CITGO Gas Station Cameras Near Pentagon Evidently Did Not Capture Attack

[sabra]

http://www.judicialwatch.org/5965.shtml

CITGO Gas Station Cameras Near Pentagon Evidently Did Not Capture Attack
FBI Responds to Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act Request and Related Lawsuit


(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released a videotape from the FBI that was taken from a CITGO gas station near the Pentagon. Many believed the video would show American Airlines Flight 77 striking the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. The videotape, which depicts views from the gas station’s six security cameras, shows that the CITGO cameras did not seem to capture the actual attack. The tape was partially obscured by the FBI to protect the privacy of individuals captured on video in the CITGO convenience store. The FBI released the videotape as the result of a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act request and related lawsuit.

Judicial Watch originally filed a Freedom of Information Act request on December 15, 2004 seeking all records pertaining to September 11, 2001 camera recordings of the Pentagon attack from the Nexcomm/CITGO gas station, Pentagon security cameras and the Virginia Department of Transportation. Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit against the FBI on June 22, 2006. (In May 2006, The Department of Defense released videos depicting the attack in response to another Judicial Watch lawsuit.)

The FBI has agreed to release to Judicial Watch a videotape obtained from the Doubletree Hotel near the Pentagon by November 9, 2006.

“With the release of this videotape, we are one step closer to completing the public record on the September 11 terrorist attacks,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The CITGO tape evidently does not show the Pentagon attack, which the American people can now see for themselves. This videotape was the subject of intense public debate. Now that it has been released to the public, there is no reason for further speculation about what it does or does not show.”


The CITGO video can be accessed via the Judicial Watch Internet site at www.judicialwatch.org or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LJvFjsl6zk

[DoYouEverWonder]

1. Of course, nothing to see here

now move along.

It would be nice if they could have at least faked the time stamp and put in the correct date.

[sabra]

2. it took 5 years to get a tape that in fact shows nothing....

:shrug:

[DoYouEverWonder]

3. You don't think they would actually release

one of the ones that actually shows something?

[sabra]

5. I was expecting them showing a tape with Saddam ordering the attacks

:sarcasm:

[AndyA]

4. Makes you wonder why? If there's nothing to see,

why not release it immediately?

I'm so sick of our government playing games with us, all in the name of our own protection. Skip the protection and give us the facts, please. We can take better care of ourselves if we have the facts.

[screembloodymurder]

123. Why pick the tapes up in the first place?

What were they afraid to have us see?

[SpiralHawk]

117. So shut up and sit down. Rembember that Big BushCo loves you

Be good little proles now.

I trust BushCo and the republicons not at all, for they have demonstrated a complete lack of honor.

LIHOP. At the very least.

[VegasWolf]

6. Simple, it was an invisible plane composed of invisible parts except

for a few rotors of some old plane no airline has ever used. What's not to believe?

[savemefromdumbya]

17. It was just a plain old bomb

[Norrin Radd]

180. They must've borrowed Wonder Woman's invisible plane. n/t

[lapfog_1]

7. Forget the gas station

Who here believes that the Pentagon, possibly one of the highest value military targets in the world,
doesn't have really good resolution video cameras that cover all of the approaches, including infrared
and night vision and high speed. Probably from dozens of cameras mounted on rooftops and in the surrounding
grounds and so on.

Probably from the Soviet "spy v. spy" era... but especially in the post Oklahoma City era.

So where are those tapes?

[hack89]

9. You really think that they would reveal ..

how they protect the Pentagon? We will never see those tapes (if in fact they exist.)

[lapfog_1]

15. Yes, if it served to debunk the "conspiracy" wing

of the democratic party.

the right wing nuts have been saying that the 9/11 conspiracy people are "out there" and to be dismissed.
Yet, more people in the US are starting to question the official version. To prove that the conspiracy
nuts are kooks and "out there", if they had such tapes, they would release them.

After all, shrubya has been quick to drop a lot of classified intel on the sheeple to justify his torture
policy. So, yeah, if they had a tape that showed an airliner flying 10 feet off the ground and impacting
the wall of the pentagon, they would show it.

[Vidar]

56. Very good point.

[Giant Robot]

118. You assume they would want to silence the

conspiracy people, as you call them. I think they are more useful alive and spouting off their theories, as they can be attached in some way to the Democratic party and used for a source of ridicule. But maybe I am a conspircy person.

[tenseconds]

58. servility

Yes. Everything must be kept a secret from us servile citizens.

[hack89]

69. Just stating a fact. nt

[davidwparker]

14. True. So, True.

[Xithras]

21. Nope. The Pentagon has its own police force.

The Pentagon doesn't have cameras around the perimeter because they had something "better", lots of guys with guns. Genuine high security targets don't have guys sitting in some central room looking for intruders on TV screens, they have actual guards around the perimeter to stop intruders from entering the grounds in the first place. There was no need for cameras.

[ConcernedCanuk]

26. "The Pentagon doesn't have cameras around the perimeter" - convince me

.
.
.

With the murderous, paranoid government ya got -

I don't buy that.

I bet we wouldn't even have footage of the WTC destruction if there were not so many private recordings, so of course the MSM hadda jump in on it . .

Otherwise, the Korprate execs of the M$M woulda got told by the PNAC gang to stifle all photos and film of the events at the Twin Towers.

Bush ain't no Hitler by any means.

He's much MUCH WORSE!!

[Sinti]

177. The Pentagon did not have cameras around the perimeter. I went there

almost daily for many years. No cameras outside. There are also not "guard towers" and guys with guns in the parking lot. It's an office building. The busses from that part of Virginia all stop there to drop off at the metro. It's not like going to Occoquan or someplace like that, they had some cameras on the inside, but not outside - at least not visible ones that anyone could complain about not having access to the video from. They have a couple of guard stations outside, but they're more like parking lot attendants.

You don't go inside (other than down into the metro) without proper ID or an escort. If you do go inside, you don't walk toward the Sec. Def.'s office unexpectedly, or the marines that stand out front in full dress will kill you and ask questions never. Long ago, there was a lobby with a little shopping area where regular folk could go (and buy Godiva chocolates and such), but they killed that in the early '90s, I can't remember exactly now - it wasn't considered safe to allow civilians inside anymore.

That said, you're absolutely right about our "murderous, paranoid government" and lapdog press. Anything they're told to do to suppress information, spread disinformation, or outright lie, they're happy to do so.

[lapfog_1]

30. Ever been in a casino in Vegas?

Good security has BOTH. Plus another group that watches the watchers.

[VegasWolf]

34. I guess the Pentagon can't hold a candle to Vegas!!! nt

[Xithras]

46. Completely different scenario.

Ever been on a military base? How many cameras do you see guarding the perimiter of THOSE? Even the AF bases with nuke silo's don't have cameras. Why not? Because they have guys with machine guns on 24 hour watch, and having several extra guys watching tv screens is considered redundant and pointless.

Vegas is a different animal because so many frauds there are inside jobs. They need guards on the floor, cameras to watch the employees, and extra cameras to watch them both. It's a system designed to detect fraud, not intruders. The military isn't worried about fraud, they're worried about spies and thieves. The military also has an advantage that the casinos don't...a lazy casino guard who allows a thief to escape is simply going to be fired. A lazy soldier who permits an intruder to access the Pentagon is going to be charged with dereliction and thrown in prison. The guards are fully aware of that fact.

Besides, if you want to argue that they should have cameras for the "cloak and dagger" set, I have to point out that a video camera is one of the most easily defeated security devices you can buy. A $50 laser on a small tripod will obscure the image in any video camera ever built.

The Pentagon basically has three layers of security. First, you have the guys with machine guns who are EVERYWHERE. Second, you have a huge swath of open, treeless space around the building designed to make an undetected approach extremely difficult (there are also stories about motion and pressure sensors under the lawn). If you do manage to reach the building, it's very construction is the third blockade...concrete outer walls and high windows.

Security cameras in military facilities are generally only used to record the coming and goings of people through its proper entrances.

[VegasWolf]

48. Whether the cameras are in plain sight seems a moot point. One would

think there are cameras around the building. Even the Alabama jails have cameras around their perimeter. If someone shined a laser light into the lens, then wouldn't a lack of a picture at a critical time be an indication of something? I have no idea. I am no conspiracy advocate, but this whole thing does raise a few eyebrows.

[Xithras]

51. It's a question of effectiveness.

The Pentagon is a HUGE building, and effective video surveillance requires that the camera images be watched 24/7. Instituting video coverage would therefore require that a fairly large number of people be tasked with doing nothing other than watching those screens all day. That costs a bit of money.

The question then becomes: "What practical benefit do you gain from video surveillance that is not already being provided by the existing armed security perimeter?" The general answer is that instead of having two people watching each portion of the property (military security operates in pairs), you'll have three. If three are nessecary, however, it is FAR more practical to put that guard on patrol with the other two where he/she can offer additional firepower or assist in taking people into custody when needed.

[lapfog_1]

52. Wrong.

Cameras record. Human recollection is flawed, more so than photographic record. This is why police cars
have cameras (sometimes to the detriment of the police). The Pentagon is not immune from "after action"
review. And the pentagon isn't likely to skimp on protection for the nations military HQ because of COST.
Besides, because of the vast expanse of open area around the building, it would be possible to have 1 or
2 humans watching a number of vantage points, thereby covering more of the outside area for less cost...
not that I think this is why they have video surveillance.

[Xithras]

55. Umm...

Cameras record. Human recollection is flawed, more so than photographic record

You make the false assumption that the Pentagon has an interest in fairly trying people who try to break in. I gurantee you that people who try to jump their fences are going to find themselves quickly whisked away to a secret interrogation room and face a rather unpleasant experience while the military tries to find out what country sent them (woe to the poor sap just looking for a shortcut to the GW Parkway). Their only interest is going to be detaining you for interrogation, not in preserving evidence so you will have a fair trial. In a federal court, the word of the guards is more than sufficient to prosecute. Why? See next:

The Pentagon is not immune from "after action" review

Incorrect. The Pentagon is legally a military base and its military guards are exempt from civilian review and prosecution for security actions which occur on the base. They are only answerable (legally anyway) to the UCMJ and ultimately to the White House. That's why you NEVER see dash cams in tanks and hummers.

Besides, because of the vast expanse of open area around the building, it would be possible to have 1 or
2 humans watching a number of vantage points, thereby covering more of the outside area for less cost...

The object is not to SPOT intruders, its to catch and/or kill them. The only way to do that is to have armed security actively around the perimeter at all times. If you already have the people there watching, the camera becomes redundant for security purposes.

[VegasWolf]

61. Not really. You omit the effectiveness of modern software. If Vegas

can afford complex software, the Pentagon might too. Modern camera surveillance technology is more software centric than man-power centric.

[lapfog_1]

50. Dude, I spent 10 years working on a military base.

And it was one that was *rumored* to store nukes. Plus it also had the national strategic command and control
for our spy satellites located on a portion of the base. We had marine guards at every gate, plus patrols
around the perimeter. And cameras on every important facility. Especially the "cube". If you walked by
the "cube", you could see camera housings track you. If you stopped, someone would be around shortly to
talk to you.

And while you are correct that a laser can obscure a cameras vision... it certainly can't do it without
letting someone know that something is going on. So the camera works since that is it's primary job.

[Xithras]

53. But nobody "walks by" the Pentagon.

On military bases with assets like you're describing, you are correct and cameras may occasionally be seen. Why? Because it's a situation where unauthorized people can get direct access to the building itself. You have a lot of people with legitimate access to the base who may not have access to certain parts of it. Those people can walk right up to and past the building legitimately, so the purpose of having the cameras is to discern who is acting "normally (walking on by) and who is acting "suspiciously" (spending 10 minutes tying a shoe).

In the case of the Pentagon, there are no unauthorized people walking by. You're going to get noticed by the guards long before you get up to the building.

[lapfog_1]

54. Again, you are wrong.

The base has an extensive perimeter area with a road (which is patrolled, sometime with dogs). There is an
outer fence AND a interior fence... plus for the building that houses the satellite down links, there are more
fences. As for where the nukes might be stored... I can't tell you much about that area as I never got close.
So if you go for an afternoon jog around the perimeter (and many workers did/do), cameras follow you when you
reach the area of the road nearing the "cube", the cameras track you until you vacate the area. If you stop
there (and there are signs that say "no stopping"), so very serious, but competent, young marines arrive in
a jeep shortly.

[Xithras]

59. How big was the "cube"?

The idea of an armed perimeter is to ensure a rapid response to any intrusions, and you can't offer that if your guards are all sipping coffee in a breakroom while they wait for something to happen. Alert time + combat prep time + travel time to the point of intrusion MUST be lower than the amount of time needed for the intruder to travel from the secured boundary to the secure building. It doesn't do ANY good for a camera to spot an intruder coming over a fence if the intruder can get into the building before security can even reach that spot. I have to assume that the "cube" was a relatively small building compared to the Pentagon.

[TroglodyteScholar]

82. Have you ever been on a military base?

There ARE indeed security forces ("guards") as well as cameras-a-plenty. This regardless of whether the base has nukes. Even a logistics-oriented base has cameras all over the place, visible and not. I think you're really grasping at straws here--maybe disseminating a bit of truthiness?

[Xithras]

87. Many, many times.

I never joined because of my pesky pacifistic streak, but easily half of my family is in the military and my step-bro is an MP in the USMC. Never been on an active Navy base, but plenty of Marine, Army, and AF facilities.

As for where my opinion comes from: After 9/11, one of the first questions I asked my military minded family was "Why is there no security footage from the Pentagon". They looked at me like I was an idiot and explained everything I just stated to you. I HAVE been on bases since then, and sure as shit I've never seen a single camera except near the entrances.

As for what I'm disseminating, I freely admit that I dislike conspiracy theories. I teach logic (and computer science) and advocate critical thinking to both my children and my students. That puts me solidly in the "debunker" camp since I have yet to see a single relevant claim that is either backed up by unchallengeable fact or hasn't been refuted entirely. And that's just on the 9/11/Pentagon thing. Don't even get me started on the alien abduction/bigfoot/contrails/crop circle jokers ;)

[mhatrw]

139. There are security cameras everywhere.

Yes, Virginia, even the Pentagon.

[Vidar]

57. Probably constant satellite surveillance as well.

[Raster]

75. the Pentagon tasks satellites that can read license plates in parking lots

I'm voting for constant satellite surveillance.

[Giant Robot]

122. Constant satellite surveillance by someone anyway

Maybe not U.S. satellites, but I'l' bet someone's satellites were looking at the Pentagon that day.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

148. Impossible. If you understood satellite orbits, you would know that.

Satellite surveillance is NOT like in the movies. You don't have satellites hovering overhead 24/7.

Any particular surveillance satellite is in a near earth orbit and will look at a particular spot on earth only for a few minutes, twice a day. We don't have enough satellites for 24/7 surveillance of the entire globe.

The communication satellites are 25,000 miles out, and that is too far for visual surveillance.

[mhatrw]

138. Sure. They have no cameras and no satellites and defense systems.

Just good, old fashioned beat cops.

[DoYouEverWonder]

23. With the billions we spend every year for that dump

You think they could have gone down to Sam's and bought a video surveillance system?

[Raster]

71. There isn't a doubt in my mind that the Pentagon is under constant

surveillance from EVERY angle possible. I've worked in DC occasionally, Arlington, actually. There is an abundance of unmarked, low-rise, purposely undistinguished buildings with hardcore video surveillance equipment. In this day and age, ANY sensitive facility is CONSTANTLY under high-level surveillance, whether you see it or not. Trust me, there are video records of what happened on 9/11 from the Pentagon's own surveillance system. The Pentagon tasks satellites that can read license plates in parking lots. They do visual imagery very very well.

[Nevernose]

111. I, for one, doubt they have any kind of those tapes

Okay, perhaps a more fair statement would be: I'd like to hope they would, but wouldn't surprised in the least if they didn't.

It's the Pentagon. The same guys that sold us Iraq, Vietnam, and Grenada. The same people who thought that having two people fill out separate forms, in triplicate, for plunging all clogged toilets on military bases would be a good idea. They are the epitome of arrogance, ignorance, and, above all, bureaucracy.

I think that assuming that the Pentagon has high-speed tapes, infrared, and all that other stuff, gives them way too much credit. You're basing your premise off of what we all EXPECT from them, as opposed to what they really deliver. The "Peter Principle" was designed around these guys, after all.

Would it really surprise you if, hypothetically, the Pentagon HAD ordered all of those cameras, and that only some of those were delivered? And that some of them were rereouted to an embassy in Lichtenstein to combat the rise of carniverous fruit bats preying upon some Marine Corps officer's pet poodle? And that some were still on a loading dock in Seattle? And that even more still on a loading dock in Salt Lake City, marked "perishable goods?" And that, of the ones that DID make it to the Pentagon, they were installed incorrectly or only facing straight up?

I dunno, maybe you just have more faith in the upper echelons of the United States military than I do, but I generally believe that the Pentagon has their collective head so far up their ass that they might as well be proctologists.

To reiterate: they SHOULD have those high-quality tapse. But if they don't, it wouldn't really surprise me.

[datadiva]

8. Yeah, and pigs fly eom

[Wickerman]

12. indeed

:)

[mom cat]

10. Why wait till Nov 9th ...

Except that it is after the election.

[Pastiche423]

11. I call bullshit

If the tapes captured nothing, we would have been blasted w/those tapes five years ago...........over and over and over again.

[VegasWolf]

13. I was expecting a swinging toy airplane hanging from a thread to be

superimposed on the film.

[bvar22]

16. The fact that they show "nothing". Why NOT?

Th "nothing" revelation causes me even more concern.
A JUMBO JET should show up more easily than a small supersonic missle. :shrug:

[lisby]

20. The Citgo is far from the Pentagon

The Pentagon, for those who don't live here in DC, is bleedin' huge and has a large open buffer of space around it. I'm not sure where this Citgo is exactly in relation to the Pentagon, but it is not within the distance that a low-resolution black and white TV camera is going to pick up. I couldn't even see the Pentagon, moreover anything else in those images. Those CCTV cameras are designed to monitor the cash registers and gas pumps to have something to show law enforcement in the event of a crime. Their field of focus is specifically set to close range. They also don't record every frame. This Citgo barely had CCTV at all, from the look of the footage. These were old and cheap cameras.

Here's the other thing I can tell you: a plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11. There were thousands of witnesses commuting to work all around the Pentagon. My boss was one of them. She told me that the plane came in to low and loud and then hit the building. I was already in our offices in Alexandria watching CNN when the plane hit. I watched the smoke and fire over the tree line from our roof.

It took years to see this because 1.) this administration is secret-crazy; they have reclassified literal tons of declassified materials. Information has flown off the shelves of the National Archives about administrations, events, and more that go back 50 years or more. They are not giving a candy wrapper up without a fight. Nor do they feel we have the right to ask for it. And all this does is encourage this completely wrong speculation about what hit the Pentagon that day. It was a passenger plane. My boss and possibly hundreds of other eye witnesses saw it. I suspect you can even find them and talk to them yourself. I have.

I don't know if there was a broader eeeeevil plot going on in NYC or here, but I know that a jet aircraft was the weapon here.

Lisby

[DoYouEverWonder]

24. The Citgo station had an unobstructed view of the Pentagon

and the impact area.

[Judi Lynn]

25. Thank YOU for that photo. Makes a lot of difference to those of us

who've never been anywhere near Washington, D.C.

Gives a little more impact to the post.

[geek tragedy]

27. Did you not catch the part where he talked

about the fact that the cameras there wouldn't be able to capture an image from so far away?

Or the eyewitnesses?

Ugh, like debating science with people who think that the Flinstones was a documentary.

[VegasWolf]

31. Which CCD focusing expert is "he"? nt

[geek tragedy]

32. If you know anything about photography, you know that a cheap, shitty

video camera can't focus on one object ten feet in front of it and another thousands of feet away.

And never mind the eyewitnesses--they're all part of the government plot imagined by the "no plane" lunatics.

[VegasWolf]

33. Not true, they can pan parking lots pretty well. But hey, you anticon-guys

will defend Bush to the bitter end.

[geek tragedy]

35. I'm not defending Bush. Just pointing out that

the "no planers" are the leftist version of the Rapturists.

[VegasWolf]

39. Yes, and others are pointing out something else to you. Believe what

you want, for me the jury is out. I see lots of questions with few good answers. But, hey, keep insulting everybody that disagrees with your genius.

[geek tragedy]

42. And you keep on accusing the sane portion of the universe

of supporting Bush because they reject a theory so goddamn stupid that other 911 conspiracy theorists think it's disinfo put out to make the rest of them look bad.

It's a religion to some people. They just can't accept that the eyewitnesses who SAW THE FUCKING PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON should figure into the debate.

[VegasWolf]

44. LOL. There you go! nt

[OldSiouxWarrior]

151. One of those witnesses was Patty Murry, Democratic Senator from

Washington. But to the no-plane nuts she is part of the plot.

[DoYouEverWonder]

188. Not at all

Even she admits she didn't see a plane, she just saw the explosion.

[Nozebro]

190. To naive "true believers", she's as trustworthy as GWBushco.

Is there any Senator whose word you WOULDN'T trust? May I ask how old you are?

[OldSiouxWarrior]

192. 60+

You still have the problem of DOZENS of witnesses. Unless you want to claim that each witness is "one of them".

[Nozebro]

193. Actually, they're YOUR problem, Chief. I know better than to trust

so-called eyewitness accounts.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

194. Courts trust them.

And when DOZENS of them agree on the general facts, it becomes conclusive. One eyewitness can certainly screw up, even two. But DOZENS?

Of course, to a CTer, all the eyewitnesses are in on the plot. All are agents of "them".

[tenseconds]

60. off subject

Your talking off the subject and out your ass.

[paulk]

38. so, the same logic that informs you that something other than

a plane hit the Pentagon equates disbelieving that theory with "supporting Bush"?

[VegasWolf]

40. Huh? Don't follow you with something other than a plane. As I said

for me the jury is out, I see questions on all sides. By supporting Bush, I obviously meant supporting the BushCo theory of 9/11. I guess I should have been more literal.

[geek tragedy]

43. Again, the FACT is that a plane hit the Pentagon.

That is not Bush's theory. That is not a Republican theory.

That is a F-A-C-T.

[VegasWolf]

45. Okay! If you say so! nt

[geek tragedy]

47. Well, when a sane person disagrees with me I'll let you know. eom

[VegasWolf]

49. Do that! I'll be waiting! Remember the wisdom of the French philosopher

René Descartes, how will you know when you know?

[OldSiouxWarrior]

152. Descartes was a fool.

The questions he asked don't lead to wisdom, they lead to chasing yourself around in a circle and getting nothing done. I'm an objectivist. Reality exists independent of myself and I need to align myself to it.

[DoYouEverWonder]

65. Where are engines?

There should have been two of them.

Most of the major parts of one have serial numbers engraved on them. You think they would have had the darn things bronzed if they had turned up.

[Psephos]

73. You mean like this?

I'm surprised chunks this big survived. Many people fail to realize the effects of smashing an airframe into a fortified building at three or four hundred miles an hour. Remember, total kinetic energy increases as the square of speed (a 100-mph collision has not double, but 10 times the energy of a 50-mph crash). Ever see pictures of what happens to an automobile that crashes into a highway bridge abutment? Now think about applying a thousand or more times as much energy to the crash, and imagine what remains.

Itsy-bitsy pieces.

Peace.

[DoYouEverWonder]

74. Then I would assume that the serial numbers are available

and the parts matched exactly with the type of engines on Flight 77?

BTW: That still just part of one engine. Funny four crash sites and only one engine at each?

[VegasWolf]

81. Exactly. And that those rotors actually fit on the aircraft in question. n

[DoYouEverWonder]

83. Got a link?

I've never seen that evidence.

Thanks.

[VegasWolf]

85. I've seen clips of aeronautical engineers disputing those roters ever

appeared on a commercial aircraft. I would like to see a definitive answer to that particular question from the government. Those engines look in plenty enough good shape for identification.

[DoYouEverWonder]

88. Seems BushCo

doesn't like physical evidence.

I guess they're afraid of what it will prove.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

154. Here you go for the link.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

[DoYouEverWonder]

157. Are you trying to say that this disk in the Pentagon pic

Matches a disk in this engine?




Seems a little out of proportion?

[OldSiouxWarrior]

164. The compressor blades shear off in accidents.

The pentagon photo shows a compressor hub, with the blades snapped off. The compressor is a very high speed fan, and in a crash, if the engine comes to pieces, the compressor rotors come apart. They are still spinning ultra fast, so if they hit anything solid, the fan blades come off, (At very high speed too. They then fly long distances, like knives in the air.) leaving only the rotor hub.
Take a close look at the pictures on the site. Scroll about halfway down the site and you can find a side by side comparison between an engine (mid stage)and the engine part.

Your picture is of a primary stage compressor, not of a midstage compressor.

[DoYouEverWonder]

165. You know, there should be no need to speculate

It's not like they didn't have the actual parts.

Where in any official report do they ID these parts? Why is this so difficult?

[OldSiouxWarrior]

167. I don't think any amount of evidence would satisfy you.

You are a conspiracy theorists, NOT because the evidence has convenced you, but because for internal reason, you psychologically NEED for there to be a super conspiracy. It helps you the function if you think that the world is in control, even if that control is in evil hands. The idea that there is serious randomness in the world scares you. A CTer would rather believe that the world is controled by an evil wizard than that it isn't controlled at all. The belief in the evil wizard gives the CTer hope that if the evil wizard is somehow toppled that all will be right with the world again.

But there is no Sauron, no Ring of Power, and no Mt. Doom that the ring can be cast into, and all made right with the world.

Shit happens.

Just as nothing will convince a Creationist that evolution really happened, nothing will convince a CTer that their CT is a fantasy, a coping device.

Ask yourself this. How many other CTs do you believe in? Usually, when someone believe in one CT, they also believe others.

[DoYouEverWonder]

169. Evidence satisfies me

Show me the serial numbers. Show me the proof. All we have is speculation. The parts were there. Why is it impossible for you OCTers to provide real evidence?

You show drawings and pics that don't match the images from the Pentagon, but we are suppose to accept this has proof. Sorry, that's would never cut it in a court of law.

But of course, BushCo did everything they could to prevent a real investigation and even then the one they did was a farce.

By the way, I only see parts for one engine. Don't most 757's have two?

[BootinUp]

170. I would question whether

every component part would have a serial number stamped on it. Assemblies or the whole engine sure. Maybe someone has this info as I am just speculating. But the concern I have is that after you get the serial numbers, you then would question whether a conspiracy included falsifying the information.

Investigators are paid to investigate these crashes and look for things out of the ordinary. They look at many different pieces of evidence collected from the crash site, the communications, the recorders, the history of the air plane, but for some reason you won't trust anyone but yourself in doing this job.

[DoYouEverWonder]

171. For safety and for maintence

most of the major components of an airplane engine have serial numbers to ID that part.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

175. You have been provided with real evidence.

You reject it. There have been DOZENS of eyewitness, including a Patty Murry, a noted Democratic U.S. Senator from Washington State. You ignore all eyewitnesses.

Engines hitting a solid building get shattered into itty-bitty pieces too. It is remarkable that even those pieces survived.

The "black boxes" were recovered. Of course CTer claim they were fake.

You have even had some DUer post that they were there and saw the plane. You reject them.

For the reasons I stated, you cling to your CT as it helps you deny randomness in the world and holds out to you hope that if you can only get rid of Sauron, all will be well with the world.

[DoYouEverWonder]

189. Real evidence?

Like the evidence you presented for Patty Murray who you claim saw the plane, when even she says she didn't.

[spacelady]

96. The engine in the circled photo looks a lot smaller than the engine

in the reassembling? hangar.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

155. The compressor blades were sheared off.

The blades stick out from the central rotor, like fan blades from a hub. What you are seeing is the hub. When the engine goes to pieces, the compressors are spinning very fast and when they hit something solid it usually snaps the blades off.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

153. That would be four times as much energy for the 100mph car.

(100/50)^2=2^2=4

However, you are right about the plane. It is constructed of flimsy aluminum, weights a bunch of tons, and is hitting a solid building at over 400 mph. The G load of the sudden deceration rips a plane into tiny pieces when it does that.

Here is a video of exactly that happening: F-4 Phantom hitting a solid wall at 500 mph.

Short video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--_RGM4Abv8

Long video, same crash, many different camera angles: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AB4IEa7jTJw

Lots of itty-bitty pieces.

[DoYouEverWonder]

163. So how can a plane constructed of flimsy aluminum

penetrate 3 rings of the Pentagon?

[OldSiouxWarrior]

166. Inertia. A jet of water can cut through steel in the same manner.

Just because the plane disintegrates doesn't mean it stops. Each of the tiny bits still has it's momentum and kinetic energy. All of that stuff is still moving forward, and punches a hole until the KE is dissipated.

The wings, because their total mass is spread over a larger impact area don't penetrate. Instead they burst and the fuel burns.

It is really very basic physics.

[DoYouEverWonder]

172. Inertia stops

when something big enough gets in its way.

That's why most bullets end up inside your body instead of going all the way through when a person gets shot.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

173. And the 757 stopped just past the 3rd ring.

A 757 has LOTS of momentum.

[Zynx]

64. Panning has nothing to do with focus

Not that I'd expect better from the tinfoil crowd.

[VegasWolf]

76. You took the word out of context and jumped to attack. Not a sign

of a balanced world view. Come back with a reasoned response. For example, CCD resolution of cameras designed to catch thieves and their license tags as they are fleeing the crime. You know,
a real technical conservation.

[Norrin Radd]

181. If you believe those eyewitnesses,

what about the witnesses who heard explosions going off in the WTC?

[lisby]

37. Are you talking about me?

Because I am a she.

Lisby

[VegasWolf]

41. You'll have to ask the other poster. I have no idea of who "he" is, that

is what I was asking.

[Roland99]

28. What gas station doesn't have a camera pointed at its pumps?

Our gov't is LYING!

[OldSiouxWarrior]

156. Since when are gas pumps in the sky.

Gas pumps are on ground. Airplane is in sky.

[lisby]

36. Like I said, it's far from the Pentagon.

That is a huge building and that open space is very big. Mix that with a cheap CCTV camera with a short range lens focused on the pumps that is only capturing intermittent frames and what you get is a blurry background and missing time during which the plane struck. It came in at an incredible speed.

And as far as the terrorist pilot goes, I'm pretty sure I could have done the same thing with a basic understanding of how a plane works. The Pentagon is an enormous target and the approach the plane was on takes it right to it like a big fat target for an arrow.

You guys really need to come out here and see this for yourselves and talk to the natives. I'm not sure why the fact that the people who live and work here saw a plane come in low and fast and hit the building fails to convince you that a plane did, indeed, do so. On the day this happened, there were no people around who had already decided it was a missile not a plane. There was no 9/11 conspiracy even dreamed of. It was happening at that very moment! There were just eye witnesses to a catastrophic crime. Including one I personally know. And just so you understand why I know a bit about security systems, I am a journalist and I cover security and law enforcement. I have 16 years of experience as a security/law enforcement writer. I am, in fact, published on a monthly basis and all my stories center around things like CCTV systems.

Lisby

[VegasWolf]

29. "Coming in low and just over the ground." Pretty good maneuver for

somebody who could who had just taken flying lessons.

[Zynx]

68. Crashing is easy.

You can't actually fly that close to the deck because you'll crash before you realize you did something wrong.

It's the same as tailgating at 65 miles per hour. Skill is irrelevent when you are going so fast relative to the distance that your body literally can't react in time.

[VegasWolf]

77. Right! Just like a car at 65. That is the worst argument I have ever heard

[Zynx]

103. It's no worse than most crap the conspiracy theorists produce.

[VegasWolf]

106. ROFL!!! That is your argument, that you are as stupid as your opponents?

[Kingshakabobo]

124. He was licensed commercial pilot with jet simulator training.....

but don't let facts get in your way.

The ratings he had was enough to handle the airplane.

[Tin Man]

143. Absolutely correct. From the Report of the 911 Commission

"Among the five hijackers aboard American Airlines Flight 77, Hani Hanjour was the sole
individual who FAA records show completed flight training and received FAA pilot
certification. Hanjour received his commercial multi-engine pilot certificate from the
FAA in March 1999. He received extensive flight training in the United States including
flight simulator training, and was perhaps the most experienced and highly trained pilot
among the 9/11 hijackers."

I wonder if any of the CT types will actually respond?

[BootinUp]

174. He had the hardest target apparently.

Course we don't know what FLT 93 was aimed at for sure.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

158. No, because he was intending to crash.

Crashing a plane is very easy to do. It takes skill NOT to crash.

Most people here do not understand it, but most of pilot training is in how to fly safely and how to recover from unusual attitudes. The basics of how to steer a plane are very easy. I was once in a plane with a 8-yr old at the controls. Her father was beside her as coach and to grab the controls if something happened. She handled take-off, inflight, and landing. (Cessna 172)

[Tin Man]

114. Good post, but I'm afraid it's pointless around here...

The "it wasn't Flight 77 that struck the Pentagon" crowd are, quite literally, beyond reason - they obsess over gas station closed-circuit-videos while discounting, no... make that ignoring, the accounts of hundreds of eye-witnesses to the event (like your boss). It's sheer lunacy.

[Norrin Radd]

182. Once again, witnesses who heard bombs going off in the WTC

have been ignored, as well. So what makes a witness credible?

[BootinUp]

185. I think witnesses can simply be mistaken

in the case of the bombs in the WTC, they heard noises and they are assuming it was bombs. A building coming down, things falling, there was plenty of noises at the time I am sure.

[Name removed]

187. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

150. They still have information from World War ONE that is classified.

And I am not talking about important secrets either. I am talking about how many pounds of beans a division ordered in a particular month.

[Carefulplease]

168. Of course that is classified...

This information is clearly related to chemical warfare.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

176. Good one !! LOL. NT

[Zynx]

66. Um, how about you WATCH the video?

None of the cameras face the Pentagon, let alone with a resolution and focus distance that would let you see anything if they did.

[VegasWolf]

79. They might catch a JUMBO JET though! If no cameras had visibility of

the Pentagon, then why all the fuss over thevideo tapes? Ypu guys are really grasping now!

[OldSiouxWarrior]

159. Cameras point at ground. Plane is in sky. Cameras no see.

Can I make it any plainer?

[Tin Man]

115. Please... actually WATCHING the video would interfere with their ability

...to make ridiculous claims about missiles and whatnot.

[Zynx]

67. Delete - dupe

[OldSiouxWarrior]

149. On a camera that is pointed at the ground?????

The plane was in the sky. Have you ever been to a convenience/gas station? Where are the cameras pointed? They are pointed at potential shoplifters. Are those shoplifters flying? No, they are on the ground. So the cameras in such stores are pointed at the ground. A camera pointed at the ground will not see something in the sky.

[savemefromdumbya]

18. what about the county highways maybe they had a camera?

[Name removed]

19. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Judi Lynn]

22. Thanks for the post. Interesting.

[huckleberry]

62. It was definitely a plane! I was there!

I was working in the Pentagon on 9/11 just two corridors down from where the plane hit and felt the impact. I saw the smoke filling the courtyard as we all ran, terrified, down the A ring trying to get out of the building.

One of my co-workers, who was coming into work late due to a doctor's appointment, was walking across the parking lot and saw the plane hit the building.

What do we have to do to convince you conspiracy theorists that it was really a plane?

[geek tragedy]

63. They'll just pretend you don't exist. eom

[Tin Man]

116. ...just like the folks below.

Your coworker, walking through the Pentagon parking lot that morning, DIDN'T see a 757 - he saw a drone. Easy mistake to make.

[VegasWolf]

80. Did you actually see the plane? Just curious. nt

[Zynx]

95. What else could it have been?

Only fuel burns like that.

[VegasWolf]

97. A drone as suggested by engineers. Read up on the arguments. There

are a lot of serious unanswered questions.

[Zynx]

102. That would have been one hell of a big drone.

Much bigger than any produced so far.

[VegasWolf]

105. You didn't read up did you? One serious problem is that the hole is way

to small to have been made by a 757. But then, you didn't know that did you?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

121. Cite? n/t

[OldSiouxWarrior]

160. Bullcrap. A 757 is ONLY 150 INCHES wide in the body.

That all, just 150 inches. The hole in the pentagon is much wider than that. And past the hole there is damage where the wings hit. The wings did NOT penetrate as they are flimsy and came apart and the fuel in them burned. Very easy to see in pictures taken after the smoke clears. I will post a couple for you.

This first picture is with everything on the lawn digitally removed and a plane inserted to make it easy to see:



This next one is with all the stuff there. You can still see the damage, and the hole is a lot bigger than 150 inches.

[cureautismnow]

92. Why were you all still in the building?

Wasn't CNN on inside? Didn't you all know that the towers were hit, another plane or two was missing, and you were a possible target? I'm just curious to know why seemingly nothing was done to prepare for or thwart this attack.

[rman]

125. I was there to! It was definitely not a plane!

Your word against mine. Neither is verifiable.

[Tin Man]

144. Yeah, but you're clearly lieing - and you can't spell "too"

:rofl:

[Norrin Radd]

183. Don't you mean "lying?"

You spelled it "lieing." ;)

Acting as the Spelling Police is ungracious, especially as typographical errors are made by everyone.

[Tin Man]

186. Oh well... I can take it - as well as dish it out

50 lashes! :spank:

[lonestarnot]

133. I'm convinced about this, but not about WTC bldg 7.

[Generator]

70. Obvious and convenient, thy name is LIHOP

[Omaha Steve]

72. I don't see this link posted yet

http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php

[Bjorn Against]

78. Please people do not suggest that no plane hit the Pentagon

That plane disappeared somewhere, and the only plausible explanation I have heard is that it did indeed hit the Pentagon.

I have questions about 9/11 as well, but I don't want to discredit the legitimate questions by asking questions that make us look ridiculous.

[VegasWolf]

84. Because it disappeared somewhere it must have hit the Pentagon. Poor

tautology.

[Bjorn Against]

86. Well tell us where it disappeared to then

It is not that easy to just make a commercial jet disappear out of thin air. If you can offer a plausible explanation I will listen, but I have heard many suggest that there was no plane that hit the Pentagon and I have yet to hear a single person offer any plausible alternative explanation.

I have been questioning the official 9/11 story from day one, but I believe that this question is a distraction from the real questions. There are parts of the official story that make absolutely zero sense, lets focus on those questions and leave the implausible scenarios alone.

[VegasWolf]

89. That who knows, but enough mystery surrounds this incident that

reasonable people, scholars and scientists, are asking serious questions. For example, many people cannot fathom the theory that the Pentagon, the world's number 1 military fortress, does not have perimeter cameras that could be used to identify EXACTLY what hit the pentagon. If it had pictures of a plane, then why not release them?

[Bjorn Against]

90. I do not deny there are serious questions

But I do believe a plane did in fact hit the Pentagon.

Now I will acknowledge that could have happened in a way that does not fully fit in with the official story line.

One possible explanation is that the Pentagon shot the plane down and it was struck by debris rather than the entire plane. I believe the flight in Pennsylvania was very likely shot down, and it is certainly plausible that the flight that hit the Pentagon was shot down as well. But either way I have no doubt in my mind that at least a part of the plane hit the Pentagon.

[VegasWolf]

91. Okay, if the Pentagon shot down the plane on approach and parts

exploded then there wouldn't be the impression of a fuselage and wings on the Pentagon outer wall. The question that I've heard most often is that the 'footprint' on the Pentagon wall does not so much match a 737, but more approximates a guided drone missile. I have no idea, but it does seem that these questions can be and should be addressed by an independent investigation which I hope we'll get when we take back control of congress.

edit: My bad recollection: it was supposedly a 757 plane that hit the pentagon, one huge mo! Not a 737.

[Bjorn Against]

98. It was not a missle

Remember we do not know the type of defenses the Pentagon has, but we should be able to assume that it is in fact heavily defended. If a plane were approaching they almost certainly would shoot it down before impact. It is very possible that they do not want to release the video that shows the plane hit because it would reveal some of the defenses the Pentagon uses and that is certainly a legitimate national security concern.

If only a part of the plane struck then it would be difficult to determine what sort of damage the debris that did hit would do to the building. To really determine that you would have to really know a great deal about physics and the weapon that they shot the plane down with.

Now again I am not suggesting that there are not any serious questions about the whole incident, hell may suggestion that the plane may have been shot down is not a position voiced by very many people although I think most people would acknowledge that the Pentagon would attempt to shoot down any aircraft that was headed their direction.

[VegasWolf]

100. We do not know that. What you are proposing is pure speculation,

not bad, just not useful. I would think that all Democrats would want an independent investigation of the entire 9/11 mess. Remember Pat Roberts has yet to release the even the second part of his 9/11 investigation much to the dismay of the Democrats on the 9/11 Commission. There too many unanswered questions, my favorite being how could kerosene bring down a massive steel and concrete reinforced building WTC even if the top was hit by a plane.

[Bjorn Against]

101. You are certainly speculating as well

I want an investigation, I never suggested otherwise but I want investigations into real questions not distractions that make us look like nutcases. You can not explain where the plane went. Focus on the real questions, because I am suspicious over the way the towers collapsed as well. The physics definately do not seem right, and it was very interesting how they managed to find one of the hijackers passports in perfect shape when everything else on the plane was incinerated. No passport could have survived that crash.

But there was no missle that hit the Pentagon. It is quite simply not plausible that they would disappear a commercial jet and then shoot their own building with a missle. The chances of witnesses seeing it and reporting on it would be too great. They could always justify a shoot down, they could not justify shooting a missle at their own building if that ever got out. The people at the Pentagon are not idiots, incompetent yes but they are certainly not idiots.

[VegasWolf]

109. No, I am not speculating. I am asking questions. As I have repeatably

said, I do not know. I am not claiming that I know anything unlike you, and a few other posters who seem to have accepted Bush's theory at roughly face value and are claiming that they know the answer. You are convinced. Like religious people who believe in God. I, and others, are asking questions that you posited were "ridiculous." I am simply pointing out to you that serious people have questions and would like to see an investigation in spite of "your" certainties about what happened.

As to the rest of your speculations in the 2nd paragraph of your reply. Go for it, you can probably come up with thousands of speculations that match the approved theory. The problem for you is that you don't and can't know. Neither can I. That is why serious people want an open investigation.

[Bjorn Against]

129. Where did I say I accepted Bush's theory at face value???!!!

I am sorry but you have no clue what you are talking about. I am asking questions, but I don't ask questions such as "is it possible that the earth is flat?" because a question like that would make me look pretty damn ignorant.

I am not convinced of the official story of 9/11 and have stated that several times, and I don't know what I have to say to make that simple fact register with you.
Now you are completely making crap up, I NEVER SAID I ACCEPTED BUSH'S THEORY AND IT IS SLANDEROUS TO SAY OTHERWISE.

I said I wanted an open investigation, but I don't want to waste my time on crap.

Your theory with the missle is just plain stupid. Look at the logistics of an ordeal like that, the Pentagon would have to dispose of a commercial airliner and all its passengers without being seen by anyone. That is extremely difficult in itself. But on top of that you are suggesting that they launched a missle into their own building without being seen by anyone. The chance of someone seeing either the plane or the missle would be far too great and the Pentagon would have absolutely no reason to carry out such an elaborate stunt. You may suggest they did it to give Bush and the military more power, but if that were the case it would be a hell of a lot simpler for them to just crash the plane into the building than it would be for them to hide the plane and then shoot a missle.

You are discrediting any attempt at a real investigation with these ridiculous theorys of missles. You are doing far more damage to attempts to get a real investigation than I am. You quite simply have no credibility when you say things like this.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

161. The pentagon does not have anti-aircraft missiles are AAA batteries.

First, such things are rather large and can't be hidden. They would have been known to be there.

Until that day in history, nobody, anywhere, had ever used civilian airliners in a kamikaze attack. So the pentagon was caught off guard.

[Norrin Radd]

184. Exactly.

All the arguments of why the Pentagon wouldn't have cameras are silly...then again, I guess the Pentagon doesn't need cameras, what, with all the civilian cameras nearby, that they can swoop in on and from which they may confiscate footage that they subsequently classify.

[rman]

126. Please don't tell us what to say or not to say.

[Hestia]

93. Okay - but what about the hotel video tape that hasn't been

released? It is suppose to have a better angle to the Pentagon. Was any of the tape 'redacted'?

[VegasWolf]

94. I guess we won't know until we see it and the other 'confiscated'

tapes.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

162. What make you think the hotel tape is pointed at the Pentagon?

Security cameras are mounted in elevated positions and pointed at the ground close to the building they are to protect. And the angle of view of the cameras is set to be the same as the area they are protecting, and no more. That was image area isn't wasted. What makes you think that a camera pointed at a small plot of ground is going to see a plane in the sky?

[leesa]

99. One wonders why the FBI refused to release it "because it was central to

their investigation" as I recall. Something stinks to high heaven, as is usual with all things pertaining to the 9-11 scam.

[Old and In the Way]

104. I'm surprised the video cams were not found inoperable that day.

Interesting statement by Judicial Watch. I close my eyes and imagine Dick Cheney dictating that last paragraph.

[DemInDistress]

107. this video is a fake and a fraud... here's why

while watching this intently notice the time at 9:36 and 9:37 and 9:38 and 9:39 and 9;40 then it stops at 9:41
if you look closely in the blurred section you'll see people milling around probably buying shit.
What would you do if an errant commercial jet passes 20-50 ft. above the store and crashes no less into the Pentagon 100 yards away. I most certainly would run to the door and go outside to see what the fuck just happened.

Nothing, not a soul runs to the door. no excited people. from 9:36am to 9:41 am its business as usual. No commercial jet, global hawk or cruise missile struck the Pentagon at the time listed on this video.

ask yourself, what would you do? No one would have stayed inside that store and I do notice in those 5 minutes
4-5 maybe 6 figures milling around the store.

Its a fake, a fantasy put out by the murderers in our Whitehouse.

I'm open for debunking. Shoot !

[VegasWolf]

110. Well, we have a "president" who sat for seven minutes. But that doesn't

count, because he has no soul and is not a real person!

[DemInDistress]

112. plus, VegasWolf that POS POTUS was in on the attacks,,,good

cover hiding with kids reading a goat story..

Seriously though don't you think the people in the store would have raced outside to see what the fuck just happened? I see no excitement, nothing.. people just going about their business.

[0007]

108. self delete

[Why Syzygy]

113. Since when does the FBI

give a shit about individual's privacy?

The question for the FBI is, how did this tape 'fall' into YOUR hands? Or did you show up 3 minutes after the attack and demand the tape be handed over? So you could protect individual privacy?

Do they know this is on film? Meaning, we see you.

[VirginiaDem]

119. This website has become a nuthouse

and it's a shame. What began as a meeting ground for Democrats of all stripes to support the Democratic cause has devolved into a place that allows for this type of shameful, lunatic conspiracy mongering.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

120. This is nothing.

There are people in the dungeon who'll tell you that no planes hit the WTC. That's the one that really gets me.

[Tin Man]

128. My sentiments exactly. This is the best formated blog I've discovered, BUT

...it has some of the looniest posters I've ever seen, too.

It's unfortunate - the ridiculous CT discussions distract from what could otherwise be a really powerful site for Dems. I find myself posting here less and less because it's more difficult for me to take this place seriously because of threads like this one.

I'm hoping that most of the nutball posters on DU are just agents provocateur from rightwing sites...

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

131. Don't worry.

If we win back the White House in 2008, they'll all flip back over to being right-wing black helicopter nutters, which is where most of their spiritual leadership (Alex Jones, etc) come from in the first place. Then the freepers will have to deal with them.

[Tin Man]

132. Phew! Thanks, I feel much better - here's to hoping you're right.

:beer:

[VirginiaDem]

145. Here's hoping! n/t

[HughBeaumont]

130. And for the MIHOPers who DON'T fully accept CD/Pentagate?

Are we still nutballs?

I'm a Terror Timeline/Press For Truth MIHOP subscriber. No wackjob theories in that book or that movie; only actual DOCUMENTED events. How they happened and how our government, elected officials and their corporate owners DEALT with these events before, during and after is why we want hard questions to be answered. We reject that softball, nothing-but-the-blatantly-obvious steaming pile known as the 9/11 Commission Report because it's not only a last-resort whitewash, it's unsubstantial and serves not an iota of purpose for the families that lost loved ones on that day. Everything about that day defied common sense, logic and even science, at least not how they described it.

Only a truly independent, NOT bipartisan, investigation will bring answers to the families and closure.

And goddamnit, why is opening debate rather than trying to close it all of a sudden considered "lunacy"?

[BootinUp]

134. Are the families that appear in the film MIHOPers? n/t

[HughBeaumont]

136. Why does MIHOP absolutely MEAN you HAVE to believe CD/Pentagate?

Did I ever ONCE suggest The Jersey Girls were MIHOPers? These families want questions answered. The 9/11 Commission did not do that. NO government official or group has done that. "Terrorists of Al Qaeda flew planes in buildings. They collapsed, people died. We couldn't have predicted this would happen. Not in a million years. Sorry for your loss. Thank you for calling. Get on with your lives." is not an acceptable answer, and that's what they're being given by this last-resort whitewash.

You're looking for things that are phenomenally sad, try four widows kicking their government's collective asses on gathering hard research on events before, during and after that day in an attempt to connect the dots on why their husbands/sons were murdered and at the same time, paying taxes to that same entity that's supposed to be doing their job.

[BootinUp]

137. You seemed to connect the movie with MIHOP

so I was asking for clarification on your understanding. I have watched a good portion of the mocvie and I think it is quite good. But I did not see a MIHOP or even LIHOP position advocated.

[HughBeaumont]

142. I think there's definite LIHOP indication.

The implication that I'm referring to, when you read the text the movie is based on, is that there WAS governmental and possibly corporate foreknowledge of the tragedy, obvious and not so obvious, and that something should have indeed been done to stop it. The movie only scratches the book's surface. I believe that one of the strengths of the movie is that it adds a human face to what a great deal of people still consider "Conspiracy", "fringe", "detrimental to an independent investigation", etc. There doesn't have to be association to things that can't be proven to know that something simply isn't right about all of this. It's like the people who said Cindy Sheehan is being led astray by the "Loony Left"; she just wanted answers and so do the widows and others who've lost loved ones in the attacks. I don't want the skeptics to "tsk tsk" these women for the same thing; what Paul Thompson is doing is heroic and necessary.

I guess I'm just being defensive as a reaction to people implying that something's wrong with me because I don't buy the Kean/Hamilton/Zelikow/Ben Chertoff version of things. Like Paul Roberts said: whatever version one feels to be correct regarding 9/11 isn't the issue here. Attempting to close the debate completely does far greater harm than sifting through the implausible to find the truth. There are going to be theories that may be considered fringe. One's only insulted by them if they choose to be. I say don't ridicule the person or their views until they're proven 100% incorrect; which, let's face facts, no side of the coin can lay claim to yet.

[geek tragedy]

135. That's why the dungeon exists.

Keep as much of the psychosis in one place as possible.

[mhatrw]

140. Shame, shame. Next thing you know somebody will be claiming Bush

stole two elections!

[CATagious]

141. this is so true...

the 'no plane' theory is the nuttiest thing I've ever heard. These people ignore 1) the plane parts 2) the eyewitnesses that saw the plane, even the AA logo 3) If no plane, what happned to that flight and the people on it?

I saw Michael Shermer (Skeptic magazine) on C-Span last night talking about this very subject and just about everyone of the callers were nutjobs who watched the conspiracy theory movie and believed it. Michael made very rational and reasonable rebuttals to every single claim that was made. These crazy conspiracies make us Dems look pretty dumb.

[Nozebro]

127. There was no attack to "capture" on video. The explosions were inside

the Pentagon.

[TAM]

146. SO the security cam footage?

ah, so the footage from the security cam they released earlier, that show the large fireball OUTSIDE the pentagon...that footage is faked?

TAM

[Nozebro]

147. Yes. The building had already been "attacked" on Sept. 12th.

Your post makes me wonder if you are as sloppy in your thinking as the perps that faked those images. If you were a lawyer and tried to introduce obviously faked evidence - and then having the nerve to claim it depicted events from the day before the date clearly stamped on it, you'd be laughed out of court.

BTW - you AREN'T a lawyer, are you?

[Sinti]

178. I'm not surprised. If you ran a gas station, what would you have your

cameras watching - the Pentagon or your own business?

[mirandapriestly]

179. So what's with the date stamps on these videos?

they always have the wrong date...also there are those fuzzed out parts...I have no hope of ever seeing anything on video that's real, I mean the FBI ADMITs using video editing equipment on the airport videos, so...forget about it, if there was anything they'd edit it out (or "in").

[Nozebro]

191. That's the beauty of having total control of the evidence & the "evidence"

MP - there wasn't enough room for an "EOM" uP there at the end of the "evidence". But, now that you're here, allow me to agree with your observation. BIG Time.