Car Bomb at Pentagon on 9/11

the_barfly1

For some reason I was watching a video of RTÉ's coverage of 9/11 this evening. I found it a little strange that Anne Dole mentions a car bomb at the Pentagon. I've never heard of this previously. Was wondering if the members here that are more familiar with the research on this event would be able to shed some light on whether this has been discussed before? (maybe it has, but I don't have time to trawl through the forum)
Here's the video, relevant section from approx 3:30 onwards

Cheers.

Jonny7

There was no car bomb, it's just bad reporting

She also mentions that the second plane was "smaller" than the first, when in fact it was a slightly larger plane

Brown Bomber

That was interesting to look back on. Thanks for sharing. I remember reading reports that battlefield experienced military guys in the Pentagon were convinced that bombs had gone off in Pentagon based on the distinctive sounds of the explosions.

Also, there was a large number of people doing "renovation" work on the side of the building that was hit that had all miraculously cleared out in time before the plane hit.

But of course any reports or anomalies that stray from the 9/11 Commission report is always simply "bad reporting".

enno99

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That was interesting to look back on. Thanks for sharing. I remember reading reports that battlefield experienced military guys in the Pentagon were convinced that bombs had gone off in Pentagon based on the distinctive sounds of the explosions.

Also, there was a large number of people doing "renovation" work on the side of the building that was hit that had all miraculously cleared out in time before the plane hit.

But of course any reports or anomalies that stray from the 9/11 Commission report is always simply "bad reporting".

Yea and whats that other one about witnesses hearing /seeing these anomalies

misremembering

Brown Bomber

enno99 wrote: »

Yea and whats that other one about witnesses hearing /seeing these anomalies

misremembering

haha yeah. Just like that fat bloke who was the last person in building 7 who "misremembered" when he gave his statement as soon as he was out of the building but later remembered the story that fit.

Or the NYPD guy whose eyes were playing tricks on him when the mural van expoded in front of his eyes and the occupants fled.

Never happened.

enno99

Brown Bomber wrote: »

haha yeah. Just like that fat bloke who was the last person in building 7 who "misremembered" when he gave his statement as soon as he was out of the building but later remembered the story that fit.

Or the NYPD guy whose eyes were playing tricks on him when the mural van expoded in front of his eyes and the occupants fled.

Never happened.

Yea Jennings and also that legal mouthpiece who was with him in the building

He also got very coy when the penny dropped that he was told to head on over there while everybody else was being told to get the fu*k out

He was also the government mouthpiece during the Pentagon Papers he would have a great insight into what shenanigans these guys get up to

Jonny7

OP, we can safely say this iis an accurate account of what occurred on 911.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks

The attacks created widespread confusion among news organizations and air traffic controllers. Among the unconfirmed and often contradictory news reports aired throughout the day, one of the most prevalent said a car bomb had been detonated at the U.S. State Department's headquarters in Washington, D.C.[28

I was watching the whole thing live (and for many days after), speculation, rumour and unconfirmed reports were rife - such is the nature of hectic live news from multiple sources. The car bomb was just another false report.

Sixtus

Brown Bomber wrote: »

haha yeah. Just like that fat bloke who was the last person in building 7 who "misremembered" when he gave his statement as soon as he was out of the building but later remembered the story that fit.

He was misquoted.

Or the NYPD guy whose eyes were playing tricks on him when the mural van expoded in front of his eyes and the occupants fled.

Name and badge number of this officer please.

Oh what's that, you haven't got either of those this because it

Never happened.

Thank you for your honesty

Sixtus

Jonny7 wrote: »

There was no car bomb, it's just bad reporting

She also mentions that the second plane was "smaller" than the first, when in fact it was a slightly larger plane

Bad reporting is a misnomer. A more accurate statement would be reporting something with verifying it first. By the very nature of rolling 24 news information is reported, before it is verified. It is best to check whether it is established and verified by several sources, and until then use qualifiers such as "Alleged".

Sixtus

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That was interesting to look back on. Thanks for sharing. I remember reading reports that battlefield experienced military guys in the Pentagon were convinced that bombs had gone off in Pentagon based on the distinctive sounds of the explosions.

One wonders were these soldiers able to different between a "bomb" and the sound of a jet engine being flown at speed into a reinforced building. While I imagine there are innumerable people in the pentagon who can tell you what a bomb, or a explosive, or a artillery shell sounds like due to their prior experience with these matters, no one had really any point of reference as to the sound a jetliner crashing into the building you're sitting in would be a more rarefied circle of people. pre 9/11.

Also, there was a large number of people doing "renovation" work on the side of the building that was hit that had all miraculously cleared out in time before the plane hit.

125 Pentagon Personal were killed in the attack so the miraculous clearance is clearly specious.

As to the renovation work. The Hijackers hit the side of a five sided building that was being renovated. Not being a statistician I can only guess that the odds of the plane hitting that part of the building were a astronomical 1 in 5.

enno99

Sixtus wrote: »

As to the renovation work. The Hijackers hit the side of a five sided building that was being renovated. Not being a statistician I can only guess that the odds of the plane hitting that part of the building were a astronomical 1 in 5.

what are the odds for this type manouvre ?

Alright dont answer that. I think I got it

They were out of towners and they didnt recognoise the pentagon and missed it on the first pass and had to go round again

enno99

enno99 wrote: »

They were out of towners and they didnt recognoise the pentagon and missed it on the first pass and had to go round again

So why didn't they come from the west and go straight for the supposed target area?
Why, in the conspiracy narrative did they make such a wide loop that makes it a dead give away?

Sixtus

enno99 wrote: »

what are the odds for this type manouvre ?

Alright dont answer that. I think I got it

They were out of towners and they didnt recognoise the pentagon and missed it on the first pass and had to go round again

No it's a airplane travelling at hundreds of miles an hour, and at several thousand feet, the pilot saw the pentagon, and engaged in the simplistic manoeuvre a steady descent and long turn.

It seems that you don't understand that a plane travels in 3 dimensions and you can't brake and do a 3 point turn in one.

Brown Bomber

Sixtus wrote: »

He was misquoted.

Huh?

He was speaking on live TV.

Sixtus wrote: »

Name and badge number of this officer please.

Oh what's that, you haven't got either of those this because it

Thank you your honesty

I'm not exactly sure why you want the badge number but here is the live police radio recording of the incident.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD4FBaK_fRo

Brown Bomber

Sixtus wrote: »

One wonders were these soldiers able to different between a "bomb" and the sound of a jet engine being flown at speed into a reinforced building..

I would assume so as they are the noises of two different things. Do they sound the same?

Sixtus wrote: »

125 Pentagon Personal were killed in the attack so the miraculous clearance is clearly specious.

As to the renovation work. The Hijackers hit the side of a five sided building that was being renovated. Not being a statistician I can only guess that the odds of the plane hitting that part of the building were a astronomical 1 in 5.

You misunderstand.

I am talking about the renovation crew the started work in the Pentagon on 911 but had cleared out completely before the plane hit the Pentagon.

Brown Bomber

Sixtus wrote: »

It seems that you don't understand that a plane travels in 3 dimensions and you can't brake and do a 3 point turn in one.

Why so belligerent? Your implication here is really ill mannered.

weisses

Sixtus wrote: »

Bad reporting is a misnomer. A more accurate statement would be reporting something with verifying it first. By the very nature of rolling 24 news information is reported, before it is verified. It is best to check whether it is established and verified by several sources, and until then use qualifiers such as "Alleged".

Ohh yeah just like the firemen you quoted as saying building 7 was fully engulfed in flames

Try again

enno99

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Why so belligerent? Your implication here is really ill mannered.

Cheers BB belligerance and bad manners are not uncommon here

Brown Bomber

enno99 wrote: »

Cheers BB belligerance and bad manners are not uncommon here

Can you imagine sparking up a conversation with someone face to face with a stranger say and them out of the blue and unprovoked saying "I assume you don't know that a plane flies in 3-D" in a sneery way. I'm a peaceful man but I'd feel lie knocking them out tbh".

People don't talk like that in the real world -- if they did they'd end up eating most of their meals through straws. I don't know why they can't apply the same standards here

Sixtus

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Why so belligerent? Your implication here is really ill mannered.

I thought I was on ignore.

Sixtus

weisses wrote: »

Ohh yeah just like the firemen you quoted as saying building 7 was fully engulfed in flames

Try again

And photos, and the testimony of dozens of firefighters confirm that it was fully inflamed.

a number of staff in pentagon made statements that when they heard the impact "it sounded like a bomb or explosivies being detonated) however these statements were made by people who were not in full possession of the facts, and it was there initial impression.

How many of those people who say it sounded like a bomb going off, still maintain that it was a bomb after they received further information.

The firefighters weiss by the way, all maintain that they saw a building fully involved in fire, and about to collapse. How many of them have changed or retracted their postions? Zero.

Sixtus

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Why so belligerent? Your implication here is really ill mannered.

So? Anyone who looked at the scale of the map and considered the speed and altitude the plane was travelling at and assumed the plane should have made a hand brake turn deserves a degree of scorn, and lets not forget the tone in which enn099 raised the issue

what are the odds for this type manouvre ?

Alright dont answer that. I think I got it

They were out of towners and they didnt recognoise the pentagon and missed it on the first pass and had to go round again

If he's going to start posting on this thread with this kind of patronising guff he can't get in a huff if the response isn't met in kind

Sixtus

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm not exactly sure why you want the badge number but here is the live police radio recording of the incident.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD4FBaK_fRo

So to be clear, you don't have the name of the officer who says he saw the mural van blow up, or his badge number?

Great, keep making my point for me.

Brown Bomber

Sixtus wrote: »

So to be clear, you don't have the name of the officer who says he saw the mural van blow up, or his badge number?

Great, keep making my point for me.

What's your point exactly? I don't have the name or badge numbers of the officers who arrested OJ Simpson. Does that mean that he wasn't arrested?

Brown Bomber

Sixtus wrote: »

So? Anyone who looked at the scale of the map and considered the speed and altitude the plane was travelling at and assumed the plane should have made a hand brake turn deserves a degree of scorn, and lets not forget the tone in which enn099 raised the issue

If he's going to start posting on this thread with this kind of patronising guff he can't get in a huff if the response isn't met in kind

What are you talking about any hand brake turn? You brought that up.

I'm quite sure the point he was making is that it was considerably easier to hit the Pentagon, as that was the target face in in the direction it was travelling from. Not do a 3/4 lap at low altitude and risk being shot down and make a sharp curve to hit an alternative side for no apparent reason or gain. And this is by a supposed pilot who was useless by most if not all accounts.

"I couldn't believe he had a commercial license of any kind with the skills that he had," said Peggy Chevrette, the JetTech manager.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,52408,00.html#ixzz2M3iqj2LG

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What are you talking about any hand brake turn? You brought that up.

I'm quite sure the point he was making is that it was considerably easier to hit the Pentagon, as that was the target face in in the direction it was travelling from. Not do a 3/4 lap at low altitude and risk being shot down and make a sharp curve to hit an alternative side for no apparent reason or gain. And this is by a supposed pilot who was useless by most if not all accounts.

So again, why in the conspiracy narrative did they not fly directly at the targeted area? Or have the construction work on the face it would approach?

Why did they do it in a way that is apparently such a dead give away?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

So again, why in the conspiracy narrative did they not fly directly at the targeted area? Or have the construction work on the face it would approach?

Why did they do it in a way that is apparently such a dead give away?

Why are you asking me about some "conspiracy narrative"?

His actions don't add up. Do you disagree? It would be like Atta flying past the WTC doing a U turn to hit the back side of the building for no apparent reason.

UNLESS there was a specific reason to do so. I can't think of one. His actions seriously jeopardised his mission for zero gain. The only thing I can think of is that he lost his bottle and then regained his focus.

Sixtus

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What's your point exactly? I don't have the name or badge numbers of the officers who arrested OJ Simpson. Does that mean that he wasn't arrested?

What a infanrile argument theres plenty of coberating evidence that OJ was arrested such as yknow his trial.

in this inatance who have your xlaim that a NYPD cop rwported a car bomb blew up in NYPS on 911. We have no other supporting evidenc Debris from the hlast?.other eyewitnesss? NOTHING

Just a alkedged radio report of a supposed member of NYPD who is never identifed 12 yo later.

but thats good enough evidence for you that this occured? Pathetic.

what street? Whch officer reported it? What FNDYY units attended the scene.

wheres your proof?!?


Urg typo landen post on pyone will clean it up tomorrow.

Brown Bomber

Sixtus wrote: »

What a infanrile argument theres plenty of coberating evidence that OJ was arrested such as yknow his trial.

in this inatance who have your xlaim that a NYPD cop rwported a car bomb blew up in NYPS on 911. We have no other supporting evidenc Debris from the hlast?.other eyewitnesss? NOTHING

Just a alkedged radio report of a supposed member of NYPD who is never identifed 12 latera

I think someone has switched around the keys on your keyboard

Try again.

Sixtus

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I think someone has switched around the keys on your keyboard

Try again.

Read my edit.

btw BB do you think that every immwdiate eyewitness account particularly coming from events like 911 should be treated as gospel and completey accurate
And ignore later reports when a morre accurate and detailed picture is prwaented when mre facts become available.

Brown Bomber

Sixtus wrote: »

Read my edit.

btw BB do you think that every immwdiate eyewitness account particularly coming from events like 911 should be treated as gospel and completey accurate
And ignore later reports when a morre accurate and detailed picture is prwaented when mre facts become available.

No. This isn't merely an "eyewitness account" it is a real time description of a qualified professional, an NYPD Officer, an expert witness at the scene who simply cannot be mistaken about a) suspects fleeing b) A van exploding c) suspects apprehended and arrested.

Sixtus

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I think someone has switched around the keys on your keyboard

Try again.

Ps your biased ranting about the forum should be more polite emits up a particular shrill tone of hyprocrisy on this thread

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Why are you asking me about some "conspiracy narrative"?

To highlight the fact you are rejecting the official version "because it doesn't add up" while you gloss over the fact that the conspiracy version does not add up.

You can't think of a valid explanation for the questions I asked, therefore you should reject the conspiracy explanation just as much as you do with the official version.
But you don't.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

His actions don't add up. Do you disagree? It would be like Atta flying past the WTC doing a U turn to hit the back side of the building for no apparent reason.

UNLESS there was a specific reason to do so. I can't think of one. His actions seriously jeopardised his mission for zero gain. The only thing I can think of is that he lost his bottle and then regained his focus.

And this is an argument from incredulity. Simply because you can't think of a reason it does not follow that one does not exist.
For example, it could be that since the pentagon is not readily visible from a distance and a height like the twin towers are, a pilot would need to fly near it to see where precisely it was. And flying near to it gives you less time to turn, resulting in a long loop.
Further you are falsely assuming that such a turn adds risk. This is simply not true. They would likely have needed to circle for a couple dozen of minutes before they were at risk of being shot down as there weren't missile batteries on the pentagon, and it would have take a while for fighters to get there.

Brown Bomber

Sixtus wrote: »

what street? .

King Street

Sixtus wrote: »

Whch officer reported it?

An unamed NYPD Officer,

Sixtus wrote: »

What FNDYY units attended the scene.

NYPD
Bomb Squad
ESU http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Police_Department_Emergency_Service_Unit

Sixtus

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No. This isn't merely an "eyewitness account" it is a real time description of a qualified professional, an NYPD Officer, an expert witness at the scene who simply cannot be mistaken about a) suspects fleeing b) A van exploding c) suspects apprehended and arrested.

Which NYPD arrestted suspects fleeing a exploding van?


What station sid he take them to? What where they charged with?

I like how your fictious NYPD officet is a expert witness now. Tell me what other lurid details will you give this maginary offcer next? will he be a few days short f retirement? A tough as nails veteran who breaks the rules to get the job done? Teamed up with a sassy rookie?

Let your imagination run riot old bean

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

b) A van exploding

There is confusion about this.

Given that you can provide absolutely no other corroborating evidence that any van exploded it is a much more likely explanation that the officers in the recording are misreporting something they heard second or third hand.

There's nothing in the recording that identifies the officers who say the van exploded as the ones who actually apprehended the guys. In fact the first voice who mentions the van and the arrests somehow fails to mention any explosion, as does all of the other chatter.

So is it a possibility that there was simply a cock up in the line of communication that lead some officers to report an explosion when none actually happened?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

To highlight the fact you are rejecting the official version "because it doesn't add up" while you gloss over the fact that the conspiracy version does not add up.

Where have I rejected anything? I am discussing a specific event. What is the conspiracy version and what has it do with me?

King Mob wrote: »

ou can't think of a valid explanation for the questions I asked, therefore you should reject the conspiracy explanation just as much as you do with the official version.
But you don't.

How can I reject or accept something that only you are aware of?

King Mob wrote: »

And this is an argument from incredulity. Simply because you can't think of a reason it does not follow that one does not exist. .

Agreed, but it makes it more likely.

King Mob wrote: »

For example, it could be that since the pentagon is not readily visible from a distance and a height like the twin towers are, a pilot would need to fly near it to see where precisely it was. And flying near to it gives you less time to turn, resulting in a long loop.

The Pentagon is massive.

King Mob wrote: »

Further you are falsely assuming that such a turn adds risk. This is simply not true. They would likely have needed to circle for a couple dozen of minutes before they were at risk of being shot down as there weren't missile batteries on the pentagon, and it would have take a while for fighters to get there.

And how could the hijackers have known this?

And of course it adds extra risk an inexperienced and lowly skilled pilot carrying out a high speed top gun turn at high speeds, cutting daisies on the way in is obviously more risky than flying into the middle of a large target in a straight line.

Brown Bomber

Sixtus wrote: »

Which NYPD arrestted suspects fleeing a exploding van?


What station sid he take them to? What where they charged with?

I like how your fictious NYPD officet is a expert witness now. Tell me what other lurid details will you give this maginary offcer next? will he be a few days short f retirement? A tough as nails veteran who breaks the rules to get the job done? Teamed up with a sassy rookie?

Let your imagination run riot old bean

Lurid? :pac:

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

There is confusion about this.

Given that you can provide absolutely no other corroborating evidence that any van exploded it is a much more likely explanation that the officers in the recording are misreporting something they heard second or third hand.

There's nothing in the recording that identifies the officers who say the van exploded as the ones who actually apprehended the guys. In fact the first voice who mentions the van and the arrests somehow fails to mention any explosion, as does all of the other chatter.

So is it a possibility that there was simply a cock up in the line of communication that lead some officers to report an explosion when none actually happened?

Do you accept that there has been either a) a massive misunderstanding or b) a massive coverup?

Sixtus

Brown Bomber wrote: »

King Street

In the village are you sure?

[Quote An unamed NYPD Officer,

[/quote]

So lets be coear your ONLY evidence that a van with a mural on it blew up is a alledged recording of aomeone who says theyre a NYPD officer but you havw no idea what unit they‘re with?

and lets just ignore that

THERE IS NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE THAT A BOMB EXPLODED ON KING ST

NO EVIDNCE ANYONE WAS ARRESTED

AND IN THE 12 YEARS SINCE THIS SUPPOSEDLY HAPPENED THERE IS NOTHIBF. I REPEAT NOTHING. TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM A TRUCK BOMB BLEW UP ON KING STREET ASUDE FROM ONE ANONYMOUS RECORDING OF A UNAMED “NYPD OFFICER“.

NYPD
Bomb Squad
ESU http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Police_Department_Emergency_Service_Unit

No BB thats the unit that SHOULD have been called IF there was a bomb on King St. Where is your evidence that they WERE CALLED

Brown Bomber

Sixtus wrote: »

In the village are you sure?


So lets be coear your ONLY evidence that a van with a mural on it blew up is a alledged recording of aomeone who says theyre a NYPD officer but you havw no idea what unit they‘re with?

and lets just ignore that

THERE IS NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE THAT A BOMB EXPLODED ON KING ST

NO EVIDNCE ANYONE WAS ARRESTED

AND IN THE 12 YEARS SINCE THIS SUPPOSEDLY HAPPENED THERE IS NOTHIBF. I REPEAT NOTHING. TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM A TRUCK BOMB BLEW UP ON KING STREET ASUDE FROM ONE ANONYMOUS RECORDING OF A UNAMED “NYPD OFFICER“.


No BB thats the unit that SHOULD have been called IF there was a bomb on King St. Where is your evidence that they WERE CALLED

Remember you said the bolded part. No listen to the Police radio yourself and it will answer your questions.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Where have I rejected anything? I am discussing a specific event. What is the conspiracy version and what has it do with me?

So you do believe that the official version is plausible and more likely then?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

How can I reject or accept something that only you are aware of?

So why do you believe that lacking an explanation for something is only a problem for the official explanation.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Agreed, but it makes it more likely.

No it doesn't. And it doesn't make it a valid argument, especially since you seem to think that it only applies to certain things.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The Pentagon is massive.

But it is also very flat and surrounded by obscuring buildings and terrain.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And how could the hijackers have known this?

Basic research of the area that will tell them that there was an airport across the free-way from the pentagon meaning that a plane flying near or over it would not be immediately blow out of the sky, even if it came from a funny direction.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And of course it adds extra risk an inexperienced and lowly skilled pilot carrying out a high speed top gun turn at high speeds, cutting daisies on the way in is obviously more risky than flying into the middle of a large target in a straight line.

But what if they flew in a straight line towards the pentagon, but on nearing it found that they were off course (cause they weren't super amazing pilots) and needed to turn to correct? However, since they might not have seen the pentagon until they were relatively close, they need to make a turn. But then because they were going so fast, and couldn't just turn on a handbrake, they needed to make a wide loop to hit their target.

So again, why didn't they just fly straight at the section they were supposed to hit?

Sixtus

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Do you accept that there has been either a) a massive misunderstanding or b) a massive coverup?

There has been at best a minor misunserstanding fueled by idiot 911 truthers.

Look at the Silverstein “pull it“ nonsense.

For this to be proof of an inside job, two things have to be true

1. Larry Silverstein was part of a plot to kill thousands of people.

2. And he confessed to that crime in a tekevvision interview.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Do you accept that there has been either a) a massive misunderstanding or b) a massive coverup?

No. there just needs to be a small misunderstanding over a radio during a massively busy, confusing and stressful event with a ton of radio chatter going on the entire time.

All it needs is for one cop to mishear something to think there was an explosion and repeat that over the radio.
And considering right before it there was repeated references to what was reported to be a mural with a plane flying into New York and exploding that might have been the source of the confusion.

So yea given the options of a plausible and understandable miscommunication and a vast implausible, nonsensical cover-up....

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

So you do believe that the official version is plausible and more likely then?

Perhaps marginally. Though I believe we are far from knowing the full truth.

King Mob wrote: »

So why do you believe that lacking an explanation for something is only a problem for the official explanation.

I don't. However there is a multitude of unsatisfactory explanations hence the cumalitive doubt.

King Mob wrote: »

No it doesn't. And it doesn't make it a valid argument, especially since you seem to think that it only applies to certain things.

Lets be clear. I said I cannot think of a good reason to carry risky maneuver to hit a different part of the same building. I am however open to suggestion. That's where you come in.

King Mob wrote: »

But it is also very flat and surrounded by obscuring buildings and terrain.

Come on! It dwarves everything it surrounds and is one of the single most recognisable buildings in the sky.

King Mob wrote: »

Basic research of the area that will tell them that there was an airport across the free-way from the pentagon meaning that a plane flying near or over it would not be immediately blow out of the sky, even if it came from a funny direction.

However, common sense would tell them that by now four planes would be know to have been hijacked by terrorists intent on using them as missiles and therefore they are likely to be blown out of the sky at any moment.

King Mob wrote: »

But what if they flew in a straight line towards the pentagon, but on nearing it found that they were off course (cause they weren't super amazing pilots) and needed to turn to correct? However, since they might not have seen the pentagon until they were relatively close, they need to make a turn. But then because they were going so fast, and couldn't just turn on a handbrake, they needed to make a wide loop to hit their target.

He had a single mission to hit the giant and distinctive structure of the Pentagon. It's absurd to think he could miss it by so much in a straight line then recover with expert skills.

King Mob wrote: »

So again, why didn't they just fly straight at the section they were supposed to hit?

That's what I am asking you. What do you think?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

No. there just needs to be a small misunderstanding over a radio during a massively busy, confusing and stressful event with a ton of radio chatter going on the entire time.

All it needs is for one cop to mishear something to think there was an explosion and repeat that over the radio.
And considering right before it there was repeated references to what was reported to be a mural with a plane flying into New York and exploding that might have been the source of the confusion.

So yea given the options of a plausible and understandable miscommunication and a vast implausible, nonsensical cover-up....

There is no indication of any "misunderstanding" on the radio though. At the very least two men were arrested on 911 in New York having run from police with reports of their van exploding and their van having a mural with planes exploding into the twin towers.

Show me a single news article on this if the idea of a coverup is "vast implausible, nonsensical" etc

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Perhaps marginally. Though I believe we are far from knowing the full truth.

I don't. However there is a multitude of unsatisfactory explanations hence the cumalitive doubt.

Lets be clear. I said I cannot think of a good reason to carry risky maneuver to hit a different part of the same building. I am however open to suggestion. That's where you come in.

So then you are equally dissatisfied with the conspiracy explanation as you are likewise unable to think of any explanations for the inconsistencies for the conspiracy explanation, correct?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Come on! It dwarves everything it surrounds and is one of the single most recognisable buildings in the sky.

No it's only 5 stories high. From far away and high up it is not going to be as readily apparent as the twin towers.
So they would need to get fairly close to make it out clearly, which means they can't just make a slight turn from further away.

And then of course, this is just for the basic explanation I offered.
They could have always planned to make such a large turn, perhaps planning to follow the river until they saw it then turned to fly into it. Or perhaps wanted to do a flyby to ensure they were on target.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

However, common sense would tell them that by now four planes would be know to have been hijacked by terrorists intent on using them as missiles and therefore they are likely to be blown out of the sky at any moment.

You are basing this common sense on hindsight.
They knew that there was something up for less than an hour before the plane hit. That is simply not enough time to set up missiles, nevermind order them to be set up given the confusion. And then there's the fact that they'd have no idea whether or not the plane nearing the Pentagon was hijacked or not until it was second away from impact.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

He had a single mission to hit the giant and distinctive structure of the Pentagon. It's absurd to think he could miss it by so much in a straight line then recover with expert skills.

But they didn't miss it by that much did they? They were off by a few degrees can could indeed correct quite rapidly.
They couldn't have seen the pentagon from miles and miles away when they gained control of the plane, so must have been flying on instruments. A few degrees off is not an absurd amount.

Further you seem to be asserting that the turn require "expert skills" without any support.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That's what I am asking you. What do you think?

I cannot think of any that make sense are plausible or don't then also apply to the much more likely explanation.
This is why I am asking.
The problem arises when no one is able to provide one at all.
Not even an attempt is made, yet this is ignored.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

There is no indication of any "misunderstanding" on the radio though.

And what would an indication of this be? Because it stops before an clarification, or lack of chatter referring to an explosion and dispatch of bombsquads would be heard. Conveniently.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

At the very least two men were arrested on 911 in New York having run from police

But we have no context for this, what happened during or after.
And unless you are going to argue that police never ever make false arrests...

Brown Bomber wrote: »

with reports of their van exploding

We do not have reports of the van exploding. We have exactly one person mentioning an explosion, but zero confirmation that they actually saw it explode.
Yet somehow you've turned this into reports, plural. funny how miscommunications can arise like that.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

and their van having a mural with planes exploding into the twin towers.

But we don't have anything to confirm that there was a mural depicting anything untoward. (Never mind how that such a thing does not make a lick of sense in a conspiracy narrative.)
Also again notice how you say "exploding into the twin towers". The audio you're basing this all an says no such thing. It says "a mural with a plane flying into New York and exploding". Yet again, you've changed this in only a second hand report.
Really you are just demonstrating my point perfectly.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Show me a single news article on this if the idea of a coverup is "vast implausible, nonsensical" etc

But the only thing we can say happened with any confidence is that two people were falsely arrested.
Assuming that there was nothing to the van and it was an honest mistake, why would this make the news on 9/11 or else when?

If there is a coverup why was this audio which blows the entire thing, allowed to slip through and be allowed to continue to circulate?
How if it was able to slip through was there no other evidence? No photos of the van or the aftermath of the explosion, no one coming forward to talk about the extra bomb.. nothing...

gnfnrhead

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Come on! It dwarves everything it surrounds and is one of the single most recognisable buildings in the sky.

....

He had a single mission to hit the giant and distinctive structure of the Pentagon. It's absurd to think he could miss it by so much in a straight line then recover with expert skills.

http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large/aerial-view-of-the-pentagon-building-kenneth-garrett.jpg

Look at the surrounding area, it's almost like it was designed not to stand out too much.

gnfnrhead

gnfnrhead wrote: »

http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large/aerial-view-of-the-pentagon-building-kenneth-garrett.jpg

Look at the surrounding area, it's almost like it was designed not to stand out too much.

More examples:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/19/148th_FW_over_the_Pentagon.jpg/310px-148th_FW_over_the_Pentagon.jpg
http://static.giantbomb.com/uploads/original/0/2251/1018551-020225_f_8160y_051.jpg
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8075/8303049127_9b55ebb893_z.jpg

And by the time you're close enough to get these photos you'd probably need a long loop of a turn to hit the thing.

weisses

Sixtus wrote: »

And photos, and the testimony of dozens of firefighters confirm that it was fully inflamed.

Proof !! Show me photos the building was fully engulfed in flames

Sixtus wrote: »

The firefighters weiss by the way, all maintain that they saw a building fully involved in fire, and about to collapse. How many of them have changed or retracted their postions? Zero.

They must feel awfully stupid now considering it was only a couple of floors that were on fire (at least on one side)