just how science poor the average person is! They'll buy any lie they're fed!

[benburch]

98. Snopes?

I don't need snopes to draw that conclusion.

Yes, the concrete (faced with limestone and in recent years having blast walls added) is stronger than a steel curtain wall. MUCH stronger.

[petgoat]

117. concrete ...is stronger than a steel curtain wall.

Certainly, but a curtain wall is non-structural. The WTC perimeter columns were structural and
were built of steel plate. At the bottom the plate was 2.5 inches thick; at the top 0.25 inches.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html

[MrSammo1]

129. I'm talking about the limestone

a jet has to hit it first.

the concrete doesn't make the limestone any stronger.

It's still just limestone.

[eyepaddle]

56. Take a look at history unrelated to 9/11for a few examples

In WW II the American carrier Lexington, the Japanese carriers Kaga, Akagi and most dramatically Taiho were destroyed by fuel-air explosions. There are numerous lesser vessels which also succumbed to this fate.

The Taiho was a marvelous ship (easily the best Japanese carrier of the war) heavily armored, efficient, unfortunately poorly ventilated. A minor torpedo hit cracked her aviation fuel lines (and did very little else) the captain, who assumed his wonderful new ship was in no danger, proceeded without addressing the minor fuel leaks. The vapors collected in her stuffy hangar and were sufficient to blow a more than 3 inch armored deck effectively off the ship.

Fuel can be EXTREMELY explosive.

Granted the WW II examples are dealing with gasoline (much more volatile than jet fuel) but remember volatility only refers to how readily something vaporizes. Jet fuel can be vaporized through mechanical action (ideally as in a jet engine) or perhaps by a plane crash. Also remember that heavier grade petroleum fuels, such as diesel and jet fuel have siginifcantly more energy per pound than gaseline, so once it is vaporized the potential energy release is much greater.

[petgoat]

110. The Hawaiian airliner shows not fragility but unbelievable strength

After the top peeled off the plane (due to metal fatigue from repeated
pressureization/depressurization cycles in the island-hopping jet) it
was able to land safely.

[benburch]

115. Wow, you look at ANY data and see just what you want to see.

In that, you are just like most Republicans.

[petgoat]

116. You're projecting, ben. You are about the most unreasonable

person that I've ever encountered on this board.

[benburch]

118. Coming from you...

that is a high compliment.

[AZCat]

135. Metal fatigue not from pressure fluctuations...

but temperature fluctuations.

More importantly, not all metals undergo fatigue failure under cyclical loading. Steel, for example, has an endurance limit. Cyclical loads of a magnitude smaller than this limit will not induce fatigue failure. Aluminum does not have an endurance limit.

[benburch]

12. Just look at the last two pictures...

The Roselawn crash and the ValueJet crash.

No intact bodies, or even parts big enough to identify Almost no wreckage identifiable as an aircraft. And both of these hit very soft targets.

The Roselawn aircraft hit a plowed field that was mud to about 3' depth. The ValueJet aircraft hit a swamp that was about 6' deep at that spot.

They were basically atomized.

Hitting one of the strongest buildings in the DC area, and already disintegrating due to having hit a large diesel generating trailer, the Pentagon 757 was smashed into extremely tiny fragments, most of which were forced into the hole it made, and almost all of which burned.

Responders who were on the scene give firsthand testimony of body parts, torn crew uniforms, and other aircraft debris.

It was an Aircraft.

It was a 757.

It was the same 757 that took off from Dulles.

And all the people on it are taking a "dirt nap" now.

[rman]

29. in the 2nd to last pic i see debris,

for the last pic i would like to see a source. Pic could be taken after collection of wreckage.

[benburch]

55. Yes, but you see no debris, other than the a small part of the tail...

That is bigger than a dinnerplate.

They collected body parts in that field for over a week. The bits were all collected in dumpsters as there were no pieces large enough to truck away.

The second picture was taken right after the wreck by a news helicopter. I believe the small red item you see is a rubber dinghy of people going out to inspect. (EDIT: Its a helicopter hovering at low altitude.)

I refer you to;

http://www.cnn.com/US/9605/11/plane.crash/6p/index.html

http://www.flight592.com/slideshow/index.html <-- Click on the word "Images" to see the slide show.

[rman]

87. so there's debris in that last picture as well

In other words, planes don't "atomize" on impact.

[benburch]

107. How is it possible to be that blind?

I just showed you that they do.

You, heavily emotionally invested in this MIHOP story that makes you feel good, simply refuse to believe the proof before your eyes!

Some people still think Kennedy was shot by John Dillinger from the Grass Knoll, too.

Others think that the Moon Landings were all faked in a blimp hanger.

You, equally insane, believe that the Pentagon fired at itself. :eyes:

[rman]

122. I take it your straw men and ad hominem means

you have no good arguments.

[Snivi Yllom]

10. Evidence That A Boeing 757 Really Did Impact the Pentagon on 9/11

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

Review the facts

Size of 757 matches the initial size of hole in the building - somewhere between 13 and 16 feet (757 is 13 feet wide/high)

Rims found in building match those of a 757

Small turbine engine outside is an APU

Same engine has been clearly stated to not match a Global Hawk engine

Blue seats from 757 laying on ground in photos

Part of "American" fuselage logo visible in more than 1 photo

Engine parts photographed inside match a Rolls-Royce RB211

Structural components photographed in wreckage match Boeing paint primer schemes

Large deisel generator in front of building hit by a large heavy object

Large deisel engine outside is spun towards the building - could not be result of bomb blast or missile explosion

Multiple eye witnesses say they saw an airliner

Multiple eye witnesses say they saw an airliner hit the Pentagon

60+ bodies, matching the passenger list and flight crew roster identified and returned to families from Pentagon wreckage

[benburch]

13. And MANY, MANY eyewitnesses!

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html

[DoYouEverWonder]

14. Ever notice that many of those 'witnesses'

worked for the M$M or the Pentagon.

Show me someone credible who SAW a plane HIT the Pentagon, that is not from either two of the above.

[benburch]

16. Like this one?

"Mrs. Deb Anlauf, resident of Colfax, Wisconsin, was in her 14th floor of the Sheraton Hotel , (immediately west of the Navy Annex) when she heard a "loud roar": Suddenly I saw this plane right outside my window. You felt like you could touch it; it was that close. It was just incredible. "Then it shot straight across from where we are and flew right into the Pentagon. It was just this huge fireball that crashed into the wall (of the Pentagon). When it hit, the whole hotel shook. (...) Jeff didn't feel the impact of the plane crash as directly as his wife. He was attending an environmental meeting on the second floor of the hotel when the plane struck the Pentagon. About five seconds before the crash, Jeff said he heard the sound of "tin being dropped," likely as construction workers building an addition to the hotel saw the plane and dropped their building materials. "Then, about 5 seconds later, the whole hotel shook," Jeff recalled. "I could feel it moving. We said 'Oh, my gosh, what's going on?' ""

[benburch]

18. Or this one?

"As former Cincinnatian James R. Cissell sat in traffic on a Virginia interstate by the Pentagon Tuesday morning, he saw the blur of a commercial jet and wondered why it was flying so low. ''Right about the time it was crossing over the highway, it kind of dawned on me what was happening,'' said Cissell, son of Hamilton County Clerk of Courts Jim Cissell. In the next blink of an eye, he realized he had a front-row seat to history, as the plane plowed into the Pentagon, sending a fireball exploding into the air and scattering debris - including a tire rim suspected of belonging to the airplane - past his car. (...) In the next seconds dozens of things flashed through his mind. ''I thought, 'This isn't really happening. That is a big plane.' Then I saw the faces of some of the passengers on board,'' Cissell said. While he remembers seeing the crash, Cissell remembers none of the sounds. ''It came in in a perfectly straight line,'' he said. ''It didn't slow down. I want to say it accelerated. It just shot straight in.'"

[DoYouEverWonder]

22. If Cissell was on Interstate 110

He usually cuts through the Pentagon parking lot to get to work, but was stuck on Interstate 110 because of extra security at the Pentagon following the attack on the World Trade Center.

http://www.cincypost.com/attack/cissel091201.html


How did he see the plane go straight in, no less see passengers faces, when Interstate 110 runs along the side opposite of where the plane went into the building? (The road in the bottom left corner of the satellite image is Interstate 110)





BTW: Cissell is a former photojournalist who at the time had worked for the last three years for the Freedom Forum Museum in Arlington, Va., so you can say he's connected to the M$M. Plus his father is a Clerk of the Courts and his mother is a City Council member in Cinncinatti, both are Repug gov officials.

Edit: Just found his resume. Worked for Knight Rider before working at Freedom Forum Musem. After FFM, went to work at AOL (Next door to CIA headquarters)

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:nyjBciNsSU4J:www.cissell.net/jim_cissell_resume.pdf+%22James+R.+Cissell%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2&client=firefox-a

Here's his website: http://www.cissell.net/portfolio/index.htm

[DoYouEverWonder]

20. So this woman saw the plane fly by her window

and also saw it hit the Pentagon, from 1.6 miles away?

So fine, let's assume she saw a 'plane'. She gives no indication of the color, size or type of plane. Nor does she notice the C130 that flew over the Pentagon within a minute or two of the crash?


Allen Cleveland.

Soon after the crash (Within 30 seconds of the crash) I witnessed a military cargo plane (Possibly a C130) fly over the crash site and circle the mushroom cloud. My brother inlaw also witnessed the same plane following the jet while he was on the HOV lanes in Springfield.


http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html

[benburch]

24. Assumes facts not in evidence.

I invite you to phone her up and re-interview her.

Report back here with what you find.

[DoYouEverWonder]

25. PM me a number

and I'll give her a call. (Heck, I called a Swift Boat Vet once. We actually had a great conversation for over an hour.)

In regards to facts not in evidence, please explain?


The C130 that followed 'Flight 77' has been confirmed by the Pentagon and was reported by a few eyewitnesses. From this ladies vantage point, if such a vantage point exists in this hotel, she had to have been able to see the 2nd plane.



I would imagine one of these would make a lot of noise chasing another plane? I would also imagine that you would be saying to yourself 'What the fuck is that thing?'

[benburch]

28. Done!

You might want to record the call, if she approves. It will save others from having to bug her subsequently.

[benburch]

51. Were you able to conduct that interview?

BTW, the facts not in evidence;

1. Her field of view.

2. She was not asked about the C-130.

[DoYouEverWonder]

62. Hi

I've been slammed at work.

I was just working on some ?'s so I don't sound like a complete idiot.

I'll try to get done tonight, but it's the one night a month I go out and play music, so I hope you understand that comes first.

[DoYouEverWonder]

63. Delete

[DoYouEverWonder]

64. Just tried it

No answer and no machine. I'll try later if I get the chance. It's a bit early for folks that work in WI.

[rman]

30. ... giving conflicting reports

we've been through this already.
Why are we going in circles, who benefits from that?

[dchill]

36. "...going in circles, who benefits from that?"

Who benefits? benburch and everyone else who believes that the Official Theory is the Real Deal, the Golden Rule, the Holy Grail and the Bible in one smooth package. It helps them reinforce their belief that there are no holes in the OT OR in donuts. They alone are the brilliant Physicists with the Phormulae that the rest of us (the See Tears) are nothing but Phools!

[benburch]

58. If you deny evidence and invent your own...

"Fool" covers it for some.

GOP disinformation artist covers it for others.

[dchill]

59. That's what I'm saying! Even now...

I'm busy cooking up my own phormulae - just like you. :)

[benburch]

61. Except mine come from a physics book...

Yours seem to require a proctoscope to locate...

[dchill]

66. Is there something bothering you...

about some evidence or other that you can "document" my having pulled out of my ass or anywhere else? My only problem with you is that you have started two threads based on a formula that doesn't come close to "solving" the "bombless collapse" of the twin towers.

It should be easy for a person with 30 years behind a proctoscope to see that the "potential energy from the sky" scenario did not happen. Why not just admit it and move on? That's all I'm saying.

On the Pentagon attack question, I'd just like to see a whole lot more actual airplane debris (just like in the pictures in your OP) and a way bigger hole than I've been able to detect. And a more likely suspect pilot.

My skeptical side tells me that EVERYTHING we've been told about 9-11 is subject to question, and better answers from the government and this administration would be nice - if not legally necessary. Better investigative journalism would be equally refreshing.

BTW, I'd like to thank you for your White Rose Society archives of progressive radio - especially the Malloy show. It is an invaluable resource for all of us.


edit to add: BTW2, I have a physics book, too. I keep it with my proctoscope.

[petgoat]

78. self-delete

[DoYouEverWonder]

26. 60+ bodies?

What bodies?

Families received their loved ones remains. There were no bodies from any of the 4 flights. Amazing.

[benburch]

53. There were no INTACT bodies.

Would you expect any?

[rman]

88. so what?

[DoYouEverWonder]

91. I was responding to Snivi Yllom and the list of evidence SV

presented which obviously is not an accurate list. If evidence is not accurate (I just picked the most glaring example), then it is not valid evidence.

[rman]

103. I am wondering about the relevance of benburch's remark re

"no INTACT bodies."

[benburch]

106. Remains as opposed to bodies.

This sort of event often does not leave intact bodies, just charred bits and pieces.

[Andre II]

95. Initial size of the hole

Just for me:
According to you:
Is the size of the initial hole exactly as big as the body of a 757?
How do you measure the size of the hole?

[benburch]

114. I don't think it was.

And wouldn't expect it to be, given the strength of the wall. I expect that the hole was about 80% or so of the width of the fuselage.

If you care to measure, there are windows in the wall of known dimensions.

[MrSammo1]

130. all that.......

but still no vertical stabilizer mark on the pre-collapse wall.

Do you believe in miracles?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

15. Wait, I Was Reading A Thread Where You Were A Building Collapse Expert.

Are you a plane crash expert too now? You know everything about everything I take it?

I don't mean to be overly snarky, but you seem to speak so factually about all this as if you are the be all end all source of info, case closed. I just don't understand why you are so passionate about shooting down any and all 9/11 theories?

Even I am not convinced yet of MIHOP but wouldn't dare close my mind off to it completely or work so passionately to just prove there is no way it could possibly be MIHOP. I mean, couldn't your brain, your expertise, your passion, your attention to detail and perserverence be used more effectively to try and prove why the official bush story is no way completely accurate? I have found so many holes in the official story, regardless of yet believing for certain what the truth is, that it is merely responsible to continue asking questions. So why are you so intent on squelching the questions rather than picking the questions that you aren't yet so passionately convinced to the answers of and helping explore them further?

I just think on DU it is better when DU'ers have a common mission in spite of differing opinions within the mission. If you don't believe in the towers being rigged, ok. Believe the plane hit the pentagon exactly how and why as they said? Ok. But what about finding atta's passport right there on the street? Or naming all 19 hijackers within hours? Or the pennsylvania crash? Or the lack of SS response to bush in florida? Or the scheduled wargames? Or the stock trades? Or early warnings? Or the slew of other questions that maybe you don't have the be all end all answers to yet. Wouldn't that be more helpful working overall within the DU team?

Just asking.

[benburch]

17. I am one of those annoying people who has studied nearly everything.

And I've worked in engineering and physics since 1978.

So, no, I don't have all the answers, but I am tolerably sure of the ones I think I do have. And when I see people being damned fools, I say so.

There is enough that is actually true about 9/11 to HANG this Administration without making up cruise missiles, buildings stacked to the rafters with bombs, and fictional Israeli film crews.

They ALLOWED this to happen, either through Depraved Indifference or INTENTIONALLY. They were amply warned. The President was read a memo that said "Bin Laden Poised To Strike In The United States" and went on the longest vacation in presidential history. First he used this to pass a Fascist "Enabling Act". Then he screwed up the search for Bin Laden because he was so eager to start a war in Iraq. How the FUCK isn't that enough to go on?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

19. I Don't Disagree. But Why Stop There?

I don't like pod theories or israeli film crew theories either, but I'm still quite puzzled by how quickly they found the names, that passports so miraculously survived intact to be found, that the ss didn't protect bush at all, that flight 93 has more evidence surrounding being shot down then there is for it crashing (at least from what I've tried to deduce), that 4 airliners went unintercepted within a 2 hour time frame when not one previously had gone unintercepted inside of 15 minutes before (I think), etc....

So in addition to all you said above that I agree is damning to the hilt as well, as good as you are at deduction and logic why not explore those things and others further as well? That's all I'm curious about.

[benburch]

21. Actually, intercepts are not all that quick, or weren't then.

The Paine Stuart aircraft was not intercepted until over an hour after ATC lost contact with it. And it still had its transponders on and was flying a mathematically straight line.

The 9/11 aircraft were not on a flight plan (obviously) and had switched off their transponders, and so were not easy to find.

And I have read that only 16 interceptors were regularly on duty for the US Mainland at that era when not in a state of war alert. (Pathetic, really!)

Furthermore, no interceptors were allowed to break the sound barrier over the USA.

And no, I am not satisfied that we identified the people involved adequately. I think that there may be a coverup in that regard as Bush does not want to admit to the degree of actual knowledge and warning we had.

But I can find nothing that leads me to think that anything other than aircraft strikes brought down WTC 1,2 and 7, or hit the Pentagon.

And maybe 93 WAS shot down. But then something unexpected happened; The "Lets Roll" story. If you admit to shooting down the "Lets Roll" heroes, possibly as they were winning back control of the aircraft, that does not help your publicity, now, does it? And you cannot use the "Lets Roll" heroes in your speeches for the next three years...

The real issue is, how much safe conduct did the hijackers get from this government? I personally think that part STINKS.

[Colorado Blue]

32. The other thing that's interesting, which is detailed in the

book, "House of Bush, House of Saud," is the fact that EVERY SINGLE PLANE in the US was grounded after 9/11 - except the special flight whisking the Saudis out of the country.

[benburch]

40. Isn't that just the MOST damning part?

Bush knew what was up and who was behind it - and whisked them all to safety.

[Harald Ragnarsson]

34. Man, you really hit all the dis-info, don't ya?

The Paine Stuart aircraft was not intercepted until over an hour after ATC lost contact with it. And it still had its transponders on and was flying a mathematically straight line.

The 9/11 aircraft were not on a flight plan (obviously) and had switched off their transponders, and so were not easy to find."

Well, wrong on all counts. First off, turing your transponder off doesn't make you "invisible" to radar or "not easy to find" as you call it. The transponder merely gives off a call sign and an altitude reading. The plane is still on radar. This is easily provable because otherwise we just wouldn't put transponders into military jets and they all would be "stealth" planes.

Also, because Stewart's transponder was on, and was still flying on course, they didn't feel the urgency of that as they would of passenger jumbo jets turning off transponders and changing course abruptly.

They responded to this threat quickly that day, but due to "war games" and "exercises" being run by Dick Cheney, one involving planes flying into buildings, none of the planes could be stopped. Sigh.

Debunk that, Bill Nye Science Guy.

[benburch]

39. Who taught you radar systems?

You are beyond totally wrong here.

Yes, it becomes much harder to see an aircraft that has no transponder! With the transponder, you have a positive return that the computer can interpret and put a nice big mark on the screen. Without it, you have only the echo, the strength of which varies according to distance from the antenna, altitude, ground clutter, and the orientation of the aircraft. Much, much harder to see. This is why it is such a major issue when the computers go down at an air traffic control facility. This is also why aircraft without transponders are barred from flight in a TCAS. Also, any aircraft at or near the altitude of buildings in a major metro area is basically lost in the ground clutter.

A Military radar system, typified by the AWACS, is much, much different in processing power and presentation than a civil traffic control system. Comparing the two is like apples and oranges. A Military system can track individual returns, and can even analyze the echo to determine the likely sort of aircraft. But we do not keep an AWACS flying over the eastern seaboard. What was available that day was the civil ATC system.

[Harald Ragnarsson]

43. Look at my avatar. Who taught you?

For someone to claim that RADAR that we have used since before WWII for advance warning does not work right without a transponder is beyond foolish. Way beyond foolish. No military planes have transponders, does that make them hard to see on radar? No it sure doesn't and since you are making the outlandish claim, you should have to back it up. The transponder does just what I said, it provides a tag and altitude info. Nothing more.

I also can't believe you have all this engineering and physics training and make claims that buildings pancake at 8 floors per second. Too bad they couldn't have taught you some common sense with all the book learnin'.

[benburch]

50. Actually, nearly all military planes have transponders and IFF systems.

The transponders are, of course, not used in combat, but they ARE used when those military planes are in the domestic air traffic system.

In the past, however, the lack of transponders on military aircraft has caused mid-air collisions because ATC could not keep track of them.

[Harald Ragnarsson]

71. Duh

Because of not having the altitude info given by the transponder maybe, not from "not being able to see them clearly" on radar.

[benburch]

105. Admit that you have never operated a radar station.

As it seems obvious that you have not.

Radar is not like in the cartoons. The amount of return you get from an aircraft depends on a lot of different things, and you can get phantoms, reflections, interference, and ground clutter, and that is why the modern system of transponders and computer processing has revolutionized air safety.

[AZCat]

73. And what exactly are we supposed...

to infer from your choice of avatar, other than the obvious link to the Air Force?

Please explicate - us engineering/physics types obviously have difficulty with logic.

[benburch]

104. He means to imply...

that all airmen are radar techs.

Patently not true, of course, but his whole argument is patently not true.

I don't believe that he has any clear idea of what the analog portion of an air traffic control radar looks like, that is, the returns that are not digitally enhanced using information from the transponders, but he will trot out his time as an airman to shout down logic, reason, and common sense.

I wonder what he did? Likely spent the whole time patching cracks in runways.

[Harald Ragnarsson]

123. I'll take a link to back up your crap any time now

You know, how radar evidently wasn't worth much of a crap for anything until the "transponder was invented". Or how planes "become hard to see" or disappear from radar when the transponder shuts off. Shouldn't be a problem on your part, right Sport? BTW, where does your radar operation experience come in? Did you have a lot of radar work in your "background in Engineering and Physics" for however long it is?

I'll not reply to any comments of yours about "runway patcher" with comments of my own that you got your Super Genius Diploma from some university that advertises on matchbooks or such. I'd like to think I'm bigger than that. Sort of.

[petgoat]

80. no interceptors were allowed to break the sound barrier

Oh I see. The nation was under attack, but the EPA held the power over the military response when
the Pentagon was threatened. Thanks for making that clear for us!

I can find nothing that leads me to think that anything other than aircraft strikes brought down WTC 1,2 and 7

Do tell. How did aircraft strikes bring down WTC7?

[benburch]

93. Asked and answered. nt

[petgoat]

79. making up cruise missiles

Oh, cruise missiles don't exist?

making up... buildings stacked to the rafters with bombs

Van Romero said demolishing the towers would not take a whole lot of explosives, so your
mischaracterization of the issue defeats you.

making up... fictional Israeli film crews.

The Bergen Record reported it. ABC reported it. You are in hysterical denial.

[benburch]

92. Of course cruise missiles exist.

You made up the ones you say were used on that day.

Total fabrication.

Absolute lie.

First you say that the towers cannot be brought down by aircraft and then you say that a teeny-tiny bomb could do it? I think you really must be a disinformation agent, because nobody sane could hold such conflicting opinions at the same time.

Also, News media reports things all the time that did not happen. I invited you to go interview the officers who made the arrest and you blew that off. Until you do that, you are the one who is in denial.

[petgoat]

108. You made up the ones you say were used

I never said cruise missile were used. I don't know if they were or weren't, and neither do you.

First you say that the towers cannot be brought down by aircraft and then you say that a teeny-tiny bomb could do it?

Since Van Romero said the same thing it seems a pretty safe statement. But no, I don't say that the
towers cannot be brought down by aircraft because I don't know. But I don't find the MIT or the NIST
explanations convincing.

nobody sane could hold such conflicting opinions

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds said Emerson, while F. Scott Fitzgerald said
the sign of a first-rate intelligence was the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the
same time.

Your opinions about mental health are extreme and unjustified.

[DoYouEverWonder]

27. It's not just lack of evidence at the Pentagon

It's lack of evidence at 4 different crash sites on the same day.

If that was the only anomaly, then you might be able to rationalize such a thing. Compound this unlikely result with all the other anomalies, such has three skyscrapers disintegrating within their own footprints and there is something going on that only our own government would have the ways and means to pull off.

However, we can argue forever and never prove anything in regards to physical evidence because none of us have access to enough information. Nor do we need the physical evidence to prove 9-11 was a MIHOP event.

All we have to do is look at the behavior of the top leadership in command that morning. Look at Bush, Cheney, Rummie, Tenet, Myers, Rice, Wolfowitz, and the rest of the gang. Not a single one of them responded to the attack, nor took any action to stop the attack until after the Pentagon was hit. Not a single one of them. I don't need no stinking airplanes to prove anything but rather by their deeds you shall know them.

[Colorado Blue]

33. Did it occur to you they were in shock? Nothing like this has

ever happened to us before.

And it occurred over a relatively brief time span.

I don't think they had a clue what to do or how to respond, beyond doing the obvious and trying to get all the other planes on the ground.

Also it should be obvious by now this isn't the most competent administration we've ever had.

[Harald Ragnarsson]

35. Yes, just in a state of shock!

Even though Cheney was running war games at the same time with the same scenarios! Imagine how shocked they were!

:sarcasm:

Rummy was so shocked at the WTC hits that he sat in his office doing paperwork until the Pentagon was hit. An hour and a half later. Sadly, he had changed the regs making him sole authority for ordering intercepts in the months before 911. If only he had been notified that day!

Nope, everyone just sat on their hands and did nothing that day and it's all because even with the exercises, even with the advance warnings, they were just SHOCKED!

Whatever.

All the more reason to get rid of them ASAP.

[dchill]

37. Actually, I think it's a state of...

Shock and Awe.

[Harald Ragnarsson]

38. Denial, more like it n/t

[truth2power]

42. Uh uh

Fall apart is one thing. Vaporize is something else. No commercial passenger craft hit the pentagon.

[benburch]

44. Where did all the seat cushions come from?

And the APU turbine?

And the bits of fuselage with AA colors on it?

And all the eyewitnesses? All government shills?

[MrSammo1]

68. isn't it obvious?

they were planted by the people behind the lie.

Have you seen Fahrenheit 911?

[benburch]

70. Uh huh...

Riiiight.

So the cruise missile they used had seat cushions strapped to it, right?

:rofl:

[petgoat]

81. "cruise missile they used had seat cushions strapped to it"

That is absolutely ludicrous, ben.

If the Pentagon fired cruise missiles at itself (and neutralized its own anti-missile defense to make the attack work) it could certainly install a few seat cushions and AA-painted sheet metal.

[benburch]

100. "absolutely ludicrous"

Describes your whole argument.

[petgoat]

109. So you prefer describing someone's argument in uncomplimentary

terms to mounting a counterargument.

Maybe that works in circles where everyone agrees with each other (and dissenters are ejected) but it
doesn't go well in an international forum of thinking people such as this one.

Edited to remove statements that while true, are unpolitic.

[benburch]

111. Insert true but unpolitic statement here.

How can anybody argue with you when you make shit up, as you are clearly doing, and use that made up shit to prove your point?

Sorry, but expect to be ignored by me in the future.

[petgoat]

113. you when you make shit up

What did I make up? You are the one who seems unable to distinguish between opinion and fact.

Why would I undelete the statement I deleted? The suggestion makes no sense.

[MrSammo1]

97. Again..........

there's no vertical stabilizer mark on the wall.

Limestone is soft!

If a 757 were to hit the wall.........it would have left a mark equaling itself.

What part is it about physical reality that you don't understand?

By the way.........I never said anything about a missile. I don't believe it was a missile for the simple fact that Rumsfeld said it was. Just like I don't believe a 757 was shot down in Shanksville. I see no physical evidence suggesting either.

Don't you find it odd that they won't show us the video tapes? Why would that be?

Did you know that the FBI confiscated the video tapes from area businesses within fifteen minutes of the Pentagon deception?

You would think with a 757 just hitting the Pentagon.......they'd have more important things to do?

[benburch]

101. There would be no vertical stabilizer mark at all.

I believe it pitched forward during the impact.

[MrSammo1]

127. an object in motion.........

can only be stopped by potential energy.

The only potential energy would be the wall.

This is a physical event that must occur in order for the official story to be true.

I would be saying the same thing if the neocons placed the wreckage of an entire 757 at the Pentagon.

Without the physics of a crash......there can be no crash.

[greyl]

76. Fahrenheit 911 does NOT

make the argument that you are making.

[benburch]

102. No, it does not.

Just another bit of made up "evidence".

[MrSammo1]

128. Fahrenheit 911 does......

show the Pentagon lie in all it's glory.

Crystal clear!

Watch it.

[Harald Ragnarsson]

47. Mindy Kleinberg, who lost her husband on Sept 11, 2001

http://www.fracturednews.com/FN-pages/911%20testimony/911%20testimony.htm

Leadership



Joint Chief Of Staff

The acting Joint Chief of Staff on Sept 11th was General Richard Myers.

On the morning of September 11th, he was having a routine meeting. Acting Joint Chief of staff Myers stated that he saw a TV. report about a plane hitting the WTC but thought it was a small plane or something like that. So, he went ahead with his meeting.

"Meanwhile the second World Trade Center was hit by another jet. Nobody informed us of that," Myers said. By the time he came out of the meeting the Pentagon had been hit.

Whose responsibility was it to relay this emergency to the Joint Chief of Staff?

Have they been held accountable for their error? Surely this represents a breakdown of protocol.


Secretary of Defense

The Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, was at his desk doing paperwork when AA77 crashed into the Pentagon.

As reported, Secretary Rumsfeld felt the building shake, went outside, saw the damage and started helping the injured onto stretchers. After aiding the victims, the Secretary then went into the 'War Room'.

How is it possible that the National Military Command Center, located in the Pentagon and in contact with law enforcement and air traffic controllers from 8:46 a.m. did not communicate to the Secretary of Defense also at the Pentagon about the other hijacked planes, especially the one headed to Washington? How is that Secretary of Defense could have remained at this desk until the crash? Whose responsibility is it to relay emergency situations to him? Is he then supposed to go to the war room?


I wish I could post the whole thing here. How do some people sleep at night? Not well, I hope!

Edit: WTC hit 8:45 AM

Pentagon hit: 9:37:46 AM

So for 52 minutes, the SECRETARY OF DEFENSE sits blithely in his office, doing paperwork, unaware that America is under attack, until a FREAKING PLANE hits the HQ of our entire military and intelligence?

Sorry, simple "incompetence" doesn't cover it for me and if even if an argument is made that it IS incompetence, then it is even more imperative that we get them the fuck out of there.

With all the prior warnings, PLUS the Anthrax attacks from our "government" and blamed on arabs, how can anyone claim mere incompetence with a straight face?

[benburch]

57. You need to look at the history of the US Military.

Especially the reaction of the Navy and Army Air Forces to the German "Operation Drumbeat".

Utter and complete stupidity and incompetence. This is exactly what happens to the American Military in between wars; The dead wood collects at the top, and our first actions are utterly beyond belief.

[Harald Ragnarsson]

124. Oh, so you're a military historian now too, huh?

WTF ever, dude.

The only thing beyond belief is your apparent niavity.

[Kevin Fenton]

60. Myers, Rummy

Myers
It wasn't a routine meeting. It was about his confirmation with a key senator (if I remember rightly - May Clelland?).
In one version (which I absolutely do not believe) he appears not to have a mobile phone (no way) and can't be reached by his staff (actually, this seems to come from them as well - although I haven't checked it out in detail - maybe, if he was in the video conference, then he turned off his phone or didn't answer it).
In Richard Clarke's version (Clarke was the counter-terrorism czar, he was in charge of the US response on 9/11) Myers was in the video conference and actually directing the US defense effort. Clarke recalls a conversation with him at about 9:25 about scrambling planes to provide combat air patrol over Washington. To put it mildly, it is kind of hard to reconcile the two accounts. If Myers is lying transparently, then why is he lying and why is he doing so transparently?

Rummy
There is no account I have seen where he was doing paperwork - he has always been very, very vague in his statements. For example, he covers the period between 9:03 and 9:37 in his statement to the 9/11 Commission with the phrase "shortly thereafter". I have seen various statements saying that he was in his office and Clarke says he was in the video conference. Although I don't know for sure, I would imagine there is a video conferencing facility in the Secretary of Defense's office. I saw an interview with him today, and he seemed to be implying he was in his office, but not at his desk (i.e. maybe by the video conferencing facility). A DOD official (maybe one of the undersecretaries - but not Wolfy - told him everybody was going to the NMCC after the second hit on the WTC), but he stayed behind to "make some calls" (quote from memory). He has never actually denied being in the video conference, so I suppose it would be logical to assume he was there, unless evidence to the contrary is produced.

[DoYouEverWonder]

65. No need to speculate

Here are official accounts of what happened that were posted on the Pentagon's website. The first is from an interview with Paul Wolfowitz, Rummie's 2nd in Command who was with Rummie until the Pentagon was hit. The 2nd from General Myers Senate confirmation hearing.

Once again neither, Rummie, Wolfie or Myers reacted approriately. All three ignored the attack until after the Pentagon was hit. Just like Bush and Cheney. I don't need no stinking airplanes to prove MIHOP.

Paul Wolfowitz

Q: One is, where were you on September 11th? Were you at the Pentagon when --

Wolfowitz: I was in my office. We'd just had a breakfast with some congressmen in which one of the subjects had been missile defense. And we commented to them that based on what Rumsfeld and I had both seen and worked on the Ballistic Missile Threat Commission, that we were probably in for some nasty surprises over the next ten years.

Q: Oh, my gosh.

Wolfowitz: I can't remember, then there was the sort of question of what kind of nasty surprises? I don't remember exactly which ones we came up with. The point was more just that it's in the nature of surprise that you can't predict what it's going to be.

Q: Do you remember then the impact of the plane into the Pentagon? Or had you first heard stories about New York? What was --
Wolfowitz: We were having a meeting in my office. Someone said a plane had hit the World Trade Center. Then we turned on the television and we started seeing the shots of the second plane hitting, and this is the way I remember it. It's a little fuzzy.

Q: Right.

Wolfowitz: There didn't seem to be much to do about it immediately and we went on with whatever the meeting was. Then the whole building shook. I have to confess my first reaction was an earthquake. I didn't put the two things together in my mind. Rumsfeld did instantly.

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030509-depsecdef0223.html

General Myers:

WASHINGTON, Oct. 23, 2001 -- Air Force Gen. Richard Myers wasn't in the Pentagon when terrorists attacked it Sept. 11, but the event was still a nightmare for him.

Watching the events unfold on television was "like watching a bad movie," the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told American Forces Radio and Television Service Oct. 17.

Myers said he was on Capitol Hill that morning in the offices of Georgia Sen. Max Cleland to discuss his confirmation hearing to become chairman. While in an outer office, he said, he saw a television report that a plane had hit the World Trade Center.
"They thought it was a small plane or something like that," Myers said. So the two men went ahead with the office call.

Meanwhile, the second World Trade Center tower was hit by another jet. "Nobody informed us of that," Myers said. "But when we came out, that was obvious. Then, right at that time, somebody said the Pentagon had been hit."

Somebody thrust a cell phone in Myers's hand. Gen. Ralph Eberhart, commander of U.S. Space Command and the North American Aerospace Defense Command, was on the other end of the line "talking about what was happening and the actions he was going to take."


http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct2001/n10232001_200110236.html

[Harald Ragnarsson]

72. Imagine the shock Myers must have been feeling!

Who would ever imagine that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff might find himself in a pickel like that! I imagine he just signed up for the college benefits and then find yourself in command at a time like 911! When nobody knew what to do about anything but maybe turn on CNN and see what was going on.

:sarcasm:

What a frickin' hoot. You'd have to be borderline retarded to buy that horsehockey.

[petgoat]

85. Kevin, see "The New Pearl Harbor" by Dr. Griffin

http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2004/06/141355.php

Here's about Rummy and flight 11: "At 8:28, the plane turned toward New York. At 8:44, Secretary of
Defense Rumsfeld was in the Pentagon talking about terrorism with Representative Christopher Cox.

""Let me tell ya," the Associated Press quoted Rumsfeld as saying, "I've been around the block a few
times. There will be another event. Therewill be another event." >2 And, if he in fact said this, he
was right. Two minutes later, at 8:46, Flight 11 crashed into the WTC's North Tower. This was 32
minutes after evidence that the plane had possibly been hijacked and 25 minutes after knowledge that
it definitely had been."

Now check this out, he does it again with fight 77:

"Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, according to the official account, had not been informed of the
approaching aircraft and was still with Representative Cox. While they together watched the
television coverage of the WTC, Rumsfeld reportedly demonstrated his predictive powers again,
saving: "Believe me, this isn't over yet. There's going to be another attack, and it could be us."
Moments later, at about 9:38, the Pentagon was hit.>7 As a result of the crash and the ensuing fire,
125 workers in the Pentagon, primarily civilians, were killed."

[Kevin Fenton]

90. I'm not quite sure what your point is

If it's "there is an alternative account of his actions", then I would deal with that like this:

The Daily Telegraph article that the section of the NPH is based on goes like this:
"Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defence, was in his office on the eastern side of the building, in a meeting with Christopher Cox, the defence policy committee chairman of the House of Representatives. Mr Rumsfeld, recalls Mr Cox, watched the TV coverage from New York and said: "Believe me, this isn't over yet. There's going to be another attack, and it could be us."

"Moments later, the plane hit."
http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:u3QDC5F_UpEJ:www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml%3Fxml%3D/news/2001/12/16/wbush16.xml+%22There%27s+going+to+be+another+attack%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a

I don't think this is accurate, because Cox's accounts are contradictory:
"However, Rumsfeld claims that this meeting with Cox ended before the second WTC crash, which occurred at 9:03 a.m. Cox himself said that after being told of the WTC, “ sped off, as did I.” Cox says he immediately headed to his car, making it impossible for him to still be in the Pentagon “just minutes before” it is hit. "
http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:XZovhgyX6jMJ:www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp%3Fid%3D1521846767-1090+Christopher+Cox+Pentagon+meeting+9/11&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&client=firefox-a

"moments later" could really mean anything. I would not regard over half an hour as moments, but it's the journalist's problem, not Cox's.

So I'm not troubled by Cox's claims, Clarke specifically puts him in the video conference and I'm happy to go with that. Rummy's never denied it.

The problem, to me, is what he did (or didn't do) in the video conference and why he ran off when the plane hit. Was it stupidity, malice or not wanting to be involved in a big decision that could have adverse consequences?

[petgoat]

112. The point was that according to Cox, he and Rummy were together

from the time just before the WTC strike until just after the Pentagon Strike.

How would Cox make a mistake about something like that, and why would he lie?

[Kevin Fenton]

119. We don't know...

... whether it was Cox's mistake or the paper's. Given that there's no direct quote from Cox about him being there at the time and given that no other paper I am aware of has carried it and given that he has clearly said the opposite on several subsequent occasions, I think the most likely explanation is journalistic inaccuracy.

[petgoat]

120. journalistic inaccuracy.

You would expect that Cox would complain that he was misquoted, and set the record straight.

Maybe Cox's story shifts because Rumsfeld's does. According to Dr. Griffin in The 9/11 Commission
Report: Omissions and Distortions (p 217) Rumsfeld told two different stories about his
whereabouts that morning, and then the 9/11 Commission fabricated a third. Note that the 9/11
Commission has claimed that it does not know who from DoD participated in Clarke's videoconference,
though Clarke said it was Rumsfeld. These shifting stories appear to be motivated by a desire to
keep hidden that Rumsfeld should have been aware that flight 77 was approaching DC.

The 9/11 Commission rewrote the time of Cheney's arrival at the White House bunker, too (Clarke and
Norm Mineta said 9:15 or so, Cheney said 9:35, the 9CR said 9:58) presumably for the same reason.
When Cox's story is can be seen to be linked to a chain of well-motivated lies, simple journalistic
incompetence seems less satisfying as an explanation.

[Kevin Fenton]

121. Not misquoted

Cox was not misquoted. The words "moments later" are clearly not a quote from him. He was misinterpreted or misrepresented (and I doubt he read all the English papers on 12 September) and he clearly did set the record straight on several subsequent occasions. Everybody says the breakfast meeting broke up around 9.

Rumsfeld shifts the emphasis around, but I don't think he's really lying - to me his intention seems to be to de-emphasise that he was in the video-conference, although I don't know why he would want to do that. I've seen a video of him carrying a stretcher outside the Pentagon that must have been taken at about 10:00. Both he and Clark say he went outside after American 77 hit as well.

The FAA knew about American 11, United 175 and United 93. One of the reasons we know this is that it demonstrably called various of its facilities about them (for example Otis, La Guardia and Johnstown). However, Dulles does not appear to have been called by the FAA. This indicates that the FAA didn't know American 77 was going there.

[Harald Ragnarsson]

125. Yes, we should always operate under the assumption the media

got it wrong.

Unless it's something that disproves your point of view, that is.

[DoYouEverWonder]

131. This is Cox's statement that he posted on his website.

Chairman Cox's Statement on the Terrorist Attack on America

At 9 a.m. EDT Tuesday, as a hijacked Boeing 767 slammed into the World Trade Center, I was in the Pentagon in the private dining room of the Secretary of Defense. Don Rumsfeld, the Secretary, and Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary, and I were discussing how to win votes for the Bush defense plan that is now pending in the House and Senate.

When minutes later, the Pentagon itself was hit by a Boeing 757 loaded with civilian passengers, virtually the entire building was immediately evacuated. I escaped just minutes before the building was hit. Most of those who remained were huddled in the National Military Command Center in a basement bunker of the building. From there, America's military response is being directed even now.

Ironically, just moments before the Department of Defense was hit by a suicide hijacker, Secretary Rumsfeld was describing to me why America needs to abandon its decade-old two-major-war strategy, and focus on the real threat facing us in the 21st century: terrorism, and the unexpected.

"When I worked on the ballistic missile threat commission , there was an 'event' every few months that focused the attention of those in denial," he told me. "For example, India shocked the world when it detonated a nuclear device. Then Pakistan. Then North Korea launched a two-stage ballistic missile over Japan.

"Terrorist groups, some state-sponsored, are developing these same missile capabilities as we meet here. They are developing the chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons to go with them.

"They do not have all the pieces yet, but they will. That is why Congress has got to give the President the tools he needs to move forward with a defense of America against ballistic missiles, the ultimate terrorist weapons.

"If we remain vulnerable to missile attack, a terrorist group or rogue state that demonstrates the capacity to strike the U.S. or its allies from long range could have the power to hold our entire country hostage to nuclear or other blackmail,'' he said.

"And let me tell you, I've been around the block a few times. There will be another event." He repeated it for emphasis: "There will be another event."

Within minutes of that utterance, Rumsfeld's words proved tragically prophetic.

http://cox.house.gov/html/release.cfm?id=33


Unfortunately he has changed the page at the above link, but I copied this file a couple of years ago and I believe Paul Thompson has included it in his timeline.

[Kevin Fenton]

133. Thank you. I see now

He is spinning it to make it seem like he was in danger, when actually he wasn't in the building.

However, this does not seem inconsistent with Rummy joining the video conference from his office at, say, 9:10.

[DoYouEverWonder]

134. Cox seems to have a problem with the time-space continuum

At 9 a.m. EDT Tuesday, as a hijacked Boeing 767 slammed into the World Trade Center, I was in the Pentagon in the private dining room of the Secretary of Defense. Don Rumsfeld, the Secretary, and Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary, and I were discussing how to win votes for the Bush defense plan that is now pending in the House and Senate.

When minutes later, the Pentagon itself was hit by a Boeing 757 loaded with civilian passengers, virtually the entire building was immediately evacuated. I escaped just minutes before the building was hit.


So at 9:00 AM he was in the meeting. A 'few' minutes later, more like 35 minutes later, Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. However, Cox had 'escaped' the building a few minutes earlier?

How the hell did he manage to 'escape' before the Pentagon was hit, since supposedly no one in Rummie's meeting knew that there was an incoming plane? Neither Rummie nor Wolfie ever mentioned knowing anything about Flight 77 until it hit. Cox's story has more holes then swiss cheese, but so do all of their stories.

[petgoat]

82. How do some people sleep at night?

They use a drug called Ambien. Colin Powell said "everybody here uses Ambien."
It has some major side effects.

[greyl]

84. Are you having an insomnia problem? :) nt

[petgoat]

86. Not at all. I'm having a too-much-work

-to-do-and-not-enough-hours-in-the-day-to-do-it problem.

I sleep well without drugs. I fell asleep in a meeting several hours ago tonight.

Are YOU having an insomnia problem?

[greyl]

89. I can relate. nt

[Harald Ragnarsson]

126. You work somewhere else besides here?

:P :sarcasm: