View Full Version : September 11 - The Pentagon

17th Mar 2002, 05:27
Saw this site in The Grauniad today, seems interesting...?. .. .http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm. . . . <small>[ 17 March 2002, 01:28: Message edited by: Eric ]</small>

Bailed Out
17th Mar 2002, 06:03
I was punched in the face once (not enough some say) and the shock made me bend over and pretend it hurt more than it did, gave me time to think and exaggerate outrage at what had been done. .. .This then allowed me to over-react and bring about apocalypse upon the perpetrator, which is what I’d wanted to do for a long time.

Flying Lawyer
17th Mar 2002, 20:27
"pretend it hurt more than it did". ."exaggerate outrage at what had been done". .. .Perhaps your television was u/s on September 11th?

Bailed Out
18th Mar 2002, 00:38
FL, You miss the point, It's whether a Boeing hit the pentagon or not. Didn't see that on the telly did you? And just suppose for a fleeting moment that it wasn't a Boeing. Look at the pictures something's not right. Or do you believe it's beyond comprehension that governments may occasionally tell porkies.. .. .Please don't presume that I belittle the events of 9/11.

18th Mar 2002, 00:52
Errrr..... .. .All very interesting, but what are we claiming _did_ happen to American Airlines Flight 77 <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="confused.gif" /> . .. .Didn't just disappear did it ? . .. .If it didn't hit the Pentagon where did this flight go to... Bermuda triangle perhaps ?

Flying Lawyer
18th Mar 2002, 01:29
BO. .I didn't miss the point - the site was interesting. It was the tone of your post which I thought was offensive.. .So you weren't belittling the appalling atrocities perpetrated on 9/11. . .Really?. .Then, just what did you mean by your analogy ...... .(America) "punched in the face once, not enough some say". .(America) "pretend it hurt more than it did". ."gave (America) time to ..... exaggerate outrage". .Tell us - . .How do you "exaggerate" the outrage at airliners packed with crew/passengers and carrying full fuel being deliberately flown into buildings full of people?

18th Mar 2002, 01:55
Quite so Grainger - whilst most attention has been centred on the WTC tragedies. There were two other planes which went down. If AA77 did not hit the Pentagon, just what happened to it. . .. .The photographs released soon after the crash certainly appear to show aircraft wreckage - and there is no doubt the Pentagon was hit with something. What does seem to be an anomaly is the latest set of pictures showing the Pentagon being hit - but the date shown is 12 Sept.. . . . <small>[ 17 March 2002, 22:33: Message edited by: Velvet ]</small>

18th Mar 2002, 02:29
Like all good or crap internet conspiracy nonsense. They only chose the photos that matched their stupid theory. . .Just the other day I saw security camera photos which show the aircraft hitting the Pentagon and then there's the witnesses, those damm eyewitnesses spoiler of many a good story. They all claimed to have seen a jet hit the Pentagon. . .. .Bailed out, Your first post made your position quite clear and was analysed nicely by the flying Lawyer. You did belittle the events of 9/11. It's become a very common thing now among the the faux intelligenstia like you. . .. .Enjoy your freedom to do just that!

Conan The Barber
18th Mar 2002, 02:59
It has also become very common to turn the events on sept. 11 into what is is not.

18th Mar 2002, 03:14
I'm with Mr Grainger on this one.. .. .The 757 would had to have landed somewhere that day before it ran out of fuel. At which airfield did it land?. .. .Methinks American Airlines might want to know where their multi-millon dollar aircraft, 2 pilots and 5(?) cabin crew have been for the past 6 months, n'est pas? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="rolleyes.gif" /> . .. .To say nothing of the insurers....... .. .Also perhaps the Relatives of the crew/passengers would wish to know where their loved ones have been also...... .. .What is he saying here - that the US Govt <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> faked the Pentagon attack to whip up support among the US Public for a foriegn war? . .From what I remember, they were more concerned with the WTC atacks...... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="frown.gif" /> . .. .Or is he suggesting they were faked....? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="rolleyes.gif" /> . .. .The truth may be out there, but it's rarely that complex.... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" />

bugg smasher
18th Mar 2002, 03:48
BO, answer me honestly. Are you an Al-Qaeda sympathizer?

Send Clowns
18th Mar 2002, 04:57
Why would you land a 757 at 250 mph (about 220 kts) <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="confused.gif" /> I seem to remember when I had the chance to fly a 767 sim it landed at about 150 kts. Any comment from Boing pilots? So if they got this simple piece of research wrong ...

18th Mar 2002, 05:32
SC, I can't get to my Performance figures right now. I can check in the morning if nobody else has confirmed by then, but off the top of my head, your figures seem correct-ish.. .. .The site is a mess of nonsense, non-sequiturs, red herrings and balderdash.. .. .1) Work had only recently been completed to strengthen the Pentagon. This was intended to protect against bomb blast. Hence the relatively limited damage.. .. .2) Much of the aircraft would have broken up into very small pieces in the impact. Hence it's not easy to spot the remains. The engines were embedded in the building. The remainder of the wings have comparatively little momentum/mass, and so would have done little damage to the building.. .. .3) There was a massive fireball immediately after impact. Hence the lack of fuel lying around afterwards.. .. .4) The trucks laying gravel and sand were putting down a temporary road to aid rescue vehicles getting to the site.. .. .5) I could go on and on.... .. .Apart from the obvious question of where the aircraft got to if it didn't hit the Pentagon, and the idiocy of the original conspiracy theory, the claim that it was to aggravate the USA's apparent injury, shock and public reaction is a further idiocy. Does anyone really think that it would have been necessary, even had they wanted to secure such a result?. .. .I find this entire conspiracy allegation and the implications behind it extremely offensive, to those who died, to those who tried to rescue any survivors, and to my intelligence.

18th Mar 2002, 06:04
Hmmm . . . 3000 people dead, two symbols of national power destroyed, horrifying images and stories coming out by the minute of incomprehensible suffering and pain and death, and video of firefighters searching endless wreckage looking for the living. Can somebody, then, explain to me, what motive the government would have had to 'fake' a an aircraft / building collision? . .. .Exactly.. .. .Perhaps supporters of this website would like to visit this site: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1861000/1861977.stm. .. .Hmmm. That's a pretty large fireball, so, What did you expect . . . a shiny new 757 sitting glinting next to the Pentagon, looking just delivered from GECAS with all the passengers alive and well? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="rolleyes.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Mad]" src="mad.gif" /> . .. .A few quick facts:. .-64 passengers and crew dead on the aircraft. .-190 Pentagon workers dead on the ground. .-Aircraft reg. was N644AA. . .. .Are these people alive and well? Was this aircraft re-registered and right now at FL350?. .. .This was not made up! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="rolleyes.gif" /> It is a real aircraft that no longer exists, and those 254 people were not taken from the creative minds of government agents. The greiving families who will never see their loved ones again are not actors receiving a cheque from the CIA.. .. .This kind of thing pis*es me off to no end, I can tell you.. .. .By the way, you will notice a few clues ('erreurs' etc) that this site was made by French people. If you have a basic understanding of Anglo- and American-French relations you will realize that this is just another USA-bashing pipe dreaming attempt at undermining anything American. And, IMHO, a very heartless, cold-blooded and frankly sick attempt it is too. . .. .9/11 is no joke. And it is not open to speculation.. .. .SFly <img border="0" title="" alt="[Mad]" src="mad.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Mad]" src="mad.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Mad]" src="mad.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Mad]" src="mad.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Mad]" src="mad.gif" />

18th Mar 2002, 10:58
Re: SFly's post.. .. ."Perhaps supporters of this website would like to visit this site: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1861000/1861977.stm. .. .Hmmm. That's a pretty large fireball, so, What did you expect". .. .1. I'd, at least expect the date and time to be right, not Sep 12, 2001, 17:37:19.. .2. I'd at least expect to see an aircraft... somewhere between pictures 1 and 2.. .3. I'd expect to see the fireball plume heading from right to left and not straight up.. .. .While I don't dispute the generally accepted facts, these AP pictures raise some questions, like how come it took so long to release them for a start?

18th Mar 2002, 12:35
GH: Check the date and time on your computer right now.. .. .Are they exactly correct ?. .. .Right. I think the time stamp on a security camera being set wrong is a more likely scenario than conspiracy theory. . .. .Unlike the WTC attacks which were high above the ground, this aircraft would have had to come in virtually at ground level. . .. .It's quite likely that the aircraft impacted the ground just in front of the building and this would explain the limited amount of damage and the shape of the fireball.. .. .But enough already. This was a horrible sequence of events and there's nothing to be gained by all this speculation. We all know what happened and who was responsible. Enough.

18th Mar 2002, 12:40
Could somebody delete this pointless thread?. . . . <small>[ 18 March 2002, 08:41: Message edited by: chickenhawk66 ]</small>

Kalium Chloride
18th Mar 2002, 15:08
I suspect smashing the WTC and two commercial jets to bits on live TV is probably going a bit far in terms of supporting a subsequent "faked" attack on the Pentagon... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="rolleyes.gif" />

18th Mar 2002, 16:50
Grainger,. .. .My computer's time is co-ordinated with an atomic clock in Sweden every time I connect. Unlike, as you suggest, "surveillance cameras" at The Pentagon which are correct to the minute, and probably second, but out on the day & hour.. .. .I don't for one minute suggest a conspiracy, just pointing out things that I think don't tally.. .. .I notice you steered well clear of why it took so long to release these dramatic pictures. Maybe "they" forgot they had a security camera looking right at the impact point.

18th Mar 2002, 17:05
Unlikely they forgot. More likely is that they didn't want to offend, or saw intelligence value in the pictures, or whatever.. .. .If they faked the pictures deliberately I think they'd get the date and time right. Most likely the camera was simply not set up correctly.. .. .Yes, your computer sets itself correctly. However, I think it a tad unlikely that the security camera gets fed the date and time by a PC connected to the internet, don't you?. .. .Let's stop the innuendo, sneering, supposition and unintelligent speculation.. .. .Rather a lot of people died in that crash. Have some respect.

El Grifo
19th Mar 2002, 19:51
I have to say, it is entirely un-surprising that views like this are prevalent around the world. . .. .The americans, god bless their cotton socks, not only like to "influence" world events, but also to write the "official version" of what actually happened. Given the choice, I would much rather have them as the "world policeman" than any other lot. That does not mean that I support everything the do or that I beleive much of what they say.. .Check out this link for example :-. .. .http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nyt/20020219/wl_nyt/pentagon_readies_efforts_to_sway_ sentiment_abroad&printer=1. .. .Sorry peeps, I think they moved it !!!!. .Flavour was :- . .. .Pentagon Readies Efforts to Sway Sentiment Abroad . .Tue Feb 19, 9:00 AM ET . .By JAMES DAO and ERIC SCHMITT The New York Times . .. .WASHINGTON, Feb. 18 The Pentagon is developing plans to provide news items, possibly even false ones, to foreign media organizations as part of a new effort to influence public sentiment and policy makers in both friendly and unfriendly countries, military officials said.. . . . <small>[ 19 March 2002, 16:02: Message edited by: El Grifo ]</small>

Send Clowns
20th Mar 2002, 04:14
Yes, El Grifo, it's called propoganda, and I would be very surprised if the Americans did not use it. Their adversaries rely entirely on misinfomation for their sympathy, and do well out of it - to quote Terry Pratchett, a lie will go round the world before the truth gets its boots on. And for an older quote, the first casualty of war is the truth.. .. .GH the time signature is more evidence for the veracity of the pictures. How often are clocks out in hours but not minutes? If you were going to fake photos would you get the date right? you might even get the hour right, but hte minuteis theleast likely.

Bailed Out
20th Mar 2002, 04:15
Ok Folks, . .. .Politics not emotion, first line of defence, hide behind emotions, FL, thought you may do better. .. .What I was trying to portray was that it’s not beyond believe to have a government tack a political slant on the end of anything, even catastrophe. . .. .FL. And anyone else who doubts my believes check my posts just after 9/11 for my loyalties (no, really look, I’m the one in the ditch keeping our side up, metaphorically, I’m airborne in spirit) If in doubt ask Hug Monster, he’s always about and we have clashed on several occasions because of my right wing views vis his liberal.. .. .It could be that this aircraft hit just short or broke up before impact BUT even the slightest hint or spin can change the whole perspective (and that’s sick, not questioning facts as I do) FL, you’d back me on this being in the legal profession (or would you?). .. .I haven’t posted for some months prior to this thread, you may ask why, you won’t get an answer.. .. .I don’t believe everything I hear or see and nor should you. Someone mentioned TV; well I was once on Jackanory (true statement, I’ve now blown my cover to a fair percentage of Pprune) but then I didn’t believe that either.. .. .Belt and braces when it gets critical. (Full stop). .. .This is not a back down; I suggested conspiracy (if we move it a few feet boss, well then it’s a hit on democracy) and I stand by it. It’s not me who stands to gain by manipulating the truth; it’s those who need to justify the end. . .. .If you show it, mean it, and if you say it believe it. And if you lie, well what the hell you’ll live! Ask the British government!. .. .If we really believe that a religion or creed is the real devil then lets go get it. Or is it just alternative society, in which case, if we persecute them, then why not they, us. . .. .We maybe only need to justify ourselves to relive our guilt. I have none. Do you?. .. .In the end it's the lesser of the evils..... .. .Steepclimb, I wish you the same rate of descent.

Bailed Out
20th Mar 2002, 04:34
Might shock some of our whiter than whites……... .. .Heard the one about the Israelis who tried to sink an American ship and blame it on the Arabs to entice "tension”?. .. .Or is that another crock of *hit portrait by the entire western press?. .. .Years ago I believe, anyone remember, or do I now live in a different reality?

20th Mar 2002, 04:51
BO, as far as I can make out from two very cryptic and confused-sounding posts, you are attempting to justify your belittling of the deaths last year by claiming you don't believe everything you see and hear.. .. .Well, bravo.. .. .Nor does anyone here. But most people here are capable of reasoning things out for themselves, weighing the evidence and coming to an informed, well-judged and rational conclusion.. .. .You should try it some time.

Bailed Out
20th Mar 2002, 05:36
HM, sometimes I think it's just me and thee, but at least you make me think.. .. .re: your post:-. .. .Oh dear, rocky ground. If you believe in rationale then YOU should question government (aka propaganda) Else how do you explain that we have to go kill each other so often?. .. .You’re possibly very nice and well balanced but please don't tarnish the whole world with your trusting, forgiving brush.

Bailed Out
20th Mar 2002, 06:13
Oh no, past 20 mins. HM, you're not going to give me one of your 30 verse, dictionary enabled jobbies are you. Not again please, I concede on anything you say OK?. .. .None Arab loving. .. .None eastern loving. .. .None western loving. .. .Defiantly none government loving. .. .Very family loving BO. .. .Oh and I stand up for what I believe in and have done time because of my belief, in my fathers memory, after he died OK? So I don’t rest on sentiment. Hence BO. . .. .And as for the guy up front who has the audacity to liken me to a terrorist sympathiser please read my previous posts, I'll accept an apology any time. If that's not good enough for you then we should meet some time.

20th Mar 2002, 06:21
BO, like most people I DO question almost anything the governmetn puts out.. .. .In the case of those pics and the subsequent lunatic conspiracy theories, I don't see any need for the government of either the UK or the USA to put out much in the way of lies.. .. .So just because you appear to believe this nonsense, do not argue that those who don't are not capable of reasoning. To my mind, they are capable of rather more reasoned thought than you have so far demonstrated on this thread.

20th Mar 2002, 07:53
Is it just me or do the letters M and S spring to anyone’s mind?. .Apologies to all if I am way behind the curve on this one.. .. .As for the Pentagon, the US maybe guilty of propaganda at certain points throughout their history as are all major countries. If I was in charge of a conspiracy that was intended to fool the world considering the time frame available you could be damn sure I would have got the time/date correct.. . . .Can anyone confirm that the shadows were lying in the correct direction for the time of year. . .Was the definition of the picture worthy of the CCTV camera installed or did the direction of smoke tie up with the current atis report for the nearest airport considering mechanical turbulence and differing latitude?. .Some people may even believe that taking into account the WTCs N&S no further action needed to be taken to gain the support of the western world AND beyond.. .. .I must admit I do love a good bit of gossip, it’s about the only time I bother reading anything published by the media except the tv guide of course. . . . <small>[ 20 March 2002, 03:57: Message edited by: somewhatconcerned ]</small>

20th Mar 2002, 11:40
Bailed Out -. .. .I don't support your current position, or post in this thread, but -. .. .the "ship" incident you are referring to can be researched at the following URL:. .. . http://www.ussliberty.org/. .. .One of the "ten" dead American sailors was a friend of mine that I met at a Navy school in Portsmouth-Va in July, 1963. Sooner or later, I am sure, people who have a connection to this incident will die and the incident will become a forgotten piece of American "history". BUT - I am still alive and I will never forget!!!!!

21st Mar 2002, 00:06
When I first read Bailed Out's post, I assumed he was pointing out that the American reaction to 11 September may be out of all proportion to the original hurt. . .. .I have no idea if the images shown recently are real or not, I do know that the camera can lie. I also know that thousands of people, not only American, but British and other nationalities, were murdered in four plane crashes deliberately engineered by Islamic terrorists on 11 September.. .. .May I ask why questioning American reactions, currently is considered by some to be the equivalent of supporting terrorists. What happened to the right to voice an opinion - or is that only if you agree with Bush and Blair.. . . . <small>[ 20 March 2002, 20:12: Message edited by: Velvet ]</small>

21st Mar 2002, 00:46
Velvet, the suggestion is that one of those four aircraft did not hit the Pentagon, but that the US Government "invented" that crash to try to exaggerate the assault. Such an invention would be (a) unnecessary and (b) a gross insult both to the intelligence and to the relatives of the deceased.. .. .Yes, cameras can lie. Do you suppose that all the eye witnesses at the time were also lying? If an aircraft did not hit the Pentagon, where do you suppose it is now?. .. .I do not suggest that questioning the US Government is supporting terrorists. Nor do I suggest that believing that flight 77 DID hit the Pentagon and that the conspiracy theorists are a bunch of idiot stirrers is supporting Bush/Blair.. .. .In the opinion of several that I have seen (FL for one, myself for another), BO's post belittled the scale of the atrocities and the loss of the bereaved. That is very different from trying to condemn a reaction that is out of proportion to the hurt suffered, as would be a nuclear strike on, say, Baghdad, which would be a criminal act.. .. .Finally, I have seen many opinions voiced here that do not agree with Bush & Blair - TW for one.. .. .To state my opinion, if you want it, I consider that the action in Afghanistan was (and remains) justified. I do not believe the prisoners at GTMO are being ill-treated. I do not consider them to be PoW's. And I consider that any attack on the "Axis of Evil" would need to be very, very carefully considered and executed if it is not to be a gross crime against humanity. Such an attack is very unlikely to be justified by the gross crimes committed on 11th. September.

Golden Monkey
21st Mar 2002, 01:08
** NOT MY VIEW, JUST FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES **. .. .Huggy, I think the view among the conspiracy theorists is not that the Pentagon crash was "invented" to increase the scale of the attack (as rightly pointed out this would have been completely unnecessary), but that what was in fact a truck bomb was dressed up as an aircraft crash, presumably because the airliner in question was brought down by the USAF somewhere over water or open country. Early reports of the incident on the day were indeed that it was a vehicle bomb (as suggested on the web site at the head of this thread), I saw some of them myself on major news sites. The recently released photos and the complete lack of an aircraft on that security camera footage only fuel such idle speculation.

21st Mar 2002, 01:27
How many photos a second would the camera have to take for it to be assured of there being an aircraft (travelling @ a minimum of, say, 180kts) to appear on at least one of the shots?. .. .What of the eye witnesses who saw the aircraft hit the Pentagon?. .. .If the aircraft was brought down elsewhere (even if brought down by the USAF) wouldn't it be a much easier story to tell that it was blown up in midair by terrorists AND that a truck bomb blew up the Pentagon? Wouldn't that serve the aim of increasing the horror value?. .. .If the aircraft was brought down in open country, where's the wreckage? On the eastern seaboard of the USA there isn't much "open country" where a jet crashing in flames wouldn't be noticed.. .. .I note that you say it's not your opinion, and I'm not having a go at you - sorry if it sounds that way. But I don't find any of these conspiracy theories even remotely credible.

21st Mar 2002, 01:44
Huggy, I agree mostly with your post. I pointed out that despite that cameras do lie, there is no doubt what happened on 11 September. Whatever Bailed Out meant, I read his first post differently and certainly didn't think he was an Al Qaeda supporter, any more than I am - despite my concern that America act justly and fairly with regard to prisoners. . .. .Perhaps I was influenced by recent declarations by both the American Government and Blair that they will lead us (well, stand back and let others go) into a military action on an unprecedented scale against evil countries. The threat to drop nuclear weapons was particularly worrying. . .. .By the way, just when will President Bush be visiting the country that has supported him and America more wholeheartedly than any other. Or have I overlooked any trip he made to England.

21st Mar 2002, 19:32
Vel, if you overlooked a trip he made, I did the same. I did hear, however, of him imposing import bans on British steel. Something to do with lobbying of Mr. GWB by Mr. AB's friend Mr. LM...

22nd Mar 2002, 12:10
Re: El Griffo,. .. .The Office of Strategic Influence has closed... honest!. .. .http://www.satirewire.com/news/feb02/osi.shtml. .. .Re: Send Clowns,. .. .Hours? Yes. Days? Hmmm. Quite a headache for the security guys under "normal" circumstances when filling out reports if they don't even know what day it is.. .. .Re: Meanwhile back at the "Did it, Didn't it", the question is dealt with, by a couple of "propellorheads", quite conclusively here:. .. ."Hunt the Boeing" Answers. .. .http://paulboutin.weblogger.com/2002/03/14. .. .Edited 'cos I can't get the UBB coding to work, sorry it's copy 'n paste time.. . . . <small>[ 22 March 2002, 08:17: Message edited by: GH ]</small>

22nd Mar 2002, 14:10
Understandably, feelings are running pretty high in this thread, but they shouldn't be allowed to cloud rationality. I was just as appalled as everyone else at the attacks of Sept 11, and I have no axe to grind vis a vis conspiracy or not, but the pictures that started this thread have engaged my interest in searching for the FACTS. . .. .Some of the best images I have so far found (I only discovered this thread 1 hour ago) can be seen here - http://www.defendamerica.mil/photoessays/p092401b1.html. .. .I would like to point out what I have noticed from them.. .. .Image 1. .. .Numerous posters have defended the "orthodox" position by stating that the aircraft hit the ground first, before the building. If you look at this shot of the impact site, there is absolutely no trace of impact on the grass immediately in front of the building, and the fence damage is severely limited - particularly in width (also see photo 2). Interestingly, the main fire seems to be off to the side, although this could easily be secondary.. .. .In this, as in all the images, the damage to the facing of the wall is limited to the main "hole", with little or no apparent damage from the wings and engines. I can understand that the walls are reinforced and perhaps could have withstood the wing impact, but the engines? There would at least be superficial damage, which is conspicuous by its absence.. .. .Image 2. .. .Difficult to say where this image relates to in terms of the impact site, but it clearly shows a blazing truck in front of the building and by a very small hole in the fence, which appears to have been caused by impact towards the building.. .. .Now clearly, if this were the alleged truck that caused the explosion, there wouldn't be this much of it left, unless perhaps it is the rear section of a larger vehicle that got pushed away by the blast and therefore didn't break up (in my opinion unlikely, but just a suggestion).. .. .Again, looking at the grass in front of the broken fence, there is no damage, and certainly no aircraft impact. . .. .I have also read the report suggested above by GH, and found it to be incomplete and contradictory - in his answer to "questions 1", Paul states that "The question and photos are misleading: Parts of the plane penetrated the ground floors of the second and third rings of the building. These photos show only their intact roofs. Eyewitnesses and news reporters have talked about the twelve-foot hole punched through the inside wall of the second ring by one of the plane’s engines" and in reply to "question 5" he says "Since the plane hit the ground and skidded into the building, enough energy was lost by the initial impact and friction with the ground that the engines probably did not penetrate the building".. .. .Both cannot be true (although, admittedly, the first comment is about "eye witness" statements, not factual evidence). Also, the assertion that the aircraft "skidded" into the building suggests that it came down some distance from the walls, an assertion that is not supported by the images of the grass and the fence.. .. .For the life of me, I can't see why the State department (or anybody else for that matter) would want to say it was an aircraft if it wasn't, unless it was to contain panic - you can clear the skies of aircraft, but it's a bit more difficult to clear the roads of trucks! As for where the AA flight went if it didn't hit the building, the mst obvious suggestion is the Atlantic, brought down by the F15s that were scrambled, but unless it were some considerable distance out to sea, you'd at least expect some witnesses and wreckage.. .. .Finally, Re the security camera footage, the first 2 images show the same second on their time stamp, and are therefore less than a second apart. Is it really credible that an aircraft could have passed through the shot in this timeframe, impacted the building, expolded and not be remotely visible in either shot? These images (at least the stills on the BBC site) prove nothing, as no aircraft is remotely visible. Why did they not include stills of the shots that contained an aircraft in them?. .. .As for those who have asked for this thread to be deleted, you are part of a very worrying trend among US residents at present. Faced with the appaling acts of Sept 11, you have every right to be mad as hell, and we share your anger, your hurt and your frustrations, as evidenced by the international coalition. You should not, however, allow the extreme emotions generated by these events to justify the kind of censorship you are proposing. If we just accept what Governments say and don't question them or verify their statements, we are on a very slippery slope - and I don't just men in the USA, our lot are just as bad <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="confused.gif" />

22nd Mar 2002, 18:00
Well, kilted, if you can tell from that first photo that there was no evident damage to the Pentagon from engines or whatever, then you're a better man than I am. In the first place, there is so much smoke and haze from the fire hoses, that it's very difficult to see anything. Secondly, it only shows a very small portion of the face of the building.. .. .Next, the one with the truck. If a bomb could cause that much damage to a bomb-hardened building, just how much of the truck do you think would be left? You think you would be able to identify the roof, the rear wheel? Give me a break.. .. .Next point. Why would a 757 under the circumstances on the day crash far out to sea? The terrorists wanted to crash on land. Perhaps you might say they were chased out there by the F15's. Don't think so. In the first place, given the equipment on F15's, it is unlikely that they would even been in a position to have been seen from a 757. Had they BEEN in such a position, given the restricted view from a 757 flight deck, it is unlikely they would have been spotted. And had they been spotted, I don't think the terrorists would have done much about taking evasive action. Had they done so, how far out to sea might they have got? Not very far.. .. .Also, as I stated before, I believe, if F15's downed the aircraft, I don't think there would be much problem in the US Government saying so, AND that there had been an attack on the Pentagon. Maximises the perception of the scale of the attacks, thus ensuring maximum shock and outrage. Had a truck been involved, I think they might have wanted to publicise it - where did they get it? Who were they? Please can any witnesses to a man of middle-eastern appearance hiring a 7.5-tonne truck please come forward?. .. .On the subject of witnesses, I think also that ATC all over the country would have known about F15's chasing a 757 and then "splashing" it. You think you could keep ALL of them quiet, that we would have heard NOTHING, even anonymously, from ONE?. .. .Give me a break.. .. .And finally, an aircraft travelling at 250 kts (wouldn't have been much slower I think, since the terrorists would have wanted maximum impact damage) in 1 second covers over 140 yards. What is the width of view of the camera? Looking at the pics, I don't think it's that much at all. Furthermore, it is quite likely that the cameras take pics less frequently than every second.. . . . <small>[ 22 March 2002, 14:07: Message edited by: HugMonster ]</small>

22nd Mar 2002, 19:06
Thanks HM for a well considered reply, though I would have preferred it if you had paid more heed to my post. However, I'll take your points in turn.. .. .The first picture clearly shows the area of the impact, so the rest of the side of the buildin gis hardly relevant. Look to either side of the main "hole" and there is very little damage that would match the wing line, whatever the amount of roll. . .. .Re the truck, I clearly said that in my opinion it was unlikely that the truck that is visible had caused the explosion and that there wouldn't be much left of it - give me a break!. .. .The only reason I can remotely think of for a 757 coming down at see (if indeed it did) would be that it was shot down. There would be no reason for the terrorists to crash it at sea, as they would gain nothing from it. I disagree though that the white house would shout about it if they had - admitting that they shot down a US aircraft with US and international passengers on board - you have more faith in them than I do!. .. .Your arguments for wanting to publicise it if they thought it was a truck are fair, unless you accept my point that they may have decided it would cause more panic, which you appear not to, so fair enough.. .. .I wholeheartedly agree with you about the probability of a "leak" from ATC if it had been chased and shot down (assuming it would have been air-to-air that brought it down). . .. .Many thanks for clearing up the speed / distance issue. However, I didn't say that the shots were a second apart - the timeframe shows that they were LESS than a second apart (both show 17:37:19), meaning that 140yds is the absolute maximun distance it could have travelled, assuming the speed everyone seems to agree on (though I have heard no evidence for it). It is, to say the least, odd that, in the distance covered by the camera (which must be at least 100yds) there is no sign of an aircraft in either shot!. .. .Any thoughts about the unscatherd grass or the very undamaged fence?. .. .Lastly, re the issue of the time on the "security" camera images, What would you do if you wanted to convince everyone that a doctored image was indeed genuine - set the "timer" to the exact time (as everyone would expect you to) or double-bluff everyone by setting it deliberately wrong because "no-one would be stupid enough to do that if it weren't genuine"? I have no real view on this, but am putting forward a possible explanation. As for the delay in publishing the photos - this is extremely suspicious, especially given the amount of footage available of the scene and the proclamations that had already been made. There would be absolutely no intelligence value to retaining these poor images while broadcasting the "facts" about what they are said to show - unless the images didn't exist or clearly showed something else!

22nd Mar 2002, 19:18
Huggy:. .. .You have my permission to have a break!!!!. .. . <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" />

22nd Mar 2002, 21:39
Kilted, we could go on and on for hours about whether getting the time right or not was a genuine mistake, a bluff, a double-bluff.... .. .Whenever dealing with government, I reckon that cockup wins out over conspiracy 9 times out of ten.. .. .Given that (a) the need for conspiracy in this case is very, very dubious and (b) the evidence for conspiracy is similarly dubious only very much more so, I discount it.. .. .This entire stupid debate is no longer merely insulting to the dead, to their friends and relatives, but boring.. .. .Nuff said?

23rd Mar 2002, 03:44
BO. .Nice wind up. Still, you are an idiot.

23rd Mar 2002, 14:49
HM, I concur with you regarding the cockup theory <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="smile.gif" /> but it is not the evidence of a conspiracy that is non existent, it is the evidence for an aircraft!. .. .Sorry if you find the thread insulting, which I have to say I find odd, as we are not questioning anything about the victims of this horrific attack, merely the means of it. This seems to be an all too common knee jerk in the wake of these terrible events - "do anything to question the US Government and you are insulting all of us and the memory of the victims" - not exactly rational reasoning! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="confused.gif" />

23rd Mar 2002, 14:55
No, Kilted, wrong several times over.. .. .There is no evidence of conspiracy. There is supposition and innuendo. Nothing more.. .. .Further, it is not a kneejerk reaction. It is one that looks at the evidence, weighs it and decides that anyone who can actually believe such crap is an idiot.. .. .Nor is it a case of "question the US Government" and you insult the dead. It's a question of "Gleefully leap on and use this tragedy to try to sling mud" that insults the dead.. .. .And you are attempting to perpetuate it.. . . . <small>[ 23 March 2002, 10:57: Message edited by: HugMonster ]</small>

I. M. Esperto
23rd Mar 2002, 22:24
This has been thoroughly discussed on several American boards.. .. .A clever Frenchman set the whole thing up. The reason there is no wreckage is that the photo shown was taken well after the attack, and after the huge pile of debris of a Boeing had been removed.. .. .I was surprised however at the amount of damamge to the Pentagon this aircraft did.. .I was under the assumption that this was a hardened military target, but apparently it is not.

24th Mar 2002, 07:19
A couple of additional points. For the record I don't believe this theory for a nanosecond.. .. .1. Consider the implausibility of orchestrating a bomb in the time available, 8:48 to 9:40 = 52 minutes. That's some pretty quick skunkworks given the jaw dropping nature of the WTC attacks. . .. .2. According to this Washington Post graphic.... .. .http://a188.g.akamaitech.net/f/188/920/15m/www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/graphics/attack_pent agon091101.htm. .. .(BTW take the blank out in the word 'pentagon', the server keeps putting it back in). .. ....the impact point was actually helicopter landing pad which was, as you'd expect, *adjacent* to the building. It appears to be significantly far from the building in the graphic. Draw your own conclusions re. energy absorbtion, direction and dissolution.. .. .3. On the same page is the line: "Eyewitnesses report that the plane cut a wedge that extended past the C, D and E rings of the building into the B ring". This implies mass / energy traveling in one primary direction, like a bullet, does it not? How would a static bomb achieve such an effect?. .. .4. As to there being no damage to the grass in front take a look at this satellite picture:. .. .http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0109/12ikonospentagon/. .. .Looks kind of like what you would expect.. .. .5. Finally, the roof not collapsing immediately. So what? The Pentagon is a solid building. Consider the impacts at the WTC: they didn't collapse immediately either. Though it's comparing apples with oranges I would assume the mass above impact point was greater at the WTC towers than at the Pentagon.. .. .IMO it really is time this rumour was scotched by those who are in a position to do so.. .. .rehkram . .(edited to try and get links to work but failed. Cut and paste links to see what I'm on about). . . . <small>[ 24 March 2002, 04:07: Message edited by: rehkram ]</small>

24th Mar 2002, 20:44
I'm amazed this thread is still going. Surely no one actually believes it was a truck bomb. Both BO and Kilted have maintained this idiocy for whatever pleasure and perverse entertainment it gives them. . .Perhaps you two would like to go and meet some of the relatives and talk to them. That froggy b*****d is bad enough for making a quick Euro without you two and others abusing your freedom to talk Sh*te. . .This whole thread is sophistry incarnate.

25th Mar 2002, 20:30
This thread would be funny if it was not so disgusting. IMHO I think these crazy conspiracy theories spring from the "minds" of folks who crave order. I guess some people just can't deal with the FACT that less than 20 men armed with little more than razor blades can kill so many people (or that a lone wacko can kill a great man or that a popular, well loved woman can die in a mere car crash). It is a terrible truth that we are not safe despite or best efforts, huge budgets, and mighty technology. It seems some people feel insecure if no one is in charge and there is no order so they invent these fanciful theories that explain it all away. I suppose this bizarre worldview also gives them someone to blame for all of the world’s ills.. . I am not saying we shouldn't question our governments. That is our right, privilege and obligation. But lets make the questions intelligent! Yes, the airplane was flying VERY fast – way faster than 250 KIAS, my guess is they were doing at least .8M (full throttle descent, Vne be da**ed. . Why not ask these questions instead:. .. .- Why were people on the FBI’s “watch list” not being watched?. .- How is it that the mightiest Air Force in the history of the world (which I was part of) FAILED to find and destroy four massive, brightly colored (coloured if you prefer), and relatively slow moving missiles?. .- Furthermore, why is our own foreign policy so out of step? We (the US and GB) helped to foster an environment that allowed these monsters to be funded and trained.. .. . But do not think for a moment the US Government (or any other) is competent enough to develop a cover story for the news reports in the midst of this chaos. If they were anything close to being that competent these attacks would never have happened.. .. .BTW – I have seen the security guards at the Pentagon and I am not in the least bit surprised that they couldn’t program the clocks in the security cameras correctly.

26th Mar 2002, 17:10
Hmm, tinder plus spark = ???. .. .I have never said that I agree with any "conspiracy" theory, nor that I think the tragedy at the pentagon was caused by a bomb.. What I HAVE done, is ask questions, and suggest alternatives rather than accept what I am told by one of the most effective propaganda machines that ever existed. It seems that Esperto, Rekhram et al would rather we all just take what we are spoon fed by the "independent" media and doze off like good citizens. As for the "evidence" that supports "Yes, the airplane was flying VERY fast – way faster than 250 KIAS" let's see it - if not, it is merely opinion like most of the rest of what is in this thread.. .. .Unfortunately, as is all too common these days, it seems that most people here can't handle an opinion if it's not the same as theirs (or may be, but at least questions the 'facts').. .. .Unlike others on this thread I have avoided (as I always do) calling others "idiots" merely beacuse they disagree with me or are prepared to ask questions that they can't (or won't) bring themselves to ask. I ask you which of us it is that can't face reality?. .. .Enough!. .. .If this kind of narrow-minded name calling is the way you wish to discuss things, I want no part of it.

26th Mar 2002, 17:38
Let's face it, conspiracy theorists are the kind of people that find life a little too hum-drum and boring. They need to inject spice into their lives by theorising endlessly about non-existant government plans to brainwash the public - or hey, maybe it's "all down to those goddamn Jews!".. .. .Get a life you geeks, stop watching the X-Files and take up something that involves lots of fresh air. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="rolleyes.gif" />

26th Mar 2002, 21:09
X-Q, I think you may have touched on a note of truth there.. .. .The sort of people who are prepared to give any credence to these idiotic conspiracy theories are precisely those with little enough ability to analyse rationally, to examine the EVIDENCE rather than hypotheses, and come up with a logical conclusion.. .. .Instead, they are prepared to believe immediately that "we are being lied to", that there is a gigantic conspiracy going on, to find someone to blame, and start a witch hunt.. .. .Despite not being able to recognise their own gullibility, they accuse others of swallowing whole everything that is spoon-fed to them. They can't see what would be a good question to ask themselves or others, and are swayed by the first theory that comes along.. .. .Two examples from relatively recent history that come to mind are:-. .. ."The Jews are bleeding us dry - save us Herr Hitler!". .and. ."This country is being overrun on the quiet by communists - save us Mr. McCarthy!"

18th Apr 2002, 13:47
This link was sent to me by an American friend yesterday:


18th Apr 2002, 17:58
Lots of cool "X-Files" type language on that site, but doesn't answer what myself and others have already said.....

1. Where the **** is the missing AA 757 then....? :confused:

...and it's crew, passengers, luggage, on-board frieght etc etc..... :rolleyes:

2. The US Public seemed much more shocked by the WTC events than the Pentagon :( so why fake it anyway? :confused:

IMHO there is a difference between healthy sceptism and outright paranoia.... :rolleyes:

18th Apr 2002, 19:24
I'll tell you where the AA B757 that various media said was missing is/was. It landed safely, you risible jackanapes. Or it was a panic-rumour. Some fool cocked up the paperwork - or some hack got an addition sum wrong. Nothing weird happened at all. Double counted. Happens - especially in a state of worldwide panic. Oh yeah, "Where are the passengers from the Pentagon plane?" said this damnfool Froggy driveler. You're breathing them. Nobody survives a crash like that.

Also, there aren't any nice Hollywood pix of the impact because not everything is televised - why would any sane person assume that, out of pure chance, someone would have a camera running, pointed at that exact point on the building at that exact moment?

Bailed Out
15th May 2002, 02:25
Anyone seen anything of the flight recorders?

There is never a conspiracy (because then someone has to suffer) there is only unwishful thinking....

I'm prepared to go unwishful, most aren't, questions are the only answers we have

You stop me questioning and I'll stop fighting for you.