Pentagon Strike....

evilbubbs

im not sure if this si the right place to post this.......

pentagon strike

there are still questions that havent been answered by bush administration at all
and havent really been tackled by mainstream media properly.

but isnt it scary to think that JOHN KERRY ISNT MUCH BETTER
flip flop fly

makes me wonder what people will reckon will happen next, no matter who's voted in.

sliabh

Your first link is broken

sceptre

Page Not Found on Freedom Underground

Fix your link


This isn't that thing put together by that French guy is it?

If it is, read

evilbubbs

sorry bout that, i'll fix it

jackofalltrades

Is this the link that your talking about.

http://www.overclockedgaming.com/pentagoncrash.html#Main

evilbubbs

links fixed guys

flogen

interesting pentagon theory, but only a conspiracy theory... would love to see this being questioned in public, but sadly making any questions about the legitamacy of the attacks on sept 11th would cause outrage, no matter how well founded they were.

The flip flop video, well, yes he's a bit of a flip-flopper alright...he could have handled it a lot better too, just like his campaign in general..

flogen

chewy

seems quite convincing..but i like to see a rebuttal film to it

ive actually steered clear of 911 conspiracy theories cos i just dont know

i definitly think the pentagon getting hit has got more holes in it then the towers.. one thing it doesn't mention in the vid is, well if it wasn't that plane where did that plane go? did it not have people on it the boring did they not die there?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

BattleBoar

http://libertyboy.free.fr/misc/attack/2001_09_11_pentagon_plane/rebuttal_pix/witnesses.rm

http://libertyboy.free.fr/misc/attack/2001_09_11_pentagon_plane/index.php

Not another one... :rolleyes:

jackofalltrades

I can't figure why this 'missile hitting the pentagon' thing has come up again recently all over the net, but it's been knocking around since just after the event. AFAIK all the major points have been rebutted.

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

That article really only tries to answers the questions put forward by Thierry Meyssan, several of which are pretty dumb questions to start with.

It doesn't address the issues brought up in the video, such as:
- The alleged pilot flying skills(or lack of)
- The air traffic controllers who thought Flight 77 was a military jet by the way it behaved
- The fact that are security and traffic monitoring cameras that would have clearly seen the event, yet the footage has never been released
- The state of the lawn directly outside the impact point was pratically untouched
- The fact that the plane was flying 2 feet over the ground at 520mph

I'd say the "missile theory" is going to be around so long as the only released footage of the pentagon attack has an object in it the looks like a vapour trail rather than a Boeing 757.

Hobbes

I saw the footage from the car park cam. It was shown live on TV before the FBI told the TV station (fox I think? or maybe CNN) to stop and hand it over. Certainly looked like a plane. Although the site you post neglects to show everything.

Of course your "The plane didn't hit the pentagon" plot doesn't factor in where did the 757 go and all its passengers? Alien abduction prehaps?

pete

Hobbes wrote:

Of course your "The plane didn't hit the pentagon" plot doesn't factor in where did the 757 go and all its passengers? Alien abduction prehaps?

A quick google for "Operation Northwoods" goes some way to explaining why these conspiracy theories grew legs:

Among the most elaborate schemes was to "create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner en route from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight."

Lemnitzer and the Joint Chiefs worked out a complex deception:

An aircraft at Elgin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CJA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone [a remotely controlled unmanned aircraft]. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida.

From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Elgin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will be transmitting on the international distress frequency a "May Day" message stating he is under attack by Cuban MiG aircraft.

The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft, which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO [International Civil Aviation Organization radio stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the U.S. what has happened to the aircraft instead of the U.S. trying to "sell" the incident.

Finally, there was a plan to "make it appear that Communist Cuban MiGs have destroyed a USAF aircraft over international waters in an unprovoked attack." It was a particularly believable operation given the decade of shoot downs that had just taken place.

Source: http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/wars/op_northwoods.htm

Lennoxschips

where did the 757 go and all its passengers go

The plane was carrying a full payload of fuel. My guess is that everything melted. Look at the planes (767s) that hit the twin towers... did bits of wing fall out? When the buildings were on fire, were you able to tell that a plane had hit them? No. Now factor in the fact that the plane that hit the pentagon is smaller (757) and that the pentagon is bigger than the WTC.

Some of the "evidence" used in that presentation is ridiculous. "It sounded like a missle"... Give me a break, of course it sounded like a missle.

bonkey

jackofalltrades wrote:

It doesn't address the issues brought up in the video, such as:
- The alleged pilot flying skills(or lack of)
- The air traffic controllers who thought Flight 77 was a military jet by the way it behaved

So....a bad pilot, trying a delicate manouever with a commercial plane at a terrible altitude/speed combination for good control....right?

And the traffic controllers saw a plane weaving erratically around....right?

Doesn't sound too infeasible a combination....if we assume that the pilot got lucky with the precision of his strike. Bear in mind, the Pentagon is big. Smacking that plane into the roof of it would have been good enough - possibly better. If we are to assume that the guy was a good enough pilot to have hit what he was aiming for, why are we crediting the terrorists to be stupid enough not to know that the area they aimed at was the one that was reinforced?

- The fact that are security and traffic monitoring cameras that would have clearly seen the event, yet the footage has never been released

Yup. As far as I'm aware, its an ongoing investigation. Evidence is not released during an ongoing investigation.

- The state of the lawn directly outside the impact point was pratically untouched
- The fact that the plane was flying 2 feet over the ground at 520mph

Again - assume he was aiming for the building roof, not the front wall. He discovers he's gonna hit too early, pulls up. Plane (from what I recall reading) bounces on a heli-pad or something, and ploughs into the wall.

The large, perfectly round hole, by the way, that planes don't cause? Engines do....and thats what caused it (mentioned on the Snopes link). Hardly anything "spooky".

I'd say the "missile theory" is going to be around so long as the only released footage of the pentagon attack has an object in it the looks like a vapour trail rather than a Boeing 757.

And people see the face of Jesus in the grain of wood...

Of course the theory will be around. That - in and of itself - doesn't make it credible, likely or true. It makes it just another conspiracy theory.

jc

LegacyUser

to all ye conspiracy believers, the last president couldn't hide getting a bj off an intern, enough said about conspiracy theories

chewy

if the thing that hit the pentagon was a missile where did the 757 go and all its passengers go?... this plane had a speicfic flight number people in america and around the world must be still grieving over the dead people who were on that flight now "if they were lieing and it was really missile" those people would have to be gotten rid of eslewhere or something

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

the_syco

Lennoxschips wrote:

The plane was carrying a full payload of fuel. My guess is that everything melted. Look at the planes (767s) that hit the twin towers... did bits of wing fall out? When the buildings were on fire, were you able to tell that a plane had hit them? No. Now factor in the fact that the plane that hit the pentagon is smaller (757) and that the pentagon is bigger than the WTC.

One thing; It got through 3 sections. Did the plane that hit the WTC come out the other side? No. This thing went through 3 heavily fortified sections. Think about it. One lightly built civilian building -v- 3 military buildings. And it wasn't a big hole. Just a small one. A plane would crumple in the first one. Not go through 3.

Do I have a theory? No. I see facts. It wasn't a civilian plane.

=====

See http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm for more info. The video's point out some intresting sh*t.
Like why the mark was in the ground beforehand, in front of the Pentagon;
http://www.spaceimaging.com/gallery/9-11/Pentagon/Pentagon_9_7_01.jpg
To guide the plane?

bonkey

The outside wall was "heavily fortified", not the entire building. I believe.

Also, if you check what stopped the planes in teh WTC, it was the solid core which would be far denser (by necessity of the architecture) than any of the walls in the Pentagon.

And it was the specific design of the reinforcements which kept the damage from the body limited to the point-of-impact at the outside.

Facts? Unless you're an expert on how aircraft collapse on impact at speed, and on the details of what the reinforcements to the Pentagon were, you don't see facts....you make assumptions just like anyone else.

jc

sliabh

I have just finished reading the 9/11 comission report. If you get a chance do so, its pretty readable and quite a eye opener for helping understand what happened, how OBL's organisation planned and executed the attacks, and how the US governement f**ked up in stopping the attacks and on the day. [even just the first 10 pages which cover the what happned from the hijackers checking in to when the last plane crashed. The account of the fight on Flight 83 is creepy as it was the only aircraft where the "black box" was recovered]

But of relevence to the Pentagon thing:
- The aircraft was tracked on radar at 2500ft heading towards the pentagon 3 minutes before the impact. So I don't know there this 2 feet above the ground thing is coming from
- It impacted just in front of the building and then the wreckage crashed into the building.
- The speed at impact was estimated from radar returns to be 570mph. Considering this was a widebody jet and not your dinky little 737 there was over 100tonnes of aircraft fuel and passengers slamming into the building. It is not surprising that the aircraft did (as the pictures show) go through three rings.
- The aircraft at the WTC also went through the buildings. I have seen the footage of fireball explosions coming out the back of the buildings when the second aircraft hit. And these aircraft were travelling slower as they had not just executed a dive from height

But there are a few questions for the tin foil hat people as well:
If it was a missile where was it fired from and by who?
Why would the government choose to lie about the cause of the attack?
If it was a missile fired by Al Queda why have they not fired any more?
If it was a missile where did they get all those people who made calls to the emergency services from the aircraft before the crash and left grieving relatives?
And so on.

Once you go down the missile road you have to deal with the fact that the evidence doesn't support it and you start having to tie yourself in knots explaining how and why it happened. So take Occams razor to the knots!

bonkey

More importantly Sliabh...once you go down the missile path, you then have to describe how a missile penetrated 3 buildings. Missiles are not designed to do that. Some bombs may be designed to do that, but by-and-large, they use huge amounts of kinetic energy in order to penetrate a relatively small ( < 10m) depth into the ground.

Missiles are light. They are not made of re-inforced steel. They are not rocket-propelled darts relying on kinetic force to damage their target. They are typically equipped with impact and/or proximity fuses so that they explode no later than the moment of first contact.

But while its apparently unfeasible for the engines of a 200+ seater to punch through walls, a missile can apparently drill neat circular 12' diameter holes, and have no appreciable payload.

So lets try this...quick question...how many people here can think of a missile with those characteristics : large diameter, high penetration capability, no significant explosive capability, incredible manouverability (cause a missile that large won't be fired from a fighter), relatively low cruising speed but with a high impact speed.

And thats what gets me...the conspiracy says "it couldn't have been a plane, it must have been a missile", but ignore completely the next step - explaining why and how a missile could have done this.

jc

mycroft

Would it help if I pointed out that a friend of mine was driving past the pentagon when this happened and saw the plane crash in?

Hell of a way to start the day.

Also what bonkey said.

That level of damage to such a such a large reinforced structure could not be caused by a single shoulder launched missile.

Now can we just drop this thread and go back to ridiculing arcadegame?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

LFCFan

why the FBI confiscate video footage of what happened? Why don't they show the world the footage and knock all the conspiracies on the head?

Jim

Insurance scam tbh.

jackofalltrades

Yup. As far as I'm aware, its an ongoing investigation. Evidence is not released during an ongoing investigation.

If thats the case then why was the footage of the alleged hijackers passing through a security check at Dulles airport and the security footage of the attack itself released?

So....a bad pilot, trying a delicate manouever with a commercial plane at a terrible altitude/speed combination for good control....right?
And the traffic controllers saw a plane weaving erratically around....right?
Doesn't sound too infeasible a combination....if we assume that the pilot got lucky with the precision of his strike. Bear in mind, the Pentagon is big. Smacking that plane into the roof of it would have been good enough - possibly better. If we are to assume that the guy was a good enough pilot to have hit what he was aiming for, why are we crediting the terrorists to be stupid enough not to know that the area they aimed at was the one that was reinforced?

I think the controllers would be able to tell the difference between a military jet and a 757, even one that was flown to its limits. The two would have completly different handling characteristics.

The alleged pilot had difficult controlling a Cessena 172 so I wouldn't credit him with being a good pilot or in anyway having the ability to fly a 757.

Again - assume he was aiming for the building roof, not the front wall

I'd make the assumption that the pilot was trying to fly into the front wall otherwise why would he perfrom a difficult 270 loop to line up with the front wall when he could just fly the plane into the roof, an altogether easier target to hit.

He discovers he's gonna hit too early, pulls up. Plane (from what I recall reading) bounces on a heli-pad or something, and ploughs into the wall.

Looking at the released secruity camera footage the angle of attack of whatever hit the building was very shallow, that and there's no evidence of a plane hitting the ground.

Just to lay this one to rest, we've also got to account for the large number of eye witnesses

who between them saw a "missile with wings", a jet liner, a small business jet and one who saw the plane hit the ground before it hit the pentagon

So I don't know there this 2 feet above the ground thing is coming from

Its the estimated height above the ground that the plane would have been flying at according to the video at the start of the post

sovtek

bonkey wrote:

Yup. As far as I'm aware, its an ongoing investigation. Evidence is not released during an ongoing investigation.

jc

Kinda like the security footage of the Oklahoma City bombing.

The Clown Man

Jimeatsmenu wrote:

Insurance scam tbh.

LMAO!

regeneration

Why do people also forget that this is the Pentagon - a building built in the COLD WAR to stand up to heavy attacks.

who between them saw a "missile with wings", a jet liner, a small business jet and one who saw the plane hit the ground before it hit the pentagon

Yes, cos as well know the average American is both smart and familiar with all types of military hardware + missiles, which, btw are designed to penetrate metal armour plating in general, not cold war bunker buildings.

LFCFan

do yis know that the twin towers were heavily insured only a few months before Sept. 11th against a Terrorist attack and that a serious amount of profit was made from the insurance payout?

bonkey

jackofalltrades wrote:

If thats the case then why was the footage of the alleged hijackers passing through a security check at Dulles airport and the security footage of the attack itself released?

Good question. I have no idea why it was released. I believe thats a far more pertinent question than why other material wasn't released.

If you want logic...ask yourself why Steve Jackson Games had a pc confiscated as part of a misguided attempt to crack down on hackers and it took over a decade to get it back, despite finding out in a far shorter period of time that charges wouldn't be pressed.

Basically, the US government agencies are reknowned for wanting to control the information. If they might use it, they confiscate it, and they hold on to it, and they decide when - up to the statutary limit, and sometimes beyond - it gets released.

Its pretty much SOP for them, so to point out that they did it is hardly indicative of something dodgy.

What is a far more interesting question is why they released what they have released.

I think the controllers would be able to tell the difference between a military jet and a 757, even one that was flown to its limits. The two would have completly different handling characteristics.

Nothing more than an assumption, TBH, and one which assumes the ATC-bods actually know the handling characteristics of combat aircraft and how that would be reflected on civilian radar.

The alleged pilot had difficult controlling a Cessena 172 so I wouldn't credit him with being a good pilot or in anyway having the ability to fly a 757.

Fair enough. So you don't believe he flew the plane. And how good a pilot was each of the other hijackers? (Incidentally, the numbers, names and histories of the pilots is one area where I do have some serious questions)

Lets look at it from the conspiracy theory side as well....if this was a setup, why would the people doing the whole "lets disappear a plane and claim it crashed into the Pentagon" go to all of the trouble of coming up with such a far-out cover story, and then put a cherry on top in the form of "and it was all done by a guy who couldn't fly a kite, let alone a commercial airliner".

Again, it seems that the CIA, FBI, or whoever is behind this is being credited with being simultaneously massively powerful and capable, and yet also incompetent and stupid. Smart enough to plan and carry off a sleight-of-hand to fool the world, but stupid enough to claim the plane was flown by a guy who couldn't fly a plane to save his life.

I'd make the assumption that the pilot was trying to fly into the front wall otherwise why would he perfrom a difficult 270 loop to line up with the front wall when he could just fly the plane into the roof, an altogether easier target to hit.

I haven't seen a detailed flight plan based on radar coverage, so I can't answer that definitively.

Then again, if you haven't seen such a detailed flight plan either, I'd say your assumption is unfounded.

But lets look at this...

For a start, why would any pilot pull a 270, when they could pull a 90 instead? Surely the need to turn through three right angles to line a plane up is evidence supportng the theory that this guy was not the best pilot in the world.

Also...if he turned through 270 degrees, then he wasn't pointed at the roof before hand, but rather was flying at right-angles to his target. So he would have had to make the same turn to hit the Pentagon even on the roof, so the "he turned 270 to hit the front wall" doesn't hold up. He needed to turn 90 (or 270) to hit any part of the Pentagon.

If I'm wrong...show me radar-coverage which details the actual flight-route.

Looking at the released secruity camera footage the angle of attack of whatever hit the building was very shallow, that and there's no evidence of a plane hitting the ground.

Fine - then it didn't hit the ground. Instead, the pilot pulled up and just managed to get the plane from smacking into the ground and instead executed a perfect "wall-hit".

Its immaterial - the point is that if it hit the ground, it did so for a single shallow bounce off the ground which is why there wasn't huge crash-scars on the lawn.

Whats funny though is that you're insisting it didn't hit the ground, when many of the questions asked are how a plane could not leave marks on teh lawn. Well, if it didn't hit it......

who between them saw a "missile with wings", a jet liner, a small business jet and one who saw the plane hit the ground before it hit the pentagon

And you selectively are choosing which ones to listen to in order to build your conspiracy theory.

The "hit the ground" ties in with what I said in the previous post about it hopping, but you say there is no evidence. On the other hand, you and the documentary both produce the quote of "missile with wings" as some sort of evidence, when all it has done is come from another eyewitness.

I on the other hand, can offer an explanation as to why people may have thought they say a missile with wings, a small business jet, or anything other than a jet-liner (which is what the majority say they saw from what I can gather). The explanation is how they could have mistaken a jet-liner for something else. Can you explain how so many people confused a missile for a Jet-liner? How many 50M long missiles do you know of?


So how do we reconcile the "missile with wings" option??? Its simple.

For a start, most of them have never seen a plane at any sort of close distance flying in excess of Mach .5. Whether the plane was doing 350 or 570 MPH, it was travelling a damn sight faster than planes we see at low altitude outside anywhere except the excoptional airshow.

Continuing from that, the Pentagon is big. I believe its still ranked as the largest building (floorspace) in the world. No matter what you put beside the Pentagon, it looks small. You know that tiny centre-court in the middle? Thats 5 acres in size. Each outer wall is 280m in length (yes, metres) - about three football pitches end-to-end.

Now consider the fact that most of the eyewitnesses were a considerable distance away - like outside the grounds of the Pentagon. They see a fast-moving object which is small relative to the target it hits. They see it travelling at anything up to Mach .8, and planes neither take off nor land at anywhere near those speeds (out by a factor of 3 to 5, depending on which speed you want the plane at).

So...fast-moving (especially compared to any commercial plane you'll ever see that close up)...looks small compared to what it hits...of course you'll have some people misidentifying it as an object smaller than it was in reality.

Also remember they had exactly one chance to see this. You can examine the replays all you like and convince yourself that you saw A, B or C.....but these guys got to see it once, and in real-timel.....and you have no idea how much attention they paid before the explosion, how clear their line of vision is, or anything.

(incidentally, if they saw it flying overhead - again at low altitude / high-speed - the same logic applies, only this time with no frame of reference to gauge size accurately.

Oh - and going back to the whole missile theory...

Go back and look at those still shots from the parking lot camera (you can get them here if you want them individually available. Now look a the blast. It clearly starts at the outside wall and works its way inwards. So again....tell me what knocked an almost-perfectly round 12' hole through the walls of the second ring? An already-exploded missile? Or an engine from a commercial airliner?

Seriously....

jc

sliabh

LFCFan wrote:

do yis know that the twin towers were heavily insured only a few months before Sept. 11th against a Terrorist attack and that a serious amount of profit was made from the insurance payout?

This one is cobblers.

The buildings were insured for terrorist attacks (as was pretty much everything before the insurance companies decided post September 11th to stop insuring for these risks) but a dispute went to court afterwards over whether it was one or two attacks on the day. The owner lost and as a result only got half the money he was looking for:
http://archrecord.construction.com/news/wtc/archives/040505insurance.asp

So no one cleaned up from the attacks.

mycroft

If you want logic...ask yourself why Steve Jackson Games had a pc confiscated as part of a misguided attempt to crack down on hackers and it took over a decade to get it back, despite finding out in a far shorter period of time that charges wouldn't be pressed.

Y'know I had completely forgotten about that until the other day it just popped into my head. That was just f*cked up.

Lets look at it from the conspiracy theory side as well....if this was a setup, why would the people doing the whole "lets disappear a plane and claim it crashed into the Pentagon" go to all of the trouble of coming up with such a far-out cover story, and then put a cherry on top in the form of "and it was all done by a guy who couldn't fly a kite, let alone a commercial airliner".

Okay could the conspiracy theorists please apply occams razor to all this.

What is more pausible that a group of terrorists flew a plane into a building.

Or.

The CIA/FBI/Illumanti, secreted the plane and it's passengers in a secret location. Fired a missile large enough to rip through one of the most fortfied building in the world, and then quickly ran around throwing small fragments of airplane around the grounds of the pentagon.

We're this close to mad fishmongers.

Continuing from that, the Pentagon is big. I

[fun fact] it takes around to walk around the perimeter[/ fun fact]

Would the conspiracy theorists please quit it and start refocusing their energy on the real conspiracy, the fact that Sept11th happened as a direct result of 40 years of inept corrupt US foreign policy of funding dictators terrorists and extremists when it suited their interest, and ignoring the consequences.

Until it flew into Washington and New York..........

sceptre

mycroft wrote:

Would the conspiracy theorists please quit it and start refocusing their energy on the real conspiracy, the fact that Sept11th happened as a direct result of 40 years of inept corrupt US foreign policy of funding dictators terrorists and extremists when it suited their interest, and ignoring the consequences.

Until it flew into Washington and New York..........

Oh now see, that's good. Whether you agree with it or not (and I do - and it's simple partial cause and effect so you don't have to be anti-American or anti-Bush or anti-Oreo to think that) that's a far better question. Something that doesn't require repeated viewings of JFK and Capricorn One.

bonkey

mycroft wrote:

Okay could the conspiracy theorists please apply occams razor to all this.

Occam's Razor is a conspiracy created by the Illuminati to help perpetuate the uncertainty about their own existence.

Sheesh...how could you not know that

fnord

jc

mycroft

Occam's Razor is a conspiracy created by the Illuminati to help perpetuate the uncertainty about their own existence.

I also heard that logic and deductive reasoning was taught to the Greeks by the Atlantians in an effort to cloud the location of Atlantis.

I'll fnord you.......

JFK and Capricorn One.

I swear to god theres this guy who claims JFK driver did the shooting. On his site theres a tiny thumbnail of the zapruder film, which he claims validates his theory

this guy here used to be my favourite conspiracy theorist. Alas Eircom took down his home page, the rant about there being satanic symbols in the RTE logo was really priceless

LFCFan

at the end of the day, it's far more interesting to believe it's all a big conspiracy then accept the official line. Most of these theories are probably born out of someone's boredom!

sliabh

I am a little bit behind posting this one as I got distracted with work (have they no consideration) but some links that may shed some light on what happened:
The report from the comission is here:
http://www.9-11commission.gov/

Read the first chapter for what happened to each aircraft. It includes timelines, diagrams of the flight paths and eye witness accounts of what was seen:
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

There is no mention of someone in ATC thinking it behaved like a fighter. But then as the aircraft transponder had been turned off when it was hijacked the civilian ATC people had lost track of the plane.

On the turn, the aircraft was 5 miles from the pentagon when the turn occurred. Close enough that Hanjour (the hijacker pilot) could see the place, but so close that if he turned towards it he would have overshot the site. So it made sense to turn the aircraft away from the Pentagon, i.e. through 330 degrees.

As for Hanjour's skill as a pilot while he was described as being of a poor standard he did acheive his Commercial Pilots Licence. So turning the aircraft and aiming it at a point on the ground (which you need to be able to do to land an aircraft) was not beyond him.

jackofalltrades

If I'm wrong...show me radar-coverage which details the actual flight-route.

Don't think they released the actual radar-coverage.
What is was talking about was something like the image in the link below.
The exact route mightn't be accurate.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://perso.club-internet.fr/mouv4x8/11Sept01/A0072b_Attack_Path_Flight_77_Pentagon.jpg&imgrefurl=http://perso.club-internet.fr/mouv4x8/11Sept01/A0072_steves-analysis.html&h=604&w=680&sz=339&tbnid=OGdEO3R6_RcJ:&tbnh=121&tbnw=136&start=10&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dflight%2B77%2Bflight%2Bpath%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DN

Nothing more than an assumption, TBH, and one which assumes the ATC-bods actually know the handling characteristics of combat aircraft and how that would be reflected on civilian radar.

A reasonable assumption none the less.

And you selectively are choosing which ones to listen to in order to build your conspiracy theory.
The "hit the ground" ties in with what I said in the previous post about it hopping, but you say there is no evidence. On the other hand, you and the documentary both produce the quote of "missile with wings" as some sort of evidence, when all it has done is come from another eyewitness.

I'm not selectively choosing which ones to listen to, im just pointing out the different variety of reports that the eyewitnesses have provide."Missile with wings" was only encluded so as to represent this variety.

And im not building a conspiracy theory either im just pointing out some of the flaws in the offical story.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

pork99

the_syco wrote:

One thing; It got through 3 sections. Did the plane that hit the WTC come out the other side? No. This thing went through 3 heavily fortified sections. Think about it. One lightly built civilian building -v- 3 military buildings. And it wasn't a big hole. Just a small one. A plane would crumple in the first one. Not go through 3.

Do I have a theory? No. I see facts. It wasn't a civilian plane.

You didn't see the documentary on Channel 4 on Thursday then?

1. They interviewed eyewitnesses who saw an Boeing 757 and the wreckage of that aircraft.

2. An air accident expert who said that the relatively small hole in the Pentagon was completely consistent with the impact of this type of aircraft.

Of course no doubt these people are under the influence of THE CONSPIRACY :eek:

MrPudding

But all the eye witnesses were actually planted there. They are all cia cutouts.

Man, you guys will beleive anything.

MrP

sovtek

LFCFan wrote:

at the end of the day, it's far more interesting to believe it's all a big conspiracy then accept the official line.

The official line is as dodgy as the "missile hit the pentagon" or "remote controlled airliners hit the WTC"....

Most of these theories are probably born out of someone's boredom!

Or it could be born out of several precedents of the "official" line being lies and half truths...
By definition the attacks on Sept 11th are a conspiracy.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

LFCFan

sliabh wrote:

This one is cobblers.

The buildings were insured for terrorist attacks (as was pretty much everything before the insurance companies decided post September 11th to stop insuring for these risks) but a dispute went to court afterwards over whether it was one or two attacks on the day. The owner lost and as a result only got half the money he was looking for:
http://archrecord.construction.com/news/wtc/archives/040505insurance.asp

So no one cleaned up from the attacks.

I was just quoting what was said on a Sky programme the other day that was looking into conspiracies. Was pretty skeptical of this 'fact' myself.

sliabh

LFCFan wrote:

I was just quoting what was said on a Sky programme the other day that was looking into conspiracies. Was pretty skeptical of this 'fact' myself.

You believed something Sky told you????

If they said the sky was blue I'd check it myself to be sure

LFCFan

sliabh wrote:

You believed something Sky told you????

If they said the sky was blue I'd check it myself to be sure

well, that's why I said I was skeptical. I only threw in this post to see what reaction there would be.

Did anyone see the conspiracy programme last night? It was about the Titanic and the conspiracy that it was it's Sister Ship The Olympic that was sunk in an elaborate insurance scam by switching the 2 ships before Titanics maiden voyage. I never even knew there was another ship like the Titanic!

sliabh

LFCFan wrote:

Did anyone see the conspiracy programme last night? It was about the Titanic and the conspiracy that it was it's Sister Ship The Olympic that was sunk in an elaborate insurance scam by switching the 2 ships before Titanics maiden voyage. I never even knew there was another ship like the Titanic!

This is getting way off topic, perhaps a new post would be better (and probably in a new group?)

But it you didn't even know that there was a sister ship to the Titanic (and there were 3 of that class, Titanic, Britannia and Olympic) then I'd say you need to do some more reading up before you start believing what one sensationalist tabloid TV program trys to sell you.

LFCFan

sliabh wrote:

then I'd say you need to do some more reading up before you start believing what one sensationalist tabloid TV program trys to sell you.

And where in my post did I say I believed it? Of course I don't believe it. It's rediculous.

mycroft

LFCFan wrote:

Did anyone see the conspiracy programme last night? It was about the Titanic and the conspiracy that it was it's Sister Ship The Olympic that was sunk in an elaborate insurance scam by switching the 2 ships before Titanics maiden voyage. I never even knew there was another ship like the Titanic!

Why yes I'm going to trust a show comissioned by a station which produces such find programs such as

"When bras collaspe"

"World wildest escaped animal high speed pursuits 4"

"When boob jobs go right"

"Supermodels uncovered volume 4"

:rolleyes: