The attack on the Pentagon

[blackcat]

CTS

[ConspiracyTheorySceptic]

AndrewWatson writes:

[brian]

CTS

The Gulf of Tonkin was a lie to allow the US involvement in S E Asia.

Over 50,000 young Americans died as a result of that lie and millions of S E Asians among others. Many more were mutilated.

What purpose did it serve? Apart from enriching the arms manufacturers?

The military industrial complex have total disregard for human life and the September 11 atrocity, although more spectacular than the normal false flag operation, is just another example of the lengths these people will go to achieve their perceived interests.

Again, Vietnam killed over 50,000 of their own - for what?

To argue that September 11 cannot be a false flag operation based on your inability to see things for what they are only tells us you are immature or ignorant - nothing else.

The numbers of Americans killed in Iraq is aproaching the September 11 number - based on lies that the CIA were more than complicit in.

Get real.

[ConspiracyTheorySceptic]

blackcat writes:

[Martin Conner]

[blackcat]

[Pikey]

[xmasdale]

[ConspiracyTheorySceptic]

Thanks, Martin Conner, for drawing my attention to Operation Northwoods. I was suitably shocked by what I read, but I do note it was called off and that, even if carried out, would have resulted in the deaths of just a few Americans, none of whom would, probably, have mattered to the protaganists of the operation - unlike the potential of 9/11, if an inside job, to kill friends and relatives of the protagonists.

Thanks, too, to xmasdale, for directing me to Michael Meacher's article in the Guardian in September 2003, which I have read. Michael Meacher writes well and presents a persuasive case, but I think he was basing part of his article on the allegation that NORAD stood down its fighters on 9/11. I don't think that point has ever been proven and remains at the level of allegation.

I have read a quite a lot about 9/11 and I am aware of much of the case put forward by those who claim 9/11 was an inside job. They claim that the Twin Towers were brought down by explosives, and also WTC7. They seem to be claiming that, because the Twin Towers and WTC7 were, self-evidently, brought down by explosives, then this proves, conclusively, that 9/11 was an inside job. But I argue the opposite case.

The part I find extreme difficulty in understanding is why the Twin Towers and WTC7 were brought down by explosives, as claimed by the 9/11 truthers. If the intention of the CIA or the US Government was to provide a casus belli for going to war with Afghanistan and Iraq, then it would, surely, have furthered their case to leave all three towers standing so that the devastation could be blamed entirely on the Islamic fundamentalist terrorists piloting the planes. Bringing down the two towers and WTC7 with explosives, if that is what happened, more than anything else, gave rise to the conspiracy theories.

Can those who claim 9/11 was an inside job please explain to me how bringing down the Twin Towers and WTC7 with explosives assisted in any way in persuading the American people and the world that America was under attack by Islamic fundamentalist terrorists in order to provide a casus belli?

Can they not acknowledge that, by bringing down the Twin Towers and WTC7 with explosives – if that is what happened – then that would, predictably give rise to suspicions – and would be a very stupid thing to do?

The fact that the Twin Towers and WTC7 buildings all collapsed on the same day actually strengthens the case for believing that the US Government had nothing to do with it and that 9/11 was an outside job.

CTS

[Hazzard]

ConspiracyTheorySceptic please read about the Heggelian Dialect.

Also read about CIA mindcontrol techniques.

What you saw on 9/11 is what is known as mass hypnosis. The same kind of thing Hitler did during the burning of the Riechstag and Nero with the burning of Rome. It has to be a large, monsterous overtly terrible tragedy in order to bring about total awe and attention to the chosen medium. After which the hypnotist can begin inserting all the mental suggestions he can muster.

AL-QEADA DID THIS TO YOU, ISLAM IS YOUR ENEMY, THEY ARE IN THE MIDDLE EAST, KILL KILL KILL etc etc .

Im not sure if you are aware of the New world order and where it came from. But I suggest you read up on it in order to better understand why those towers had to fall.

Not to mention WTC7 was home to lots of Alphabet organisations who had multiple investigations running on wallstreet insider trading.

The web of deciet is larger, and goes back further in time and you may wish to accept. But its there dude, you only have to look.

Im sorry for you when the acceptance hits you like a freight train loaded with bricks. But im even more sorry if you see the truth and dont accept it for fear of what it might mean. Please dont burry your head in the sand, that is the worst thing we can do right now.

[Pete J]

Hi again CTS

You made some interesting points regarding the towers collapses, namely that you think that in a 'real inside job' they would have been left standing.

There are 3 reasons why planners would not have chosen this 'option' in my opinion:

- lots more evidence left lying around and fewer excuses to say 'we couldn't find anything (e.g. black boxes)
- lots more witnesses (around 3000 ?) left lying around
- lots LESS 'shock factor'

In reality, the 3rd item ('shock factor') is the largest single reason why the US managed to implement a worldwide agenda of their choosing almost unopposed at home or abroad. (Please note, the alleged terrorist organisations have NOT implemented 'their' agenda if they ever had one).

While I'm writing, I'll just give you a quick insight into how I came upon this subject. For some years I was a flying instructor and worked at several flying schools around the UK, the channel islands and also abroad. After 9/11 I didn't have any reason not to beleive the official story, however I assumed that the 'pilots' were ex-airline pilots of several THOUSAND hours experience of flying jets (which I am not).

I watched a BBC panorama programme presented by Jane Corbin just after 9/11 and was spellbound at how they were able to unravel everything that had gone on. About halfway through the programme (when they started demonstrating how the hijackers had taken '8 hours' training in a jet simulator) I got that 'wait a minute' feeling in my stomach. Flying an airliner over hundreds of miles of open country is one thing when you've got a 'highway in the sky' to follow and a few thousand hours experience, but this just seemed ridiculous. After that I STILL beleived the official story and found myself making excuses for the BBC, the governmnent and just about anybody who fed any official information into the public domain - excuses along the lines of 'there's obviously something I'm missing'. It wasn't until I became aware of other problems with the story (such as Jack Abramofs connection with Mohamed Atta, the prevention of the Aeronautical Investigatory bodies from touching any of the plane debris or black boxes, the inconsistencies in the reported event timeline of 9/11 etc) that I started to consider other views than the official one.

In addition to my flying background I have a degree in Aeronautical Engineering and during my time have had to write a few 'technical reports'. I don't know what your background is but if you've ever had to write one of these of any consequence, you'd know that you cannot leave things to speculation if you are going to reach any conclusions. You're line of reasoning has to be clearly explained and, above all, INDEPENDENDTLY VERIFIABLE.

This is why it very much frustrates me to see people post opinions wher they say that the tower collapsed 'seem reasonable' as you have done in recent posts. It's not really a question of opinion, it's a question of information and of the following evidence not being in the public domain for independent analysis:

- the black box data from the planes
- the steel from the collapsed towers
- the computer models from the NIST reports
- the conclusions for the building 7 collapse mechanism
- all the aircraft debris from each flight
- all known civilian surveilance camera tapes which could add to the body of evidence
- the evidence with which the hijackers were identified
- all records of what was/should have been/wasn't passed from military intelligence to the FBI regarding the surveilance of the alleged hijackers prior to 9/11

You really are hanging by a thread CTS if, against all the political background of the last 4 years, the only objection you have to a radical investigation in the name of '9/11 Truth' is that you 'don't think they would do something so extreme' (Paraphrased). So far, 150,000 civilians according to many estimates, have lost their lives in illegal, pre-emptive wars, started by our own governments. Not to mention over 2000 US military personel. Is this not extreme enough for you ?

If you still don't see fit to review your opinion, please at least suspend judgement while you join the call to get the whole matter out into public debate and push for release of all relevant information, records and evidence.

[Justin]

Welcome Pete J to the campaign and an excellent post. I have a friend who is currently a KLM pilot flying 757s and he says absolutely no way could Hani Hanjour, with his level of competence and experience, have flown Flight 77 into the Pentagon - indeed he reckons had he tried to perform such a tight descent himself he would have lost control. CTS is indeed hanging by a thread.

[ConspiracyTheorySceptic]

Pete J writes:

[Justin]

CTS said:

[ian neal]

[Justin]

CTS, please comment about this and tell me you still believe you could take the controls of a 757 after a few hours on a single prop Cessna and do what Hani Hanjour is supposed to have done:

The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training
by Nila Sagadevan

Now let’s take a look at American Airlines Flight 77. Passenger/hijacker Hani Hanjour presumably rises from his seat midway through the flight, viciously fights his way into the cockpit with his cohorts, overpowers Captain Charles F. Burlingame and First Officer David Charlebois, and somehow manages to toss them out of the cockpit (for starters, very difficult to achieve in a cramped environment without inadvertently impacting the yoke and thereby disengaging the autopilot). One would correctly presume that this would present considerable difficulties to a little chap with a box cutter—Burlingame was a tough, burly, ex-Vietnam F4 fighter jock who had flown over 100 combat missions. Every pilot who knows him says that rather than politely hand over the controls, Burlingame would have instantly rolled the plane on its back so that Hanjour would have broken his neck when he hit the floor. But let’s ignore this almost natural reaction expected of a fighter pilot and proceed with this charade.

Imagine that Hanjour overpowers the flight deck crew, removes them from the cockpit and takes his position in the captain’s seat. The weather reports say it was fairly clear, so let’s say Hanjour experienced a perfect CAVU day (Ceiling And Visibility Unlimited). If Hanjour looked straight ahead through the windshield, or off to his left at the ground, at best he would see, 35,000 feet -- 7 miles -- below him, a murky brownish-grey-green landscape, virtually devoid of any significant surface detail, while the aircraft he was now piloting was moving along, almost imperceptibly and in eerie silence, at around 500 MPH (about 750 feet every second).

In a real-world scenario, with this kind of “situational NON-awareness”, Hanjour might as well have been flying over Argentina, Russia, or Japan—he wouldn’t have had a clue as to where, precisely, he was.

After a few seconds (at 750 ft/sec), Hanjour would figure out there’s little point in looking outside—there’s nothing there to give him any real visual cues. For a man who had previously wrestled with little Cessnas, following freeways and railroad tracks (and always in the comforting presence of an instructor), this would have been a strange, eerily unsettling environment indeed.

Seeing nothing outside, Mr. Hanjour would be forced to divert his attention to his instrument panel, where he’d be faced with a bewildering array of instruments—nothing like he had seen in a Cessna 172. He would then have to very quickly interpret his heading, ground track, altitude, and airspeed information on the displays before he could even figure out where in the world he was, much less where the Pentagon was located in relation to his position.

After all, before he can crash into a target, he has to first find the target.

It is very difficult to explain this scenario, of an utter lack of ground reference, to non-pilots; but let it suffice to say that for these incompetent hijacker non-pilots to even consider grappling with such a daunting task would have been utterly overwhelming. They wouldn’t have known where to begin.

But, for the sake of discussion let’s stretch things beyond all plausibility and say that Hanjour—whose flight instructor claimed “couldn’t fly at all”—somehow managed to figure out their exact position on the American landscape in relation to their intended target as they traversed the earth at a speed five times faster than they had ever flown by themselves before.

Once he had determined exactly where he was, he would need to figure out where the Pentagon was located in relation to his rapidly-changing position. He would then need to plot a course to his target (one he cannot see with his eyes—remember, our ace is flying solely on instruments).

In order to perform this bit of electronic navigation, he would have to be very familiar with IFR procedures. None of these fellows even knew what a navigational chart looked like, much less how to how to plug information into flight management computers (FMC) and engage LNAV (lateral navigation automated mode). If one is to believe the official story, all of this was supposedly accomplished by raw student pilots while flying blind at 500 MPH over unfamiliar (and practically invisible) terrain, using complex methodologies and employing sophisticated instruments.

To get around this little problem, the official storyline suggests these men manually flew their aircraft to their respective targets (NB: This still wouldn’t relieve them of the burden of navigation). But let’s assume Hanjour disengaged the autopilot and auto-throttle and hand-flew the aircraft to its intended—and invisible—target on instruments alone until such time as he could get a visual fix. This would have necessitated him to fly back across West Virginia and Virginia to Washington DC. (This portion of Flight 77’s flight path cannot be corroborated by any radar evidence that exists, because the aircraft is said to have suddenly disappeared from radar screens over Ohio.)

According to FAA radar controllers, “Flight 77” then suddenly pops up over Washington DC and executes an incredibly precise diving turn at a rate of 360 degrees/minute while descending at 3,500 ft/min, at the end of which “Hanjour” allegedly levels out at ground level. Oh, I almost forgot: He also had the presence of mind to turn off the transponder in the middle of this incredibly difficult maneuver (one of his instructors later commented the hapless fellow couldn’t have spelt the word if his life depended on it).

The maneuver was in fact so precisely executed that the air traffic controllers at Dulles refused to believe the blip on their screen was a commercial airliner. Danielle O’Brian, one of the air traffic controllers at Dulles who reported seeing the aircraft at 9:25 said, “The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane.” (http://www.lookingglassnews.org/viewstory.php?storyid=4084)

And then, all of a sudden we have magic. Voila! Hanjour finds the Pentagon sitting squarely in his sights right before him.

But even that wasn’t good enough for this fanatic Muslim kamikaze pilot. You see, he found that his “missile” was heading towards one of the most densely populated wings of the Pentagon—and one occupied by top military brass, including the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld. Presumably in order to save these men’s lives, he then executes a sweeping 270-degree turn and approaches the building from the opposite direction and aligns himself with the only wing of the Pentagon that was virtually uninhabited due to extensive renovations that were underway (there were some 120 civilians construction workers in that wing who were killed; their work included blast-proofing the outside wall of that wing).

I shan’t get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying a large commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH. A discussion on ground effect energy, vortex compression, downwash reaction, wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are beyond the scope of this article. Indeed, the 100,000-lb jetblast alone would have blown entire semi-trucks off the roads this massive aircraft is alleged to have flown over at extremely low altitude. The DVD, “Loose Change – 1st Edition” (http://www.loosechange911.com) contains an excellent clip of trucks being swept off the end of a runway when a jetliner powers up for take-off.

Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000-lb airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH.

The author, a pilot and aeronautical engineer, challenges any pilot in the world to do so in any large high-speed aircraft that has a relatively low wing-loading (such as a commercial jet). I.e., to fly the craft at 400 MPH, 20 feet above ground in a flat trajectory over a distance of one mile.

Why the stipulation of 20 feet and a mile? There were several street light poles located up to a mile away from the Pentagon that were snapped-off by the incoming aircraft; this suggests a low, flat trajectory during the final pre-impact approach phase. Further, it is known that the craft impacted the Pentagon’s ground floor. For purposes of reference: If a 757 were placed on the ground on its engine nacelles (I.e., gear retracted as in flight profile), its nose would be about fifteen feet above the ground. Ergo, for the aircraft to impact the ground floor of the Pentagon, Hanjour would have needed to have flown in with the engines buried in the Pentagon lawn. Some pilot.

At any rate, why is such ultra-low-level flight aerodynamically impossible? Because the reactive force of the hugely powerful downwash sheet, coupled with the compressibility effects of the tip vortices, simply will not allow the aircraft to get any lower to the ground than approximately one half the distance of its wingspan—until speed is drastically reduced, which, of course, is what happens during normal landings.

In other words, if this were a Boeing 757 as reported, the plane could not have been flown below about 60 feet above ground at 400 MPH. (Such a maneuver is entirely within the performance envelope of aircraft with high wing-loadings, such as ground-attack fighters, the B1-B bomber, and Cruise missiles—and the Global Hawk.)

The very same challenges mentioned above would have faced the pilots who flew the two 767s into the Twin Towers, in that they, too, would have had to have first found their targets. Again, these chaps, too, miraculously found themselves spot on course. And again, their “final approach” maneuvers at over 500 MPH are simply far too incredible to have been executed by pilots who could not solo basic training aircraft.

The author recently received a letter from a senior 757 captain currently flying with one of the airlines involved in 9/11. It contains the following statement:

“Regarding your comments on flight simulators, several of my colleagues and I have tried to simulate the ‘hijacker’s’ final approach maneuvers into the towers on our company 767 simulator. We tried repeated tight, steeply banked 180 turns at 500 mph followed by a fast rollout and lineup with a tall building. More than two-thirds of those who attempted the maneuver failed to make a ‘hit’. How these rookies who couldn’t fly a trainer pulled this off is beyond comprehension.”

[brian]

"The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists".

- J. Edgar Hoover

'A definite factor in getting a lie believed is the size of the lie. The broad mass of the people, in the simplicity of their hearts, more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one.'

- Adolf Hitler


'We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto--determination practiced in past centuries.'

-- David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission, in June, 1991."


'Most people, sometime in their lives, stumble across Truth. Most jump up, brush themselves off, and hurry on about their business as if nothing had happened.'

- Winston Churchill"

[Hazzard]

[Pete J]

[ConspiracyTheorySceptic]

Justin writes:

[Proudhon]

Hello all.

As my first dip into posting on this website, I’d just like to point out that the ‘no-plane’ theory is not critical to the conclusion that the 911 attacks were an inside job, perpetrated by agents presently unknown, but with the complicity of individuals holding positions of great influence within the US corporate military kleptocracy. To these ends, I would suggest that focusing on the minutiae of published evidence, such as the obviously faked, anonymously released ‘5 frames’, showing the explosion at the Pentagon, merely allows the believers of the official version to engage in time wasting obfuscation. For the record, and notwithstanding CTS’s assertion of ‘folding wings’ and other such physical impossibilities, I would suggest that the evidence points to a large vehicular impact with the west wall of the Pentagon. Whether that was Flight 77 is another question entirely.

Thankyou

[brian]

May 16, 2006


Judicial Watch to Obtain September 11 Pentagon Video at 1 p.m. Today

Department of Defense Responds to Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act Request and Related Lawsuit

http://www.judicialwatch.org/5772.shtml

[andrewwatson]

A number of influential voices in the US 911 truth movement have been warning for some time to steer clear of the Pentagon when discussing 911. We must be prepared for - possibly - a calculated missile atack on our credibility as a movement. The response must be thought out and rational.

[Hazzard]

the video if its new. Will be doctored you can be sure of that.

I have been using photo and video manipulation software for many years now. I know what over the shelf software is capable of and its quite simple with time to create a doctored plane entering a building.

With software available to a government? They could simulate the correct behavior to get a desired effect and then use who knows to doctor the images to match the behaviour simulation. I dont know becuase I dont knwo what they have. But I know you can do it over the shelf easily from any angle.

Here is an example of one made by someone from a forum.

[Andrew Johnson]

Here is the story on CNN:

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/US/05/16/pentagon.video/index.html

Ever wonder why CTS started this thread a few days ago? Perhaps this is one possible answer.

Some people will buy this reasoning, some people won't.

Perhaps they'll release new footage of the WTC demolitions - minus the Squibs. But darn it - what are they going to do about:

The Pulverised Dust
The Molton Metal
The recorded huge explosions sounds at WTC 1,2 & 7 (9/11 Eyewitness).
The near free-fall collapse
The Silverstein factor (regardless of whether he said "pull it" "pull them" or "pull my pud")

Oh dear it doesn't look good for the puppet masters does it? So what else will they blow up and blame on someone else? Maybe our houses! That would be novel - should be easy enough to find at least my address on here somewhere!!

[ConspiracyTheorySceptic]

Ian Neal writes:

[Newspeak International]

Did anyone see News at Ten just now, Matt Frei reported that this footage may answer the conspiracy theorists,of which they are few in number blah blah blah blah....of the conspiracy theorists of which they are few in number!!!!


Obviously the point of this non-event is to highlight the point that the conspiracy theorists are few in number?


What a blasted joke

[alkmyst]

www.edition.cnn.com/2006/US/05/16/pentagon.video/index.html

I have just spent the past two hours repeatedly running this newly released footage... and do you know what?

I still can't see anything that resembles a 757!

What I do see...is a white vapour trail ... at ground level?

It seems to me that the Emperor still ain't wearin' no clothes!!

Any suggestions?

Al K Myst

[Hazzard]

Just watched it....what a complete joke.

All they did was go on about conspiracy theorists in the UK aswell as the US.

Nonsence and insanity.

[Pikey]

Judicial watch= gatekeeper

How did they get access to the video footage? Using the Freedom of Information Act.

Have they set a precedent here?

Maybe the 911 Truth movement should be requesting under the Act release of the FBI confiscated video footage taken by the CCTV cameras of the filling station and hotel opposite?