Any DUer who saw plane go into Pentagon. Need to debunk missile theory

[flpoljunkie]

I have a friend in Barbados, a teacher who is convinced, after reading an article on powerhouse.com, that a missile crashed into the Pentagon. I advised him that no one I knew took this conspiracy theory seriously--that we were focused on other aspects of 9/11--but not this.

Will Pitt tells me that there some Duers who actually saw the plane go into the Pentagon. Please advise if you were there that day. Thanks.

[felonious thunk]

1. My wife and a friend saw it

It went right over them. It was a plane.

[Catherine Vincent]

2. Did your wife and friend see the plane crash into the pentagon?

I don't think anyone did.

[felonious thunk]

4. wife-no, friend-yes

He was on the highway beside the Pentagon and saw it happen. Along with several other drivers that were also stopped as they watched. People most definitely saw it happen. Whether or not any "authorities" have talked to them, I don't know.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

25. I know someone who saw a plane hit the Pentagon

I personally talked to someone a week after 911 that saw the airlines hit the Pentagon. He also told me he could see a military plane shadowing the airliner.

This "no plane hit the Pentagon" story is DISINFO designed to discredit people who are asking questions about Bush and 911, imo.

[MrSammo1]

120. But?

Did they see the pre-collapse Pentagon wall?

They might rethink what they believe they saw?

[RH]

121. Did you see

the pre collapse Pentagon wall?

There is no doubt that people who did see the pre collapse Pentagon wall have no doubt about it.

So who should we believe?

Those who saw for themselves or somebody who was nowhere near?

:crazy:

[TrogL]

3. there are photographs

including one taken by a security camera.

However, a whole conspiracy theory network has sprung up around these photographs so that's probably not much help.

[Zero Gravitas]

7. photos

The photos do not clearly show the plane so therefore there MUST be a conspiracy afoot! There was a truck bomb or a missile and no plane. The flight did take off from Dulles but was picked up by a giant invisible Zeppelin/UFO. The passengers and crew on the plane are all now in Gitmo. If there are pictures of the plane, it was remote controled like the planes that did fly into the WTC. The planes must have been under remote control because some newspapers did not list the hijackers along with the passengers/crew. Duh. The cell phone calls from the planes were faked. The Towers OBVIOUSLY were imploded using demolition explosives installed during construction by the Illuminati/BFEE/Queen of England cabal *just in case*. Bush* had a live feed of the first plane impacting the WTC piped to a corridor of an elementary school in Flordia because he couldn't trust the CIA/United Airlines/American Airlines/Air Traffic Control/USAF/media co-conspirators to do it right by themselves.

[kiahzero]

5. My father was there

It was a plane.

[HEyHEY]

6. didn't they find pieces of a plane

I know it would have been an intense fire but you'd still be able to make it out.

[papau]

11. They found pieces - but folks wanted "large" pieces

This is one idea that does not fit my tin foil hat very well.

I can see no real reason to doubt that the plane hit the Pentagon.

[ProfessorGAC]

19. I'm With You Papau

A lot of the official explanation smells funny, but on that very day i saw motorists who were on the Beltway saying they were on an overpass and a plane flew just over their heads and in a few seconds, boom! I heard the same story at least half dozen times, on national TV, from people who were a few hundred yards away.

Why average workaday folks would lie about something like that is hard to swallow.

Now, i'm not sure that i believe that guys with 60 hours of simulator time could have hit a building only 5 stories high, but someone did.
The Professor

[felonious thunk]

21. One of them was a friend of mine

on the highway (395) overpass. He watched it. All of it. And he wasn't lying. Regardless of any other details, A large plane hit the Pentagon that day.

[Zero Gravitas]

33. The witnesses

are part of the conspiracy too.

[apsuman]

38. i'm not sure that i believe that guys with 60 hours of simulator time...

I know it would be hard to hit, but the pentagon is a large building. If you lined it up as a straight shot and then accellerated I think a monkey with a gibbon as a copilot could hit it.

And, while I am not a pilot, I would have expected them to "aim" for the middle of the building, the fact that they hit the side might have indicated that they "missed" their target, but like horseshoes, you only had to get so close.

[Old and In the Way]

49. "If you lined it up as a straight shot and then accellerated "

But what if you were coming in from the west at cruise speed (550MPH), did a steep 7000', 270 degree turn and placed it exactly in the area where it would do the least damage? What are the chances that anyone could do this on a single attempt?

And the fingered "pilot" was so bad that his Cessna instructor recommended that he give it up?

[Silverhair]

57. The center of the Pentagon is a more vital target. The inner

"E" corridor has more important stuff than the outer corridor. Also a hit in the centr would have been more difficult to get emergency equipment to. They missed the "bulls-eye".

[demodewd]

59. Easier?

It's a lot easier to fly the plane a few feet off the ground,just skimming the top of a generator than it is to nose dive into the center of the building,I'm sure. :think:

[TrogL]

42. Airplanes are easy to fly

Especially if you've got somebody else to turn them on, get them lined up with the runway, take off, navigate to near where you want to go and you're not worried about landing.

It's just like driving a car. Turn left to go left, turn right to go right. Just add up and down and you're all set. One hour on stick is more than enough to hit a five story building.

[TrogL]

40. The debris flew over top of the building

Airplanes are very fragile otherwise they'd be too heavy to fly.

If you watch footage, the plane hits, disintegrates and most of the debris is thrown over top of the building.

[DCDemo]

8. I was in NYC that day...long story, but my coworkers in DC saw it

It flew pretty much over our bulding in the turn towards the Pentagon...many saw the plane, saw it low, then disappear for a sec from view, then the smoke.

A few saw it from 395 on the way in...some on Washington Blvd....lots of people saw it who I trust with my life, so please tell your friend to focus on other things that might bear fruit.

It was a plane.

[Minstrel Boy]

9. I'm 100% MIHOP, and I so wish this would go away

It's worse than a distraction. It's a discrediting trail of disinformation, on par with the theory that LBJ whipped out a six-shooter in the motorcade and plugged Kennedy himself. We have enough trouble getting a fair hearing without having this nonsense thrown in our faces. ("A 9/11 conspiracy? Oh right: 'no plane hit the Pentagon.' Hardee har har!")

Good luck persuading your friend.

[Scurrilous]

10. Here's a link...

...with photos of pieces of the plane:

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/pages-en/wrecks.html

[Abe Linkman]

15. The link is to a well-known Official Story promoter

There is NO proof that the plane parts are from a large B757 (FL 77).
Ms. Roberts (who also uses the moniker "anablep") is NOT an unbiased researcher. She is an active PROMOTER of the Official Story. I'm not saying she works for a PR firm. She may be well-intentioned, but she isn't UNbiased.

[Bolo Boffin]

54. Anablep's only "biases" are towards the actual evidence

She's a careful researcher who has debunked a lot of the superficial twaddle being posted in this forum. I, for one, am very glad to have been given a link to her research again.

Anablep rules!

[Abe Linkman]

12. A "plane" struck...but NOT AA FL 77

There is NOT one shred of evidence that AA FL 77 crashed into the Pentagon, or anywhere else, for that matter.

A ton of research has been done refuting the phony "Official Story Version" of what happened. There's plenty available right here at DU:
go to the "Foreign Affairs/National Security" Forums and you'll see.

The best theory about what actually happened is that a small jet fired a missile into the building and then followed it into the small hole thus opened.

[Zero Gravitas]

13. So what happened to AA77

and all the people on board? How come people saw it low over DC but no-one saw it after the explosion at the Pentagon?

[Abe Linkman]

17. Fate of AA FL 77 is a different matter

There are several plausible theories about it, but the most likely one is that it landed somewhere out in Ohio or W. Virginia, and everyone on board was there loaded onto FL 93.

[Zero Gravitas]

20. but why bother

if you're going to fly planes full of people into buildings why bother faking one of them? It makes even less sense than the idea of MIHOP itself.

[KFC]

24. Nail on Head

Mabye there were two entirely different plots that just happend to occur on the same day.

[impe]

63. Exactly

The fact that the Pentagon was hit later than the TT's and one was a civilian hit and the other a military. Maybe the plot unfolding was a military coup on 9/11. Critics have yet to explain why the FBI's arrived at the gas station within minutes of the attack to retrieve the video tape of the hit. I also thought it odd on 9/11 when the media continuously showed nothing but the TT's and nothing of the pentagon attack. This never made any sense unless one was used to divert attention from the "real" story.

It was months after 9/11 that the tape referenced above came out, with the wrong date and missing frames.

[RH]

106. According to what

was the item a "tape"?

[Abe Linkman]

28. You're confused, and mixing things up

We're talking about the Pentagon, and it's very possible that there were NO people on ANY plane that hit THAT building. It was most likely hit by a remote-controlled jet less than a second after having fired a missile into the building...which opened the very small (actually almost tiny) hole in the side of the Pentagon that the jet then "entered".

Didn't you ever see the famous photo the small round EXIT hole in one of the rings of the Pentagon? THAT hole is the perfect size for a missle, but only a model airplane could fit through it. WAY too too tiny for a B757.

[Zero Gravitas]

32. LOL

I don't think I'm the confused person here. Again I ask why bother to fake a plane hitting the Pentagon on a day when real planes full of real people were being flown in the WTC?

The Pentagon attack was faked theory seems to rest entirely on the notion that some non-experts think there whould have been more debris and a bigger hole in the Pentagon. Which of course begs the question of why not do a better job of faking it?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

50. I think you need an escort back to the Disenchanted Kingdom....

...the one with the padded throne room.

[HFishbine]

31. Oh Gawd!

Seek help.

[Abe Linkman]

35. Take an aspirin and eat some ketchup. You'll feel better soon.

If it's any comfort, Freepers feel the same way as you do.

[Ficus]

37. someone explain

the timeline on that one for me.

[TrogL]

43. and the transponder tracks

showing the planes still in the air are what? fiction?

[RH]

105. That point

deserved an intelligent reply.

[MercutioATC]

111. As an ATC, I have to call bullshit on this theory.

Sorry, didn't happen. This is possibly the MOST :tinfoilhat: theory of all. It just didn't happen...

[grasswire]

14. does this mean....

....that Bucky Olson is still alive somewhere?

Agh!

[Abe Linkman]

18. Who is Bucky Olson?

n/t

[Media_Lies_Daily]

48. If you don't know, then you shouldn't be discussing this topic at all.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

16. Yikes.

[YNGW]

22. Red Meat for the RW's

It's stuff like this and people who believe that "Bush Knew" or MIHOP & LIHOP or smaller planes w/ missles, or that the Mossad used remote control planes to bring down the Twin Towers or that there were explosives set in the Twin Towers to bring them down or any number of these things that's going to get us Democrats and liberals painted as a bunch of wingnut whackos. Nobody wants their country being run by a bunch of conspiracy theorists. You want a one-way ticket for our party to end up in the dustbin of history? Then just embrace this kind of stuff.

There were several reporters who interviewed eyewitnesses on 9/11 who described the AA plane hitting the Pentagon. For those who have never been to D.C., there's this 8-10 lane freeway going right by the place, and it's always busy, especially at 8-9 in the morning. Bunches of people witnessed it.

Now, we got more important things to deal with.

[DulceDecorum]

101. Who gives a **** what the RW eats?

We, of the 9:11 forum just want to know what really happened.

"I don't quite know yet," Alice said very gently, "I should like to look all round me first, if I might."
"You may look in front of you, and on both sides, if you like," said the Sheep; "but you can't look all round you - unless you've got eyes at the back of your head."

And if you have more important things to deal with,
may I respectfully suggest that you go attend to them forthwith.

[Robb]

103. Irony alert

Free speech is being stifled, he said, telling the dissenter to scram.

:)

[brainshrub]

23. I used to think that as well.

I posted a similar thread about 6 weeks ago. Indeed, I found a few DUers who had seen the plane. I even corresponded with a woman who had to identify body parts.

I am convinced that it was a plane that went into the Pentagon.

[Abe Linkman]

26. DUers are supposed to be critical thinkers, not mindless sheep

"I am convinced that it was a plane that went into the Pentagon."

You must be not only easily convinced of things, but also very lazy. Otherwise, you would have read just in this one thread alone, that the issue ISN'T whether or not a "plane" hit the Pentagon; rather, the issue is WHAT plane.

[felonious thunk]

27. So you insult people who don't agree with you?

Anyone who doesn't subscribe to your theory is mindless and lazy? Well, guess what, I don't subscribe to your theory, and I'm actually pretty fucking smart.

[KFC]

29. Or idiots suckered into believing nonsensical conspiracy theories

But if you read it on the internet it must be true.

[TrogL]

46. No the issue is

How many laws of physics need to be broken and logical fallacies ignored to make your conspiracy theory fit the available facts - a classic case of reverse causality.

[DulceDecorum]

100. No DUer has PERSONALLY seen Flight 77

"I see nobody on the road," said Alice.
"I only wish I had such eyes," the King remarked in a fretful tone. "To be able to see Nobody! And at that distance too! Why, it's as much as I can do to see real people, by this light."

[Maine-i-acs]

30. WTF? Why?

Why would someone divert a plane, put the passengers somewhere else, and prevent THAT story from leaking out?

Why would anyone plug the pentagon with a missile then crash a plane into it?

Flight 93 has a conspiracy theory with legs though.

[Abe Linkman]

34. So does this one, once you study it & get over the hysteria

Takes too long to explain, and I don't know if you really want to know, anyhow. But, I hope you do & that you'll read over some the research that shows how the Official Story is a complete and TOTAL fabrication.

[TrogL]

45. Logical fallacy

I have infinite patience.

Explain away.

This is gonna be good.

[Abe Linkman]

36. You're asking good questions, but the answers aren't so simple.

Go do some reading and it will all become clear, and you'll be very, very surprised...unless you are a student of history. Then, you'll see the uncanny resemblance to so many other events like the Gulf of Tonkin, Pearl Harbor, the burning of the Reichstag, etc.

[TrogL]

44. Logical fallacy

Like things are not equal.

All cows are blue.
My dog is blue.
Therefore my dog is a cow.

[renegade000]

39. one of my classmate's father died on that plane

:-(

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

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

[TrogL]

116. Isn't that charming

Unless the poster is willing to publish the exact name and address of the person killed, exposing them to Freeper abuse, you're not going to believe it.

You wouldn't believe it if it was posted.

You have made up your mind and refuse to be inconvenienced by facts.

[TrogL]

41. Nothing will convince these people

Any evidence you provide, they will say it is faked or something else.

They are not sane. They proceed in reverse of causality, from conclusion to evidence.

[Q]

47. Everyone seems to have a 'theory'...

..and some theories don't make much sense to others. But I believe it's important that EVERYONE be allowed to speak their mind without being called 'insane' and worse.

- That's what 'free speech' is all about and in George's fascist world it's more important than ever to protect each other's right to express their opinion and even to speculate.

- It's safe to say that the Bushies would rather not have us discuss ANY aspect of 9-11. Let's allow the free exchange of ideas without resorting to name-calling and dismissing theories out of hand.

[TrogL]

51. Sticking to my guns

Sane people grasp the concept of causality - that one thing leads to another in logical progression.

I'm not suggesting posts be banned - a violation of "free speech".

I am not dismissing their theories out of hand - I've already waded through plenty of them and found lots of reasons to dismiss them:

• planes that stop in midair to have their picture taken
  
• airplanes that magically disappear in front of witnesses, to be replaced by other airplanes that nobody can see
  
• airplanes that land and take off instantaneously
  
• airplanes with the structural integrity of tanks yet can fly
  

If they come up with something new - fine. So far all they've said is "it takes too long to explain".

[DulceDecorum]

96. Q, I salute you.

But there are those among us who are NOT interested in honest inquiry.
Just take one look at this thread and you will most definitely see what I mean.
And some of them have this annoying idea that
WE of the DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND
need to be more in line with the PNAC ideaology!!!!
This type of poster frequently refers to right wingers not approving of what we say or do. To my mind, that means that we are on the correct and proper course.

Who the hell HERE
wants to be praised by the likes of Rush Limbaugh - and his bum?

[Old and In the Way]

52. I think 77 hit the Pentagon, Abe.

Because I've not seen compelling evidence to believe an alternative scenario.

That said, I can understand how some might believe otherwise, (I was certainly in that camp for awhile).

(1) To date, I have seen no pictorial evidence of a 757 in the crash photo's I've seen. I've seen a single engine fan compressor unit, but that's about it.

(2) I think if 100 people had stumbled upon the Pentagon 30 seconds after the crash and each was asked their opinion of what had just occured, maybe 1/100 would have deduced a 757 had hit the building.

But I suspect that it's been in this administration's interest to withhold physical evidence that would end this controversy. It's to their advantage to have the "no plane struck the Pentagon" kept afloat to distract us from focusing on bigger questions regarding the event. Like:

(1) Why was the Pentagon /Washington, DC without fighter cover 52+ minutes after the 2nd WTC crash.

(2) How could the fingered pilot-terrorist possible pull this off given his piss poor Cessna flying record and the flightpath that Washington ATC had tracked 77 on in it's final moments?


Trying to float an alternative theory like having the people debarked onto 93 without a single scrap of evidence to back your assertion is a real stretch. If you can point me to where there is hard evidence to support your contention, I'd be glad to check it out, though.

[TrogL]

53. A perfect example

A violation of laws of physics, followed by a logical fallacy.

(1) To date, I have seen no pictorial evidence of a 757 in the crash photo's I've seen. I've seen a single engine fan compressor unit, but that's about it.

This is the theory of the flying tank. Aircraft are very light and fragile, otherwise they couldn't fly. These planes were loaded with fuel. The Pentagon is built like a brick shithouse.

Thought experiment - do not try this at home. Fill a beer can with gasoline. Attach an ignition source. Throw it at a brick wall. After the resulting explosion (and after you have extinguished your singed hair and burning clothes) find any large piece of the beer can. The fan compressor unit on the aircraft is about the only piece big enough to survive an explosion.

(2) I think if 100 people had stumbled upon the Pentagon 30 seconds after the crash and each was asked their opinion of what had just occured, maybe 1/100 would have deduced a 757 had hit the building.

A hundred people thinking a stupid thing does not make it less of a stupid thing.

[Old and In the Way]

55. Pretty insulting remarks..

"A hundred people thinking a stupid thing does not make it less of a stupid thing."

I understand you are a pilot, but I didn't know that bestowed higher powers of intelligence. If you had been one of those 100 people that had come across that scene with no other information to evaluate except the visual evidence, you would have assumed it was a 757? If so, please tell me what physical evidence from the initial exterior building pictures would make you the smart one in the crowd.


Regarding the physical evidence, there was a huge pile of debris that was stacked outside of the Pentagon, the plane didn't appear to melt completely into molten puddle of aluminum. I believe the engine parts are made of titanium and other hi-strength, hi-temperature alloys. My point was I have not seen, nor read of any public domain evidence that identifies any of the parts as unique to a 757. Certainly the 2nd engine would easily put to rest the single fighter firing a rocket theory...again, TrofL, if you could point us stupid people to the evidence that you've seen that proves conclusively that it was a 757, please share.

And I think you should work on the 757 as a flying beer can filled with gas analogy....I won't say it's stupid, but it pretty low on the smart scale.

[TrogL]

65. No, I'm not a pilot

You don't need higher powers of intelligence - you merely have to embrace logic and causality.

Approaching a smoking crater after an aircraft I would have no expectation whatsover that I would be able to identify anything to disabuse me of the notion that somebody dropped a city bus from a Skycrane.

I never said the plane melted. I implied that it disintegrated.

Nobody has gotten around to posting public domain evidence that a 757 hit the building because it would be ridiculous to do so. Lots of people saw the 757 (see posts above). Nobody saw an F16 (which seems to be the favourite theory of the replacement aircraft). Lots of people saw an explosion. Nobody saw a 757 leave the area - and lots of people would be watching the sky by now.

By induction, a 757 hit the buildling. Incidentally, I'm only taking your word for it that nobody has identified the wreckage. For all I know there's an NTSB report.

And what, pray tell, is wrong with the beer can analogy? If anything, the metal's too thick in the beer can and gasoline's the wrong fuel - it should be kerosene.

[DulceDecorum]

97. SINGED HAIR!!!

Finally,
someone agrees that the Penta-survivors SHOULD have singed hair!!!
Quick,
get out the pictures of Louise Kutz and her fireproof Penta-hair.

TrogL, how come ALL the Penta-people HAVE HAIR?

[Abe Linkman]

60. You THINK FL 77 hit the Pentagon?

"But I suspect that it's been in this administration's interest to withhold physical evidence that would end this controversy. It's to their advantage to have the "no plane struck the Pentagon" kept afloat to distract us from focusing on bigger questions regarding the event."

If you could kindly show me one shred of evidence that FL 77 hit the Pentagon and one shred of evidence for the above statement of yours, I'll be happy to consider it.

This ought to be interesting.

[Silverhair]

58. It is like a religion for them. It does not need to be logical and

must be believe despite all evidence to the contrary. It conveys on the CTist the feeling that he is one of the special, aware, initiates to a great secret. Their entire world is organised around this secret and every aspect of life is subordianted to it. Everything, everywhere is part of the "Great Conspiracy". Nothing every happens by accident, or by stupidity. It is all part of the design, with the puppetmasters pulling the strings with consumate skill.

Of course, if the great conspirators are that skillfull and can pull off stuff that would make James Bond & Mr. Phelps green with envy, why do they allow the CTists to keep talking? Accidents & illnesses are sooooo easy to arrange.

[Abe Linkman]

61. Silverhead: Do you know what a conspiracy IS?

If so, then you know that 9-11 WAS a conspiracy, and the only question is: who were the conspirators? You apparently believe they were a group of M.E. men led by a weirdo with bad kidneys who lived and operated his commando units, out of a cave somewhere in the middle of nowhere. I don't share that view, and frankly, it seems so out of sync with reality, I can't imagine how you could possibly buy into it.

[Bolo Boffin]

62. Have you heard this old joke, Silverhair?

How do we know the CIA wasn't involved in the JFK assassination?

He's dead, isn't he?

[impe]

64. It's called "critical thinking"

Where was the jet fuel from the plane, why were the firefighters on the scene fighting the fire with water. Why did local Arlington FF respond, instead of the emergency team from National airport. Why was the lawn still green after a hit. Why was Washington left unguarded after the attacks on the TT's. Why did Norad and Andrews fail to respond. Why did Bush continue to read a story while his country was under attack. Why did the SS wisk Cheney into a bunker but left Bush out in the open. Why didn't Air Force One immediately have military escort planes upon leaving Florida. The press reported the codes had been cracked for AF1, why was the story immediately retracted and no critical follow-up by anyone in the media. Why have the FAMILIES of the victims of 9/11 have to fight for an independent investigation of the events that day when the Challenger accident occurred, a panel was immediately convened. I know just silly conspiracies.

[TrogL]

66. Do not ascribe to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity

I'll take a crack at a few of them.

Where was the jet fuel from the plane, why were the firefighters on the scene fighting the fire with water.

The jet fuel had long since burned off. They were now fighting a paper fire. Water works on paper.

Why did local Arlington FF respond, instead of the emergency team from National airport.

Who cares. The damage was already done. (see above)

Why was the lawn still green after a hit.

The plane hit the building. The debris went up and over the building. The explosion went up. The lawn got watered by the firetruck (see above).

Why was Washington left unguarded after the attacks on the TT's. Why did Norad and Andrews fail to respond. Why did Bush continue to read a story while his country was under attack. Why did the SS wisk Cheney into a bunker but left Bush out in the open. Why didn't Air Force One immediately have military escort planes upon leaving Florida. The press reported the codes had been cracked for AF1, why was the story immediately retracted and no critical follow-up by anyone in the media. Why have the FAMILIES of the victims of 9/11 have to fight for an independent investigation of the events that day when the Challenger accident occurred, a panel was immediately convened. I know just silly conspiracies.

Nope. That's LIHOP. I believe in LIHOP. You don't need disappearing jet liners to believe in LIHOP.

[demodewd]

67. Here's some whys

Why was the onset of explosion whitish yellow implicating a charge as opposed to the characteristic color of exploding kerosene( for example.WTC South Tower)? Why would the fire from explosion be centered necessarily in the very fore of the E wing and out into the yard? http://perso.wanadoo.fr/ericbart/inv4.html ? Where are the plane parts that allegedly punched a gaping hole into the A-E drive..a gear wheel rim caused this puncture? Why is the fire to the south of the entry wound much more fuel rich than north of the entry wound? Why is their no soot on the C-ring wall in the area where the alleged nose fuselage section penetrated to the A-E ring? Why did some witnesses claim they smelled cordite?

[TrogL]

69. I looked through the site

He dearly loves to beg the question, doesn't he.

Gasoline/kerosene explosions are big. That's why they use them for special effects in movies. Explosions are chaotic - you cannot predict their behaviour in any sort of exact way, even shaped charges.

The answers to all of these questions are "who knows?", "who cares?"

Aircraft carry all sorts of chemicals that burn with wierd unfamiliar smells that could easily be mistaken for cordite.

[demodewd]

71. Care?

You don't care but that doesn't deligitimize the question.

[TrogL]

73. Sorry, using it in its technical sense.

I spent a long time working with a digital circuit that had the following truth diagram states:

• yes
  
• no
  
• don't know
  
• don't care
  

In the case of circuits, "don't care" meant that the circuit reaching this state was either impossible or had no effect on the circuit.

Here's another example. At the moment, my van is undriveable (blown head gasket). It also has a rust spot. At the moment, I "don't care" about the rust spot because I'd rather the engine worked.

[TrogL]

76. In the larger scheme of LIHOP

(more stuff)

The whole scenario is ridiculous.

The purpose of LIHOP was to scare the American public into forgetting about the election fiasco, loss of civil rights or anything else that would further RRR/BFEE/PNAC's interests.

It runs something like this:

• somebody (it doesn't matter who) plots/plans to fly airplanes into buildings (it doesn't matter why)
  
• BFEE does everything in its power to stop anything that might prevent this from happening (eg. quashing Gore's airplane terrorism combatting initiative)
  
• the planes take off
  
• BFEE prevents anybody from responding (see this thread
  
• three planes hit various high-profile targets (towers, Pentagon etc.)
  
• a fourth plane doesn't make it but three out'a four ain't bad
  
• the public is terrified - KA'CHING!
  

You don't need anything else. Any airliner of sufficient size would do. The 757's happened to be available.

Pursuing these ridiculous theories of aircrafts disappearing in midair, aircraft swaps, phantom aircraft will do nothing to stop the real issues:

• the oncoming theocracy (RRR)
  
• the destruction of civil rights/liberties
  
• the downfall of democracy in the United States (BBV/PNAC)
  

[demodewd]

77. Larger than LIHOP

You are allowing for one fatal assumption...that the hijackers would be able to pull it off. Not such an easy task with dinky "box cutters" and the unpredictability of mass hysteria and pilot response.You want something done right? You do it yourself. No reliance on hijackers getting waylayed at ticket counters. No reliance of novice pilots pulling acrobatic maneuvers to plow airplanes into designated towers. How would they be sure what targets the "hijackers" would hit? Change plans in midair? Why not? Lets crash it into that chemical storage plant instead....Your "scenario" is fraught with too much human unpredictability...You want a sure outcome?..you take over the operation.

[TrogL]

78. try and try again

We don't know how many previous, foiled, attempts there were.

You don't even need a "sure outcome". All you needed was the attempt. They just got very, very, very lucky that everything worked out the way it did.

The great unwashed could be convinced to get almost as upset over "four sets of terrorists tried to take over airliners" as with what actually occured. Remember, they could always try again.

People are still managing to get box cutters on airplanes despite ludicrously tightened security. They knew pretty much what to expect from the cockpit because the cockpit crew would be expecting a ransom demand or an alternate destination, not a suicide attempt.

The problem with your scenario is the potential for leaks. LIHOP is "do less than nothing". MIHOP and its various require a whole lotta people to "do something".

[TrogL]

79. Guess I'm in good company

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=262543

[demodewd]

81. American psyche forever

You need more than an "attempt". You need a spectacle. You need a fully fueled airliner plowing into the South Tower with the nation's network's cameras already focused on the scene.And you need for it to succeed. No glitches. You need for that plane to enter into the building and to explode into that monstrous plume of fire to be embedded in the American psyche forever.

[Bolo Boffin]

80. Too much human unpredictability

Kinda the way life itself is full of human unpredictability.

Your core objection here is actually what I dislike about most of the CTing going on in the forum. It allows absolutely zero human unpredictability. It assumes that exactly what happened on 9/11 was the actual plan. There is no room for time and chance.

When what we're looking at on 9/11 was time and chance in action. How could anyone know that Flight 93 alone would be significantly delayed on takeoff - which is the factor that allowed the passengers to learn about the other crashes and stage a takeover of the plane - causing it to miss its apparent target, the Capital building?

There is a conspiracy behind the events of 9/11. No one denies that. But the Flight 77 denials and the WTC controlled demolitions have a basic human need driving their theories. It's the need to have control over the events of our life. If we can show that an insanely elaborate plot accounts for every minute detail of 9/11, we can feel that we have established a level of control over the terrible events of that day. It's a process of grief to work over every detail of loss and try to imagine how we could have prevented the loss from happening. But a healthy grieving process will abandon these rationalizations and understand that loss and human unpredictability is a part of life that we cannot ultimately control.

The desire to see BushCo swing for their part in this tragedy is a potent force here, and we all want to know the full extent of their culpability. But we must abandon the sillier notions of remote control planes, Flight 77 denial, and WTC controlled demolition.

By preventing detection, the LIHOP theory guarantees that something would have been accomplished. Some form of terrorist attack on US soil was all BushCo needed to initiate their plans in the Middle East. I don't think they envisioned something as spectacular as the 9/11 attack - the same lack of imagination that caused them to plan only for the best possible case in Iraq would have failed them in this case as well. The attitude of "Bring it on!" would have been in play here as well, and Bush's crack about "two dollar tents" and "hitting camels in the butt" shows you his basic assumption about Al Qaeda's ability to strike.

They wanted a sure outcome, but part of that sure outcome was not being held to blame for what happened. The way you do that is to goad someone into doing what you want them to do. You back them into a corner and leave them no other option but attack - which is the Carpet of Gold scenario.

Any historian understands the trump card that human unpredictability plays in every world event. If you factor it out of your theories, you will inevitably be wrong.

[demodewd]

82. too much

There's too much visual evidence as far to deny MIHOP. The squibs identifiable clearly at least ten floors below point of collapse of the North Tower. The protrusion of a tank of some sort on #175 which is NOT the area where the wings attach to the fuselage.The essential disappearance of the top 30 floors of the South Tower before it has a chance to crash into the floors below. The free fall nature of Twin Towers collapses.The total and immediate collapse of the towers' core. The speed of the dust particles( heat generated velocity as opposed to mechanized velocity) as they rush to encapsulate Manhattan.The bright flash of explosive light as initially seen when the plane hits the Pentagon wall. The concentration of the blast/fuel fire in the E-ring and outside the building as opposed to what one would expect(more fueled fire north of the entry point deeper into the d and c rings). The found van with the koran and flight manual. Mohammed Atta leaving Portland the morning of 9-11.Mohammed Atta Mohammed Atta. Mohammed Atta and buddies living in CIAville in Hollywood FL.People with great power make great plans. They certainly can push a nation and a people in a certain direction.

[Bolo Boffin]

85. descent into madness

There are no "squibs"; we've discussed those clouds of material that smash out of the WTC over and over again, and a reasonable explanation exists for them that doesn't include controlled demolition. The "protusion of a tank" is the result of a compressed and pixelated image. The "essential disappearance of the top 30 floors" is a fantasy you're creating - the top 30 floors crashed into the floors below. There is no freefall "nature" to the collapse - the buildings collapsed as fast as gravity and the weight of the construction material allowed. The cores didn't totally and immediately collapse - don't you remember all that "spire" talk? The speed of the dust particles sounds like another fantasy.

As for the Pentagon crash:

The bright flash of explosive light - I understood there to be no picture available of exactly when the plane hits the building. All I've ever seen is a picture of an explosion already in progress taken by a security camera, which I don't suspect to be a very high quality camera. The fire actually did rage into the D and C rings. It also got into the B and A rings as well - you understand that the plane did strike the recently reinforced wall but then proceeded almost immediately into another wedge that hadn't been renovated at all? The damage evident from outside is no measure of the true scope of the damage inside.

And then lots of oohing and ahhhing at the evidence left behind by the hijackers. Doo whacka doo whacka doo.

You oversimplify, overstate, fantasize, and misunderstand, and then expect us to treat your ravings in a rational manner. You don't have a case for MIHOP. Period.

Come back into the light.

[demodewd]

89. Squibs,flames and tilts

There absolutely are squibs(and I'm not refering to the tremendous voluminous dust slurries).Refer to http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wmv/demolition.squib The tank like protrusion is seen on every photo I have seen. There is a flame colored flash just a split second before the plane enters the tower. Refer to http://www.serndipity.li/wot/wmv/ghostplane2 The top floor of the South Tower begins immediate disintegration after it begins to tilt.If I may quote plaguepuppy..."The fact that the top begins to tilt tells us that the core has failed. Yet in the collapse videos we see the top literally disintegrate in place just after it starts to lean. Since it has lost internal structure it cannot act as a monolithic hammer to crush the structure below, which makes the telescoping of the lower 80 floors even more problematic." Sequential video analysis clearly shows that a large portion of the top 30 floors had disintegrated without crashing into the lower 80. The spire is a small standing residual of a mammoth collapse. One would expect to see a remaining core of considerable height standing for at least a brief moment if not longer.I understand the level of fire penetration in the Pentagon as I have spent considerable time perusing through the available photographs including those presented to us by Anablep.But notice how thoroughly and deeply burned the south area is as opposed to the area north of the entry wound. Why? When there would hypothetically be such a trememdous volition carrying the plane at that 45 degree angle into the north section. It appears to me that plane exploded immediately upon impact and the initial blast from charge explosions forced most of the fuel explosion southward and outward. Thus we see the extensive splattering well down the facade of the north section and up over the roof.

[TrogL]

92. I've talked to two professional architects about this

One teaches architecture at a University and uses the Twin Towers' collapse in his course work. The other just finished an airport. This is not an appeal to authority, these guys actually know what they're talking about.

They both say there is absolutely nothing strange about the way the towers fell down. The buildings reacted exactly as designed - badly.

(Incidentally, neither of the links is working today, but I've seen this kind of material before).

The buildings were designed to withstand the impact of an airliner, which they did. They even survived the initial fire/explosion from the fuel. They might even have survived the secondary paper/furnishing fire, leaving an intact but burned out hulk, except for a design flaw and some shoddy workmanship. Part of the structure holding the building together failed and the whole thing came crashing down like a house of cards with no need for squibs (do you even know what they are??) hidden bombs, missiles or space aliens.

The house of cards is a bad analogy, because that's not how buildings are built anymore. Nevertheless, it does show how quickly and unpredictably a building can evolve into chaos after a minor change to its underlying structure.

Here's what I mean by chaos (and I'm probably using the term incorrectly).

Take a toy balloon and begin inflating it. Up to a point, you can predict exactly how the balloon is going to behave (within reason - the plastic/rubber isn't perfect) until it's inflated to a certain point. This is called the "envelope". If you go beyond this point, you cannot predict what's going to happen. The balloon explodes and pieces go flying all over the damn place. Nobody in their right mind would try to predict exactly where they're going to go. It's a chaotic system. I could predict that no piece would fly more than a mile or even half a mile. I could predict that most of the pieces will be within a 30 foot radius.

But if I were standing twenty feet away and got hit with a piece of balloon and began screaming "you hit me with a piece of balloon on purpose" that would be ludicrous. And if anyone wanted to scare me by exploding a balloon ten feet away and guarantee a piece would hit me they'd be deluding themselves.

Your point would be (presumably) to arrange things so that I would be guaranteed to be hit by a balloon by hiding fans in the ceiling or a special balloon that acts like a shaped charge. Fine.

My point is that it's completely unnecessary.

I'm terrified of balloons. I get completely, totally freaked out by balloons. I fscking hate balloons. I'm sitting here typing the word "balloon" and my hands are shaking. Balloons make me....OK, you get the point.

If the purpose of the exercise is to freak me out, I don't need to get hit by a piece of balloon. Exploding the balloon is plenty. Threatening to explode the balloon is plenty. Just inflating the balloon is plenty. Just the noise of inflating the balloon is plenty. Just the...OK, you get the point.

My getting hit with a piece of the balloon is gravy - a fortuitous circumstance (well, for you anyway).

Let's push this analogy over the edge, then I'll make my point.

You want to frighten me but you don't want it to be obvious who's involved. You know I'm fscking terrified of balloons. Here's what you do.

• Give a child a balloon and teach it how to blow it up (pun intended)
  
• Send the child into my space on a pretext (I'm a bit spooked, children like to play with balloons and therefore I hate children on principle alone)
  
• Have the child take out a balloon (I'm beginning to get freaked). You've already won. I'm freaked. Anything beyond this is gravy.
  
• Have the child inflate the balloon. (I'm beginning to lose it)
  
• The child pops the balloon either by accident or on purpose (I've now completely lost it)
  
• By a fortuitious circumstance I get hit by a piece of a balloon (the men in the white coats take me to the loonie bin)
  

Now let's look at L/MIHOP.

The purpose of L/MIHOP is to dominate the US public (and perhaps the world) by psyops - scare the sheeple into submission so you can further the RRR/BFEE/VRWC/whatever agenda. You keep doing this over and over until it works using multiple strategies. If at first you don't succeed, try and try again using multiple scenarios.

Remember?

• White powders (anthrax scares)
  
• dirty bomb scares
  

So here's how you do it with airplanes.

• OBL hits upon the idea of using airplanes (because you told him to - MIHOP).
  
• You find out and don't bother telling anybody (LIHOP) and/or quash/kill anybody who sounds the alarm.
  
• The hijackers put together a plan, complete with documentation. If they are discovered at this point, you start screaming "Hijackers are making plans - the sky is falling." - You've already won. Spin it to the heavens and wallpaper the media with it. Everything beyond this is gravy.
  
• One hijacker makes it onto an airplane. Even better. You can scream and rant and rave about security breaches.
  
• All the planes make it into the air. Pure gravy. You never expected to get this far.
  
• The military fails to respond either because you shut them down (MIHOP), you never got around to telling them (LIHOP) or "pure dumb luck".
  
• One airplane hits something. You've totally won. People are already calling for the suspension of civil liberties.
  
• Three airplanes hit something. Beyond your wildest dreams. The American public is glued to their TV sets or running through the streets of NY in blind panic.
  
• The towers fall down due to a design flaw. "Pure dumb luck", but you'll take anything by now.
  

Here's a scary thought.

What makes you think they've stopped?

They got their justification to invade Afghanistan, which turned out to be a fizzle - the wells came up dry or too expensive to drill, so they went ahead with Iraq (which was probably the goal all along) and tried to make the case that Iraq was involved with 9-11 (which it wasn't). Canada, France, Germany and others are outraged (and are getting shut out of the juicy Iraq contracts as a result), but there's an election coming up.

So why not try it again?

Instead of wasting time chasing your tail looking for non-existent squibs and bombs and space aliens, maybe there's more productive ways to spend your time - like figuring out what they're going to do next.

[DulceDecorum]

102. What exactly did you just insinuate?

TrogL says:
"I've talked to two professional architects about this.
One teaches architecture at a University and uses the Twin Towers' collapse in his course work. The other just finished an airport. This is not an appeal to authority, these guys actually know what they're talking about.
They both say there is absolutely nothing strange about the way the towers fell down. The buildings reacted exactly as designed - badly."

So, you three dispute FEMA?

THE AIRLINE IMPACT
The early news reports noted how well the towers withstood the initial impact of the aircraft; however, when one recognizes that the buildings had more than 1,000 times the mass of the aircraft and had been designed to resist steady wind loads of 30 times the weight of the aircraft, this ability to withstand the initial impact is hardly surprising. Furthermore, since there was no significant wind on September 11, the outer perimeter columns were only stressed before the impact to around 1/3 of their 200 MPa design allowable.
The only individual metal component of the aircraft that is comparable in strength to the box perimeter columns of the WTC is the keel beam at the bottom of the aircraft fuselage. While the aircraft impact undoubtedly destroyed several columns in the WTC perimeter wall, the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure.
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/articles/eagar_jom/eagar_0112.html

TrogL says:
"Part of the structure holding the building together failed and the whole thing came crashing down like a house of cards..."

Perhaps you are alluding to the fact that the Twin Towers were constructed of high-strength concrete?
And that ALL concrete cracks.
And that the acid rain situation PARTICULARLY in New York has resulted in the disintegration of much of the outer layers of concrete on ALL the skyscrapers and other buildings.
And that the reinforcing steel has corroded within the concrete structure.
And that ALL such buildings are subject to sudden collapse in the foreseable future. And that the concrete industry, construction firms and architects will face massive lawsuits hence their flight to relocate their head offices OUTSIDE the USA.
Perhaps you are alluding to the fact that fires within buildings constructed of this already crumbling concrete experiences further concrete failure as the heat causes the concrete to spall badly and expose the rusted metal reinforcing it to the open flames.
Perhaps you are insinuating that the Port Authority might have preferred to see the Twin Towers collapse on their own footprint.
Perhaps you feel that the insurance and reinsurance companies felt the same way.
Perhaps you got the memo.
http://www.concrete.org/about/ab_presmemo_coke08.htm

[TrogL]

104. Actually, I was talking about the bracing

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/dyk.html

Many structural engineers feel the weak link in the chain within the towers was the angle clips that held the floor trusses between the interior and exterior steel columns.

[Abe Linkman]

83. in other words, it's unhealthy to seek and spread the truth

"If we can show that an insanely elaborate plot accounts for every minute detail of 9/11, we can feel that we have established a level of control over the terrible events of that day. It's a process of grief to work over every detail of loss and try to imagine how we could have prevented the loss from happening. But a healthy grieving process will abandon these rationalizations and understand that loss and human unpredictability is a part of life that we cannot ultimately control."

So, just accept what your government and its sales reps tell you, and quit asking all those unpleasant questions about the absurdity of the Official Story Conspiracy. Yes, the Official Version makes no sense; but it's healthier to just accept what we cannot ultimately control...
like government-sponsored conspiracies.

[Bolo Boffin]

86. It's unhealthy to deny the truth, Abe...

...just because the government agrees with the truth.

And I've made it clear time and again that there are plenty of unpleasant questions that need to be asked. It's shameful of you to portray my position as being something different.

[Abe Linkman]

88. bolo: I accept your right to try to convince people of your theory

But, It's shameful of you to portray my position as being something different.

[impe]

84. yes but...

the U.S. had the technology in place to override those high-jacked planes controls, and not only that, to land them safely in order to prevent the type of unpredictability that you present as "predictable".

[Bolo Boffin]

87. I don't ever present unpredictibility as "predictible"

Where did you ever get that from?

And was this technology present on the airplanes in question? Surely you have some evidence besides your speculations on the matter?

[impe]

72. Too Bad

The planes in NY didn't use the same type of jet fuel that had "long since burned off".

[TrogL]

74. They did

The original explosion burned off the fuel almost immediately. It also happened to set the paper, furnishings and wall coverings in the Twin Towers on fire. The heat of new fire caused the rest of the damage.

[DulceDecorum]

99. So what? Who cares?

Everything happened the way I said it did any anyone who says different is evil or insane and a danger to themselves and others and tey should live their life the way I want them to and spend their time doing something other than demonstrating that September 11 was not what the current administration says it was.
So there.
Did I read you correctly, TrogL?

It seems to me that if and when TrogL is presented with something that TrogL has difficulty explaining away
- RATIONALLY -
TrogL comes out with the "so what" and the "who cares."
(I am now waiting to hear if my grandma wears army boots.)

Well sir,
you are at the DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND
and we, of the 9:11 forum,
have done our homework.

Telling us to shut up because we see things differently is
SIMPLY NOT ACCEPTABLE.
It does not at this time appear that you wish to discover what actually happened.
It does at this time appear that you are much more interested in attacking
those who have a different viewpoint
from that of Mr. Cheney
(don't-investigate-anything-I-am-involved-in dammit)
and Mr. Bush
(I'll-tell-my-daddy-if-you-don't-leave-me-alone.)

If you are interested in activism, there is a DU forum here for that.
If you are interested in attacking the conservative agenda, there is a DU forum here for that.
But if you are here to shut down debate on the 9:11 forum
may I please be the first to respectfully suggest that
you cease and desist from all further attempts to do so.
Please feel free to use that cute little button that hides threads.

[TrogL]

108. You obviously haven't been paying attention

you are much more interested in attacking those who have a different viewpoint from that of Mr. Cheney

Although I have yet to speak to the man or even pay much attention to him, I suspect Mr. Cheney and I do not see eye to eye on many issues. Were he to say the sky was blue, I'd check first.

This accusation, though, is a common thread amongst those who have given up attempting rational discourse and chose to attack instead.

The argument goes like this:

Tinfoiler: the moon has to be made of green cheese
TrogL: the rocks brought back from the moon were made of silica, like all other rocks
Tinfoiler: the Apollo moon landings never happened - it was all faked
TrogL: I have evidence showing otherwise
Tinfoiler: you must be a Republican plant

I have no intention of shutting down debate. I will continue to point out logical fallacies, factual inaccuracies and violations of laws of physics until hell freezes over.

Get over it.

[Abe Linkman]

109. Wow. A "get over it" person.

That's your attempt to engage in "rational discource"?

[TrogL]

110. In context, yes

Meaning, I have no intention of giving up my attempts to inject notes of sanity and logic into irrational discourse.

Any attempt to put this into a larger context is "reading into" what I said.

[demodewd]

56. It was a plane bomb

"It was a plane but it was also a missile. Missiles are flying bombs. Whether the flying engine is behind the bomb or around the bomb, what's the difference ?

Here we try to support that the plane that crash in the Pentagon was a plane bomb, thus it was not flight AA77. Flight AA77 had its transponder turned off. For 30 minutes it was not clear where it was (see UnansweredQuestions.org). We do not discuss the fate of AA77, instead we focus on the Pentagon evidences. The plane bomb was probably an airliner tarted up as an American Airlines airliner. It was modified as a missile, it was remotely and/or automatically controlled. There were bombs on board, mostly bombs with a directed explosion (shaped charges) These bombs pierced the wall, they were detonated one after another before the contact with the Pentagon and possibly after, inside the building. Here are others observers thinking about the same : Cheryl Seal : "The plane exploded and was essentially vaporized the split second before actual impact with the wall", Leonard Spencer about flight 11 : "It was a custom-built military plane carrying three missiles"." More... http://perso.wanadoo.fr/ericbart/index.html

[TrogL]

68. Shaped charges

Shaped charges only work if you can control where they are and what direction they're facing when they go off. You cannot do this from a moving airplane.

[demodewd]

70. re:shaped charges

If the plane is programed to do exactly what it did,then the charges are placed accordingly?

[TrogL]

75. Is that a question?

Thought experiment.

Put a mark on the edge of a frisbee. Take the frisbee and get into a car. Drive the car into a post. At the exact moment the car explodes, throw the frisbee at a brick wall in such a manner that the spot on the frisbee touches the wall at the exact moment it hits.

That's the kind of accuracy your asking of these shaped charges.

[DulceDecorum]

90. Will Pitt

tells you wrong.

NOBODY here actually saw the plane hit the Pentagon.
But there are several who know someone who knows Kevin Bacon who knows someone whose cousin did.

Foidermore,
it is EASY to plant false memories.

The news media's power of suggestion also can leave a false impression, Loftus said.
"During the Washington sniper attacks, everyone reported seeing a white van," she said. "Where did it come from? The whole country was seeing white vans."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/02/16/false.memory.ap/

Or manipulate SOME of the general public.
Remember this?
http://www.war-ofthe-worlds.co.uk/

It seems the greater part of an entire nation was fully convinced that, as it was stated by believable authorities on the air, "both the observations of science and the evidence of our eyes lead to the inescapable assumption that those strange beings who landed in the Jersey farmlands tonight are the vanguard of an invading army from the planet Mars."
The end of the world was upon them, and the play-by-play, blow-by-blow was coming to them live, via radio. The modern age had brought Armageddon into the living room.
http://www.rense.com/general4/hg.htm

Approximately six million people heard it, and out of this number it was long thought that almost one million people panicked. More recent research, however, suggests that the number of people who panicked is probably far lower. In fact, the idea that the broadcast touched off a huge national scare is probably more of a hoax than the broadcast itself, which was never intended to fool anyone (At four separate points during the broadcast, including the beginning, it was clearly stated that what people were hearing was a play). The idea that hundreds of thousands of people panicked arose because the media eagerly pumped up the story in the weeks following the event.
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/war_worlds.html
See what I mean?

Strangely enough, this was not the last time that a dramatized broadcast of H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds would be mistaken for an account of real events. In November 1944 the play caused a similar panic when it was broadcast in Santiago, Chile, and in February 1949 it once again stirred up unrest when it was performed by a radio station in Quito, Ecuador. The situation in Ecuador unfortunately turned ugly when an angry mob surrounded the radio station and burned it to the ground.
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/war_worlds.html
And that is what they call - taking care of business.
After all, as our fearless leader once said:
http://www.gwbush04.com/contentxw.php?f=mov_foolmeonce

But like I said,
NOBODY here actually SAW the plane hit the Pentagon.

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

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

[DulceDecorum]

94. If your intention

is to stifle debate here.
you are totally out of luck.

[Robb]

98. At least one point is valid.

To paraphrase Doyle's Holmes, the most common mistake I've seen is people theorizing before they have good data. They begin to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. :shrug:

[vincenzo]

93. My uncle witnessed a Martian wedding in his backyard!

That doesn't mean it happened. I'm afraid that without corroborating physical evidence so-called eyewitness testimony is almost worthless.

By the way, the website you mentioned at the top is actually:

http://www.thepowerhour.com/

not powerhouse.com.

I'm sure that this was an honest mistake, not an ever so sly attempt at disinfo. Glad I could help.

[Indiana Democrat]

107. Reading down through this thread...

...I see that there is a VAST number of DUers who had either witnessed the plane hitting the Pentagon or know people who saw it (Thank you, eyewitnesses :) ).

So...My question is this...

Why do we allow all the kooks to run around making us look like fools with their conspiracy theories?

Don't get me wrong...I like a good spook story as much as the next guy...I like Art Bell, he has his place in entertainment...But the kooks bring so much embarrassment to us all...This is DemocraticUnderground.com, not ArtBell.com.

Just curious...

[RH]

112. That's a good question!

Having closely followed the "No Boeing" nonsense from the start I seriously suspect that the issue has been deliberately pumped up by some participants especially to prove the foolishness of the conspiracy theory opposition. Looked at from a distance it is pretty much as if they are trying to win a bet to see who can get the World to believe the most absurd proposition.

Early last year I produced "They saw the Aircraft", a comprehensive compendium of eye witness reports and then "Spot the Lamp Poles", a collection of photos and physical analysis to refute the idiots such as Thierry Meyssan who had said that a plane could not have hit the Pentagon because lamp poles would then have been damaged:

http://www.dragonslair.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/77/poles_.htm

At that stage I'd therefore expected that to pretty much be the end of the matter. The idiots were simply wrong on crucial matters of fact and up until then I'd beieved in their pretension to objectively seek the truth.

Thereafter their true nature was more and more apparent. When refuted they carried on to display an insultingly contrived ignorance that could only possibly have been deliberately dishonest, and with a continually persistent hyped up style much more befitting of show biz propaganda than to any serious discipline of science.

And in the mean time there must at least have been a conspiracy of silence from those who know better. Somebody somewhere is surely sitting on more than enough evidence to have long since dispatched, overnight, the nonsense to the garbage can where it belongs, but they chose instaed to let it go on.

[TrogL]

115. Wow, great stuff

bookmarked for future use

[RH]

118. And are you wondering

why you never saw it bookmarked by so many of the "seekers of the truth"?

:hurts:

I spent some time mailing around to draw attention to the site and the issue.

Some responses were honest but more often their neglect was steadfast and absolute.

And yet worse those who'd previously said that a plane could not have hit the Pentagon because lamp poles would then have been hit continued to display that very argument with no correction, no apology, nor even the slightest public recognition of the issue.

[TrogL]

119. Of course

That's the way they work.

They have a pre-conceived idea - their "conclusion".
They assemble a group of "facts" that appears to support their conclusion.
They ignore all other facts that don't.
They accuse anybody disagreeing with them with being a fool, insane, a Republican or an employee of BFEE.

[Abe Linkman]

113. Just looking at how many messages you've posted...

My question is: If you support the Official Conspiracy Theory, why do you come amidst people you believe are fools? Doesn't that taint you by association? Are you being coreced into coming here & posting messages designed to assail the intelligence & motives of those of us who don't have a preconceived notion of what really happened on 9-11?

btw- The only people I know who like Art Bell are fools who believe in all kinds of bizarre things. But, I won't try to discourage you from your special interest in what he's all about.

[RH]

114. Discussions of personalities break rules of the site.

As you should know well enough by now.

:spank:

But if you really wish to know (which I seriously doubt)

I think of it as form of therapy.

While pschiatrists recommend to face fears nothing scares me more than your sort of zealously bigoted psychosis.

:scared:

There is no hope of mending real problems in the real world except by dealing with the real world.

:silly:

Those who deal only with your own imaginations will never get further than that.

:thumbsdown:

[TrogL]

117. But you do have a pre-conceived notion

and refuse to change this notion when confronted with conflicting evidence.