The attack on the Pentagon

Proudhon · Minor Poster Joined: 09 May 2006 Posts: 10

So this is my second post. Btw, not giving personal information in one's profile doesn't mean shill or plant. It can simply express a desire not to be identified, which is a pretty sensible precaustion, considering the track record of dissenters. Check out what happened to Hunter S Thompson!

As for the Pentagon. Repeat after me. It was hit by an airliner. See, it wasn't that hard, was it? Too hard? I can hear those dissenters, saying

'prove it. Those video frames don't show no plane'.

Of course they don't. Do you think these propagandists are idiots? They'll save the footage that actually identifies a 757 until the shrill, no-plane screamers have roared long enough to distract the 911 skeptics from quantifiable anomolies, such as the impossibility of the towers' collapses. We'll all look stupid because we vehemently asserted that 'no passenger plane crashed into the Pentagon', rather than just asking 'how was a passenger plane allowed to crash into the Pentagon?'. We'll look stupid because we persist in chasing maybes rather than hammering the definites.

So back to the 'video'. It's faked, at least for the first five frames. And afterwards? Could be a plane. There's enough (contentious?) evidence to suggest a 757 did, actually, crash into the Pentagon.

The Pentagon.

The most defended piece of Airspace on the planet.

A passenger airliner scores a direct hit on the Pentagon.
Who needs, or even wants, another scenario? A passenger plane was ALLOWED to crash into the Pentagon. A heinous crime was facilitated by a small cabal, and yet we attempt to refute this by introducing missiles, flyovers, truck bombs.

It's absurd.

Thankyou.

paul wright · Posted: Sat May 27, 2006 12:47 am Post subject:

Didn't though did it
We shall see

Proudhon · Minor Poster Joined: 09 May 2006 Posts: 10

dh, this is one of those moments when 'the truth' becomes a distraction. The very fact that something hit the Pentagon is astonishing. How were the Pentagon defences neutralised? Whether a passenger plane, a cruise missile, a drone; the very fact a successful attack on the Pentagon was perpetrated is evidence of, at the least, official negligence, and provides strong argument for official culpability. Someone, somewhere, knows what really happened.
Unfortunately, too many people are getting hung up on dodgy inferences. No photo of a plane equals no plane. This is bad logic. Worse, it's logic that provides ammunition for those disinclined to question the official version.
I suggest that it is a fair statement to suggest that the damage to the West face of the Pentagon is CONCEIVABLY consistent with the impact of a Boeing 757. Furthermore, the damage to light poles and perimeter area fencing is consistent with eyewitness accounts of a low flying airliner impacting them.
We can argue how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (it's, coincidentally, 757. Trust me.), but the proof is elusive. Until those who assert the Pentagon was hit by a missile, Global Hawk et al. provide some evidence that is at the least as 'convincing' as the official version, those suppositions should be treated with the same disdain as any other unsubstantiated, random theories.

andrewwatson · Posted: Sat May 27, 2006 7:09 am Post subject:

CTS , you have hoist yourself by your own petard ( what is a petard?).

Justin · Posted: Sat May 27, 2006 7:33 am Post subject:

Concerning the damage to the Pentagon, no way is the damage to the facade of this building consistant with the size, weight, shape and speed of a Boeing 757. The damage where the two engines would have hit is negligable; the nose cone is made out of soft carbon fibre and no way could penetrate six walls....I could go on. I've studied over one hundred aircrashes as part of a disaster management course I did, you ALWAYS have substantial pieces of wreckage. Have faith my friends...NO Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon. And, as I have said before on recent posts, pilots who fly 757s will tell you the same thing.

scubadiver · Posted: Sat May 27, 2006 8:09 am Post subject:

insidejob

"As for the Pentagon. Repeat after me. It was hit by an airliner. See, it wasn't that hard, was it? Too hard? "

"I suggest that it is a fair statement to suggest that the damage to the West face of the Pentagon is CONCEIVABLY consistent with the impact of a Boeing 757." - Proudhon

What is important about the Pentagon hit is that it is the most incredible and absurd of the whole 911 attacks. That means, it is easier to convince the official conspiracy theory public to start asking question on this one then on the others. Therefore, it is important that the official theory says a 757 hit it.

Is it hard to say that a 757 or 747 hit the Pentagon. Not without making me laugh.

Is it a fair statement to suggest the facade damage is consistent with the impact? Only if you believe in science fiction.

The official story does not point to past examples of plane strikes in order to support its theory. The official story does not base its explanation on information and knowledge ordinarily taught to structural and aircraft engineers or pilots. It creates a wholy new scenario. It creates a scenario of wings bending back and aircraft being consumed by fire. The scenario is totally atypical. This reality should be a clue to people searching for the truth.

Snowygrouch · Posted: Sat May 27, 2006 10:01 am Post subject: wreckage

All,
I`m hoping to be in a position to help here in about a month or so. I`m in the progress of obtaining a set of engineering schematics for a Honeywell APU (the small compressor in the tail of 757). The turbine wheel shown in pictures so beloved of airliner devotees is proclaimed to be the APU compressor wheel as its about 2>3 times too small to be from the main engines.
Once I`ve got these blueprints it will be possible to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the wreckage is NOT from a 757. I already have one cutaway (unfortunately not quite good enough to prove anything yet) there is NO part of an APU that directly resembles this wheel. With a full set it can be proven either way.
What it IS FROM is another matter and I`m not prepared to say.

Watch this space.....

Calum

The shaded parts of the APU are the rotors, the shapes are not consistent with this part photographed at the pentagon. The APU is a Honeywell GTCP331-200 and is the precise model in the AAirlines 757 that is alledged to have hit.

Proudhon · Minor Poster Joined: 09 May 2006 Posts: 10

insidejob - " What is important about the Pentagon hit is that it is the most incredible and absurd of the whole 911 attacks. That means, it is easier to convince the official conspiracy theory public to start asking question on this one then on the others. Therefore, it is important that the official theory says a 757 hit it."

Yes, the Pentagon hit is incredible and absurd precisely because a passenger airliner was allowed to crash into it. Trying to create further absurdity by substituting (eg) a cruise missile for the aircraft, in contradiction to numerous eyewitness accounts (and I am aware of the inherent untrustworthiness of eyewitnesses) merely alienates the 'official conspiracy theory public'.

insidejob - "Is it a fair statement to suggest the facade damage is consistent with the impact? Only if you believe in science fiction."

There's a problem here. I have very little to use as reference points, as I'm unaware of any other example of a passenger jet being crashed into a purposefully reinforced blast resistant facade. We know the west face of the Pentagon had been uniquely 'upgraded'. Would it not be logical to presume that impact damage here would be proportionally reduced due to this upgrading? As for the observable damage; the broken facia to the upper right of the main entry hole(s) appears consistent with a wing impact, and furthermore consistent with eyewitness descriptions of the aircraft's 'angle of attack'.

insidejob - "...It (the official story) creates a scenario of wings bending back and aircraft being consumed by fire."

The official story is replete with inaccuracies, impossibilities and a plethora of implausible explanations. That's because the official version is false. However, the devil is in the detail, and skill in disinformation is to blend fact with fiction. So, the FACT that a 757 crashes into the Pentagon is blended with the FICTION regarding the plane's physical behaviour at impact. These pseudo-scientific explanations (eg 'folding wings') get the sceptics jumping up and down. Unsubstantiated alternative scenarios are then pushed without the required evidence, thus eroding belief in the sceptic movement, rather than eroding belief in the official version. That's a win for the official version by default. And that's a bad result.

insidejob

"Yes, the Pentagon hit is incredible and absurd precisely because a passenger airliner was allowed to crash into it." - Proudon

Yes, the Pentagon's own defence system mysteriously didn't work. If it was mad Arabs then Pentagon might lie to cover up incompetence. If the White House did it, they would lie to cover up the defence system.

But what if the plan was to fly a passenger jet into the Pentagon rather than a missile, how would they react to the disappearance of the plane? They would want the plane's remains to be visible. That is, they would be as puzzled as the rest of us about the idea of a disappearing plane and wouldn't come up with gobbledygook to cover it up. That is, they would say "we don't understand this either".

But it's not just the defence system which makes the story absurd. It's also the plane's flight path. It travelled for some distance at 20 feet!!. But how did it get to 20 feet? There's only two ways. 1. It had a similar path as used by pilots when landing. 2. It descended to 20 feet then stopped descending.

1. If it did similar to landing, it would have started its descent miles away. I've not heard anything saying it did. 2. If it was sudden descent, then the plane must have been made in Area 51. This is why the 757 theory is ridiculous.

insidejob

Proudhon · Minor Poster Joined: 09 May 2006 Posts: 10

insidejob

There are quite a few assumptions expressed as absolutes there, especially regarding how 'the Pentagon' would react. Why wouldn't they 'come up with gobbledygook'? To reiterate, disinformation techniques are designed to engender confusion. None of this is evidence against a 757 impact.

As for the flight path purported to be Flight 77, it is well documented that the plane lost height through a long spiral before levelling out (actually undertaking a very shallow dive) on its final approach into the west face of the Pentagon. None of its behaviour requires 'Area 51 technology', although the competence of the alleged pilot, Hani Hanjour, to fly the plane with such accuracy is questionable.

insidejob · Posted: Sat May 27, 2006 4:09 pm Post subject: Pentagon hit

Proudhon,

you should point me in the right direction for info. on the official theory Pentagon flight path.

insidejob

Proudhon · Minor Poster Joined: 09 May 2006 Posts: 10

insidejob

Description of Flight 77's alleged approach into Pentagon (from http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/deceptions/badpilots.html):

"It is doubtful that the best trained fighter pilots could have executed the maneuver that supposedly crashed a 757 into the Pentagon. It required making a tight 270-degree turn while descending seven thousand feet, then leveling out so as to fly low enough over the highway just west of the Pentagon to knock down lamp posts. After crossing the highway the pilot had to take the plane to within inches of the ground so as to crash into the Pentagon at the first-floor level and at such a shallow angle that an engine penetrated three rings of the building, while managing to avoid touching the lawn. And he had to do all of this while flying over 400 mph. Quite a feat for a flight school flunky who had never sat in the cockpit of a jet!"

As you can see, the manouvre is not really in question. Only the capabilities of the alleged pilot, Hani Hanjour, are disputed. Of course, this manouvre may simply be an invention, but irrespective of this, there is still no requirement for the aircraft to perform 'Area 51 technology' acrobatics.

A point of interest regarding this manouvre is that this official version further questions the lack of military response, as the 270-degree turn took the plane into Capitol airspace, as well as Pentagon airspace. Both are no fly zones, and airplane entry should have precipitated interception.

proudhon

ConspiracyTheorySceptic · Moderate Poster Joined: 24 Apr 2006 Posts: 144

Proudhon writes:

freddie · Posted: Sun May 28, 2006 1:14 am Post subject:

CTS, If I remember right he killed himself and people are suspicious about whether it was suicide - I think one of the main reasons is some of his Canadian friends came forward and said that he'd confided in them that he was going to write a book about 9-11 and the cover-up or something along those lines.

He's a big character in the states and that would have been a big name that would have grabbed the attention of a lot of young people.

Proudhon · Minor Poster Joined: 09 May 2006 Posts: 10

CTS,

Regarding Hunter S Thompson;

Toronto Globe and Mail | February 26, 2005:

Paul William Roberts in his Globe and Mail article of Saturday, February 26, 2005 wrote the following:

ConspiracyTheorySceptic · Moderate Poster Joined: 24 Apr 2006 Posts: 144

Scubadriver writes:

Dr Hemp · Posted: Sun May 28, 2006 1:21 pm Post subject:

I regret to say it makes perfect sense to me too Scubadriver; I wish it didn't, but it does make perfect sense. I can only assume our friend here did not read what you have written, or simply chose not to read into it, as the reality that humanity is not what it seems is a bit too much for him/ her to handle.

With regards to qualified scientists and engineers, I wonder if our Doubting Thomas has visited http://www.physics911.net/ or read any of Prof David Ray Griffin's books?

insidejob · Posted: Sun May 28, 2006 1:57 pm Post subject: Pentagon and Area 51

Proudhon,

"It is doubtful that the best trained fighter pilots could have executed the maneuver that supposedly crashed a 757 into the Pentagon." - Proudhon

I think this means that a well trained pilot could not have executed the maneuver that Hanjour is supposed to have done because it is IMPOSSIBLE. Therefore, to believe the official Pentagon story you must believe that the 757 plane must have been made in Area 51 and Hanjour must have been trained there.

In fact, the same article from which you quote suggests that if we are to believe the official conspiracy theory, the engines of the plane flying toward the Pentagon should have been beneath the ground. Thus, the flight path of according to the official conspiracy theory is absurd and ridiculous.

I just don't get your contention that it would be better for the official conspiracy theory not to have 757 debris at the Pentagon even though a real 757 was used. I frankly do not believe that they planned their story of the Pentagon hit with the expectation that the plane would disappear in a puff of flames and smoke and then came up with some c*** and bull story to wrong foot the 911 sceptics. You already agree with me that there are no known precedents for what happened at the Pentagon. So, how would they know that the plane would disappear?

But in general, it is important to highlight the official conspiracy theory's notion that it was a 757 that hit the Pentagon because it is RIDICULOUS. Pointing out its ridiculousness is more likely to encourage the public question the official theory.

Proudhon · Minor Poster Joined: 09 May 2006 Posts: 10

insidejob wrote;

"

Proudhon · Minor Poster Joined: 09 May 2006 Posts: 10

Further evidence of there being a plane attack on the Pentagon, and of official foreknowledge, comes straight from the horses mouth.
Norman Mineta, Transport Secretary, giving evidence to the 'Kean Commission':-

In response to questioning by Commssioner Hamilton regarding alleged shootdown orders, Mineta recounts a conversation he witnessed between Dick Cheney and a young male staffer at PEOC (Presidential Emergency Operations Centre) on the morning of September 11th.

ConspiracyTheorySceptic · Moderate Poster Joined: 24 Apr 2006 Posts: 144

Hello everyone

Here is an interesting article which I found on the http://www.physics911.net/ site.

http://www.financialoutrage.org.uk/911_mainstream_media.htm

It was written last year by a Daily Mail journalist and gives an overview of the 9/11 conspiracy theories and of sceptical attitudes about them.

CTS

prole art threat · Posted: Sun May 28, 2006 9:20 pm Post subject:

prole art threat · Posted: Sun May 28, 2006 9:25 pm Post subject:

Firstly, the Daily Mail is a deeply rascist and mentally unstable paper. CTS, please answer me this, what exactly do you believe? I get a bit confused by your posts??

ConspiracyTheorySceptic · Moderate Poster Joined: 24 Apr 2006 Posts: 144

prole art threat:

Proudhon · Minor Poster Joined: 09 May 2006 Posts: 10

CTS

I think that was a fair, even sympathetic article, which surprised me, considering its source. The Daily Mail is infamous for its 'Little Englander' demographic, although Prole's 'deeply racist and mentally unstable' description might constitue unfair targeting, considering the competition. Nick Cohen in The Observer springs to mind...
Tony Rennell, it appears, as well as writing book reviews, also has a passion for crosswords;

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_artic le_id=362502&in_page_id=1770

In his eulogy to the cryptic crossword puzzle, he states;

ConspiracyTheorySceptic · Moderate Poster Joined: 24 Apr 2006 Posts: 144

Thankyou, Proudhon, for your thoughtful reply.

Earlier, prole art threat, asked: “CTS, please answer me this, what exactly do you believe? I get a bit confused by your posts??” Well, I’d like to reply to that question.

I came to this site with an attitude of complete scepticism. I chose my name, CTS, deliberately to provoke arguments with the “nutters” I expected to meet here. My contemptuous attitude was partially coloured by being introduced to the 9/11 controversies by someone who appears to swallow conspiracy theories whole, however absurd they appear to be. For instance, he believes the AIDS virus was concocted by a US scientist in a California laboratory round about 1980 specifically to target gays and blacks; that the Americans never reached the moon in 1969; that Princess Di was murdered; and so on. In addition, I am, by nature, a sceptic, and I simply found it impossible to believe that the US Government could have been involved in, could have planned and carried out, a conspiracy to kill thousands of fellow Americans in a scheme that would have involved thousands of people to carry out, none of whom, for reasons of conscience, or wish to make money, or simply because they were unwitting and innocent cogs in the execution of the conspiracy, have come forward in the past five years to reveal what they know about what went on behind the scenes on 9/11 and in the period leading up to 9/11.

I have looked at the evidence put forward by some scientists supporting the theory that the Twin Towers were brought down by explosives, for example, on
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/wtc1_close_frames.html and on http://www.physics911.net/ but I note that many other scientists and engineers are totally in disagreement with this theory and have published compelling evidence and calculations showing that the Twin Towers could have been brought down by a gravity-led collapse without the use of explosives., for example, on http://www.911myths.com/html/who_knew_.html and on http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/ and on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_domestic_conspiracy_theory#Controlle d_Demolition_Theory.

This a quotation from the wikipedia site:
While some individuals have supplied fuel for the demolition theory, the mainstream of the academic world has yet to be convinced. Massachusetts Institute of Technology has devoted a number of staff members to the analysis of the World Trade Center collapse. Numerous aspects of the collapse have been documented and reviewed within the scientific community. [78] The country's leading structural and civil engineers have examined the attack from the point of impact up through the collapse, concluding that explosives were not necessary to provide what the world observed.
For details, see http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/
------------------------------------------------------------
Critics of the demolition theory also point out the in-depth planning, preparation, and production involved in a controlled demolition. This labor-intensive task leaves clear signs of the work, such as stripping away building materials to expose the structural supports, and running cables from the explosives to the detonation timers.

See http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion2.htm

Also, see this site:
http://www.larryelder.com/letters/charlie.html for details of preparations that would have been required to prepare the Twin Towers for demolition.

In conclusion, therefore, I have to say that I remain totally unpersuaded that explosives were used in the collapse of the Twin Towers.

I have already given reasons, in earlier posts, for believing that a large airliner crashed into the Pentagon.

In summary, therefore, I have to say that I do not support the MIHOP position.

However, I have looked at the following sites:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/22/clarke.bush/index.html

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_ timeline&warning_signs:_specific_cases=foreignIntelligence

http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq36.html#_Toc9410681

I have been impressed by what I have read on these sites and I am, potentially, a supporter of the LIHOP position. I think there should be an investigation to find out how much the US Government knew in advance regarding the 9/11 attacks, when they knew it, and their reasons for not warning the American people of the threats.

Everyone can now see that I have altered my position from one of total scepticism to that of potential LIHOP.

CTS

Andrew Johnson · Posted: Mon May 29, 2006 4:55 pm Post subject:

freddie · Posted: Mon May 29, 2006 5:04 pm Post subject:

Hey CTS,

You seem to be more open minded than I may have initially given you credit for, and considering you seem to be largely focusing on the 'demolition' of the towers then I thought I'd just repeat this:

	9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> General	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next
Page 8 of 10