Things that make one go "Hmmmm"--the 9/11 Pentagon Strike

[MaraJade]

While stumbling about on the internet, I ran accross this.

http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm

I am not exactly a "tinfoilhat" conspiracy theory type of person, but this
does make one think.

Is there anything to refute this?

[Dave Reynolds]

1. Nothing to refute it,

but conversely nothing to prove it, either.

Eyewitness reports are not traditionally reliable, and just how many people know what a missile really sounds like?

I suspect we will never know what really happened beyond official reports.

[WoodrowFan]

23. other than a sh*load of eyewittnesses and facts

people may not know what a missle sound slike but hundreds know what an airliner crashinging into the side of a building LOOKS like.

http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon.html

[DoYouEverWonder]

40. Very few people actually saw anything hit the Pentagon

no less Flight 77.

Many heard the sounds of the plane and explosion. Many saw the explosion. Many saw a plane. I have heard of very few people who actually seen both and most of the ones who claim to have seen both are members of the M$M, with a surprisingly high number of these witnesses happen to work for US News.

[Grateful for Hope]

41. Yes, this is true

what amazes me is that people are so willing to assume that there were actual witnesses to this event.

Most reports I have read describe what people saw prior to the "crash". In fact, I don't remember a single report that describes an actual eye-witness account of this incident.

Maybe they are out there, and I am open to that possibility.

[Old and In the Way]

42. If the plane is moving at 450+ MPH and it's approach was as low

as it had to have been to hit the poles, who could have have seen anything? The planes traveling at 660 feet per second...no one is looking for a plane just prior to impact; what could have registered, in any level of detail, of an object that's moved 1300+ feet in 2 seconds?

[Grateful for Hope]

43. This is exactly whar I think n/t

[we can do it]

58. NPR Was Reporting That A Helicopter Crashed At the Pentagon,

[we can do it]

57. It Seems To Me There Were Witnesses Attesting To Both Stories

Both missile and plane - so how bought some actual hard evidence and a video or two(we know there were many cameras in the vicinity) to back up the official line. Then I will believe it.

[celestia671]

2. I don't know...

There are alot of 'hmmm's' when it comes to 9/11, esp the Pentagon and Flight 93. I doubt we'll ever know the entire truth.

[rooney]

3. I have never seen anything

to refute the pentagon crash....but I have seen many films, read books and found plenty of people who certainly believe a 757 did not hit the pentagon.

[titoresque]

5. If you've seen "many films"

than by now you would have seen something to refute the official story. Perhaps you should watch "Loose Change"

[longship]

4. Do you mean other than the hundreds of rush hour commuters

on GW Parkway (among many others) who actually witnessed a 757 flying into the Pentagon?

Do you mean other than the body parts of passengers retrieved from the Pentagon?

Do you mean other than the airliner parts found all over the place, both inside and outside?

An airliner flying into reinforced concrete at 450 mph isn't going to remain whole; it's going to disintegrate along with the passengers, their luggage, the seats, etc. They were picking body parts out with tweezers. And the hole in the Pentagon just happened to be the precise size of a 757 fuselage.

All this Pentagon tin foil hat crap is rubbish. It's bullshit. A 757 airliner hit the Pentagon. There is ZERO evidence for anything else.

[Ammonium]

6. hmm

For some fun, find us a picture of some 757 wrackage from the pentagon? Think you can do that?

[Webster Green]

9. Yeah, I would like to see some pictures of the wreckage...

Surely there must be some photos?

'Loose Change' is a must see!

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[Jazz2006]

27. More here.

http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/

[titoresque]

8. please provide proof

links.. something, to the effect that "body parts" were recovered. Also, have you seen "Loose Change" I suggest you view the film, the research presented in the film is very enlightening.

[longship]

17. Saw it. It's rubbish.

Just a bunch of suppositions, really bad science, special pleading, and a whole lot of paranoia.

I don't need to provide proof. There are plenty of sources for the evidence.

However, even if I did provide the evidence for which you ask, I'm not likely to convince any of the tin foil hat crowd no matter what evidence exists.

[reorg]

18. listening to conservative talk-show hosts on the radio

says Ms. Stillwell, made her realize ...

“To my astonishment, I found that the only voices that seemed to me to be intellectually and morally honest were on the right. Suddenly, I was listening to conservative talk-show hosts on the radio and reading conservative columnists, and they were making sense.”

- Cinnamon Stillwell, San Francisco Chronicle

http://www.reachm.com/amstreet/archives/2005/03/03/the-making-of-a-911-republican-my-response/


So are you a Republican too? Or why do you constantly link to her incoherent ramblings in the SF Chronicle?

[longship]

19. No, not a Republican.

I'm a skeptic. Regardless of Ms. Stillwell's party affiliation, I think she has pretty much nailed the 9/11 conspiracy theories.

The 9/11 tin foil hatters make shit up. They get the science way, way wrong. They twist facts, or get them outright wrong. They cherry pick data, conveniently ignoring any which would falsify their paranoid delusions. In their attempt to *prove* (and I use that word *very* loosely) Bush and Company to be criminals, they are guilty of the very things to which they accuse Bush and Company--deception, twisting facts, etc.

Worst of all, they do severe damage to any legitimate attempts to hold ChimpCo's feet to the fire to get a true accounting for the events of 9/11. The only thing the tin foil hatters have correct, is that there are questions that need to be answered. Unfortunately, they undermine their own interests by adhering to wacked-out and lunatic ravings of controlled demolitions, disappearing airliners, buildings that should topple like dominoes, invisible missiles, CIA murdered airline passengers, and all sorts of other shit, none of which has a single shred of evidence.

I do not know why people believe that garbage, but I suppose it's the same reason why people believe in Chimp's Iraqi WMDs, and his tax breaks for the wealthy. They've been deceived and they don't yet know it. The people spewing this stuff are certifiable paranoids who see conspiracy everywhere, even when the actual events were the end result of a completely different (and documentable!) conspiracy.

[jschurchin]

21. Dude, you need to cut.........

way back on the caffeine. You are liable to explode. :rofl: :rofl:

[Chomp]

24. Typical

Longship makes perfectly valid and reasonable points, and one poster accuses her/him of being a right-winger and another laughs at him/her.

Good work. You must be proud liberals.

[jschurchin]

33. It is not the points he is........

making. It is the ranting. Points can be made in a civilized manner. Have him check out LARED or Hack89 for some tips.

[reorg]

35. you think it's reasonable

to repeatedly quote the lunatic ravings of this self-described "9/11 Neocon" (with approval)?

Her Yahoo group:

Description
A place for former lefties mugged by reality on September 11, 2001 to come together, share ideas, make connections and let their voices be heard. Ex-lefties from various periods and Bay Area conservatives, libertarians, moderates and classical liberals looking for like-minded company are welcome to join in. The group is moderated by political columnist and 9/11 Neocon Cinnamon Stillwell.


One particularly inane example of her war cheering rants:

... the peaceniks are trying to hamper our ability to defend ourselves. They would have us sacrifice ourselves at the altar of their precious "peace." If we listened to them, our country would be nothing short of suicidal.

But what if the pacifists are really being disingenuous about their motives? When they call for "pacifism," what they really mean is that America should be pacifistic, while our enemies continue to attack us with impunity. The peaceniks claim to be neutral, when in fact, they've simply chosen sides. They've decided to side with barbarism, primitivism, and backwardness, rather than support America or by extension, Western civilization.

This is rather ironic, considering the fact that these peaceniks only exist because they live in a Western democracy. What they don't seem to realize is that a society like ours cannot be left unguarded. Freedom is something that must be fought for and once achieved, fiercely protected. Clearly, it won't be the pacifists who flock to our Armed Services to join up, but they will benefit from those that do. They would rather scorn and belittle the bravery and morality of our military, while holding up terrorists as "freedom fighters."

This Wednesday, on 9/11/02, maybe the peaceniks could pause for a moment from condemning our country and remember the words of George Orwell, who said, "To abjure violence is a luxury which a delicate few enjoy only because others stand ready to do violence in their behalf." Then perhaps, they'll remember the Americans who died so cruelly that day, all thanks to pacifism.

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=319

[we can do it]

59. Whatever - How About A Little Bit of Proof

BTW I AM Proud

[Jazz2006]

28. Body parts -

Not for the feint of heart.

http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/

See Exhibits GX-P200042, 200045, 200047, 200048.

They are very graphic so I'm not posting them directly here (they are already posted on another thread here)

[dysfunctional press]

13. i know somebody who witnessed it as well.

some people refuse to accept anything that isn't their version of the truth...

for the people who don't believe the 757 hit- where are the passengers, crew and the plane from that flight?

did they line them up and shoot them?
are they in guantanemo?
or on poppy bush's private tropical island having umbrella drinks and cracked crab?

[DemInDistress]

14. longship says,

"All this Pentagon tin foil hat crap is rubbish. It's bullshit. A 757 airliner hit the Pentagon. There is ZERO evidence for anything else."
Show me (us) !! or stfu... eom

[longship]

15. There's something else going on here, Re: tiin foil stuff.

I can't put my finger on it. I'm not an expert in personal psychology, so I can't explain it.

I find it really, really peculiar that somebody would *demand* to see evidence when the evidence is easily available to *anybody* who wants to look at it. I feel like a person talking to the wall when I point out that hundreds of commuters, from all walks of life, witnessed Flight 77 flying into the Pentagon. It was rush hour and there are three major thoroughfares within a mile of the Pentagon. There were pilots, and journalists, and politicians, and many ordinary people who saw it. The tin foil hat crowd keep screeching, "Show me the evidence!"


It seems that no amount of evidence will satisfy their delusions.

[mirandapriestly]

20. Lots of witnesses

funny thing is , they seem to have seen/heard a wide variety of things. A number of them also seem to work for military related jobs or for conservative media (the ones who agreed with the official version, that is). You need to look more carefully at what you assume to be true just because the television tells you so.
Read these witnesses and think about it - you won't, I know...
http://www.criticalthrash.com/terror/identification.html

[longship]

25. Paul Begala == conservative media???

Paul was on the parkway that morning. He's one of those witnesses.
There are hundreds of people just like him.

Are you actually trying to say that the conspiracy went as far as controlling who was driving to work that morning on the GW Parkway????? If you are indeed saying that, I would suggest that you consider what that might mean.

No. Hundreds of people witnessed Flight 77 flying into the Pentagon precisely because Flight 77 *DID* fly into the Pentagon.

[mirandapriestly]

52. This is what Begala Saw: a fireball

Paul Begala, a Democratic consultant, said he witnessed an explosion near the Pentagon. "It was a huge fireball, a huge, orange fireball," he said in an interview on his mobile phone. He said another witness told him a helicopter exploded. (AP, Washington, 9/12/2001 11:45:33 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0%2C1300%2C550486%2C00.html

The people who "saw" the "correct" airplane tended to be conservatives or military. Do some research before coming to your conclusions.

[Jara sang]

45. Most commuters don't lollygag at sites they have passed a thousand times.

[we can do it]

60. Most People Are Driving By There At 70 MPH -

How much could they see realistically?

[we can do it]

56. Dude Share What You're Smoking....

Why don't you show us some evidence of an actual crash, not just another rehash of the BS brainwash story. Try to have an original thought - or any thought for that matter....and since when did DC have rush hour later than the rest of the east coast?

[in_cog_ni_to]

7. I'm still waiting to see the film the FBI IMMEDIATELY Confiscated

from a nearby gas station. Funny how that has never been released, eh? This has never been refuted and probably never will be because it can't be.

[rooney]

10. I have seen Loose Change and

the most interesting discussion of this subject is a book "the new pearl harbor'' by david griffin. Please read it if you haven't.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

12. Films - plural

3 total I think. One from the gas station, one from the Hilton and one from DC Traffic.

[Sinti]

11. If only they would release the videos from around the Pentagon

there would be no more questions. There is a LOT of video around the Pentagon, VDOT cameras on the highway, security cameras from the Pentagon itself, the hotel (I think it's a Mariott) up the street, this whole thing would go away.

At the time this happened I lived in Alexandria, less than 10 miles from the Pentagon. I would have been there at that time (and could probably tell you exactly what happened) but I missed the bus, lucky me. I'm surprised I never heard/saw the plane. We all felt the impact, and thought it was an earthquake or something. So we ran to find a TV, and found out what was happening, and that they had basically shut down the city for the day.

Nevertheless, without the film the plane/no plane question is kind of pointless.

The better question would be, WHY THE HELL didn't they use the surface to air, anti-aircraft guns that surround the damn building? That's what they were there for. It's extremely restricted airspace, and the huge guns they have there are not for decoration.

However, the day after there was no wreckage, just a mightily F-ed up building on one side. The side that they had been working on refurbishing, coincidentally. Lucky them.

[WoodrowFan]

22. what anti-aircraft guns?

WHAT anti-aircraft guns? I live in the area as well and there never were anti-aircraft guns, or missile batteries there. (other than for a very brief time after 9-11 for show) For God's sake, it's on the flight path of National Airport less than a mile away. They can't be shooting down airliners flying in to land. It wa smost certainly NOT "extremely restricted airspace."


And yes, there was wreckage.

http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon.html



As for the films, even if they were released, the PCTs would all claim they were "faked". Hell, some of the worst (like webfairy) even claim that the film e see of the planes hitting the WTC is faked. NOTHING satisfies the tinfoil heads...

[quickesst]

26. 9/11 debunkers....

complete this sentence please. The pentagon will not release the tapes supposedly showing a passenger jet hitting the pentagon because______________. This question is always ignored or deflected. Why?

If you cannot give a credible, believable answer to this particular question, it is imperative the questions concerning this incident have to be asked. Oh, and the excuse that it may compromise any upcoming or ongoing trials won't wash. There is not one credible reason to not release these tapes and put to rest the conspiracy theories once and for all.
This is all I'm asking for. A credible answer that will put my suspicions to rest concerning the Pentagon incident. Please. Thanks.
quickesst

[WoodrowFan]

29. why should they?

why should they? you have eyewitnesses, pieces of the plan, passenger remains, etc. How many people saw an airliner hit? hundreds. How many saw a missile? ZERO! We used to hear the PCTs say "why didn't they release the cockpit tapes from Flt 93." When they did all we heard was "they're fake!" Face it, you'll never ever be convinced since your "open" mind is nailed shut/

A member since 2004 and only 7 posts? I smell "sock puppet."

bye bye

[Debunking911]

30. Not to mention the

logical fallacy in it. If you don't know the answer to A then Z is true. But you make a good point. You don't have to know the answer with all the evidence already out there. It's like saying we didn't evolve because we don't have every piece of evolution worked out yet. As if all the other evidence means nothing.

[Bushknew]

31. What A Cop Out!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why should they answer questions or release ANY more information about
911 if the Democrats are "convinced" that this administration could have prevented
911?

That’s the logical end of your argument.

Do you want an open government or not?

With all the pandemonium of that day, I can think of no legitimate reason
why those tapes were seized in minutes of the explosion. How did they know
the attacks were over? Weren’t there better things to do, like securing the area
and helping the injured?

There is no reason why those video tapes should be kept classified.

But Al-Qaeda will use that video for propaganda you holler!!!!!!

So the pictures just released of charred bodies at the Pentagon can not be
used for Al-Qaeda propaganda? Nor can the video of the planes crashing into the towers or the tortured prisoners of Abu Ghraib?

Come on, please. That train/excuse has long passed us by.

If there is nothing to hide, those tapes should be released.

What’s your excuse now?

BTW, I think they haven’t released that video because it is really hard to
make a believable fake. A 757 is huge and getting the scale just right from the point of view of those security cameras would be hard to duplicate. Any film student would
decimate a faked video.

[DemInDistress]

32. good question quick!!

The Pentagon won't release those videotapes because " it'll show either a painted over Global Hawk or an AA Comuter jet loaded with explosives"
Ever hear the thunderous roar of a commercial jet engine fying 100-200'ft. over your head? I did and still do here near LaGuardia Airport. Hell, even Ray Charles and Stevie Wonder could see (hear) it was a commercial jet.
Many witnesses recall hearing a "swoosh,pfft" the trademark sound of a missile. Who does one believe? The bush crime family or "true Americans?"

and this:




AND WELCOME TO DU !! QUICKESST

[quickesst]

37. DemInDistress....

Thanks for the welcome. You guys are absolutely, without a doubt, on top of things here. Your arguments are solid, and cannot be shot down, not by any of the debunkers here anyway. Keep it up. I believe it's getting close to show and tell time. Thanks.
quickesst

[Old and In the Way]

44. I agree.

This is the historical record. Why wasn't it part of the 9/11 Commission's release? We've seen 175 documentation played hundreds of times from many angles, why not the Pentagon crash? And why would the FBI be looking for videotapes minutes after the event? How did they know there weren't other planes still threatening Washington?

I'm agnostic on whether a 757 hit the Pentagon. I see a lot of junk, some identifiable plane parts, and not really anything that says "this is the undisputable proof". Could a missle or bomb have done this damage? Maybe. I have no idea what was in that area prior to crash. If a 100 people were brought on the scene and asked what they think occurred prior to any official information, how many would guess that it was the scene of a 757 crash? It wouldn't have been one of my 1st 20 guesses. That said, I see no other plausible scenario as to what happened to 77. It is conceivable that 757 made the hole, it just doesn't seem a certainty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The other thing that bothers me is why did they release those frames of ? hitting the Pentagon with the wrong date and missing a key frame within days of th crash? If that was OK, why not better quality visual evidence? It's 4-1/2 years since the event. I don't believe the American public had to wait that long to see the Pearl Harbor films. In fact, if you want to get the country behind this GWOT, wouldn't that be a powerful tool to accomplish this?

[Sinti]

34. How often do you go to the Pentagon? Were you there before Sept 2001?

Without question I've seen the anti-aircraft defenses with my own eyes, every day for a number of years. It's not as if they were hidden from view.

As did this guy:

I recall going outside and sitting down on a silver metal box. My father told me to get off of it. When I asked why he said it was a surface to air missile. (I could be off by 2-3 years on this recollection, but it was certainly before 1961.

<snip>

Col. Robinson then pointed to the roof of the Pentagon, just above us, and said, "And we have cameras and radar up there to make sure they don't try to run a plane into the building." That was a startling and almost non-sense statement to me in 1998, but recall that the method of attack and the target of the Pentagon were mentioned in the Bojinka Plan, retrieved from Ramsi Yusef's computer in the Philippines in 1996. Certainly they did not expect "cameras and radar" to stop the attacking plane, there was some method of defense coordinated with them (SAM's, interceptors, etc.).

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/P56A.html


Of course, in this climate you can't believe your lying eyes anymore, but it's completely naive to think the Pentagon was unprotected, to say the least.

Thank you for helping me answer my own question, though. Apparently the air defense system failed because the plane flew too low. This is a perfectly logical explanation and much better fits with the pre-9/11 reality. They didn't think an attack would be coming in that close to the ground, after all. This was Cold War stuff.

"We couldn't even defend the frigging Pentagon because an ordinary commercial jet flew in low and the Pentagon's defenses were set for a high, missile trajectory. Even assuming our mythical future enemies weren't taking notes on the virtues of anonymous attacks, don't you think they'd at least notice the value of circumventing NMD's high- trajectory tracking?"

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=12002


Yes, it is absolutely restricted airspace. This is P56A restricted airspace, to be precise. Most of Washington, D.C., is restricted airspace. If you've ever landed at National you know you have to come up the Potomac River, never touching the Pentagon, or the main of D.C.

"Flights taking off to the north are required to climb quickly and bank left sharply to avoid the
Washington Monument and follow a path which does not go over either the White House or the Pentagon."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan_Washington_National_Airport

"On the most common approach, pilots must negotiate a tight corridor over the Potomac between restricted airspace over the White House and Mall to the north and the Pentagon to the south, executing a ninety-degree turn just before touchdown."

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Washington%2C_D.C.

Again, to say otherwise is either indicative of a lack of knowledge about the place, or belief in a fabrication that you've been told.

I do not however, suggest to anyone that anything other than an airplane, Flight 77, hit the Pentagon. I just would like the films released. You say that the tinfoil hat wearers would just say they were faked. This statement smacks of commonplace disinformation tactics, BTW. I'm convinced it would set many more rational people at ease. For that benefit, I would risk the wrath of the tinfoil hat wearers, happily.

Edited to add:

The day after there was no visible wreckage to me. Don't presume to tell me what I saw. Of course, I didn't go over the parking lots, roof, and lawn with a magnifying glass searching for bits of plane that look more like glitter.

[quickesst]

36. Just as I figured...

Same old cop-out. Face it, the debunkers here cannot give any answer except the time-tested evasion or deflection. Many here have given legitimate reason why the tapes should be released. You guys on the other hand, have given squat. Until you can come up with something a little more solid, then yes, people who doubt the gubment story will continue to ask questions. If the film was faked, it would be detected eventually.
The most amazing thing to me, is the lack of any type of curiosity by said debunkers about any other alternative except the official story. Not even a hint of natural, human, curiosity. Bottom line, you might get some agreement at Free Republic, but people here use their brains for thinking, not a storage bin for government hype. I beleive it was probably an A3 Skywarrior that hit the pentagon. They are similar in shape to the flight in question, and would look immense to someone taken by surprise, and being that close. A little paint, and peoples perceptions will become suspect. Also, if the plane matches up with the trajectory of the hole, then by the government's own words can we surmise that the left engine at least, would have furrowed the ground in front. Peddle the fantasies elsewhere, cause I ain't buyin'. Thanks.
quickesst

[WoodrowFan]

38. I drive past it a lot

My church is only a couple miles away and I go into DC and Arlington a lot so I drive past the Pentagon a lot and have since 1987. No anti-aircraft batteries. Ever, before 9-11, and to be honest, haven't seen any obvious ones since.

As for restricted airspace, I live inside the beltway in Virginia and a hell of a lot of planes heading out of, and into, National go over my house. They do fly over the Potomac on final approach (I flew into National two weeks ago that way) but the Pentagon is right there across the Parkway from the Potomac.

And I'd like to see the films released as well, but given the amount of other evidence (including a friend who saw the plane go into the side of the Pentagon from a nearby construction site), I don't need it to "prove" anything..

[Sinti]

39. I don't think you would see them from the road.

Going into the Pentagon, per se, you would see them, one on each side, big brown boxy looking things, really no BFD. Drive down there, go through the visitors entrance and check it out. Can you still do that? I can't get you pictures, unfortunately, because I recently moved to the NW.

Yes, it is a fine line (re: the landing and takeoff from national) that pilots don't cross. It's a tricky landing and there is a certain altitude that the pilot must attain very quickly when taking off.

The big problem I have with the films is it reminds me of the god-awful Black Helicopter crap. I don't know if anyone would recall, but it was a hell of an embarrassment to hear the Pentagon saying "there are no black helicopters," knowing full and well it was a stupid lie. In fact, half the time there were a couple parked on the helipad at the Pentagon itself. They're called Black Hawks, for goodness sakes, and the paranoid folks that were afraid of them lived near a military base, hence, they saw Black Hawks doing maneuvers, training stuff ... again, no BFD. Simple explanation, no BS required here.

The needless secrecy is as bad for them as it is for us. It gives the impression of misdeeds. If there was no misdeed, there is no need for a cover up. In the same vein, if there is a cover up, you would be safe to assume there is something to hide. Some would consider it their patriotic duty to ferret out what the truth is, and why someone is lying about it.

[Old and In the Way]

46. A low altitude attack could be feasible-

if we hadn't had 2 other commercial jetliners hit targets almost an hour earlier. No jets in the air covering DC 5 minutes after 175 hit the WTC? Hmmmm, Bush was in the same situation in Booker...no one reacting. So why no activation of SAM missles? Our $400BB/defense budget couldn't swing a portable battery or 2 for Washington, DC's defense? Or did George borrow the only one avaible for his overnighter to Florida on 9/10? He had one at the resort...did he bring it and leave DC defenseless?

[Sinti]

48. I think the whole root of doubt is exactly this: why were we defenseless

We, the grown folk on that day, had been raised during the Cold War. We knew there was constant vigilance in our military, protecting us from potential threats. This is particularly true for Air Force personnel and Air Force brats.

Andrews is right up the street, yet they scrambled planes from Langley, many more miles down to the south. WTF? There were many illogical moves made that day. * sitting in the school all that time pretty much typifies the attitude they seemed to have. Oh, oops, we're under attack, what do we do now?

If you know the way things were supposed to work for decades prior, you have to ask questions, you can't help it. You mind automatically says, "no way, gravity demands that things don't fall up."

The problem is, without any cooperation we're all (we curious folk that is) left to twist in the wind, and try to fill in the blanks with ideas that may or may not be feasible, factual, or even following the laws of physics. Then again, some people would say the laws of physics do not apply to 9/11.

Some day a real investigation, with real professionals should be done of the whole mess. It was too damn convenient for the administration, and they ran with it with very little real examination of what happened, in terms of a criminal investigation. The 9/11 Omission Report was designed to say what went wrong with systems, focused on what to do in the future. It was not an investigation of the "crime" itself. so people ar unsatisfied, and who can blame them. With the pack of lies that's gone unquestioned since, why the hell should people believe anything this administration says.

I don't know if we'll ever have all the facts straight. :shrug:

[Old and In the Way]

50. Pretty much sums up my feelings Sinti.

We let the suspects run the investigation. 3000 died on 9/11 and no accountability. Well, 19 hijackers, half of whom are still alive. Even the #1 Boogey Man, Osama bin Laden, is loose and running with his dialysis machine in tow.

But we did get ourselves that prime piece of oil real estate in the ME....

[Sinti]

51. It makes me want to cry, literally. n/t

[sgsmith]

47. Please, not this crock again.

I've responded to this John Judge nonsense before. Go search elsewhere in the 911 forum.

Basically, before 9/11, Washington DC was no better defended than any other airspace in the country. You can even argue that it was nearly totally undefended. There are two Prohibited areas in the Washington area. P56A and P56B cover the White House/Mall/Capital and the Naval Observatory (Vice President's residence). That's all the prohibited areas there are, and they are very small.

Two approach charts into National can be found at:
http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0604/00443RR19.PDF
http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0604/00443VDG19.PDF

The rest of Washington and Baltimore are covered by normal airspace restrictions that are used to keep smaller airplanes away from the large commercial airports - National, Dulles and BWI. There is NO special airspace restriction over the Pentagon, mainly because it's so close to National.

Go read the Wiki article on National and look at the graphic of the River approach - the Pentagon isn't even drawn on the approach. How can a pilot on a visual approach be expected to avoid a buildig that isn't even shown on the approach plate?

So that part of Wiki is wrong.

Similiarily, the www.reference.com article is wrong about prohibited airspace over the Pentagon.

To make it even worse, the approach plates that I've found are AFTER 9/11, and if the Pentagon isn't prohibited now, it certainly wasn't prohibited in the past.

Remember - in 1950's and 60's the threat to Washington would have been from intercontinental ballistic missles or submarine launched ballistic missiles. Surface to air missles were totally useless against those threats.

Remeber two additional events, here and in the Soviet Union to show how porus airspace can be. Remember the guy who crashed his Cessna into the White House on September 11, 1994?
http://avstop.com/news/CessnaSingleEngine.html

And what about Mathias Rust who piloted his Cessna all the way from Germany to land in the middle of Red Square in Moscow?
http://teamsweb.info/index.php?title=Mathias_Rust

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

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

[Sinti]

53. Let me try this again.

Apparently I must have been less than civil in my former response, and I apologize from the bottom of my heart if I offended you or anyone else here. It was not my intent.

This is restricted airspace. All flights go up the Potomac River, gain altitude and/or drop in altitude, rather quickly, in order to avoid the restricted airspace. Civilian craft are not permitted to fly over it at lower altitudes, just like they are not permitted to fly over military bases at lower altitudes. This is common sense, IMO. Your chart shows the river approach, as all others do.

Having lived there, and dealt with the military and federal government in D.C. at length for over 20 years, it boggles the mind why anyone would say otherwise.

This fact has absolutely nothing to do with what happened on 9/11. It proves nothing at all. When you enter restricted airspace, you receive a warning, "you have entered restricted airspace" and they will instruct you to adjust appropriately. You do not hit a wall that forces you back. You are not automatically vaporized in the sky.

You are, however, more than welcome to your opinion on this matter, and I don't want to change your mind.

"1950's and 60's the threat to Washington would have been from intercontinental ballistic missiles or submarine launched ballistic missiles. Surface to air missiles were totally useless against those threats."

Exactly, this is why they were completely ineffective against Flight 77. The plane came in too low for the surface to air system to shoot at it, which is what I said in my earlier post.

[politrix]

54. There Was NO Arab DNA At Pentagon

Autopsy: No Arabs on Flight 77

http://www.sierratimes.com/03/07/02/article_tro.htm

Here's part two:

http://www.sierratimes.com/03/07/07/article_tro_flight77.htm

No Arab names on the passenger list, either:

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA77.victims.html

[Name removed]

55. Deleted sub-thread

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