A Grand Unified Theory of 9/11?

[spooked911]

Although examining physical evidence is a bit of a trap for 9/11-- in that you will probably never convince anyone of government complicity from the physical evidence that internet researchers have access to-- I find that in the case of the Pentagon, examining the physical evidence is simply irresistible.

The fact that so many people have examined the Pentagon hit means two things really:

1) they find it an irresistible puzzle as well.

2) they find something very strange about the Pentagon hit overall.

Jean-Pierre Desmoulins,
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/pages-en/abstract.html
has an interesting take on the Pentagon hit.

He think it is most likely that a Boeing 757, probably flight 77, hit the Pentagon. He thinks the hole in the side of the Pentagon is essentially consistent with a Boeing 757. The catch is that he thinks the plane was loaded with a massive bomb of some sort. This is somewhat similar to Eric Bart's "plane bomb" theory. However, Desmoulins proposes that is a shape charge, a depleted uranium bomb or a bunker busting bomb.

This is for five main reasons:

1) the degree of damage and penetration into the Pentagon is much greater than one would expect from a Boeing 757 impacting that section of building.

2) the plane impact produced a shock wave that in more consistent with a bomb than a plane hitting a stone wall.

3) a few people who worked inside the Pentagon said they "smelled" explosives.

4) the fact that the Pentagon is clearly hiding something since they altered the first several frames of security camera video.

5) the initial explosion shown in the security camera video does not look like a plane fuel explosion-- it is too white. Plane fuel explosions tend to be orange/red.

Personally, I can't judge these pieces of evidence very critically. They make sense, but I can't really say how accurate some of these conclusions are-- particularly #1 and #2.

But let's say, for the sake of argument, Monsieur Desmolins is correct.

This has some interesting implications.

Namely, if flight 77 was loaded with a bomb, it seems just as likely that flights 11 and 175 were loaded with bombs. Then, such bombs could help explain the incredible collpase of the WTC.

A bomb on board flight 93, that was detonated over Shanksville, PA might explain some of the odd features of that plane crash as well.

The government would clearly be covering up the presence of these bombs, if they existed.

Thus, we have something of a 9/11 "grand unified theory". For fun we can call this theory "NEGUT" (Nine Eleven Grand Unified Theory).

Of course, hypothesizing bombs on board the 9/11 hijacked planes means either:

1) the terrorists were much more sophisiticated than we thought and managed to smuggle huge bombs into someone's luggage, AND the government is covering this up for some reason, or

2) the 9/11 planes were loaded with bombs by some other group-- some covert organization aligned with the terrorists.

In this scenario, 9/11 would fall into line with two other major terrorist bomb attacks on the US: the first World Trade Center bombing and the Oklahoma City bombing. In each of these two cases, there is compelling evidence that the US government greatly facilitated the placing of bombs-- and in the case of the OK City bombing the government also covered up the presence of extra planted bombs.

It seems to me that there is a pattern here.

Comments?

[maxpower]

1. I've always found it odd

That there have never been any other videos released of the crash. I mean it's the freakin' Pentagon, No other cameras? I don't buy it for a second.

[spooked911]

2. Yes-- the video the Pentagon released is very strange

--it is almost certainly faked.

What are they hiding??????????

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

75. MUST WATCH ONLINE VIDEO: 9/11 In Plane Site

This uses MSM footage taken on 9/11. Incredible video of the Pentagon, and when seeing it, without a doubt, there is no way a commercial airliner hit it. It also has incredible footage of the WTC.

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

[MercutioATC]

76. It's a well-produced propaganda piece...

...but it's been rebutted quite a few times here.

[Abe Linkman]

77. No, it hasn't been rebutted.

Some right-wingers have tried to undermine the powerful, logical case it makes, but they can't refute it.

[MercutioATC]

78. I'd suggest you use the search function, Abe...it HAS been rebutted.

Also, calling people who don't use a particular brand of tinfoil "right-wingers" is not only innacurate, it borders on a rules violation.

[Abe Linkman]

81. I'd suggest you read messages 79 & 80

I understand your frustration, but powerful evidence can't be rebutted by citing a perp-sponsored "report". We learned that lesson from the Warren Commission's cover-up report.

[MercutioATC]

86. Ahhh...the Warren Commission Report again. I wondered when that

would come up...

:eyes:


You see no issues with "9/11: In Plane Sight".

I (and others) do.


You are free to keep citing it and we are free to continue to show what we feel are the misrepresentations it makes.

That's kinda how a disagreement works.....

[Abe Linkman]

87. WHAT are you calling a misrepresentation in "9/11: In Plane Sight"?

Wouldn't it be better if you would simply state what you feel is a misrepresentation, rather than making an empty claim? Of course, the problem for you is that even if there is a minor error in it, that doesn't change the fact that 9/11 was an inside job, and the Gov't and its agents are lying to the world about it.

[MercutioATC]

93. We've been through this before, but see Post #92.

[Abe Linkman]

95. Ut oh. Here comes the Warren Commission Report again.

Why can't YOU just tell us what you think is a misrepresentation? Well, okay, yes, I DO know why you can't.

[MercutioATC]

99. ANOTHER "Warren Commission" post! That two in one day!!!

:eyes:


It's 11:41 here and I have to be up in less than 6 hours for work. I'm not going to watch the video again right now and post rebuttals.


I'll get to it in the next couple of days.

Sorry, if you won't use the search function, you'll have to wait.

[Abe Linkman]

100. That's nothing. The ASCE BS report was cited dozens of times a day.

You didn't complain about THAT.

[MercutioATC]

102. Yes, but the ASCE report actually addresses the events of 9/11.

It's not a reference to some supposed similarity to a report from 40 years ago.

[Abe Linkman]

116. Lots of other "reports" also address 9/11 --- free of ASCE bias.

The Warren Commmission Report was a cover-up of a crime.
The ASCE Report has the same mission.

More and more people are aware of Gov't-sponsored Disinformation today. To get OBJECTIVE analyses of events like 9/11, smart people look to OBJECTIVE sources. The ASCE group, like the WC group are government sponsored and hardly objective.

[MercutioATC]

118. Who else but the government would commission a report on the Pentagon?

It IS a government building. The government is the only entity with the authority to commission the report.

Instead of using military engineers, they used civilian engineers and the report was published by the ASCE (one of the oldest and most prestigious engineering associations in the country).

What you're essentially saying is that NO report is to be trusted. If that's the case, how would we gain any insight into the damage to the Pentagon and if it was consistent with a 757 crash?

[Abe Linkman]

121. "In Plane View" explains in plain English, why NO 757 crashed there.

What you are essentially saying is that a long-proven lie is the truth.
What you are essentially saying is that you trust bush to tell the truth. I don't.

[MercutioATC]

126. Once again, that wasn't the question.

True or False?

Any study of the Pentagon would HAVE to be comissioned by the U.S. Government.

[Abe Linkman]

128. Once again, when are you going to keep your word about "In Plane Site"?

YOU are the one who has claimed that it contains "numerous inaccuracies". You've been asked to point them out, and you said you would. When should we expect for you to make good on your promise?

[MercutioATC]

I've answered that in the half dozen OTHER posts you've made.

Now what about the question I've been asking you for months?

Who else COULD have commissioned that study?

[MercutioATC]

132. Unintentional duplicate post.

.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

79. The CNN footage of the Pentagon was not altered in anyway, and

must be seen.

It's very easy to try to discredit something by making a blanket statement and not citing links to make your case.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

80. http://911inplanesite.com/fox_hatchetjob.html

Jimmy Walter interviewed on FOX News by Geraldo Rivera
Watch as FOX News plays clips from “911 In Plane Site” in order to misrepresent the facts
surrounding the September 11th cover-up. FOX News cannot dispute the video and photographic
evidence contained in "911 In Plane Site." What do they do instead? The only thing that they can do.
They cover-up and obfuscate indisputable evidence in order to keep it hidden from the public.

[meppie-meppie not]

131. thanks for the link OSOmm...as I'm fairly new in my "active" search for

the truth I appreciate things like this. Perhaps, this subject has come up from time to time but for some of us it is new material and unless you're a financial contributor to this board the search function isn't available to you.

[MercutioATC]

84. Use the search function...

...it's common practice to check what's been said about a subject when posting.


There have been more than a few threads dealing with this video.

[Abe Linkman]

88. The video is devastating, and that's why "they" have to try & discredit it

n/t

[MercutioATC]

91. Devastatingly innacurate....

...which is why some people have issues with it.

[Abe Linkman]

96. What are you claiming is inaccurate in it? Are you able to name anything?

n/t

[MercutioATC]

98. Again, see Post #92.

(oh, and you're free to use the search function in the meanwhile as well)

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

89. I suggest that your provide them if you wish to prove your point.

The footage that was used for the video available to everyone. They were not doctored, and once again, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that a commercial passenger jet could Not have hit the Pentagon.

Have you even watched it?

The part of the video that is controversial is the part dealing with the WTC. Are there pods or aren't there pods. I can't say for sure although I recently saw a pic from NY Magazine that blew me away.

But the Pentagon..very clear viewing.

[MercutioATC]

92. Very well...give me a day or two...

I'll attempt to either provide links to the rebuttals (for which I'm going to use the search function that you could use yourself) or watch the video yet AGAIN and respond directly.


:eyes:

[gbwarming]

104. demodewd pointed out that Von Kleist had backed off the wtc explosion

posts 103& 106.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=28710&mesg_id=30088&page=

[MercutioATC]

105. I'll keep that in mind...

There are enough other misinterpretations to deal with.

[gbwarming]

106. This was in reference to the claimed pre-collapse explosion

Merc, the whole video is money grubbing sensationalism imo. In the section I'm referring to Von Kleist claims that there is a giant explosion that sent dust above the top of wtc7 before the wtc2 collapse while showing a 'never to be seen again' CNN clip. There are other video clips which show this was not the case (not to mention the fact that for some reason escaped my mind for weeks - there simply was no giant cloud smoke/dust cloud enveloping wtc7 before the wtc2 collapse).

He seems quite hurt that there has been so much criticism of his video:
http://www.911inplainsight.com/911explosion.html

Edit: The Pentagon section contains misdirection by pointing repeatedly at the small hole to the left of the larger area where the first floor columns were destroyed.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

107. He never claimed that smoke enveloped the whole building. I suggest

you go back and watch it again.

There were plumes of smoke towards the base. He was questioning where it came from. He threw it out there that it could have been from an explosion below. There were many reports of explosions by people that there were on the site, including firemen. I had an audio a couple of years ago of a Brit being there and hearing explosions below. Firemen on their way up in the building noticed that there was damage on lower floors. One of which was the offices of the FBI.

I personally think that smoke in question was from the fire in the elevator shafts that filled the lobby (did you see the French firemen video?), and escaping from the smoke filled lobby to the outside.

That does not discount the fact that there was eyewitness testimony to explosions, nor does it not discount the fact that the towers came down like a planned demolition, just as WTC 7 under orders by Silverstein.

Also, how do you explain this... "We were operating out of there (WTC7)when we were told that the World Trade Center was gonna collapse," Rudolph Giuliani told Peter Jennings of ABC News that morning, "and it did collapse before we could get out of the building."

How did Giuliani know?

On edit, as another thought with this.

Like the war games that had been going on that morning, Giuliani was in WTC7 because there were Biowarfare excersises going on with FEMA. Irony again?

If anyone recalls, Dan Rather had interviewed Tom Kenney from FEMA who claimed to have been there on the morning of 9/11, having arrived in the city the night before, and then that person recanted that later on, saying he was confused about the days. Why did he do that if he was there for those excersises?

[Abe Linkman]

108. Bottom line: quibbles about details don't = 9/11 OCT is the truth

You pointed out a few of the many, many, many reasons why the Official Story is a Fairy Tale. Anyone who has knowledge, training, and or experience in the art of cross-examination knows how to pick a minor point and make it seem to undermine the credibility and logic of the major thesis ("theory of the case"). THAT is what we'll get when and if, M-atc is forced to make good on his word of pointing out all those inaccurasies he claims that undermine the credibilty of "In Plane Site",
as though a minor error in the data somehow proves that the "Cavemen Did It" Theory hasn't been thoroughly debunked as being nothing more than a cover-up for the inside job aka 9/11.

You watch.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

110. The "official story" is the Conspiracy Theory, Abe. I agree with you

whole-heartedly. I have been researching this now for the last three years, more and more layers of the onion peel away, and yet at the same time, everything is, like the name of the video,in plain site. They are that Arrogant.

The information that I have been citing is just an iota of what I've learned about the circumanstances surrounding what I call a mass murder.

I am a slightly transpanted NYer and my city was attacked by insiders that day. I now live about 50 miles due north, and if the hijackers really wanted to take us down to our knees, all they had to do was fly the two planes that were on their way from Boston, into Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant, which is about 10 minutes from here. It could have left the northeast corridor in nuclear winter. They didn't do it. That alone defies logic.

My viewpoint is not an isolated one in NY.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855

Released: August 30, 2004
Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and “Consciously Failed” To Act; 66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York’s Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals



On the eve of a Republican National Convention invoking 9/11 symbols, sound bytes and imagery, half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens overall say that some of our leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act," according to the poll conducted by Zogby International. The poll of New York residents was conducted from Tuesday August 24 through Thursday August 26, 2004. Overall results have a margin of sampling error of +/-3.5.

continued at above link.

[Abe Linkman]

111. Insiders & Patsies. NO real hijackers were involved. n/t

n/t

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

113. There were no hijackers listed amongst the dead nor on the flight

manifests. As you have stated, several of them have turned up alive and well, including Atta. Atta who was supposed to die for Islam, after he cavorted with strippers, ate pork, drank and snorted coke... More importantly in my book, I think Atta would have been too valuable of an asset to have stepped one foot in one of those planes.

BTW... wasn't it miracle of miracles that Atta's passport was found totally unmarred in the rubble of the WTC??? ;)

[Abe Linkman]

115. The past is prologue. JFK assassination students recognize the 9/11 ...

lies as being eerily familiar. Right down to the false documents, legends, planted evidence, use of doubles (names & people), long period of time during which the key Patsies were being set up, and YES, the Bush name is associated with that crime, too. There is nothing new, and it's amazing how the deep politics aspects are consistent with every one of the inside jobs of the past 40+ years. Are you familiar with Peter Dale Scott? You might enjoy reading some of his fine works. He's a former Canadian diplomat who coined the phrase "deep politics" in his writings and analysis of the JFK assassination, CIA invovlement in drug smuggling/dealing etc.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

124. I have heard of Peter Dale Scott and never read him. Thank you for the

recommendation. Yes, you're right but I think it's been far more than 40 years. At least this segment of the drama has gone back to right after WW2 with Operation Paperclip and the formation of the CIA. Another part occurred with with the formation of the Federal Reserve.....

Have you seen JFKII:The Bush Connection? It clarifies alot of the connections.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

112. This defies logic too. Mark Elsis who runs many 9/11 sites told me

that moment that he knew it was an inside job was when he saw Bush leaving Florida. It was shown live on tv in Florida.

Here we are, under attack in the skies. Bush takes his time at Booker, risking the safety of the kids (this visit was made public on September 7th, the same day Jeb put Florida under martial law) and not being flanked by his SS (which is against protocol). He has his National photo-op. If you watch the full video of his time there, you even see him chatting with people outside of the school before getting into his car. He then finally leaves for Air Force One.

Watch the below video of Bush leaving Florida. He gets out of his limo, and walks up the stairs all by his lonesome, turns and waves (another photo-op), he then boards the plane. THEN the SS follow. Air Force One takes to the skies without a jet escort (even though there is an airbase minutes away) and is unprotected in the air for about 45 minutes to an hour before landing in Louisiana. Just before he lands, an escort joins him. During the time he is up in Air Force One, Bush is having yet another photo-op while 3000 lay lifeless below. Those photos were then given as a perk at a $250/plate GOP fundraiser.......

http://www.attackonamerica.net/AirForceOneLeavingSarasota.ra

[Abe Linkman]

114. bush had nothing to fear & his future was being guaranteed by the crimes.

He's such an unsympathetic, untalented wastrel. Almost ANY other big-league politician could have feigned extreme concern whenever he was
"informed - wink wink" of what was going on, but bush's idea of a concerned look is a replay of a Dan Quale moment.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

125. I laughed when I first read this, and it really isn't a laughing matter.

This is a man, who while his daddy was President attended a state dinner at the White House for the Queen of England. He asked her if she had black sheep in her family. Beautiful Minded Barbara reportedly changed the conversation very quickly....

He is a good puppet for them though. So many people in our country have been dumbed down so much, that instead of wanting a leader whom they could trust, respect and look up to, they elect one they want to sit around and watch a football game with.

What is that line about fooling the people??? ;)

[gbwarming]

120. Please view Von Kleist in this video from 30:15 to 32:55

Perhaps I was viewing a different version. On review, you are correct that he doesn't claim the smoke enveloped the whole building. My mistake. There is a serious error in his research however.

This is what I'm referring to, the CNN/Tom Clancy video. Here:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6847.htm
"Now as we look at this footage the first thing that we want to note is that both towers are still standing. (...)"

And here he sort of makes a retraction
http://www.911inplainsight.com/911explosion.html
"It may be safe to say that this explosion does take place during the collapse of the South Tower,... "

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

123. Thank you for the links. Number one, I checked out the new evidence video,

and if you recall, I said that I didn't know if those plumes were from an explosion, but I wonder why you didn't mention this on the same clip. Check at about 5:20 on the New Evidence Video. A reporter for MSNBC had been talking to police and they are discussing explosions heard, and a van that police thought might have a device within it. That was the modus operandi of the the first WTC bombing.

You also didn't mention the firemen discussing the explosions that they heard, this takes place at about 30 minutes into 9/11 In Plane Site.

[Abe Linkman]

117. You haven't rebutted it, because you can't.

n/t

[MercutioATC]

119. How many replies are you planning to make to this post?

I thought one was sufficient....


:eyes:

[Abe Linkman]

122. Still waiting for that message pointing out all those "inaccuracies"...

that you claim are in the video. When can we expect to have that dubious honor? Not fair to play "hit, run, hide, and evade". You're not a cop anymore.

[MercutioATC]

127. I said it's take me a couple of days. Are you THAT impatient?

Since you've read them all before the FIRST time they were posted here, I'd think you'd just use the search function if you were so impatient...

[Abe Linkman]

129. Quack, quack. Why are you avoiding answering?

Doesn't exactly enhance your credibility when you evade and duck from your own promise.

[MercutioATC]

130. I promised a couple of days. That's what I'm going to do.

I want to watch the video again before I comment and I work 16 hours today. I'll get to it tomorrow.

[NAO]

3. Michael Ruppert's "Crossing the Rubicon" is a grand unified 9/11 theory

Michael Ruppert, author of Crossing the Rubicon has constructed a Grand Unified Theory of 9/11. His website is From the Wilderness.

From the Wilderness
http://www.fromthewilderness.com

The primary portal of the 9/11 Truth movement can be found at the following site:

911 Truth
http://www.911truth.org

[spooked911]

12. Yes, I read the book and it's really good--- but Ruppert doesn't get into

any details of how the planes impacted the WTC and Pentagon, and whether there were explosives as well-- in fact Ruppert specifically avoids presenting physical evidence.

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

30. He explains that all he will present is

circumstantial evidence in his introduction. He says people get convicted only on circumstantial evidence all the time....and i would say he has a pretty strong case with that book. To bad no one will ever really be questioned under oath about 9/11 for a long time.

Its an incredible must read.

[unpossibles]

4. this makes a lot of sense

for all of the planes/crashes.

the implications range from scary (collusion) to not so scary (not wanting to cause even more panic if the terrorists had smuggled bombs on board).

What angers and saddens me is how the report and ivestigation were so quickly forgotten.

[MercutioATC]

5. Issues with your "five reasons"...

1) That's not what the ASCE report says. http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.html

2) I'd like a reference for this claim. Also it wasn't a "stone wall", it was a reinforced concrete wall fortified with kevlar with a limestone facade.

3) I've seen ONE witness who made a reference to "cordite". Just one.

4) If the administration DID alter the video, what purpose would that serve? Why wouldn't they alter it to show a 757 crashing into the Pentagon instead of an unrecognizable blur?

5) Color depends on many conditions (such as ambient light and the type of recording device used). In addition, if you claim that the video was altered, why would you assume that the color of the initial explosion was accurate?

[spooked911]

11. Why don't you go to his website--and he has lots of supporting evidence.

He really does a good job of presenting all the evidence.

His analysis of the security camera video is particularly convincing to me.

[Wilms]

6. ASCE: Whitewash?

The ASCE Pentagon report was made in secret. What else.

Google : ASCE Pentagon, and have a look at the doubt cast on that report.

[Old and In the Way]

7. If any of the official stories are deconstructed and proven wrong,

all of the official stories of the events of 9/11 become questionable.
Everything changes.

[Wilms]

8. In the Way, the official story ain't even CONstructed.

The Families Steering Committee are the folks that pushed for the Commission. They submitted these questions.

Nearly all were NOT answered.

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

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

74. What bothers me Wilms, is that knowing what they know, why

did the Jersey Girls push for the Commissions recommendations, when in reality those recommendations never would have prevented 9/11.

[MercutioATC]

9. So if I can deconstruct just one conspiracy theory.....

hmmm.......

Does it work both ways?

[tngledwebb]

10. Well, you could try to prove YOUR favorite conspiracy, again, aka

the Official (Bin Laden's boys did it because the most powerful military in the world had a liitle hiccup that day and everything went FUBAR, but nobody should lose their job for that, now really, should they? ) Conspiracy Theory about 9/11.

Or you could keep trying to disprove the skeptics. And if you must quote official reports, cite examples with substance.

[MercutioATC]

13. "Quote official reports, cite examples with substance"?

I thought all "official reports" were written by "PR flacks".....

I have quoted and linked official reports. The CTists here tend to claim they're all propaganda. Which official reports would you suggest I use?

[tngledwebb]

14. Two or three paragraphs, or sentences, that's all, that show

the reports to be credible, at least in your eyes, and notwithstanding how they were compiled by 'experts', or should be believed because they were written by government or other official committees.

Just what in particular clued you in that these reports were valid, truthful, thorough confirmations of the 'official' version of 9/11?

[Old and In the Way]

15. The problem is, there is no "unified field theory" of the antii-OCT.

There are many unanswered questions and information that has not been released to the public so the anti-OCT theories postulated are numerous and in conflict with each other.

The 'unified field theory" only applies to the OCT. That is the only officially approved story. But to many of us, it's like being blind and in the dark; we are told the animal in the room is an elephant, but from what we can tell it seems to be more like a cheetah or a lion or a tiger.

[MercutioATC]

16. Ah! So I have nothing to be concerned with.

Since I don't claim to agree with any "unified" official story...

[Old and In the Way]

17. Guess not!

:-)

[Abe Linkman]

72. When have you ever NOT agreed 100% with the Official Conspiracy Theory?

Saying that the Administration "may have" or did have advance knowledge that a terrorist attack was coming, can hardly be considered as evidence that you "don't agree" with the OCT. Vague, generalized claims like that have long been acknowledged by the Administration. They just deny that they had information about a specific time, date, place etc.

Most reasonable people who have read more than one or two of your messages, are very aware that you are an apologist for the OCT and have been so since you first accepted that challenge three(?) years ago.

[MercutioATC]

73. Agreeing doesn't make me an "apologist".

Are an "apologist" for Eastman and VonKleist or do you agree with them? I've yet to see you dispute any of their claims.

[Abe Linkman]

82. Okay, so you just support the OCT. You see no need to apologize for it.

Fine. So, we know from your own words that you support the bush Administration's Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory. That's your right, even as a Democrat (which I believe you claim to be...at least here at DU). That does raise the question of why you would want to come on a forum where OBJECTIVE, knowledgeable people gather to share information, ideas, and research. Why would an admitted partisan want to be so rude as to disrupt the group? And, don't bother with the phony claims that you aren't doing that. I don't know what your motivation really is (wink wink), but the results of all of the very large amounts of time you spend here every day certainly are disruptive, cause needless wasted time, and seems like a peculiar thing to be doing. I doubt there are more than one or two (if that many) DUers who go to right-wing sites and do the same things to the people there. Who would even want to? What would you hope to gain? Okay, okay. For the right money, I'd do it, too. But, I don't think you claim to be getting paid for your postings here. Very odd. Very strange. Not.

[MercutioATC]

85. Abe, this isn't the "9/11 Conspiracy Forum"...it's the "9/11 Forum".

I was under the impression it existed as a place to discuss ALL views, not just your pet theories. Please understand that you seem as unreasonable and partisan to me as you claim I seem to you. If you feel that I'm being "disruptive", alert my posts.

Please also notice that I've never questioned your motivations for posting here, nor have I ever stated that you should stop posting. I find it interesting that somebody so interested in an "OBJECTIVE" discussion is so intolerant of dissenting opinions.

You and I will probably never see eye to eye on most 9/11 matters, but it might help you to just accept that there will be some people here who don't agree with you.

[Abe Linkman]

94. Matc - This isn't the "Osama Did It" forum. It's the 9/11 Forum.

There are four or five partisans here who are not interested in learning or discussing the truth about 9/11, and that is unfortunate. That small group of partisans insist on only ONE point of view: that 9/11 was a Terrorist Conspiracy carried out by a CIA asset and his crew. People who only acknowledge that possibility are hardly being reasonable. Do you disagree?

Almost every day, some dedicated person here brings new facts and insights about 9/11 that make it almost a virtual certainty that the official story of what happened is a lie. Yet, the partisans remain arrogantly certain (whenever they post here) that the official explanation is the truth. Very peculiar. Very odd. Enough to baffle the curious.

[MercutioATC]

97. Exactly. The "9/11 Forum"

Your clearly partisan remarks aside, this is a place for discussion of ALL 9/11 theories.

Why are you so eager to eliminate any dissenting opinions? I haven't seen any of the so-called "partisans" here advocating that all of the CTists leave....

[Abe Linkman]

101. I'm eager for the truth about what really happened to come out. Are you?

By definition, a partisan has already made up their mind, and in the case of 9/11, what the public was told happened has been called into question and the evidence shows that what we were told is a lie. So, we are here to find out what DID happen, and that's hard to do whenever someone is adamant about insisting on a point of view that was discredited (and even shown to be an intentional lie) a long time ago.
The state of knowledge about 9/11 has progressed far beyond the point of
Official Story versus a different story. The question is no longer whether or not the Official story is accurate. We know it isn't, and therefore there's no useful purpose for continuing to insist on its legitimacy in discussions here.

[MercutioATC]

103. Absolutely.

I think that the majority of the official explanation is accurate, but there are clarifications that I'd like to have made. I'd like to see that happen.

"By definition, a partisan has already made up their mind". That's your statement. By that definition, we're all "partisans" to an extent (at least, you and I are). We all believe certain things to the exclusion of other things.


Another of your statements: " So, we are here to find out what DID happen, and that's hard to do whenever someone is adamant about insisting on a point of view is in error".

Has it ever occurred to you that, just as you feel that's what I do, it's also what I feel you do?


That's the point of discussion. We might not change other's opinions, but we're exposed to differing views.

[Sweet Pea]

18. A few comments on your suppositions....

1) the degree of damage and penetration into the Pentagon is much greater than one would expect from a Boeing 757 impacting that section of building.

What is the frame of reference? What other 757 impact of a concrete, steel and kevlar-reinforced building are you comparing this to? You need a comparison to logically state that "the degree of damage and penetration" is much grater than compared to.....what?

2) the plane impact produced a shock wave that in more consistent with a bomb than a plane hitting a stone wall.

Again, what are you comparing this to? Show me analysis of data points from a shock wave obtained from a controlled experiment of a bomb being detonated within a concrete, steel and kevlar-reinforced building and then show me the data points from an aircraft impacting the same type structure at 500 miles per hour....then show me the "consistency" or lack thereof. You cannot make comparisons in a vacuum void of comparable data.

3) a few people who worked inside the Pentagon said they "smelled" explosives.

There are 25,000 people who work in the Pentagon on a daily basis. Many, many hundreds (if not thousands) were affected and/or smelled the smoke and atmosphere in the direct moments after the impact. I need more than "a few" to convince me that there were legitimate odors of "explosives".

5) the initial explosion shown in the security camera video does not look like a plane fuel explosion-- it is too white. Plane fuel explosions tend to be orange/red.

Go to this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x28376#28851

and tell me again that an aircraft crash does not produce a whitish fireball. Click on the movie for a better presentation.

They make sense...

They make no sense when examined within the context of an analytical examination.

[demodewd]

21. Neal Armstrong landed on the moon ,now please answer my questions..

1) the degree of damage and penetration into the Pentagon is much greater than one would expect from a Boeing 757 impacting that section of building.

What is the frame of reference? What other 757 impact of a concrete, steel and kevlar-reinforced building are you comparing this to? You need a comparison to logically state that "the degree of damage and penetration" is much grater than compared to.....what?

According to your logic You need a similar comparison to logically state that the position that you hold is factual...

2) the plane impact produced a shock wave that in more consistent with a bomb than a plane hitting a stone wall.

Again, what are you comparing this to? Show me analysis of data points from a shock wave obtained from a controlled experiment of a bomb being detonated within a concrete, steel and kevlar-reinforced building and then show me the data points from an aircraft impacting the same type structure at 500 miles per hour....then show me the "consistency" or lack thereof. You cannot make comparisons in a vacuum void of comparable data.

We can show the crash of the alleged 175 into the South Tower that produced no apparent shock wave. The Pentagon crash produced a sonar shock wave that penetrated the walls of the heliport.There is photographic proof of this.

Again, according to your demand for proof ,whatever your position,it doesn't qualify either unless we set up another experiment with a 757 at 500 mph into a structure similar to the Pentagon.

3) a few people who worked inside the Pentagon said they "smelled" explosives.

There are 25,000 people who work in the Pentagon on a daily basis. Many, many hundreds (if not thousands) were affected and/or smelled the smoke and atmosphere in the direct moments after the impact. I need more than "a few" to convince me that there were legitimate odors of "explosives".

Of those thousands only less than one hundred Pentagon workers were interviewed. A few smelled cordite,of those few I know that a few were seasoned war vets with combat experience.

5) the initial explosion shown in the security camera video does not look like a plane fuel explosion-- it is too white. Plane fuel explosions tend to be orange/red.

Go to this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

and tell me again that an aircraft crash does not produce a whitish fireball. Click on the movie for a better presentation.

The explosion at the wtc2 did not have a whitish coloration upon initial impact. How do you explain the large hole into the A-E drive with its lack of pervasive fire damage in the surrouding areas? Why is there a profound lack of fire damage in the North section of the crash area in the B and C rings? Where are the passenger's bodies and luggage on the lawn when it is obvious that the plane exploded immediately upon impact because the main inferno was located at the facade of the A ring spilling out into the lawn?Where's the second engine?

[Sweet Pea]

26. Quick answers

According to your logic You need a similar comparison to logically state that the position that you hold is factual...

I disagree. I am not comparing this to anything. I am not stating that the damage is more severe or less severe when "compared to such-and-such...". I think the damage is commensurate with that of any airliner-type/sized aircraft crash. The variables involved here are the speed (pretty doggone fast), the building (pretty doggone robust) and the fuel (pretty doggone lots).

We can show the crash of the alleged 175 into the South Tower that produced no apparent shock wave. The Pentagon crash produced a sonar shock wave that penetrated the walls of the heliport.There is photographic proof of this.

Again, according to your demand for proof ,whatever your position,it doesn't qualify either unless we set up another experiment with a 757 at 500 mph into a structure similar to the Pentagon.

Flt 175 hit at what....the 80th floor or so? How high is that? Roughly 800 feet or so in the air. I would not expect a lateral impact such as that 800 feet above the surface to produce much of a vertical shock wave. Force vector and all that jazz would remain horizontal. Conversely, the impact at the Pentagon, scant feet above the ground, should be expected to produce much more of a shock wave, albeit not one that would resemble the detonation of a missile or explosive warhead.

Of those thousands only less than one hundred Pentagon workers were interviewed. A few smelled cordite,of those few I know that a few were seasoned war vets with combat experience.

You can go ahead and take the word of the "few" if you like. regardless of being interviewed, I'd like to think if many others smelled "cordite" they would have come forth with those claims. I know many, many more "seasoned war vets with combat experience" who were there and never said anything about smelling "cordite".

The explosion at the wtc2 did not have a whitish coloration upon initial impact.

True. But that B-52 crash I linked to did have a whitish color to the explosion. All I am saying there is that you cannot claim as a blanket statement that the whitish color to an aircraft crash/explosion indicates explosives were involved.

How do you explain the large hole into the A-E drive with its lack of pervasive fire damage in the surrouding areas?

I've been wondering about that because I have walked down that access drive a number of times lately. I still maintain that it could have been created by the collective mass of the aircraft, office equipment, furniture, etc. I am also wondering if that section of wall was weakened by said mass of wreckage and that the hole was widened by rescue personnel for access. Pure speculation on my part, but I have been toying with the idea of asking around at work about that.

Why is there a profound lack of fire damage in the North section of the crash area in the B and C rings?

I'd be speculating on the exact reason why, but my guess is that the fire and explosive effects of the fuel-explosion never reached those areas. There was significant smoke damage there - perhaps the fire sprinklers worked in those areas.

Where are the passenger's bodies and luggage on the lawn when it is obvious that the plane exploded immediately upon impact because the main inferno was located at the facade of the A ring spilling out into the lawn?

I am so glad that we agree that Neil Armstrong did indeed walk on the moon and that he was a pretty smart cookie, but on this one I will never convince you that for an object traveling at that speed (we've been thru this before.....450 knots, 515 mph, 45,565 feet per second) to deposit luggage and bodies from the longitudinal axis of a pressurized aluminum tube onto the outside ground behind the impact point would have to defy the laws of physics.

Where's the second engine?

If I told you precisely where it ended up would that change your mind any? I don't know where it ended up, but I know it had to be there somewhere - and I believe that with the same conviction that you have that it may not exist. Simply because the location of the second engine (I'm glad we agree that there was at least AN engine) did not rate headline status doesn't mean it is not there.

[spooked911]

24. Go look at the guy's website that I linked. These are his ideas and he

some data to back it up. I am merely presenting this to you and then hypothesizing.

[Sweet Pea]

28. Fair enough.

I did take a quick gander at the page. Between what I did read and what you posted, though, in your "hypothesizing" I maintain the guy is off his rocker - my opinion only, mind you. When he starts talking about explosives and depleted uranium and bunker buster bombs (if that is the best our "bunker busters" can do, we're in trouble) loaded on that aircraft, I'm gone. Not because I refuse to believe or consider alternative theories, but because in my somewhat professional opinion there's nothing to back that up.

[spooked911]

29. I actually agree with you. I'm not convinced there was a bomb on the

plane at all.

What I do find odd about the Pentagon is the intial impact damage (the hole just seems damn small) and the security camera video (it's got frames missing and may have been faked).

[DulceDecorum]

19. The blast came OUT of the windows and door.

010914-F-4692S-006 Arlington, Va. (Sep. 14, 2001) -- Damage to one of the inside rings of the Pentagon caused by a hijacked commercial airliner that crashed into the Pentagon on Sep. 11. American Airlines FLT 77 was bound for Los Angeles from Washington Dulles with 58 passengers and 6 crew. All aboard the aircraft were killed, along with 125 people in the Pentagon. U.S. Navy Photo Courtesy of DoD Photographer Staff Sgt. Larry A. Simmons. (RELEASED)
http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=2476

Look carefully at the manner in which
the middle window frame on the right
is pushed out into the courtyard.
The closest windows on the left
appear to also have been pushed into the courtyard.
Look at the smoke marks in the photo below
and the manner in which these window frames have been pushed out.



010912-N-3235P-029 Arlington, Va. (Sep. 12, 2001) -- On the day after the deadly terrorist attack on the Pentagon, Military District Washington (MDW) Engineers, an active Army unit trained in urban search and rescue techniques, survey the damage caused to the Pentagon on Sep. 11, 2001. Credit as U.S. Navy photo by Photographer’s Mate 1st Class Michael W. Pendergrass. (RELEASED)
http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=2469

Howdydodat?
And
Wherdygo?

[Sweet Pea]

20. Question 1 for you, Ms. Decorum:

What ring is that? I would submit that is the inner side of the E ring, making it perfectly possible that the expanding fuel fireball caused those windows to be blown out. These windows were not the newer blast-resistant windows that were installed on the outer walls. These were the original Pentagon windows installed in the early 40's.

What would slow down an expanding fuel-explosion fireball? Sheetrock walls? Cubicle walls? The pressure wave created by the rapid expansion of gas from a fuel explosion like that of the 757 hitting the building would have created that sort of damage with nary a second thought.

A bomb/conventional explosive warhead in that situation (detonating within the E Ring) would have likely blown those window frames OUT - not just bent them outward.

THAT'S howdydiddat.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[Sweet Pea]

32. Firsties....

I am a SweetPea of the male variety, so Mr. Sweetpea will do fine.

Secondies....I'm sorry, but I cannot take anyone serious who claims that these aircraft never took off. Manipulations of not up-to-date online databases or otherwise published documents amount to nothing more than intellectual gerrymandering of incomplete facts. To seriously claim that these aircraft were never scheduled to fly or never took off based on some cockamamie interpretation of incomplete databases ranks right up there with forward-spraying fuel-sprayers and missile launches and aerodynamically-impossible aircraft reconfigurations and holograms and cruise missiles and drones and whacked-out web pages from people with their tinfoil wrapped too tight...and no amount of pithy comments on your part or your vast number of obscure links or creative interpretations of digital photos will make it more palpable.

Thirdies...to finish up the Secondies....simply adding up those individuals who would have to be complicit in this "non-scheduling" reaches into the hundreds if not thousands, from gate and ticket people, maintenance and flight line personnel, air traffic controllers, ground workers, airport workers and managers, passengers and their families, at numerous airports scattered all across the country.

Sorry, but that dog just won't hunt.

on edit: added "drones" - can't leave that out.

[DulceDecorum]

42. Onesies,

are those cute little suits they put babies in.
But then you knew, that already, Sweet Pea.



I am sure you know what Twosies are
so we will go straight to Threesies.

Sweet Pea says:
....simply adding up those individuals who would have to be complicit in this "non-scheduling" reaches into the hundreds if not thousands, from gate and ticket people, maintenance and flight line personnel, air traffic controllers, ground workers, airport workers and managers, passengers and their families, at numerous airports scattered all across the country.
Sorry, but that dog just won't hunt.

Sweet Pea,
I take it that you have heard of an organisation known as NORAD

NORAD is the bi-national U.S.-Canadian military organization responsible for the aerospace defense of the United States and Canada. NORAD was created by a 1958 agreement between Canada and the United States. The agreement has been renewed nine times - most recently in 2000. NORAD provides warning of missile and air attack against both of its member nations, safeguards the air sovereignty of North America, and provides air defense forces for defense against an air attack.
NORAD's mission has evolved over the years to meet the aerospace defense needs of Canada and the United States. The most recent "evolution" in NORAD's mission came as a result of September 11, 2001. Because of that day, NORAD now monitors the airspace within Canada and the United States, too. There are men and women in NORAD constantly watching the skies to keep the United States and Canada safe.
http://www.noradsanta.org/english/aboutnorad/aboutnorad.html

TRACKING SANTA
NORAD tracks Santa's journey around the globe each year

NORAD uses four high-tech systems to track Santa - radar, satellites, Santa Cams and JET FIGHTER AIRCRAFT.
It all starts with the NORAD radar system called the North Warning System. This powerful radar system has 47 installations strung across Canada's North and Alaska. NORAD makes a point of checking the radar closely for indications of Santa Claus leaving the North Pole on Christmas Eve.

The moment our radar tells us that Santa has lifted off, we begin to use the same satellites that we use in providing warning of possible missile launches aimed at North America. These satellites are located in a geo-synchronous orbit (that's a cool phrase meaning that the satellite is always fixed over the same spot on the Earth) at 22,300 miles above the Earth. The satellites have infrared sensors, meaning they can see heat. When a rocket or missile is launched, a tremendous amount of heat is produced - enough for the satellites to see them. Rudolph's nose gives off an infrared signature similar to a missile launch. The satellites can detect Rudolph's bright red nose with practically no problem. With so many years of experience, NORAD has become good at tracking aircraft entering North America, detecting worldwide missile launches and tracking the progress of Santa, thanks to Rudolph. It is important to note, however, that our scientists have tried to determine the chemical process that occurs that creates the heat that is generated by Rudolph's nose but they have not been able to thus far.

The third system we use is the Santa Cam. We began using it in 1998 - the year we put our Santa Tracking program on the Internet. NORAD Santa Cams are ultra-cool high-tech high-speed digital cameras that are pre-positioned at many places around the world. NORAD only uses these cameras once a year - Christmas Eve. We turn the cameras on about one hour before Santa enters a country then switch them off after we capture images of him and the Reindeer. We immediately download the images on to our web site for people around the world see. Santa Cams produce both video and still images.

The last system we use is the NORAD jet fighter. Canadian NORAD fighter pilots, flying the CF-18, take off out of Newfoundland to intercept and welcome Santa to North America. Then at numerous locations in Canada other CF-18 fighter pilots escort Santa, while in the United States American NORAD fighter pilots in either the F-15 or F-16 get the thrill of flying with Santa and the famous Reindeer Dasher, Dancer, Prancer, Vixen, Comet, Cupid, Donner, Blitzen and Rudolph. About a dozen NORAD fighters in Canada and the United States are equipped with Santa Cams.
http://www.noradsanta.org/english/aboutnorad/trackingsanta.html

This year's Santa tracking is brought to you by the team of: NORAD, Analytical Graphics, Inc., America Online, Globelink Language and Cultural Services, ICG Communications, MCI, Akamai, and 24-7 Web Studio. To find out more, click here.
http://www.noradsanta.org/english/aboutus/index.html

Sweet Pea says:
Secondies....I'm sorry, but I cannot take anyone serious who claims that these aircraft never took off. Manipulations of not up-to-date online databases or otherwise published documents amount to nothing more than intellectual gerrymandering of incomplete facts. To seriously claim that these aircraft were never scheduled to fly or never took off based on some cockamamie interpretation of incomplete databases ranks right up there with forward-spraying fuel-sprayers and missile launches and aerodynamically-impossible aircraft reconfigurations and holograms and cruise missiles and drones and whacked-out web pages from people with their tinfoil wrapped too tight...and no amount of pithy comments on your part or your vast number of obscure links or creative interpretations of digital photos will make it more palpable.

Tell that to NORAD,if you dare.

With so many years of experience,
NORAD has become good at tracking aircraft entering North America, detecting worldwide missile launches
and tracking the progress of Santa,
THANKS TO RUDOLPH.

[Sweet Pea]

70. Tis' funny.....

more of a funny ha-ha...

how the BTS, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, a government-run statistical agency created in 1992, is now THE MOST PRECISE, EXACT, ACCURATE, PERFECT, UP-TO-DATE not to mention FIRST government organization in history to achieve such a honored and exhaulted status!

Never mind the disclaimer that states:

"BTS makes no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the contents of this website and expressly disclaims liability for errors and omissions in the contents of this website."

http://www.bts.gov/disclaimer.html

Why would such a PERFECT STATISTICAL AGENCY even have to CARE about

accuracy...

or completeness...

or adequacy...

or errors...

or omissions...

of the contents contained therein?

Yes, tis' funny and freakin' AMAZING that we have found, by virtue of the experts on DU, the one, the ONLY, accept NO substitutes...the sole existing PERFECT Government Agency and Database!

Statistical, no less.

THE Intermodal Transportation database!

Just out of curiosity, Ms. Decorum....are there any other perfect government organizations or information databases that you are aware of? Any? Or is this the only one?

[DulceDecorum]

90. Truth Suppression Technique Number 13

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.
http://www.angelfire.com/or/truthfinder/truth.html

Miss Sweet Pea,
doesn't like the BTS
That much is plain to see.

However,
if the BTS says one thing
and the Boston FBI says another,
just go with the BTS.

Heck, forget the BTS.
If Boston FBI says one thing,
just go with the opposite.

It is most interesting to note that
the NTSB
and the FAA
and the BTS and everyone else involved in civil aviation
steadfastly REFUSES any involvement in 911
and refers all questions to the Boston FBI
which has been known to take the Fifth
rather than reply.

I wonder how many pardons are going be shelled out ...

Miss Sweet Pea,
I guess you don't like
the Social Security Death Index
or the FAA Airman's Registry
or the Department of Motor Vehicles in most states
or the INS
because
these are just a few of the databases that demonstrate conclusively
that
the Official Story is a complete lie.

[spooked911]

25. The way the windows are pushed out is strange but what are you proposing?

Do you have an explanation?

[Bolo Boffin]

31. Yes, Dulce, do tell

Care to share any conclusions you have drawn from your latest assemblage of random facts and pictures?

[DulceDecorum]

48. At first I was afraid, I was petrified!

Kept thinkin' I could never live without you by my side...

Thus spake Gloria Gaynor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_Gaynor

Draw your own conclusions.

[demodewd]

22. terrorists vs drones

1) the terrorists were much more sophisiticated than we thought and managed to smuggle huge bombs into someone's luggage, AND the government is covering this up for some reason, or

2) the 9/11 planes were loaded with bombs by some other group-- some covert organization aligned with the terrorists.

Why would the bombs necessarily be on the planes? To create the desired effect of the destroyed columns lets say in the Pentagon,wouldn't it be more effective to place charges in the building itself?

You assume that the original flights were brought in by the terrorists? If there was government involvement,why would the government entrust a bunch of reportedly poor pilots to the task? Why would the government have blind faith that the terrorists would successfully take over the crew and passengers with "boxcutters"? Would not the government take complete control of the operation to eliminate as much as humanly possible human error and fallibility?

I maintain that those commercial flights either didn't fly or were brought down (by outside remote intervention) and replaced by retrofitted drones 100 percent capable of achieving the task at hand.

[spooked911]

23. I agree you -- I favor the drone idea myself.

I was mostly following up on the ideas the Desmoulins fellow was proposing-- I'm not saying I believe all his stuff.

[Sweet Pea]

33. Why yes!!!!!!

Why didn't I think of that!

To create the desired effect of the destroyed columns lets say in the Pentagon,wouldn't it be more effective to place charges in the building itself?

It is SO easy to surreptitiously, nay, covertly wrap a explosive concoction around twenty-some-odd columns during the renovation of the wedge! You'd only have to get...oh...a couple of hundred or so construction workers and supervisors and military and civilian people in on it. AND keep them quiet about it for 3 and a half years - not to mention KEEPING them quiet in the future. AND having them detonate all at the precise time.....all at once.

You don't really see how ludicrous that is, do you.

[demodewd]

34. not around each column

You wouldn't wrap explosives around each column. Just a few placed in the right places to achieve the necessary blast intensity and jet stream(accounting for the hole into the A-E Drive).

[Sweet Pea]

35. Ahhh.....thanks for clarifying

I'll amend my original:

It is SO easy to surreptitiously, nay, covertly wrap a explosive concoction around a few columns in the right places to achieve the necessary blast intensity and jet stream during the renovation of the wedge! You'd only have to get...oh...a couple of hundred or so construction workers and supervisors and military and civilian people in on it. AND keep them quiet about it for 3 and a half years - not to mention KEEPING them quiet in the future. AND having them detonate all at the precise time.....all at once.

To crete this sort of effect:



Still doen't make any sense.

[Abe Linkman]

36. That photo looks suspiciously like the result of a powerful explosion.

Were construction workers at the target area 24 hours a day?

[Sweet Pea]

38. 24 hrs a day?

What do YOU think?

This is the Pentagon....not your neighborhood dry cleaners.

And your powers of perception are amazing. There WAS, actually, a "powerful explosion". It came from some 4,000 gallons of jet fuel in a container moving at 500 miles per hour impacting a concrete and steel structure.

[Abe Linkman]

39. Your explanation sounds like another application of the power of Voodoo

An explosion outside the building caused all that damage on the inside of the building? And, that disintegrated container of 4,000 gallons of kerosene continued on thru HOW MANY more walls of the Pentagon?

The power of Voodoo. Say, WHO do? Say Mr. Sweet Pea do. Geddoff de block, Johnnie.

[Sweet Pea]

40. Yes, Abe...

Let's talk about the walls that the aircraft wreckage had to penetrate.

You must be not be familiar with the construction of the Pentagon lest you wouldn't post such seemingly ignorant (not used as a pejoritive) comments. BTW...I am ignorant on many things and I acknowledge that (for instance I am TOTALLY ignorant about heart surgery), therefore the use of that word is not meant to be derogatory.

The aircraft wreckage had to penetrate ONE (1) substantial, robust, concrete, limestone and steel wall prior to the punch out hole in the A-E drive. That ONE (1) substantial, robust, concrete, limestone and steel wall was the external wall - the initial impact point.

The first two floors of the E, D and C rings are connected together - no "alley" or access road separates the rings. The only things that break up this large space would have been sheetrock walls. After breeching the external wall, the mass of wreckage was still traveling at rather significant speed, slowed down by nothing more than the aforementioned sheetrock walls and partitions that separated groups of offices. No masonry, no bricks, concrete, limestone, nothing more substantial stood in the way. It would have encountered the occasional secure space with a reinforced door, but nothing along the lines of a major obstacle that would significantly slow down the mass of wreckage.

UNTIL it hit the brick and steel-rod reinforced wall bordering the A-E drive. The claim of "shaped charges" and "mach stem" and warheads or bombs going off is fantasy, made up because some simply refuse to accept these facts. Given the fact that the first two floors of the E, D and C rings (specifically in the areas of impact) were connected and were virtually one large space (I have had/have meetings in thoses areas regularly) and the vast majority of this space was divided by nothing more substantial than the walls in your house, there is nothing strange, extraordinary, special, exotic, weird, magical, confusing or otherwise whacko or implausible about a mass of wreckage consisting of aircraft, desks, chairs, computers, file cabinets, printers, fax machines, trash cans, walls, safes, bodies, concrete, steel, aluminum, and any number of other items proceeding virtually unimpeded until the most concentrated of the mass hit the A-E wall.

I'm not sure what to take from a debate where the major argument and debate point from the other side is to claim anything I say is "voodoo", but what the heck...go ahead and knock yourself out. :hi:

[Abe Linkman]

41. You can call it amazing... but it's still impossible.

The "plane":

* Crashed at some angle, some speed, some altitude.

* Exploded on impact.

* Disintegrated upon impact.

* Went through the exterior of the building.

* Incinerated all aboard the aircraft.

* Did not destry DNA.

* Apparaently melted two huge (what, 12,000 pounds each?) 757 engines. Or, melted one and shrunk the other.

* Left no MUSH, luggage, wings, or other identifiable debris outside on the pristine Pentalawn (were YOU one of those gentlemen in the white shirts moving furtively across the lawn during the "planting season"?).

* Melted/morphed right thru the reinforced outside wall and remained intact as it snaked thru the premises, on its way to the Big Bust Out.

* The "plane" which did all of the above was AA FL 77, but it wasn't scheduled to fly on 9/11, and according the BTS didn't fly on 9/11, and wasn't really destroyed until February, 2002.

Friends, that's the awesome power of Voodoo in action. See, it ain't just for Jumpin' Jumbee Jamborees. It's at Mr. Rumsfeld's place of work, too.

Straight ahead, "sweet pea". I'm with you, brother.

[LARED]

45. Abe's voodoo is losing it's magic

Crashed at some angle, some speed, some altitude.

Yes

Exploded on impact.

Exploded during impact is more accurate. It was also moving at 500 feet toward the Pentagon while it was exploding

Disintegrated upon impact.

Actually it disintergrated during impact while moving at about 500 feet toward the Pentagon.


Went through the exterior of the building.

See 500 feet per second thingy.

Incinerated all aboard the aircraft.

Incinerated? Says who? All? Are you sure?

Did not destry DNA.

Obvisouly not as DNA was used to identify the passengers? Did you somehow miss this report?

Apparaently melted two huge (what, 12,000 pounds each?) 757 engines. Or, melted one and shrunk the other.

Melted? says who? Perhaps the engines were busted up into little pieces during the impact? Not a real difficult concept.

Left no MUSH, luggage, wings, or other identifiable debris outside on the pristine Pentalawn (were YOU one of those gentlemen in the white shirts moving furtively across the lawn during the "planting season"?)

That's all I stand, the rest is just a the same foolishness?

[demodewd]

51. upon impact

Exploded during impact is more accurate. It was also moving at 500 feet toward the Pentagon while it was exploding/i]

Exploded either just before or immediately upon impact which suggests something other than an initial fuel eplosion. There should be a slight delay between contact and explosion as witnessed by both WTC explosions. Why the absence of the initial whitish bright flash in the WTC2 explosion that was recorded in the Pentagon explosion? Why this profound difference? Please give a scientific explanation for this anamoly.

Incinerated? Says who? All? Are you sure?

Pentagon officials stated that the plane melted. I think we can assume if that were the case that most bodies would have been incinerated.

Obvisouly not as DNA was used to identify the passengers? Did you somehow miss this report?

Allegedly so. A lot of statements are allegedly said and done. That doesn't mean it is true.

Melted? says who? Perhaps the engines were busted up into little pieces during the impact? Not a real difficult concept.

One of the engines remained rather intact.The other turned into raining confetti according to LARED. That's not a difficult concept! Come on! People! Get with LARED's thinking here!

Why aren't there body parts on the lawn,LARAD? Most everything else made it there.

[AZCat]

52. You missed an "open square bracket" in your post

Your first "end italics" code is missing the "open square bracket". I'm not being a grammar (or code) nazi, it just was difficult for me to figure out what was quoted and what was your new writing. If you could edit it I would appreciate it - it would be a lot easier for me to read.



On Edit - Awesome, thanks! I have a hard time reading stuff on a computer monitor and the bold helps even more. Again, I appreciate it.

[demodewd]

43. not with a kerosene fuel explosion

there is nothing strange, extraordinary, special, exotic, weird, magical, confusing or otherwise whacko or implausible about a mass of wreckage consisting of aircraft, desks, chairs, computers, file cabinets, printers, fax machines, trash cans, walls, safes, bodies, concrete, steel, aluminum, and any number of other items proceeding virtually unimpeded until the most concentrated of the mass hit the A-E wall.

The force that created the hole to the A-E Drive is significantly characteristic of a jet stream created by a bomb and /or shaped charges. This would not be characteristic of a fuel explosion which is profound in its randomness.

[LARED]

44. Exactly how do you know this

The force that created the hole to the A-E Drive is significantly characteristic of a jet stream created by a bomb and /or shaped charges. This would not be characteristic of a fuel explosion which is profound in its randomness.

is true?

Really, what the hell are you talking about? Jet streams from bombs or shaped charges? Exactly how does that work? You think a big wind blew the hole in the wall? Are you serious?

[demodewd]

46. You

Give me a scientific explanation as to how it happened.

[LARED]

49. Post 40 gives a very nice explanation

It's not scientific in nature but it is quite sensible if oneunderstands the physics involved.

Can you provide a scientific explanation for your big wind theory?

[Abe Linkman]

50. Is this the Official Voodo explanation?

Can you provide a SCIENTIFIC explanation for your Voodoo theory?

[Sweet Pea]

61. Seriously, Abe ol' bean...

Do you have any comment/rebuttal that goes beyond "voodoo"? Makes me think of the schoolyard:

Why?

Because!

Why because?

Because because!

Some cogent thoughts on why you disagree would be nice.

[Abe Linkman]

62. No need for PR spinning, disinformation, Voodoo, or any of the rest.

Unless and until you and yours can produce evidence that AA FL 77 was scheduled to depart on 9/11 and did, in fact take off, there's no need to waste time trying to convince bushco supporters (even if they aren't legitimate disinfo agents) that their theories have no basis in fact.

Neither one of the two people here with connections to the government have been able to produce records proving FL 77 was scheduled to fly on 9/11. It didn't, and the aircraft wasn't destroyed at the Pentagon on 9/11, either. As YOU know (possibly better than anyone else here), it wasn't destroyed until February, 2002.

As your fellow traveler bolo (whose style seems identical to yours) would say: "do over"...in the No Spin Zone. Thank you.

[TrustingDog]

64. could you give a link for the FL 77 not flying on 911.

please.
I have not heard of this before.
Eyebrow raising it is - about 14 stories worth.

[DulceDecorum]

67. Dear Mr. Boffin:

American Airlines did not report the data for flights 11 and 77 on September 11th, 2001.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=4052#6658

The Passengers and the Planes
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x18365

What's interesting to note is that the BTS has statistics on their website for the doomed flights of Flight 175 and Flight 93, but not for Flight 11 or Flight 77. So according to the BTS, not only did Flight 11 and Flight 77 not depart on 9/11, they weren't even scheduled to fly on 9/11! Also note that the reported departure time for Flight 11 on 9/11 is about 16 minutes later than the rest of it's weeks average actual departure time. It's the only plane that departed uncharacteristically late from it's average departure time.
http://killtown.911review.org/chart.html

Both Libération and Le Monde set out to disprove his theory, tracking down photographs that do show debris, and speaking to victims' relatives.
But Le Monde admitted that the information made public by Washington did not entirely add up. "There is no official account of the crash. The lack of information is feeding the rumour," it complained.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,677083,00.html

[TrustingDog]

69. thankyou. n/t

[demodewd]

53. explain

Explain the Physics involved so "one" can understand.

[LARED]

54. I've tried to explain the physics a number of times

It hasn't stuck yet, so if you are really interested hit the archives.

It would be far more interesting to see how your big wind theory works? Why not try and explain it for all?

[AZCat]

55. Funny you should mention that...

I've been reading the DU 1 archives the last week or so just out of curiosity. It's amazing how many times certain topics have been discussed, and yet they still surface frequently here.

I don't think the DU community will ever reach a consensus on the events of September 11th - not with the schism that seems to have developed in the last three years.

[Abe Linkman]

58. You're certainly entitled to give us the benefit of your opinion.

"I don't think the DU community will ever reach a consensus on the events of September 11th - not with the schism that seems to have developed in the last three years."

Actually, I think it's more accurate to say that the majority of the DU community HAS reached a consensus, of sorts. MOST people here agree that the Official Conspiracy Theory is a lie.

There are only four or five people here who support the Official Conspiracy Theory...and that may not even be accurate, because, in my opinion, at least one of them posts under two different user names.

I don't have any idea what you are talking about with the "schism" you say has developed here.

[demodewd]

56. Google it

Google eric bart.

You don't have a reasoned theory except to regurgitate the official line. I've read your posts..nothing of substance when it comes to scientifically explaining yourself about the Pentagon crash that I have ever read. Other than there were bodies,there was DNA,there was a plane. Duh...heeyuck heeyuck.

[AZCat]

57. Okay - so I've looked briefly at Eric Bart's page

In post #37 you provided a link to Eric Bart's page and I have skimmed it briefly. It seems that Bart is promoting the theory that the explosives were aboard the aircraft, rather than mounted inside the Pentagon, although he covers his bets later by stating that " possibly other shaped charges were detonated inside or a bomb was dropped and exploded inside the building." (reference)

I'll be honest - I don't agree with Bart's conclusions and I have problems with some of his evidence.

In post #37 (again) you stated that you "subscribe basically to eric bart's analysis." Where do you differ from his theory, and why?

[Abe Linkman]

59. Tell it somebody who cares.

"I'll be honest - I don't agree with Bart's conclusions and I have problems with some of his evidence."

Got substance? No. Well, why should anyone care about what you agree with and what your "problems" are?

[AZCat]

60. If you don't care about my opinions, Abe, don't read my posts

And most importantly, please don't reply if your only purpose is to be nasty - I try to be polite and I think it's fair that I ask for the same in return.

[Abe Linkman]

63. Just trying to look out for others here.

Forewarn them of what to expect. Trying to be helpful. I don't know why you'd get upset about THAT.

[LARED]

65. That's mighty nice of you Abe

Watching out for others easily swayed by logic.

Being a champion for the willfully ignorant must be a difficult role.

I commend you.

[Abe Linkman]

66. Whom are you accusing of being willfully ignorant, "la red"?

n/t

[AZCat]

47. I think the poster is referring to the contents of post #37

Post #37 includes this text:
<snip>
Let's see point 2. The Federation of American Scientists says : "The Mach Stem grows in height as it spreads laterally", this means that the forces that were confined close to the ground get upper and upper above the ground while spreading, thus, close to the explosion the walls are pushed at ground level, further they are pushed at all levels. In the case of the plane bomb, the Mach Stem covered a greater distance to reach the left of the picture than the right, so the Mach Stem was bigger on the left, that's why the damages are so important on the left of the picture,

This Mach Stem is the very smoking gun of an explosion before the wall. It's clearly the proof of the lie.

This explosion could be made by shaped charges detonated horizontally before the plane touched the wall. Shaped charges explosions can't be perfectly focused, so they have a significant lateral blast effect. This lateral blast created the Mach Stem damages (at ground level) while the main jet streams created the hole whose entry is at the second story level and exit in the A-E drive.
</snip>


I don't know what "significantly characteristic" means, nor why the randomness of a fuel explosion is mentioned, but that I think is the source of the "jet stream" comment.

[demodewd]

68. shaped charges

Normal explosives disperse their gaseous compounds in all directions. Shaped-charge explosives concentrate their gases in a single direction, making them more powerful. Metal may be added to the explosive charge to increase its 'cutting power'. Shaped charges are used for piercing rocks in the oil-drilling industry or for piercing tanks and bunkers in the army. High explosives create huge heat and huge forces. Shaped charges are even more destructive.
http://eric-bart.net/iwpb/inv2.html

[demodewd]

37. Shaped charges,high heat,Mach stem

No columns. The shaped charges could have been wired on the facade interior. But the drone could very well been wired with charges and/or a bomb. I subscribe basically to eric bart's analysis. Its the most thourough and convincing I've come across as yet.

http://eric-bart.net/iwpb/

Shaped charges

On the right picture you can see the "punched out hole" that was suposedly made by the nose of the plane. It is labelled N"3 in this picture. Pierre-Henri Bunel explains that is was more likely caused by a shaped charge jet stream. Hot plasma jet streams are designed to pierce concrete, they go far inside the building and end up in winds, smokes and heat.

Because it was supposedly found a nose gear there, it was considered as a proof that the plane's nose made this hole. It is more likely that this gear wheel rim rolled there, pushed or drawn by the above jet streams.

In any case the wheel rim did not make such a big hole. Where are the plane parts that broke this wall ? These parts should be visible in the A-E drive and even damage the next wal : the B ring wall.

Nope. The next wall is intact. No damage. Only some smoke spot waiting to be washed. See it labelled :"smoke spot 3" in the picture below, it's in line with the plane's trajectory. See also these pictures for another view of the B ring wall and of smoke spot 3.

Finally, it seems that no solid matter made this hole. It was made by the forceful pressure of hot gases and smokes. This is much more consistent with shaped charge explosions.


Huge heat

High explosives and shaped charges generate huge amounts of heat.

"The firemen were appreciative, as the heat inside the building was, in their words, "unbelievable." It was reported that at least three of the fireman had to be given IV fluids due to the extreme heat" Terry Morin
"We're having a lot of trouble in there. It's about 3,000 degrees inside" Willis Roberts
"The ground was on fire. Trees were on fire. He was with the hospital corps in Vietnam when mortars and rocket shells dropped on the operating room near Da Nang -- but he had never witnessed anything of this devastating intensity" Alan Wallace
"the whole back of the fire truck had melted" William Yeingst
"The fire was so hot that firefighters could not approach the impact point itself until approximately 1 P.M." Patriotresource
"The fire was so intense it cracked concrete" USA Today
"The fire was so hot, Evey said, that it turned window glass to liquid and sent it spilling down walls into puddles on the ground" Walker Lee Evey
"that heat and fire, it could eat you alive in three seconds" Washingtonpost
"It was still burning 18 hr. later" CBS News

The Mach Stem

"The phenomenon of Mach reflections, called the 'Mach Effect' : When a bomb is detonated at some distance above the ground, the reflected wave catches up to and combines with the original shock wave, called the incident wave, to form a third wave that has a nearly vertical front at ground level. This third wave is called a 'Mach Wave' or 'Mach Stem,' and the point at which the three waves intersect is called the 'Triple Point.' The Mach Stem grows in height as it spreads laterally, and as the Mach Stem grows, the triple point rises, describing a curve through the air." Federation of American Scientists

The damages are more important near the ground.
The damages are more important on the left.
The columns are cut at ground level.
The columns are pushed left.
Columns remained while walls vanished.
Points 1 & 3 show a huge force at ground level.
Point 2 shows that the force was greater on the left.
Point 4 shows that the force is directed to the left.
Point 5 shows that no solid matter did these damages.

The Mach Stem is a huge blast at groud level that propagate away from the bomb.

At the Pentagone, the plane was going to the left at a 45° angle. If a bomb insiside the plane was detonated before the plane touched the wall, there would be a Mach Stem. This Mach Stem would be huge gaseous forces at ground level directed 45° to the left. This explains points 1, 3, 4 & 5.

Let's see point 2. The Federation of American Scientists says : "The Mach Stem grows in height as it spreads laterally", this means that the forces that were confined close to the ground get upper and upper above the ground while spreading, thus, close to the explosion the walls are pushed at ground level, further they are pushed at all levels. In the case of the plane bomb, the Mach Stem covered a greater distance to reach the left of the picture than the right, so the Mach Stem was bigger on the left, that's why the damages are so important on the left of the picture,

This Mach Stem is the very smoking gun of an explosion before the wall. It's clearly the proof of the lie.

This explosion could be made by shaped charges detonated horizontally before the plane touched the wall. Shaped charges explosions can't be perfectly focused, so they have a significant lateral blast effect. This lateral blast created the Mach Stem damages (at ground level) while the main jet streams created the hole whose entry is at the second story level and exit in the A-E drive.

[MellowOne]

71. I find it kinda freaky

That author, Barbara Olson, was on this plane. She wrote negative political non-fiction about several politicans. She had a book about Hillary Clinton on the brink of release at the time of the crash. The book was released anyway.

[Abe Linkman]

83. Go back more than 100 years & U see the same pattern of Gov't involvement

Whether it's "Remember The Maine" (Havana harbor), Pearl Harbor, JFK, Waco, O.City, WTC1, Golf War 1, 2001 WTC, 2003 Invastion of Iraq,2004 Haiti coup, and on and on and on...both here AND in other countries...
as proof that ALL of the above are Gov't-sponsored acts, note the consistent way that the Gov't handles crucial evidence for each of these: destruction of evidence, withholding of evidence, planted evidence, half-truths about evidence etc.

With regards to 9/11, the way the Gov't has acted (re: evidence) is proof that it couldn't have been anything but MIHOP.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

109. One of my most "favorite" is Operation Northwoods, released under the FOIA

http://www.rense.com/general18/harm.htm

Operation Northwoods -
Proof US Government
Could Harm Americans
From William Douglas
[e-mail]
12-17-1

Could US Leaders Actually Be Capable Of Instigating Attacks Like Those Of 911?


Many people believe that the Bush administration took advantage of 9-11 in order to launch the war and impose repressive measures at home.

In reality Washington did not just take advantage of 9-11. Rather, it instigated 9-11, just as the Joint Chiefs of Staff proposed instigating fake attacks on Americans in 1962 - to create a climate where military action seems justified.

As for the campaign of repression at home - with its nightmarish Homeland Security, its assault on legal guarantees, and its star chamber Military Tribunals - this campaign is in part intended to silence the millions of people who suspect that Bush and other top leaders were involved in some way in making 9-11 happen.

Some people ask us: how can you believe that our leaders are capable of such cynicism, murderous cruelty, ruthlessness and dishonesty?

That is why Operation Northwoods is so important. For we now know that in 1962, the Joint Chiefs of Staff proposed staging phony attacks to destroy U.S. property and killing Cuban refugees and U.S. citizens, in order to create a wave of indignation and rage, to justify an invasion of Cuba that could have killed hundreds of thousands of people and possibly led to nuclear war.

Below are excerpts from and comments on the Joint Chiefs' Operation Northwoods document. It was obtained through the Freedom of Information Act.

At the end of this article, we have provided links to the document, which we set up in standard WebPage format (easy to read). You can also read it in Adobe Acrobat PDF format, via a link to the National Security Archive, at George Washington University.

Northwoods is reality.

WHAT DOES NORTHWOODS SAY?

The Northwoods proposal was authorized and tentatively approved by the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff. It had a very clear purpose:

"1. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have considered the attached Memorandum for the Chief of Operations, Cuba Project, which responds to a request* of that office for brief but precise description of pretexts which could provide justification for U.S. military intervention in Cuba.

"2. The Joint Chiefs of Staff recommend that the proposed memorandum be forwarded as a preliminary submission suitable for planning purposes." See Operation Northwoods, page i, http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-i.htm

The aim was disinformation, to create the false impression that Cuba had viciously attacked Americans:

"5. The suggested courses of action appended to Enclosure A are based on the premise that US military intervention will result from a period of heightened US-Cuban tensions which place the United States in the position of suffering justifiable grievances. World opinion, and the United Nations forum should be favorably affected by developing the international image of the Cuban government as rash and irresponsible, and as an alarming and unpredictable threat to the peace of the Western Hemisphere." See Operations Northwoods, page 2, http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-2.htm

The document argued that Cuba should be attacked within a few months, before it could join the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact. Thus the plan was not only deceitful and murderous, including, as we shall see, towards Americans, it was also cowardly:

"6. While the foregoing premise can be utilized at the present time it will continue to hold good only as long as there can be reasonable certainty that US military intervention in Cuba would not directly involve the Soviet Union." See Operations Northwoods, page 2, http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-2.htm

The Northwoods document was to be forwarded to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. McNamara claims he never saw it; but then, he also claims that during the 1960s he was opposed to the Vietnam War. Tell that to the families of the dead GIs whom he exhorted to kill the dead Vietnamese. I wouldn't believe Robert McNamara if he said it was Monday:

"8. It is recommended that:

"A. Enclosure A together with its attachments should be forwarded to the Secretary of Defense for approval and transmittal to the Chief of Operations, Cuba Project." See Operations Northwoods, page 3, http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-3.htm

Northwoods recognized that the best justification for attacking Cuba was to trick Cuba into attacking U.S. forces first:

"1. Since it would seem desirable to use legitimate provocation as the basis for US military intervention in Cuba, a cover and deception plan, to include requisite preliminary actions such as has been developed in response to Task 33 o could be executed as an initial effort to provoke Cuban reactions. Harassment plus deceptive actions to convince the Cubans of imminent invasion would be emphasized. Our military posture throughout execution of the plan will allow a rapid change from exercise to intervention if Cuban response justifies." See Operations Northwoods page 7, http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-7.htm

But the document also called for staging phony Cuban attacks on U.S. installations:

"(5) Blow up ammunition inside the base; start fires. (6) Burn aircraft on air base (sabotage). (7) Lob mortar shells from outside of base onto base. Some damage to installations." See Operations Northwoods page 8, http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-8.htm

Some of the proposed attacks could be used to portray the Cubans as heartless monsters:

"It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.' See Operations Northwoods page 10, http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-10.htm

While the plan does not actually call for killing the college students mentioned above - only seeming to kill them - the Joint Chiefs did suggest the possibility of killing some Cuban refugees, or at least wounding them, as long as there was plenty of publicity to make it all worthwhile:

"The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized." See Operations Northwoods page 9, http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-9.htm

Or perhaps some U.S. servicemen could be blown up:

"3. A "Remember the Maine" incident could be arranged in several forms: a. We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba." See Operations Northwoods page 8, http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-8.htm

Nothing personal, you know. All part of the game.

Note that in #3, above, the Joint Chiefs seem to take it for granted that the sinking of the Maine, which was used to justify the Spanish-American war, was a staged incident. Keep in mind that to this day - over a hundred years after the incident - the U.S. military refuses to publicly acknowledge that the Maine was destroyed in a Northwoods-style provocation, though they privately know this was the case.

Northwoods called for elaborate schemes to create the proper illusions:

"6. Use of MIG type aircraft by US pilots could provide additional provocation. Harassment of civil air, attacks on surface shipping and destruction of US military drone aircraft by MIG type planes would be useful as complementary actions. An F-86 properly painted would convince air passengers that they saw a Cuban MIG, especially if the pilot of the transport were to announce such fact. The primary drawback to this suggestion appears to be the security risk inherent in obtaining or modifying an aircraft. However, reasonable copies of the MIG could be produced from US resources in about three months." See Operations Northwoods page 9, http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-9.htm

There is a phrase in the text above that could be used to sum up to the morality of Northwoods as a whole: "The only drawback to this scheme appears to be security." Thus the Joint Chiefs recommended that:

"b. This paper NOT be forwarded to commanders of unified or specified commands. c. This paper NOT be forwarded to US officers assigned to NATO activities. d. This paper NOT be forwarded to the Chairman, US Delegation, United Nations Military Staff Committee." See Operations Northwoods page 3, http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-3.htm

There were additional plans for the staging of violent incidents which are not included in the Northwoods document:

"3. It is understood that the Department of State also is preparing suggested courses of action to develop justification for US military intervention in Cuba." See Operations Northwoods page 3, http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-12.htm

We have prepared the text of Northwoods in WebPage format. Some people find this easier to navigate than the format in which the National Security Archive posted it, which is Adobe Acrobat Portable Document Format (PDF) file.

You may read the document in either format. If you are in doubt, use the WebPage format. It's easier to navigate.

For WebPage format click here or go to http://www.emperors-clothes.com/images/north-i.htm

For George Washington University's National Security Archive page for Operation Northwoods, click here or go to http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/ or go directly to the Adobe Acrobat PDF file at: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/doc1.pdf