Analysts studying 9/11 claims evidence supports small plane at Pentagon

[berniew1]

911: rense.com takes up small-plane thesis -- Leland Lehrman demonstrates how

Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 08:15:40 -0800 From: "Dick Eastman" <[e-mail]>

Not-the-Boeing rides again!

rense.com finds finally takes up small-plane thesis -- 911 investigator Leland Lehrman demonstrates how

A3 Skywarrier (pictures included) fits best as Killer Jet, while Boeing 757 in American Airlines livery does not fit at all.

http://rense.com/general61/EPENT.HTM

Pentagon Plane Identified?

By Leland Lehrman: [e-mail] --- 12-31-4


Esteemed Colleagues - frame one aircraft at Pentagon I took the animated gif image from the website: http://www.physics911.net/missingwings.htm which shows the five-frame government-released Pentagon video zoomed in on the area where the plane went. Looking at it over and over and at 400% zoom, I have finally reached the tentative opinion that it may be a small black military aircraft shooting a missile. The image appears consistent with a black A3 SkyWarrior or similar aircraft as indicated by Karl Schwarz, both an aircraft specialist and a talented, resourceful investigator. http://www.karlschwarz.com To the right in html email is an illustrated version of frame one outlining the aircraft in red and the possible white missile trail in orange. Attached is the same file, larger, for those without html email. In particular, the image is not consistent with a shiny airplane of any sort. The only reflection appears to come from the forward area, near where the cockpit windows or front edge of the wings might be.

Look at this image of an American 757.
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/745215/L/ The plane is almost entirely silver, and the tail is close to white and has clear and large markings on it.
Now look at the plane in the image attached or on the web. Everything is black, and the sun is shining directly on it, as evidenced by the angle of the shadow on the box-shaped thing in the foreground, so there is no way the darkness could be shadow.. In the image attached, aircraftoutlined.jpg, you will see the red outline of the likely airplane and the orange outline of the possible missile trail. If you look at the image directly following this one in the five frame animation
, you will be able to compare and contrast the two frames in order to establish other parameters that require a relational view of both frames. It is useful to view the images at 200-400% zoom and frame by frame slowly. Programs like the freeware Irfanview http://irfanview.com/ can zoom the file adequately. There is almost no question that there is in fact some sort of white exhaust trail consistent with a missile
trail in this image . * Any contention that a 757 hit the Pentagon must deal with what that white cloud-like apparition is and as well how come the tail of the plane in the photograph is black. * Black ops comes to mind. I would be interested in going over these two images on the phone [phone]) with anyone interested in order to describe the many difficult-to-put-in-words nuances. If these images do not come through, check
them out online: Pentagon Security Camera Frame 1 zoomed with outlines:


A3 SkyWarrior:

[berniew1]

1. But those working on election fraud shouldn't get distracted right now

[sportndandy]

2. a good video

is at this link:

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

[Machiavelli05]

3. is everything a conspiracy?

You guys need to chill a bit.

[MidwestTransplant]

5. No kidding. If an AA plane didn't hit the pentagon then where did the AA

plane go?

[merwin]

53. So then were was the AA plan IN the pentagon? None of the pictures show

ANY debris whatsoever from an airplane hitting the pentagon. There would be airplane pieces everywhere, as well as a hole that is not circular (planes have wings, you know!)

[MercutioATC]

71. There ARE pictures of plane debris...look here:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html

[merwin]

88. So, we've got a wheel well, a tiny bit of part of an engine, and one scrap

of the plane that is tiny as well...

That's not very good evidence of a plane being there.

One thing to think about... If a 757 had indeed gone through the pentagon, it's wings did not go along with it (since there are no marks from wings hitting the pentagon). Therefore, the wings must have "snapped off", which means that there would have been many more parts of the airplane that wouldn't have been destroyed.

[MercutioATC]

90. Read the ASCE report. It explains it.

http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.html

[Abe Linkman]

110. You mean: no photos of credible 757 debris, right?

See, the Official Conspiracy Theorists will provide you with photos of trash or airlplane parts from a small jet, then tell you: "THERE, there's your photos of plane debris". YOU are then supposed to say: "Oh, okie dokey, I guess the Official Conspiracy Theory is right. Those evildoer CIA assets did it all, right before the camera's eye."

[DulceDecorum]

125. Wherdy go?

We dunno.

Brig. Gen. Arthur F. "Chip" Diehl III says that
there wasn't a single piece of the jet to be seen anywhere.

The BTS says the plane never took off
and the FAA claims that the plane was not destroyed until January 14, 2002.
When asked for comment, the NTSB points to the FBI
and neither one will divulge anything worth knowing.

We have been asking
WHERDY GO?
for the longest time now,
and so far
answer comes there none.

[stickdog]

147. If an AA plane DID hit the Pentagon, then where did the AA plane go? (nt)

[smartvoter]

9. Amen to that. nt

[frylock]

13. no shit..

why can't people be satisfied with the Official Lore of 911, and just get on with their lives, procreate, and consume rather than dwell on such questions such as why there isn't any video evidence, despite the 9 jillion angles of WTC we're subjected to, or sworn affidavits to support testimony of supposed eyewitness accounts?

I mean, really people, is it all that important that the single one event that pretty much drives current policy is shrouded in mystery?

[bunny planet]

24. you forgot, 'go shopping'

[Machiavelli05]

35. ITS NOT SHROUDED IN MYSTERY

I know people who saw the plane in Arlington.

Maybe its a mystery to you - but those who saw it I think its pretty clear.

[demodewd]

114. not the same thing

Seeing a plane in Arlington that looked like a 757 is not the same thing as verifying plane parts in the Pentagon.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

117. There were eyewitness there that said it was a smaller craft. Here is

The link to my post from last night for the film 9/11 In Plane Site. This film was created with actual footage taken on 9/11 from mainstream news sources. It is a must see.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6847.htm

[stickdog]

148. They saw a 757 fly into the Pentagon and then completely disappear?

Really? They really got a clear view of that? Or is this the DC equivalent to being at the game when Joe Montana hit Dwight Clark?

If not then I wonder, how did a guy who couldn't fly a Cessna at altitude hit a bunch of lamp posts 15 feet off the ground over the span of a couple of miles going 480 knots while negotiating a direct hit into the first floor of the most reinforced and least populated section of the Pentagon?

[spooked911]

39. well in fact, almost everything is indeed a conspiracy!

:D

[Wilms]

45. Post 20 below n/t

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. Sooooo..... if it was really an A3 that hit the Pentagon,

what, exactly, happened to the American Airlines 757 and its passenger and crew, if it didn't hit the Pentagon? Is it in the Bermuda Triangle, perhaps? I'm sure a lot of people would like to know. The Reynolds Aluminum Company is sure selling a lot of hats these days.

[buddysmellgood]

12. So because no one can answer your question, the evidence in these

pictures should be ignored?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

21. Ever heard of PhotoShop?

And did AA's 757 just vanish into thin air? Aliens, maybe?

[buddysmellgood]

30. Again, no one is disputing the disappearance of the 757. But where is the

evidence of the 757 at the crash site. I don't want to believe it either. Just like I don't WANT to believe the election was stolen. But this stuff is glaring. It must be explained. I can put the question right back to you. Dis AA's 757 just vaporize at the Pentagon? Only water vaporizes. 757's leave lots and lots of debris. Wouldn't the wings at least break the windows?

[MercutioATC]

33. Here's a good link:

http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.html

It's a report done by professional civil engineers who examined the site firsthand.

It doesn't prove that AAL77 hit the Pentagon. It's not meant to do anything but analyze the damage.

It does, however, explain the physics behind the idea that a 757 hit the Pentagon.

[spooked911]

41. Flight 77 could have been shot down in a remote area.

It was in fact the one flight that completely disappeared from all radar for some time before "reappearing" near the Pentagon.

In any case, there is very little proof that flight 77 really hit the Pentagon, and the hole and the approach path has always been very peculiar.

[MercutioATC]

44. I disagree.

But hey, everybody's entitled to an opinion.

Again, this has been discussed a LOT in the 9/11 Forum here at DU.

[demodewd]

115. translate

Again, this has been discussed a LOT in the 9/11 Forum here at DU

translate..'It has been discussed a lot therefore we need not discuss it anymore,but I'll still be around to pester those who wish to keep the topic going even though I tell you to stop discussing it. It's a waste of time for you but not a waste of time for me to tell you over and over again that it's a waste of time.

Thank you.'

[MercutioATC]

132. Translation (for those who have trouble with English)...

I'll try to type slower...


This. has. been. discussed. a. LOT. in. the. 9/11. Forum. here. at. DU.


It means exactly what it says. Why is it that some people feel the need to look for hidden messages in every post?

[demodewd]

146. the "hole"

You still haven't cogently explained the hole into the A-E Drive. It is a big "hole" in your argument...

[Abe Linkman]

111. That report is MORE consistent with a small jet attack; not a 757.

The ASCE report is only helpful if a 757 crashed. Since there's more evidence of a small jet crash than a 757, the ASCE report is MORE helpful as an explanation for damage inflicted by a small jet, a missile (recall that Mr. Rumsfeld himself said a missile had hit the building), and shaped charge explosions.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

120. Ever hear of the Atlantic Ocean? Photoshop? See post #7.

[wlubin]

36. Let me take a wild guess. The hijackers flew the plane to south

America and put bullets into everyone's head. OK, I found a possibility, therefore this 911 is not without an explanation as to what happened to the AA plane. So now how do you explain all the anomalies surrounding the pentagon incident.

BTW the WTC event also has a ton of anomalies associated with it too.Let's Roll 911 is a good website to begin your investigation of who really did do 911. Let me give you a hint. Dick Chenney/shrub and the neo-cons did it so that they could get the backing to go into Iraq, and create the patriot act, and do what ever else it is that they have done, or will do. If you still don't believe it than read their own manifesto written in mid 90's in which they say they need a "New Perl Harbor" in which to begin their new world dominance for a new American century.

[merwin]

55. Is it so hard to crash a plane somewhere else? say, ocean?

and then pick up the pieces while everyone is focused intently on the mainland.

[wlubin]

59. Why would the hijackers be willing to kill themselves?

They probably flew the plane somewhere, and just popped caps into the heads of all the passengers.

[merwin]

63. That would work as well... n/t

[MercutioATC]

68. Undetected by radar? Yes, it is.

a 757 is not a stealthy aircraft.

[stickdog]

149. They are if they turn their transponders off. In fact, I have it on good

authority that they are so fucking stealthy that a flight that's widely suspected to be hijacked by suicidal terrorists can fly all the way from Texas to DC during a national military emergency, knock down a few highway lamp posts doing 500 mph about 15 feet off the ground and then slam into the fucking Pentagon without anybody being the wiser. All using an untrained pilot who reportedly couldn't be trusted flying a Cessna at altitude.

But of course, that's nuts.

Right?

[MercutioATC]

155. A 757 is stealthy? And what's this about Texas?

With the transponder off, a plane won't broadcast an identifying code, but primary radar will still get a return (a very clear return from something as big as a 757).

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

65. It could have easily been dumped in the Atlantic. It amazes me

That people who know what chicanery the sociopaths will go to make sure the election was fixed, and know all the lies that led us into the war in Iraq (and the countless dead bodies left in the wake), can't fathom that there was something far sinister that happened on September 11th. Your minds are open about vote fraud, please open them to this.

[Annus Horribilis]

6. Rense?

Rense regularly posts anti-Semitic articles and furthers Zionist conspiracies. I don't they are very credible.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

7. This is relevant. The same players. Here's another good video

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6847.htm

9/11 In Plane Sight

[WhoWantsToBeOccupied]

8. Would this explain Rummy's behavior?

Apologies if the following is obvious to everyone. I know little about the Pentagon plane...

Rummy's strange post-attack behavior (i.e., personally helping out rather than trying to figure out how to defend the nation against possible continuing attacks) seems more consistent with him knowing about the attack in advance than with him being in the dark like the rest of us. (The same is true of Bush's "My Pet Goat" reaction... or non-reaction.)

Also, a small plane attack would have been safer than a large plane attack if the DoD needed to ensure that certain areas of the Pentagon would remain safe during and immediately after the attack. The larger the plane, the greater the potential risk to those (like Rummy) located in areas of the building that were not supposed to be hit.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

10. I repeat my previous question:

Where. Is. American. Airlines'. 757? Find that airplane and then maybe this this stuff can be taken somewhat seriously. Otherwise, IMO it's bloody nonsense.

[Machiavelli05]

14. Well... take your pick

At the bottom of Loch Ness
In Bigfoot's layer
At the US's secret moon base
Or in Area 51.


Its gotta be in one of those 4 places.

[frylock]

16. how difficult would it have been to vector 77 to an undisclosed location..

and disappear these people? Would it be any more difficult than someone who couldn't even manage a flight simulator to turn n burn a commercial airliner and drop it into the side of the Pentagon, like a seasoned tail-hooker, without even grazing the lawn?

[MercutioATC]

19. Impossible.

A 757 leaves a pretty discernable radar return. It would have been "seen" on radar wherever it went.

[frylock]

23. it would seem that there was some confusion that day..

what with Vigilant Guardian and all that. It seems that ATC was having a difficult time of keeping track.

[MercutioATC]

27. All of it's recorded.

Even if things were chaotic at the time, radar tapes were reviewed. There's no way to hide a plane....

[Wilms]

49. But where are the radar "tapes"? n/t

[MercutioATC]

51. I don't know whether the FAA or the FBI have them now.

The point I'm making is that everything is recorded.

[Wilms]

56. Got it. Thanks. But in he link here:

<http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html>

The recordings where requested and folks aren't getting them. Why?

ATC guys were debriefed, that recording, snipped up and put in various garbage cans, is the report. WTF?

[MercutioATC]

60. I agree that protocol wasn't followed in the tape-snipping incident, but

those controllers were always available. Discarding the tapes wouldn't have made any difference.

[Wilms]

64. Then why not follow protocol?

snip, snip, shred, trash.

They gotta do better.

[MercutioATC]

67. I don't know.

It was the action of one manager with one set of tapes. There were plenty of other debriefings that were properly recorded.

[Wilms]

69. The research community wants it. It'll help shut 'em up to see the record.

<http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html>

[MercutioATC]

73. Hey, I agree with you.

I'd like to see it myself.

I still believe the overwhelming majority of the evidence points to AAL77 crashing into the Pentagon.

[Wilms]

76. O.K. I leave that open as a possibility. Again, 101 logic, dictates.

I'm more impressed by the unanswered questions/holes, than any particular theories of any of the main points.

[wlubin]

66. OK, here is the smoking gun. Find the video of a 757 crashing

into the side of the Pentagon. If you can not find a video of it, then you have to believe that it never happened.

[MercutioATC]

70. I don't have a video of my parents having sex...

...but I know they did it at least twice as evidenced by my sister and me....

[Wilms]

74. Well, no offense, but I hope you're sure of that!

But it goes to college 101 logic.

A plane could cause a hole.

There a hole.

Therefore, a plane, of the type I'm told, did it.


Answer like that and you fail the class.

[MercutioATC]

80. Actually, it's more involved than that...

A 757 would cause a hole of X size.

A hole of x size is evident.

757 debris (albeit only a little) was found at the site.

No debris from another plane/missile was found at the site.

A report written by professional civil engineers explains the physics of how a 757 could have caused the damage.

A large commercial aircraft was seen by scores of eyewitnesses.

Lightpoles along the alleged flight path of the 757 were knocked over.

DNA from the passengers of a specific 757 and the black boxes from that plane were allegedly recovered.

That specific 757 is missing and the last radar contact was in the vicinity of the site.

Three other commercial aircraft were hijacked and crashed the same day.


I think that would work in class...

[wlubin]

86. A 757 would cause a hole of X size.

I heard the hole was X - 20

757 debris (albeit only a little) was found at the site.
one little piece which could have been easily planted

No debris from another plane/missile was found at the site.
sure it was, go to 911 truth websites.

A report written by professional civil engineers explains the physics of how a 757 could have caused the damage.
yeah and he was paid a lot of money out of shrubs pocket haha

A large commercial aircraft was seen by scores of eyewitnesses.
sure the hijacked plane was flown past the pentagon. And in fact many witnesses said they heard what sounded like a commuter plane

Lightpoles along the alleged flight path of the 757 were knocked over.
so?

DNA from the passengers of a specific 757 and the black boxes from that plane were allegedly recovered.
Has bush ever lied before?

That specific 757 is missing and the last radar contact was in the vicinity of the site.
The plane probably was in the vicinity. But then another bush lie never talked about the plane also seen heading for mexico hahaha.

Three other commercial aircraft were hijacked and crashed the same day.
Not so fast buddy, many eyewitnesses said the planes that hit the WTC had no windows. Go to 911 truth websites for full info.

[Wilms]

87. One by one

Would/Could, but did it?

Got the hole.

And a bit of debris, none REPORTED from other possible source.

The Civil Engineering report was prepared in secret. (Too, bad.)

Eyewitness, including the ones who saw it differently, aren't good sources.

Whatever was on the flight path probably hit it. (Release the video?)

Yes, alledgedly discovered. Good.

Yes. But there is also a huge, huge, gap in radar data for that flight. (And it would be fair to note that.)

Three others proves what.

I won't grade the paper.

[Abe Linkman]

112. "F" for logic. "B" for intentional or negligent hogwash.

The whole argument is junk. Sounds like the kind of disinformation you'd expect to get from a PR firm; NOT from someone who claims to be a sincere, objective DUer interested in the truth, who ONLY wants to "share" his/her opinions.

[MercutioATC]

133. Care to give us an example of YOUR logic?

I won't even grade you....I promise.

[stickdog]

153. "Lightpoles along the alleged flight path of the 757 were knocked over."

Yes. A ridiculously amateur pilot flew 15 off the ground directly over highway traffic going about 500 mph for several miles, knocking bolted steel light poles hither and thither with his stealth 757's aluminum wings, but he still managed to routinely guide the plane to its direct hit into the first floor of the most reinforced and least populated wing of the United States military command center. All before anybody noticed what was happening. All before anybody managed to snap a single photo or capture a single video image of what happened.

[MercutioATC]

156. Again, he hit the Pentagon.

Exactly WHERE he hit it was chance. If I tell you to throw a baseball at a wall and you hit it do you have "amazing control" because you happened to hit it exactly wherever you did or is hitting a wall a relatively easy task with the exact point of impact being mostly chance?

[wlubin]

81. ooops ouch. Sorry I didn't think I would have to explain this

further. I don't know how else to explain it other than

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IN FRONT OF THE PENTAGON. THAT MUTHA F'ING PLACE IS LIT. IT IS THE PENTAGON. EVERY SQUARE INCH OF THAT PLACE IS LIT.

uhhmmm sorry. And they can't give us a good pic of a 757 before it hits the pentagon?

[MercutioATC]

89. I'm sure they COULD. They haven't, though.

Yes, there are plenty of cameras that should have recorded the crash. The point is that their refusal to release a video of what really happened does not make anything a "LIE".

[wlubin]

92. they did release a video and it was doctored to be made fuzzy

around the object that hit the pentagon. you haven't see it? And i tell you, even after they doctored it, the fuzz that i see does not seem to be a huge 757.

And why would they not release it? What is the point of not releasing it?

[MercutioATC]

96. I have seen it. Who do you think doctored it?

[wlubin]

What kind of question is that? Who do you think doctored it?

[MercutioATC]

99. You think the government doctored it? Why??

[wlubin]

102. Yes I think the gov doctored it.. And they doctored it so that we

would not see that it was not a 757 that hit into the pentagon.

[MercutioATC]

130. Why release it at all, then?

[wlubin]

134. Because they were hounded for 2 years to give a video of it.

Where have you been, under a rock? bwahahahahahahaahha

[MercutioATC]

157. Yes, that "hounding" thing seems to work really well, doesn't it?

They've been "hounded" for a lot more than that and haven't released anything. What makes you think that this ONE video represents the government bowing to public pressure?

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

119. There were security tapes that were immediately confiscated that

Day by the FBI. From a nearby hotel and gas station whose video cameras would have shown the crash. Those videos have never been made public. I wonder why............

[wlubin]

124. Bingo, smoking gun.

There is absolutely no reason not to let us see the 757 as it is approaching the pentagon. The reason they don't is because it never happened.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

127. I agree. n/t

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

128. Speaking of videos. This will make all of you think. Please Read!

There was an Al Queda training video, and in that video was footage of the first plane hitting, with a view of the WTC being attacked that had never been seen before. It turns out that this footage had been in the custody of the FBI reportedly given to them by a passerby who caught it on video. The question is. If the FBI had it, never shown it, how did "Al Queda" get it????

http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=47459

[stickdog]

152. Just like every vote is recorded.

Right?

[MercutioATC]

158. Well, that's a bizarre statement.

You're trying to equate radar tapes with national elections? Bizarre.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

25. Thank you!

[demodewd]

118. just like

Just like all those fake blips and drones on the radar screen that morning.

[stickdog]

151. Except from Dallas to DC. That's a "radar invisible" zone. Right, Merc?

Or are you forgetting the official explanation of how Flight 77 happened to hit the FUCKING PENTAGON well over an hour after the first signs -- and more than 40 minutes after anybody with a TV and a functional brain knew for certain -- that the United States experiencing a multipronged terrorist attack using hijacked planes as bombs.

Seriously, MercutioATC, exactly how did Flight 77's "pretty discernable" radar return get lost between Texas and DC? I'm really pondering this conundrum because an expert air traffic contoller who should know just told me that Flight 77 should "have been 'seen' on radar wherever it went."

[MercutioATC]

161. What are you babbling about? AAL77 was nowhere near Texas.

[buddysmellgood]

17. Explain the wings. Explain the size of the engine part relative to the leg

Doesn't it seem strange that a massive jet could fly so low to the ground over a highway and no one would see it? People heard the planes hit the twin towers from far away. No one has reported hearing anything like that at the Pentagon. I don't want to believe it either, but those picture just don't make sense. Why doesn't the Pentagon release the rest of the video of the plane?

[MercutioATC]

26. Nobody SAW it????? Completely untrue.

http://www.wtc-terrorattack.com/pentagon_eyewitness_accounts.htm

[buddysmellgood]

38. Look at the quotes you posted.

"'I mean it was like a cruise missile with wings, went right there and slammed into the Pentagon,' eyewitness Mike Walter said of the plane that hit the military complex. 'Huge explosion, great ball of fire, smoke started billowing out, and then it was just chaos on the highway as people either tried to move around the traffic and go down either forward or backwards,' he said."

This person does not describe a 757.
And photoshop you say? Why would the pentagon alter the only video of the crash to make it look like anything other than a 757. A 757 would be about half as tall as the building.
Like I said, I don't want to believe it. But I don't see any evidence of a 757 hitting the building.

[MercutioATC]

40. I have looked at them.

ONE person used a "cruise missile" analogy. How many described a large commercial airplane?

Oh, and the photoshop allegation wasn't mine...

[buddysmellgood]

48. Right. 20 feet off the ground. The problem is that the evidence does not

match. I went to the link you posted and ended up here.
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr68c.html
I can't explain any of this and have not seen an explanation.

[MercutioATC]

50. Did you READ the text on that site?

It's an opinion site done by a layperson based on a few photos. A lot of what the author uses as evidence of a conspiracy has been explained by professionals who understand the subject matter.

Yes, if you're determined that a conspiracy exists, you'll have no trouble finding a semi-literate amateur with an opinion and a website. I still haven't seen ONE report done by a professional that refutes the idea that AAL77 crashed at the Pentagon.

[buddysmellgood]

82. I don't want to believe this. But there is too much that does not add up.

This could be cleared up if the pentagon would release the video. I've seen several posts from you that claim that "professionals" have explained all of this away. You impugn the "lay" person as not being able to understand and brush off any photo or eyewitness account that contradicts your position.
If you're determined to believe the "official version" you'll not have any trouble finding reports that dodge the questions.

[MercutioATC]

85. I'm just asking for opinions from people who understand the issues.

People with training and experience.

I haven't seen ANY that agree with any of the various conspiracy theories. You'd think that a few would disagree if the theories had any merit, wouldn't you?

[buddysmellgood]

94. I haven't seen any reasonable explanation of the pentagon's conspiracy

theory either. This could all be put to rest by releasing photos and video.

[wlubin]

145. Bingo. Let's see it. Smoking gun.

[Wilms]

20. Try this...

Google and download

from the gov. "Operation Northwoods", it's a FOIA. I think item 8, or so is relevant.

Google the available radar data for the flight. You'll see it goes blank. The "available" data is public domain. The real data, well the gov. calls that top secret. That tends to get some, not all, folk asking question.

Another search term: "Plane Swap"

Go at it!

[Machiavelli05]

47. I think I saw you once..

youre that guy from Enemy of the State that lives in a copper cage and helps out Will Smith... right?

[Wilms]

54. Cut me some slack. Did you look at that? n/t

On edit: <http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html>

[dlaliberte]

28. Yes, please find the AA 757

They didn't find a 757 at the pentagon, after all.

[MercutioATC]

31. They found AAL77 passenger DNA and the black boxes...

...and a landing gear strut...and a wheel...and pieces of fuselage...

[Wilms]

43. OK, they say the DNA was there.

And a blackbox. So that means it was what they say it was? No other scenario?

With all the subterfuge that surrounds the non-investigation, some folk logically conclude that the most flimsy of conspiracy theories belongs to the 911 Commission.

<http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html>

[MercutioATC]

46. Is there any evidence that it WASN'T there?

If you're going to disbelieve every statement made by the government just because it was made by the government, it's going to be really difficult to make conclusions here. The Pentagon is a government building. As such, only the government is authorized to commission studies and all of the evidence will be released by the government.

See what I'm getting at? The ONLY source of official data IS the government because it was a government building that was involved.

Scores of eyewitnesses, radar data, debris, DNA and black boxes...and the implausibility of any of the other scenarios I've seen all lead me to believe that AAL77 really did crash at the Pentagon.

[Wilms]

52. The gov't. has been hiding throughout. Too many questions refused.

<http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html>

[MercutioATC]

58. Agreed, but that's not evidence of wrongdoing.

I fully agree that a lot of evidence has been withheld. In absence of that evidence, I'm much more inclined to listen to the professional opinions of experts who actually undertsand the subject matter than the lay opinions of people with no credentials.

[Wilms]

78. And many experts have weighed in. The official story is a lie. n/t

[MercutioATC]

84. Show me ONE expert that has "weighed in".

Not just any idiot with a website, an expert...somebody with training and experience.

Then show me one who's not basing their opinion on just a few pictures, but on firsthand examinations.

[Wilms]

91. Apology requested. That was a wtc reference.

The civil engineering report on the Pentagon, however, is smeared by, the fact that the public was shut out.

So I scroll that, like a lot of the crazy stuff that does indeed exist on the web.

But one crazy story doesn't support another.

[MercutioATC]

95. What was a WTC reference?

The public was "shut out"? How?

The government commissioned a report and used civilian civil engineers, not military. The results were published by ine of the oldest and most prestigious engineering societies in the country.

[TrustingDog]

101. Wilms -The News on the day - re: Pentagon

I'm with you on this one, to be Very suspcious....
The first BN story explaining the explosion was a possible TRUCK BOMB. I know I heard that (probably CNN).

So if this bejeebus big airliner crashed into the P with all these witnesses - why the Hell would a truck bomb be blamed?

I like to always keep in mind that THEY ALL LIED TO US, for probably a lot longer than we all think.

[AZCat]

106. I am curious about these experts

Would you be so kind as to provide links to experts backing opposing theories?




Edit: small wording change

[merwin]

57. So they say they have the DNA and Black Box, but no plane parts?

How ridiculous is that...

[MercutioATC]

62. They have a landing gear strut, fuselage parts, engine parts, etc.

An airplane is a pretty flimsy thing. When one hits a reinforced concrete military building, there's not much left...

[Abe Linkman]

137. You are trying to mislead people into thinking there is evidence of a 757

Those parts are from a small jet, not a 757. Furthermore, a 757 has two engines which weigh approximately 12,000-20,000 pounds EACH...and for three years, we have been asking this same gentleman (or the person or persons using his handle) to tell us the answer to a very simple question: WHEREDY GO?

[MercutioATC]

140. I'm not trying to mislead anybody, Abe.

I'm presenting information that's available to everybody. Why would you accuse me of intentionally misleading people?

I've heard the cutesy "wheredy go?" and "Caveman" memes for quite a while (from you). I've seen you call people names ("Mercurious" seems to be one of your recent favorites).

Sorry, I'm not going to reduce things to memes. I've stated my opinion numerous times here at DU. I've provided explanations, links to expert opinion and attempted to answer every question asked of me as clearly as possible.

What happened on 9/11 can best be prevented from happening again if we understand the real issues....what really went on that day.

I bear you no ill will, Abe. I think you're misguided, but it's always important to have an opposition viewpoint to encourage an accurate accounting. I also see how you disagree with my positions. I don't , however, understand why somebody so interested in the truth finds it so hard to objectively look at the available evidence. Beyond that, I don't see how a person interested in the truth would feel comfortable issuing veiled challenges while refusing to divulge any of his own credentials.

Any time you want to talk frankly, let me know. I'll be here.

[Abe Linkman]

141. Those video images are powerful, aren't they?

Take a look at 'em. No way is that a 757, but a fighter jet fits very nicely, just like the one on the carrier. Also, you see that missile trail? That didn't come from a 757.

Whenever you're ready to accept that you've been misled by your superiors and now you want to join us in a search for the truth, I'll be here. So will lots of other people. You do understand, I'm sure, that it would be so much better if your opinions were more fact-based, and I don't understand why you would want to continue being a pretender. Must be something going on sub-rosa that you aren't ready to talk about yet.

[demodewd]

138. pretty flimsy?

Enough to bore itself through six reinforced walls,two cement floors ,and numerous columns to create a hole nine feet high!

[MercutioATC]

159. Yes, flimsy. PIECES of the 757 did the damage, not an intact plane.

[wlubin]

72. Really? Then how come there is no 757 debris on the lawn in front

of the Pentagon? Dude, look at the pics. Little hole, no debris. Come on, put 2.717 and 3.195 together.

[MercutioATC]

75. Like this?

[wlubin]

79. That little piece? that was the only piece found and that

makes me very suspicious. And in fact i that piece is debunked on the 911 truth websites. Something about it not coming from a 757, and someone was seen putting it there before the crash.

[MercutioATC]

83. What do you think happens to planes that hit reinforced concrete buildings

??

They tend to break into very small pieces.

You alleged that there were NO pictures. I've just provided you with one.

As far as this piece being planted, try to plant a 4-to-5-foot piece of aluminum on an open lawn with scores of people watching without being noticed. Let me know how you make out.

[wlubin]

93. easy, drive up middle of the night before in a van, drop it off.

done.

[MercutioATC]

97. The night before??? And nobody saw it just sitting there?

That's just silly.

[wlubin]

103. What is more silly is to think that a HUGE, and I mean HUGE

757 hits into the side of the pentagon, and all we get is a little tiny piece of sheet metal on the outside of the building? and almost nothing on the inside except parts that are not even part of a 757.

[MercutioATC]

131. Why is it "silly"? A 757 is a relatively fragile thing.

...and why do you say that the parts inside the Pentagon were not from a 757?

[wlubin]

135. A 757 gets sucked into a black hole void and leaves one little

piece of pristine tin foil far away from the place of impact. You want me to believe that? Sorry, my brain does not work like that. That is one hell of a conspiracy theory you got going there.

[MercutioATC]

139. You obviously don't understand the mechanics. Let me help.

http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.html

If you still feel that you need more help, let me know. I'll be happy to help.

[Abe Linkman]

142. The ASCE report explains damage that is consistent with a small jet.

Somehow, the people who refuse to deal with:

* The lack of evidence for a 757 hijacked it.

* Those same people insist on citing the ASCE report as though the only kind of plane that could have caused the damage at the Pentagon is one that wasn't scheduled to fly on 9/11, didn't fly, doesn't show up in the video images, couldn't fit into the small entry hole, couldn't have broken up upon crashing AND STILL have gone thru numerous walls, couldn't have crashed in the building without leaving evidence of TWO HUGE jet engines, and certainly no commercial airliner is likely to have fired a missile into the Pentagon. Furthermore, the color of the tail in the video image is the color of a fighter jet, not an AA plane.


The ASCE Report contains nuggets of truth -- just like its ancestor, the Warren Commission Report. Read and study for yourself. The truth shall set you free.

[wlubin]

143. And if you look at that video doesn't look as if whatever it is that

hit the pentagon was not even flying that fast. It looked like maybe 200 mph or so. it was not going like 700 mph where you might believe that the plane could have (possibly) vaporized completely, excluding that one piece of tin foil haha. I mean at least it would be plausible in that case. Is there any discussion on how fast the object was traveling in the video?

[wlubin]

144. No I am sorry. Not enough wreckage for me to believe it was a 757.

You can show me all the scientific analysis as you wish, No way will I believe that a crash such as that would produce no wreckage. It is just common sense.

[stickdog]

154. We are not DISBELIEVING every statement. On the other hand.

you are uncritically BELIEVING every statement.

There have been no objective, comprehensive or fully public investigations of 9/11. None have even scratched the surface when it comes to answering the hard questions about what happened that day. The 9/11 Commision Report is like everything else that's been released to us concerning 9/11 -- a flimsy, completely unsupported "just trust us on this" narrative with more plot holes and head scratchers than an Ed Wood movie.

So why the massive cover up of an event that would have DEMANDED several exhaustive public investigations by nonpartisan, nongovernmental blue ribbon panels of trustworthy citizens in any other country this side of North Korea?

Just imagine for a second that Flight 77 did not actually hit the Pentagon or that Flight 93 was actually shot down. Note that if one is open-minded to such possibilities -- which have clearly not been DISPROVEN -- then objectivity REQUIRES a certain level of skepticism vis a vis the official proclamations of the very entities whose complicity is in question.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

123. Meanwhile the same people said there was no black boxes found

At the WTC site, and yet recently two people who discovered them came forward.

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/BUN410B.html

New Cover-up revealed? 9/11 Black Boxes found
by Will Bunch
Philadelphia News 28 October 2004
www.globalresearch.ca 28 October 2004
The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/BUN410B.html


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Two men who worked extensively in the wreckage of the World Trade Center claim they helped federal agents find three of the four “black boxes” from the jetliners that struck the towers on 9/11 - contradicting the official account.

Both the independent 9/11 Commission and federal authorities continue to insist that none of the four devices - a cockpit voice recorder (CVR) and flight data recorder (FDR) from the two planes - were ever found in the wreckage.

[bunny planet]

32. I have the same question. Was a passenger list released with the names

of the people who died on that plane? Isn't that the plane Ted Olsen's wife was on? Sorry, don't know how they would have disappeared the lead counsel in Bush v. Gore wife without it being a problem.

[Wilms]

61. She didn't get the memo? Divorce by default? Who knows?

But there was/is a lot trouble with the airlines record of passengers. And that plane in particular, had a lot of talented people, some I'm afraid who could have helped us unravel what happened had they not been aboard. How convenient.

[bunny planet]

109. Wow, that's scary. Like the terrorism expert on Al Queda (sp.?) that

died in the World Trade Center (I think his name was John O'Neil)

[wlubin]

105. Let me tell you, I noticed that Ted Olsen did not really appear to

be too upset after 911. He was on Larry King and he did not seem all that upset. He probably knew of the plot, and asked shrub if he could arrange his wife to be on one of the flights haha.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

121. A passenger list was released as was with all the planes. The odd

Thing is that none of the hijackers names appeared on them.

[stickdog]

150. Where was it when it "disappeared" from radar between Texas and DC?

And where did it go after it hit the Pentagon?

Just wondering ...

[MercutioATC]

160. When was it ever anywhere near Texas?

[spooked911]

37. That's actually a good point I hadn't heard before

Makes sense.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

42. Rumsfeld also said that a missile hit the Pentagon. He slips up

All the time......

[wlubin]

107. And I also heard that the part of the pentagon that was hit

was the least occupied part of the pentagon because it was under construction. Has anyone else heard this?

[spooked911]

108. Yes-- definitely. That is actually the most suspicious part of the

Pentagon hit-- where the "plane" struck. In a relatively unoccupied recently renovated wing. And the plane had to go way out of its way to hit there.

[impe]

113. You're Correct

These terrorist commando's high jacked a plane and flew maneuvers
in order to crash that lowly plane into the least occupied part of the building.
Do you buy that? All they would have had to do would be to aim for
any of the sides of the building with parking spaces. Parking Spaces close to building = top brass.

Also, none of the official conspirators here have attempted to address the long plume of white smoke in their stills.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

122. That's true, and Rumsfeld's office was on the opposite side

Of the Pentagon.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[MercutioATC]

15. PLEASE look at the rebuttals on the 9/11 Forum here before you

take this garbage too seriously.

[buddysmellgood]

18. link?

[MercutioATC]

22. Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=125


The multitude of Pentagon threads are pretty easy to find.

[Wilms]

104. Please look at the questions left unanswered...

before you take ANY theory seriously. Some of them are traps.

Just stick with the questions for a while.

These are among the unanswered questions.

<http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html>

[Kazak]

29. This is in the "2004 Election Results and Discussion" forum?

:shrug:

[MercutioATC]

34. It should be moved shortly...

[hangloose]

77. for you disbelievers please spend time pursuing this link

http://www.attackonamerica.net/home.htm

[MercutioATC]

98. Or this one:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html

[wlubin]

100. The Neo Cons said they needed a "New Pearl Harbor" to go into

Iraq. And a "New Pearl Harbor" is what happened. That should make them suspect. If I go around saying that I am going to kill someone, and that person is found dead the next day, do you think I should be a suspect?

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

116. Yes, it is right there at Project for a New Century, in Rebuilding

America's Defenses.

Since 9/11 all of their plans in that paper are coming to fruition. Including a Space Force. I used to post about this a great deal on AOL message boards prior to the war in Iraq, and most people would not dare to believe the horror of it. Well after over 100,000 lay dead in the wake of Iraq, what would another 3,000 dead be?

[wlubin]

126. That publication is tantamount to telling everyone that you are going

to do 911 which is tantamount to a confession, and it gives a motive. Therefore in the jargon of law enforcement we have a motive and a confession. What more do we need to make the Shrub administration suspect in the 911 attacks?

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

129. We need someone with the guts to prosecute. Elliot Spitzer, the

Attorney General of NY was given a petition and tons of circumstancial evidence to make a case. Will he persue it? I really don't know. He just threw his hat into the ring for Governor. Now Zogby ran a poll during the GOP convention asking NYers if they buy the official story. More than half didn't, and close to 2/3 thought Spitzer should investigate it. So with those numbers under his belt, it's very possible that he'll actually investigate it.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

136. Kick!