Conspiracy Theory

[Guest BlackJesus]

[i][b]rick, you don't think there is anything in that flash that deserves a response by the US govt?

you sure are trusting [/b][/i]

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='BlackJesus' date='Jul 14 2005, 03:37 PM'][url="http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php#Main"]http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryho...ntagon.php#Main[/url]

[i][b]BengalSis

I think this flash raises legitimate Questions... that if they are just bullshit, the govt should address them, release the tapes and be over with it. 
If you think back to the small size of the whole and how low the plane would have had to have been it does seem unordinary for a plane that large to hit the pentagon, unless it was coming straight down from above which it didn't.
now as for what happened to the plane or people in this scenario who knows???[/b][/i]
[right][post="114513"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]


This is absurd.

I was driving to work that day around the the time of the crash and listening to the Radio people that were up there were screaming out of confusion about what was going on and fear, some thought it was a missle at 1st glance because of the unexpected nature of what was happening, this is much like asking someone to ID a criminal during the heat of a crime, they many times mistake what they saw. I heard several different people call in and say it was a missle with even more confirming it to be a plane.

My father was the 1st rescue team on the scene being that he was working at Ft. Myers that day and was minutes away, he told me he saw a wing and fusalage 1st hand!!!

If you believe this bullshit then you need to get your head examined.

[Guest BlackJesus]

[i][b]Jamie,

then why can't the public see the tapes that the govt confiscated?

I don't doubt that it was a plane,,,, there is a difference however between just accepting it was, and wanting it proven that it was[/b][/i]

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='BlackJesus' date='Jul 14 2005, 03:49 PM'][i][b]Jamie,

then why can't the public see the tapes that the govt confiscated?

I don't doubt that it was a plane,,,, there is a difference however between just accepting it was, and wanting it proven that it was[/b][/i]
[right][post="114537"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]


I don’t know why the tapes were taken. However eyewitness accounts are not enough for you?? Please don’t tell me the government paid off everyone around and every eyewitness in the area, hell they couldn’t possibly know who every person walking around. Have you ever been up here? The pentagon is not in some undisclosed airfield in the middle of nowhere, its in the middle of a heavily populated part of the area (crystal city VA). And as I said there were more than one eyewitness account of it, not only as it was happening, but the numerous people who were on the scene not only helping, but watching in horror.

I might understand that you don’t live here so you don’t have that first hand account and that you by nature don’t trust your government, but not everyone who lives here and works here is not “evil” and I can tell you with utmost confidence that had this been anything other than a plane and the government told us otherwise you would know…hell Id be marching downtown in protest and calling for impeachment as well, because I know my father wouldn’t tell me otherwise.

[Guest BlackJesus]

[i][b]Jamie but the flash apparently also is quoting so called "eye witnesses" with different versions


if some guy was convinced that he saw a missle instead... what outlet would give him coverage... they would all think like you that he was crazy[/b][/i]

[Guest steggyD]

His father is part of the conspiracy... nah, but I think the whole thing about this conspiracy now, is that we have this "information hiway". Now you can make flashy flash shows, and people believe you. Or you could just send it in an email with the note attached to send it to 10 other people and of course, then it's real. In the old days, if someone believes that there is a conspiracy behind JFK's death, or Lincoln's death, then you're labeled nuts, crazy, weird. Now you're cool. Go figure.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='BlackJesus' date='Jul 14 2005, 04:01 PM'][i][b]Jamie but the flash apparently also is quoting so called "eye witnesses" with different versions
if some guy was convinced that he saw a missle instead... what outlet would give him coverage... they would all think like you that he was crazy[/b][/i]
[right][post="114551"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]


Dude, come on....

You and I both know that during the heat of somthing like this eyewitness accounts of what is happening can be sketchy at best. But give me an eyewitness account of someone who was there after it was down and had at least a little bit of time to soak it all in, in tearms of what was going on and Id say with pretty good confidence your not going to find one that thinks it was a missle and not a plane.

Also Im not an expert on missles vs planes but Ive driven up to the Pentgon after the incedent going into DC and I dont know of any type of missle that could do the same type of dammage. I saw the dammage after the fact first hand.

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='BlackJesus' date='Jul 14 2005, 02:45 PM'][i][b]rick, you don't think there is anything in that flash that deserves a response by the US govt?

you sure are trusting [/b][/i]
[right][post="114528"][/post][/right][/quote]

i've seen the video before...

i'm not saying this is the only reason i believe this, but i am not going to investigate something that i think is a crock of shit...

[url="http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm"]snopes.com[/url]

[quote]Despite the appearances of exterior photographs, the Boeing 757-200 did not "only damage the outside of the Pentagon." It caused damage to all five rings (not just the outermost one) after penetrating a reinforced, 24-inch-thick outer wall. As 60 Minutes II reported in their "Miracle of the Pentagon" episode on 28 November 2001, the section of the Pentagon into which the hijacked airliner was flown had just been reinforced during a renovation project:[/quote]

[quote]Exterior photographs are misleading because they show only the intact roof structures of the outer rings and don't reveal that the plane penetrated all the way to the ground floor of the third ring. As a U.S. Army press release noted back on 26 September 2001, one engine of the aircraft punched a 12-foot hole through the wall of the second ring:


On the inside wall of the second ring of the Pentagon, a nearly circular hole, about 12-feet wide, allows light to pour into the building from an internal service alley. An aircraft engine punched the hole out on its last flight after being broken loose from its moorings on the plane. The result became a huge vent for the subsequent explosion and fire. Signs of fire and black smoke now ring the outside of the jagged-edged hole.[/quote]

lots of good reasons on there, to call bullshit to that absurd story...

[Guest Bengal_Smoov]

How did over 150 FAA safeguards fail on that day? If a commerical plane flies off it's flight path for more than 15 minutes the FAA is alerted and they do what they do. On 9/11 the planes were off the their paths for over an hour and nothing was done? Why?

[Jamie_B]

[url="http://www.warbirdforum.com/testimon.htm"]http://www.warbirdforum.com/testimon.htm[/url]

[quote]Time-line of the September 11 terrorist attacks
[Testimony of Col. Alan Scott of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), speaking before the National Commission on September 11 Terrorist Attacks, May 23, 2003]
Good morning Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. It is my pleasure to be here with you today. General Arnold and I worked together that day on September 11th. What I will walk you through here is a chronology of the attacks and I presented it in a matrix form. And the only thing I lay claim to is having studied all of the attacks and how they were interwoven together. This was not a linear sequence of events where one attack began and ended and then a second attack began and ended. This was a coordinated, well-planned attack. We had multiple airplanes in the air. The fog and friction of war was evident everywhere in the country both on the civil side as well as the military side. And this hopefully will show you how those interwoven events came about. I will tell you that the times on this chart come from our logs. The time on the chart is the time that's in the log. It may not be the exact time the event happened. It may be the time when the log keeper was advised or became aware of the event.

The first thing that happened in the morning, related to, related to the events at 9:02 ... A.M., EST, is when American Airlines 11 took off out of Boston. American Airlines 11 was a 767 and it was headed, I believe, to Los Angeles

Fourteen minutes later, also coming out of Boston Logan, United Airlines 175, a 757, also headed to Los Angeles, took off out of Boston and initially took roughly the same ground track as American 11. Three minutes later American Airlines 77 took off out of Dulles here in Washington, also headed to Los Angeles and also a 757 and proceeded westbound towards the West Coast. So now the first three airplanes are airborne together.

The first time that anything untoward and this was gleaned from FAA response and anything out of the ordinary happened was at 8:20 when the electronic transponder in American Airlines 11 blinked off, if you will, just disappeared from the screen. Obviously, the terrorists turned that transponder off and that airplane, although it did not disappear from the radar scope, it became a much, much more difficult target to discern for the controllers who now only could look at the primary radar return off the airplane. That was at 8:20. At 8:40, in our logs is the first occasion where the FAA is reporting a possible hijacking of American Airlines Flight 11. And the initial response to us at that time was a possible hijacking; it had not been confirmed.

At that same moment, the F-15 alert aircraft at Otis Air Force Base, Massachusetts, about 153 miles away were placed immediately on battle stations by the Northeast Air Defense Sector Commander.

At 8:43, as this is going on, the fourth airplane, United 93 takes off out of Newark, New Jersey. It's a 757; it is headed for San Francisco....

At 8:46 ... the first impact on the Trade Center. At that minute is when the Otis F-15s were scrambled and, again, they are 153 miles away. And that scramble came and Gen. Arnold, I'm sure can address this, based on the conversation between the Northeast Sector Commander and himself.

Those F-15s were airborne in six minutes. That is well inside the time that is allowed for them to get airborne. But because they were on battle stations, the pilots were in the cockpits ready to start engines, that scramble time was shortened by a significant amount of time.

At 8:53, that's a minute later, in the radar reconstruction, we are now picking up primary radar contacts off of the F-15s out of Otis.

At 8:57 ... the FAA reports the first impact. And about this time is when CNN coverage to the general public is beginning to appear on the TV, not of the impact, but of the burning tower shortly thereafter. So, you can see what in the military, I'm sure you have heard us talk to the fog and friction of war. And as the intensity increases, the lag tends to also increase for how quickly information gets passed....

United 175 ... crashes into the North Tower, at 9:02. The distance of those fighters which had been scrambled out of Otis, at that particular point they were still 71 miles away, about 8 minutes out and going very fast.

At 9:05, FAA reports a possible hijack of United 175. Again that's 3 minutes after the impact in the Tower. It's how long it is taking now for the information to flow through the system to the command and control agencies and through the command and control agencies to the pilots in the cockpits.

At 9:09, Langley F-16s are directed to battle stations just based on the general situation, and the breaking news and the general developing feeling about what's going on. And about that same time, kind of way out in the west is when American 77, which in the meantime has turned off its transponder and turned left back toward Washington, appears back in radar coverage. And my understanding is the FAA controllers now are beginning to pick up primary skin paints on that airplane and they don't know exactly whether that is 77 and they are asking a lot of people whether it is, including a C130 that's westbound toward Ohio.

At 9:11, the FAA reports a crash into the South Tower. You can see now that lag time has increased from 7 minutes from impact to report, and now it's 9 minutes from impact to report and you can only imagine what's going on on the floors of the control centers around the country....

9:16, now FAA reports a possible hijack of United Flight 93, which is out in the Ohio area. That's the last flight that is going to impact the ground.

At 9:24, the FAA reports a possible hijack of 77. That's some time after they had been tracking its primary target. And at that moment as well is when the Langley F-16s were scrambled out of Langley.

At 9:25, American 77 is reported heading toward Washington, D.C., not exactly precise information, just general information, across the chat log.

9:27, Boston FAA reports a fifth aircraft missing, Delta Flight 89. And you people have never heard of Delta Flight 89. We call that the first red herring of the day because there are a number of reported possible hijackings that unfolded over the hours immediately following the actual attack. Delta 89 was not hijacked. It enters the system. It increases the fog and friction, if you will, as we begin to look for that. But he lands about 7 or 8 minutes later and clears out of the system.

At 9:30, that Langley F-16s are airborne. They are 105 miles away from the Washington area.

At 9:34, through chat, FAA is unable to precisely locate American Airlines Flight 77.

At 9:35, F-16s are reported airborne. And many times, reported airborne is not exactly when they took off, it's just when the report came down that they were airborne.

At 9:37, we have the last radar data near the Pentagon and 9:40, immediately following that, is when 93 up North turns it transponder off, out in the West toward Ohio and begins a left turn back toward the East.

At 9:49, FAA reports that Delta 89, which had been reported as missing, is now reported as a possible hijacking so again, he is.... I'm sorry 9:41. Again he is in the system. He is kind of a red herring for us.

Now the only thing that I would point out on this chart is that this says 9:43, American Airlines 77 impacts the Pentagon. The timeline on the impact on the Pentagon was changed to 9:37. 9:43 is the time it was reported that day. It was the time we used. And it took about two weeks to discover in the parking lot of the Pentagon this entry camera for the parking lot, which happened to be oriented toward the Pentagon at the time of impact. And the recorded time is 9:37. And that's why the timeline went from 9:43 to 9:37 because it is the best documented evidence for the impact time that we have.

Getting toward the end now, 9:47 is when Delta 89 clears the system by landing in Cleveland. So he is not a hijack. Lots of things are going on now in the system as the Sectors begin to call both units that are part of First Airforce and NORAD as well as units that have nothing to do with us. We are beginning to call everyone now and the 103rd Air Control Squadron, for instance, stationed in Connecticut is an Air Control Squadron, a radar squadron, and they got their radar online operational and begin to link their radar picture into the Northeast system. They are not normally part of NORAD. This is really the initial part of a huge push the rest of that day to link as many radars in on the interior as we can, and to get as many fighters on alert as we can.

At 10:02, United 93, last radar data and the estimated impact time for United 93 is 10:03.

At 10:07, FAA reports that there may be a bomb on board 93. That's four minutes after the impact.

At 10:15, they report that it's crashed and you can see now the fog and friction lag time has increased from 7 minutes to 9 minutes to 15 minutes because of the level of activities that are going on.

And there are notations here about other airplanes as we begin to divert other airplanes that are just out intended for training that day. We're picking up the phone, calling Syracuse the Air National Guard. They are beginning to get flights airborne. They are beginning to arm those aircraft with whatever weapons they have handy so we can posture that defense.

That is how the timeline unfolded. As you can see, there is a fabric of interwoven actions, which is not just a linear event. So lots of things going on, lots of activities, lots of CQ centers. Sir, that concludes my piece.[/quote]

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Bengal_Smoov' date='Jul 14 2005, 04:09 PM']How did over 150 FAA safeguards fail on that day?  If a commerical plane flies off it's flight path for more than 15 minutes the FAA is alerted and they do what they do. On 9/11 the planes were off the their paths for over an hour and nothing was done?  Why?
[right][post="114600"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

things changed after 9/11... if the same thing happened now, we would shoot it down in a heartbeat...

here is the commision report that explains everything in extreme detail...
[url="http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB148/911%20Commission%20Four%20Flights%20Monograph.pdf"]911 commision report[/url]

[BengalSIS]

I had never seen that video before. Never even knew there was a question about it. I never questioned it. But I don't ever remember seeing a plane or any of it's parts. Maybe that's just why the video jolted me a little. It had true footage and you couldn't see a plane anywhere.

Now, that being said, it IS hard to imagine what would have been done with the REAL plane full of people if that wasn't them. So I'm not saying I believe it, but what's the big deal about showing alternate footage from the other locations. We jumped on showing the tower strikes from every amateur footage piece we could find?

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='BengalSIS' date='Jul 14 2005, 11:23 PM']I had never seen that video before.  Never even knew there was a question about it.  I never questioned it.  But I don't ever remember seeing a plane or any of it's parts.  Maybe that's just why the video jolted me a little.  It had true footage and you couldn't see a plane anywhere. 

Now, that being said, it IS hard to imagine what would have been done with the REAL plane full of people if that wasn't them.  So I'm not saying I believe it, but what's the big deal about showing alternate footage from the other locations.  We jumped on showing the tower strikes from every amateur footage piece we could find?
[right][post="114708"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]


Perhaps it doesn’t exist? (The home footage I mean, don’t get me started again)... I mean the location of the towers vs. the location of the Pentagon. The towers are touristier so... I mean who visits the Pentagon for a tourist visit? (The outside anyway, if you’re a tourist its more likely you’ll take the metro into the city and the Pentagon has its own station so...) Plus the outside where the pentagon is, the surrounding city (crystal city) is more a business type area than anything else, it does have a mall but who goes to a mall to do tourist type things??

The other thing about the video footage (from the pentagon) I wonder if it was taken as a precaution to the location of security cameras at the Pentagon, that is a very real possibility.

And sis just because you dont see footage of a plane in that video, doesnt mean there wasnt one, there are hundreds of eye witness accounts of it.

[BengalSIS]

Like I said. I'm not saying I buy what the video is selling. And I didn't mean to imply that the other footage was amateur, I meant the hotel and gas station. Those vidoes don't have anything they wouldn't have everyday with relation to the Pentagon.


At this point, it doesn't really matter to me anyway. It's not like anything would be done either way. Unless someone on the inside broke a story about it, it's gonna be the way it is.

[Storm]

[quote name='BengalSIS' date='Jul 15 2005, 03:23 AM']I had never seen that video before.  Never even knew there was a question about it.  I never questioned it.  But I don't ever remember seeing a plane or any of it's parts.  Maybe that's just why the video jolted me a little.  It had true footage and you couldn't see a plane anywhere. 

Now, that being said, it IS hard to imagine what would have been done with the REAL plane full of people if that wasn't them.  So I'm not saying I believe it, but what's the big deal about showing alternate footage from the other locations.  We jumped on showing the tower strikes from every amateur footage piece we could find?
[right][post="114708"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]


I can see some reasoning behind keeping our military headquarters under a different standard than the towers

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='BengalSIS' date='Jul 14 2005, 11:48 PM']Like I said.  I'm not saying I buy what the video is selling.  And I didn't mean to imply that the other footage was amateur, I meant the hotel and gas station.  Those vidoes don't have anything they wouldn't have everyday with relation to the Pentagon.
At this point, it doesn't really matter to me anyway.  It's not like anything would be done either way.  Unless someone on the inside broke a story about it,  it's gonna be the way it is.
[right][post="114719"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]


There isnt really a gas station or anything like that in proximity of the Pentagon, I may go up there this or next weekend and take some pic to show you guys what you cant really know without being there at one time.

There is no 'inside story', if there were I KNOW my father would have told me because he was there pulling people out of it, and as I said before if it was the case Id be protesting and calling for impeachment as well, hell I could go up to NBC where I worked and give the story to a few reporters I know.

[Homer_Rice]

Here's one question I haven't heard an answer to: Were there remains of passengers in the wreckage?

[Storm]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' date='Jul 15 2005, 10:31 AM']Here's one question I haven't heard an answer to: Were there remains of passengers in the wreckage?
[right][post="114832"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]


The same place the passengers from the towers crash are!

disinigrated

[Guest mongoloido]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' date='Jul 15 2005, 06:31 AM']Here's one question I haven't heard an answer to: Were there remains of passengers in the wreckage?
[right][post="114832"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]


All but one body was recovered and identified. The black boxes from the plane were recovered. Parts of the plane were recovered. Lots of people died and their memories will forever be swirled with this total crap all because a couple of French photographers either played a sick joke, or refused to do their homework on this crash...

One version of this hoax claims the Pentagon was hit by a cruise missile fired by US oil industrialists in order to get us into Iraq so they could get oil. One claims it has video footage you aren't meant to see and that it proves no plane could have hit the Pentagon. It then shows you the same still photos from the surveilance camera that are posted on CNN.com. The conspiracy site claims the photos were taken at a certain speed and that no plane could have flown fast enough to avoid the camera. Their timing figures are false and the their lie about the secrecy of the photos is laughable.




[url="http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77.htm"]http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77.htm[/url]
[url="http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77w.htm"]http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77w.htm[/url]
[url="http://paulboutin.weblogger.com/2002/03/14"]http://paulboutin.weblogger.com/2002/03/14[/url]








This story went from possibility, to debunked hoax, to urban legend in a matter of months. It makes for interesting posting during the slow off season, but it's not true.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='mongoloido' date='Jul 15 2005, 09:11 AM']All but one body was recovered and identified. The black boxes from the plane were recovered. Parts of the plane were recovered. Lots of people died and their memories will forever be swirled with this total crap all because a couple of French photographers either played a sick joke, or refused to do their homework on this crash...

One version of this hoax claims the Pentagon was hit by a cruise missile fired by US oil industrialists in order to get us into Iraq so they could get oil. One claims it has video footage you aren't meant to see and that it proves no plane could have hit the Pentagon. It then shows you the same still photos from the surveilance camera that are posted on CNN.com. The conspiracy site claims the photos were taken at a certain speed and that no plane could have flown fast enough to avoid the camera. Their timing figures are false and the their lie about the secrecy of the photos is laughable.
[url="http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77.htm"]http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77.htm[/url]
[url="http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77w.htm"]http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77w.htm[/url]
[url="http://paulboutin.weblogger.com/2002/03/14"]http://paulboutin.weblogger.com/2002/03/14[/url]
This story went from possibility, to debunked hoax, to urban legend in a matter of months. It makes for interesting posting during the slow off season, but it's not true.
[right][post="114842"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]


Good post.

[Homer_Rice]

I was wondering. It seems to me that if bodies/dna evidence were not found, then a lot of families would be talking about it.

I thought the flash presentation was, well, flashy....

[BengalSIS]

Excellent posts guys. That's all I needed to know. Like I said, I had no idea and only saw that vid yesterday. I suspected it was a hoax, but it's pretty convincing at first. But plane wreck families are a pretty stubborn bunch. I suspect that if people were missing, or the story was changed, there would be hell to pay.