Conspiracy Theory Question

[yvr girl]

If a missile, and not a plane, hit the Pentagon - where did the plane go? What happened to the people on board. Just curious how this is explained by the theory.

[Balbus]

1. Haven't you seen 'War of the Worlds'?

There's your answer.

[Yatar]

10. No, the Philadelphia Experiment

It's been done before.

[LARED]

11. You believe the Philadelphia experiment is real?

Really?

[DoYouEverWonder]

2. National Airport

is right behind the Pentagon. There is a runway directly in line with 93's flight path. There is speculation that people were transferred to another plane or the real Flight 77 could have been ditched somewhere else.

I really don't know, but under the circumstances anything is possible. No bodies from any of the planes were ever found. All they found were human remains, most of which was in very, very small pieces.

[Old and In the Way]

4. "There is a runway directly in line with 93's flight path."

Not really...

Match up the bearing 77 was on when it hit the Pentagon, based on the fallen lamp evidence. It is at an angle that is 120 degrees away from the runway. It would have been a real feat of flying to make a lower level 120 degree turn and land a 757 in the 1-2/3/4 mile distance from the Pentagon to the end of the run way. See my post on this on the front page.

What's interesting to me is that if 77 had flown on a bearing that was perpendicular to the face of that side, it would have been a relatively easy 30 degree turn. The map I posted was the only documentation I've seen for 77's final approach and that was wrong. I also heard stories of the plane flying over Arlington Cemetary and that must have been wrong as well. The 5 frames that the Pentagon released also seems to be a bearingg square to the face of the building.

So, this is a big question for me. The only tangible evidence (the lamposts) indicates a path that lead away from the airport, yet there seems to be circumstanial evidence that says the plane came in from a different bearing.

[Recursion]

6. Trajectory and bad taste

What's also... I don't know... funny? sad? is that right along 77's trajectory towards the pentagon they're building a giant Air Force memorial in the shape of 4 huge jets.

[Old and In the Way]

7. Welcome aboard!

Wow, never heard that.

It ought to be a monument with the letters 'AWOL'.... "where was the Air Force that morning?".

[Jara sang]

3. Crashed on a South Pacific Island/raptured.

Hell if I know. The "it flew somewhere and the people got off" thing is hard to swallow.

[Sinti]

5. The plane didn't fly from Dulles directly to the Pentagon

It went quite far north, I think it supposedly reached Ohio before turning around. The tinfoil hat theory is that it landed somewhere up there, and the passengers were then executed by the CIA. Why on earth they would do something like this regarding the Pentagon crash is beyond me. I can't see the reasoning for it. But, that's the theory I heard.

[DoYouEverWonder]

16. Because there a big difference between bombs and planes

Flying planes into building was something no one could 'prevent'.

But if someone managed to get through security and close enough to park a bomb next to the Pentagon is another matter entirely.

Even worse if it turns out that a missile was used because the security breach that would be required would be enormous.

That's why we are left we box cutters and airplanes that can penetrate multiple concrete walls.

[Christophera]

8. Bumble Plane Theory:But, Subject Ends Up Marginalizing Quest For Truth

I personally do not argue the pentagon event. Too many conflicting eyewitnesses and too little evidence. All of the evidence is in the hands of intelligence, the lungs of the secret government, meaning; it can be manipulated and released to diffuse and confuse our theories and speculation. I see it as a trap.

And, .......... if it was a missile and the plane landed, speculation on the truth of what might have happened to the people would marginalize anybody engaging in the discussion just by association.

I'm different. I believe that 99% of us Americans are much more manipulated than we know and so do not follow any trend, no media, only solid logic working backwards from the final event to its actual causes. Meaning; I only discuss the towers because photographic evidence is abundant, witnesses consistent, and dominant events are blatently impossible within a collapse.





So, there ya' have it dear pentagon yappers.

[Bushknew]

9. Carriage before the horse

I don’t know what happened to the plane or the people.

How could we know, we not the conspirators.

If you really want to know the answer to that question first you
have to ask:

Why the tapes were confiscated within minutes after the explosion?

Why have they never been released to this day?

Demand that they be released.

[petgoat]

12. Demand not just the tapes. Demand release of ALL the

suppressed evidence.

Sign the petition: http://www.st911.org/

[Bushknew]

14. Absolutely!!! NT

[pauldp]

31. Thank you. A simple logical response.

Show us ALL of the evidence. If they are going to use 911
as the excuse for every right wing power grab we have a right to
see everything. Otherwise people SHOULD speculate about
what these pathological liars did on 911. It's really simple.

[MervinFerd]

34. No.

<<I don’t know what happened to the plane or the people. >>

They crashed into the Pentagon.

There is vast evidence to prove this. Eyewitnesses. Common Sense.

Claiming anything else requires vast, secret, powerful superhuman agencies of which there is no other evidence.

The Secret Government of the Far Right.

If you make an extraordinary claim YOU have to provide enough evidence to make it plausible.

[petgoat]

39. There you go again, framing the issue in terms of

"superhuman agencies of which there is no other evidence."

There are agencies that engage in psy-ops and covert ops. That they are "superhuman"
is your own dishhonest framing.

I don't know what happened at the Pentagon. As Christophera wisely points out in post 8,
there is contradictory testimony and insufficiant evidence.

But Dr. Griffin points out that the plane/missile/bombs issue is moot, since the fact that
the Pentagon anti-aircraft missiles were not utilized proves complicity right there.

[MervinFerd]

44. And the thousands of American citizens in these agencies.......

were willing to execute this atrocity and not one of them has leaked the memos to the NYT?

And they were able to jigger up the crime scene in only a few minutes and so well that it fooled hundreds of investigators from other agencies?

You are being sophomorically silly.



The Pentagon is very near a busy commercial airport. It is not clear they even have AA missiles on the roof. Those missiles are certainly not set on a hair trigger. Maybe they should've shot down that jet, but never understimate the power of incompetence.

[petgoat]

45. There you go again, framing the issue in terms of

thousands of workers in the agencies, and even memos.

Which has nothing to do with the issue. What are these agency employees supposed to know
about? What are the memos supposed to say? You are INVENTING impediments to a simple
operation.

The war games obstruct the air defense. People can't talk about the war games. People also
can't talk about the defenses of the Pentagon. Need to know and all that.

[MervinFerd]

48. And the guys who flew the supposed figher plane, planted the body parts,

faked the radar, fueled the supposed fighter plane, planted the plane parts, did the voice acting to fool the relatives, actually hijacked the plane that crashed in the ocean, bribed the eyewitnesses who saw a jetliner, kept anyone from seeing the fighter...........

All THOSE people knew nothing about what was going on?

RIGHT.

You are being sophomorically stupid.

And juvenile.

[petgoat]

50. "sophomorically stupid"

You are still inventing imaginary complications. And a cast of do-nothing thousands.

The topic under discussion is whether there is "vast evidence" to prove that flight 77 hit
the Pentagon (there is not) and whether some other scenario such as bombs in the Pentagon
or use of a missile or smaller plane "requires vast, secret, powerful superhuman agencies
of which there is no other evidence" (it doesn't).

Kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth.

[MervinFerd]

52. So, WHO flew the fighters, planted the bodies, bribed the witnesses???????

Invisible Jewish Elves?????? Space Aliens??

Conspiracy Hobbyists?


Either a cast of thousands was not idle

OR

a big plane hit the pentagon.

I don't need to put words in your mouth, its simple logic.

[pauldp]

54. CIA commits 100,000 crimes every year...minimum. When was the last time

we saw these crimes detailed on prime time news? Activities which include everything from
forgery to assassination to backing military coups against civilian governments. If you know any
history at all you know this is true.

Invisible Jewish Elves?
:eyes:

There are plenty of capable people who could have blown a hole in the Pentagon and kept
quiet about it.

Most official story skeptics are not claiming to know what happened at the Pentagon. They are just asking for proof
from a cabal of liars when things, like the missing video tapes, seem suspicious. They have the capability
and the motive AND they are liars. It's simple logic.

<snip>
A safe estimate is that several hundred times every day
(easily 100,000 times a year) DO officers engage in highly illegal
activities (according to foreign law) that not only risk political
embarrassment to the US but also endanger the freedom if not lives
of the participating foreign nationals and, more than occasionally,
of the clandestine officer himself.
<snip>
http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house/intel/ic21/ic21009.html

[MervinFerd]

69. Sure, the CIA does nasty things.

Sure, the CIA does lots of nasty things. But those are crimes against foreign gov'ts and supposed enemies of the US. And its really no secret that this is going on. The foreign gov'ts certainly are aware of it.

That is very different from organizing the killing of 1000s of Americans--many of whom were (or might have been) friends and relatives of the supposed plotters--and keeping it a total secret.

<<There are plenty of capable people who could have blown a hole in the Pentagon and kept
quiet about it.>>

Sure. But that leaves out the problem of disposing of the jetliner and passengers, planting bodies and debris, faking witnesses, faking RADAR records, faking calls from the jetliner, etc, etc etc.

It's a ridiculous 'theory' that destroys the credibility of anyone who takes it seriously.

[pauldp]

87. Iran Contra proved the CIA would hurt Americans.

Allowing the Conrtas to smuggle tons of coke into this country (not to mention the fact that CIA probably profitted from it)
and rot our inner cities was an atrocity. Thousands if not tens of thousands
of lives were ruined or lost. This is just one example.

Also, I know the op mentions conspiracy theory, but I never claimed to
have a theory about the Pentagon. I just said the fact that the video is being withheld is suspicious.
You are the one who is assuming I believe in planted bodies, faked witnesses etc.
Are you saying we have no right to see the video?

You know what happens when you assume...

[MervinFerd]

92. Kent State (and Vietnam) proved the Gov't would hurt Americans.

(I've been around a while.)

That's not the problem here.

The problem is that this particular 'theory' makes no friggin sense.

Even the CIA can't fake a complete plane crash. And dispose of a plane load of prominent citizens.

This is just silly stuff, promoted by silly people.

[pauldp]

96. You didn't answer my question.

And you still seem to be assuming I have or am convinced by some theory.
Do we have the right to see the video or not?
Missing video of the Pentagon - confiscated by the FBI
is suspicious. No theory. Just unanswered questions and suspicions
that are entirely justified.
End of story.

[petgoat]

55. What cast of thousands?

How many people does it take to fire a missile at the Pentagon?

How many to provide the DNA labs with tissue samples?

What fighters are you talking about?

What planted bodies? We had 100 dead civilian construction workers
and 25 dead Pentagon people.

[MervinFerd]

67. SophomoricallySilly

<<How many people does it take to fire a missile at the Pentagon?>>

Quite a few, actually. These systems are very complex.

<<How many to provide the DNA labs with tissue samples? >>

Quite a few. These things are done by forensic teams with lots of people standing around. But that leaves out prepping the scene and scattering bodies amid pieces of plane etc.

<<What fighters are you talking about? >>

The one that crashed into the P'gon, or fired the missile or whatever. Somebody had to fly the damn thing.

<<What planted bodies? We had 100 dead civilian construction workers
and 25 dead Pentagon people.>>

Along with pieces of dead passengers.




And all this leaves out the crowds that would be needed for faking the radar, bribing the eyewitnesses, voice-acting the calls from the plane---remember those

-------

If you want to be taken seriously, then act like a serious adult. Don't advocate plainly ridiculous 'theories'. Even many of the MIHOP hobbyists understand that this particular 'theory' destroys the credibility of everyone who touches it.

[mirandapriestly]

83. Uh oh, someone learned a big word, now we are going to see it

all over the board. People in the military take orders, they don't act on their own. This would be true of special ops as well, although I am sure that they are used to doing appalling things.
You have no proof for anything that you are saying you are just taking it off the top of your head.

[petgoat]

102. Your points are absolutely unsubstantiated.

How many people does it take to fire a missile at the Pentagon? (Especially if there's a
heat source like a fire in the building already?)

Your invocation of a large forensic team necessary to plant DNA evidence is as loopy as
suggesting that shoplifting is impossible because all the wholesalers, stock clerks,
truck drivers, and factory workers would have to be in on the plot.

Your assumption that a missile had to come from a fighter plane is not justified.

Your simple assertion that bodies of dead passengers were found at the Pentagon misses the
point that with 125 dead on the scene, presumably nobody knew what body part came from a
passenger or a ground victim until the DNA testing was done. Where's your proof that
passengers' bodies were found on the scene?

Then you invoke crowds to fake the radar when this kind of thing can be done by computers
quite easily (and don't forget PTech was in the basement of the FAA).

Your assumption that eyewitnesses must be bribed is not justified--while many people claim
they saw the plane, how many claim they saw it fly into the bulding?

Then you assume the calls had to be faked--where does that one come from? Besides, did
anyone other than Barbara Olsen call from 77? And we have only Ted Olsen's contradictory
word on that.

Don't advocate plainly ridiculous 'theories'.

I am not advocating any theories at all. I don't know what happened at the Pentagon, and
I recognize that.

You don't know what happened either, but you disguise that fact from yourself by making
wild and baseless assumptions.

[Jazz2006]

13. "Just curious how this is explained by the theory"

The short answer is, "it isn't."

[Peter Frank]

15. That's an unexplained question, and a good one...

...one I ask myself constantly; and there is little or no explaination to be found anywhere.

Also, there is no one "theory." I take the Sherlock Holmes view -- eliminate the factual impossibilities. What's left is the truth.

[quickesst]

17. using...

pure logic and common sense, release the tapes, controversey ended. Do not release the tapes, and face never-ending speculation and suspicion. End of debate. There is no argument at this stage that will exonerate the government of any complicity in the Pentagon crash except for the release of those tapes. Why aren't the 9/11 ct debunkers as fervent as we concerning the video. Wouldn't that validate their defense of the Bush regime? Thanks.
quickesst

[LARED]

18. With all respect, you are living in a fantasy world

if you think releasing the tapes will end the controversy. If released (let me add I want them to be released) there will be a chorus of CT'er saying they are fake.

[Grateful for Hope]

19. LOL, LARED!

You know, on this point, I agree with you. But, I think the serious 9/11 investigators will be more cautious about making such a statement.

[petgoat]

40. After 5 years, assuming that the tapes were genuine would be reckless nt

[mirandapriestly]

59. Agreed, but lared has already shown what the "talking point" will be.nt

[LARED]

66. And Petgoat has stated the tinfoil brigage talking point

Now what?

[mirandapriestly]

79. If we are "tinfoil brigade", what does that make you? nt

[LARED]

98. Reasoned and objective

and sans tinfoil.

[mirandapriestly]

110. You are not objective

every one is reasoned in their own mind

[LARED]

112. Objective:

Undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena.

You despise this administration so much it clouds your judgment. I merely will be trilled to see the bums out of power in 2008. (hopefully 2006 will be a good start). You believe this administration has powers that defy logic and ability. Pre 9/11 they were a bunch of incompetent boobs, post 9/11 they can master mind 9/11.

You have great faith in unobservable phenomena, like unseen explosives, unseen galvanic corrosion, all sorts of nonsense based solely on speculation, sophistic arguments and well articulated but empty theories.

I want to see the evidence to decide the facts, you want the evidence to fit your facts.

[mirandapriestly]

113. If you were objective

you would request "absolute proof" for everything the debunkers post, not just 911 skeptics. When there is a cover up going on, like with 9-11, it is difficult to prove very much when evidence has been destroyed and investigation derailed ($600,000 for bogus commission and 40 million, or more, for Clinton scandal investigation). An independent investigation is what is needed, this isn't a court of law, it's a discussion forum.
As for incompetence, I have never thought Junior's administration was incompetent in so far as meeting their OWN ends. They appear that way because they are failing to provide good government for most Americans, but that is because they want to destroy any remnants of Roosevelt "socialism" and any kind of assumption Americans might have that the government might "take care" of them should there be an emergency or disaster financial or natural. No bid contracts, "the Patriot Act" and it's resulting damage to civil rights, the Iraq war , which no one can stop even though it has been shown to be unjustified. Incompetent? I think they have probably managed to do almost everything they planned. And none of it would have been possible without 9-11.

[Grateful for Hope]

94. "tinfoil brigade"

Have heard this expression quite recently in another post. Hmmmm, where?

Please stop trying to pigeon-hole some questioners of the official account of 9/11 into a derogatory category such as "tinfoil brigage".

[mirandapriestly]

60. Kind of like trusting the 2004 "recount"

which turned out to be bogus. The rethugs used your same talking point.

[LARED]

65. That's quite the leap of illogic

and a very nice straw man

[mirandapriestly]

78. That is an analogy, not a straw man

I was making an analogy. For you to say that "CT"'ers will say that the released tapes or footage are faked is similar to when there was a bogus 2004 "recount" and all the freepers started saying that now the democrats are going to say that the recount was fraudulent, like it was a big joke, when in actuality the recount WAS fraudulent. There is a very good chance that the results after all this time would be doctored. It is almost the exact same thing, it is not illogical at all, you people misuse that word (logic)and you misuse "straw man". Where's the other " intelligent" Lared? Working on another project?

[Grateful for Hope]

95. Very good point, Miranda. n/t

[mirandapriestly]

114. Thanks Hope, I'm glad someone appreciates me:).

[Debunking911]

20. First...

Some of us aren't defending Bush. In fact, a case can be made that this is all Roves idea to make liberals look stupid for the 2006 and 2008 elections. It's people like Tucker Carlson who have Jones on his show. Who here thinks Tucker Carlson is looking for truth? A show of hands please...

Maybe they want this issue to divide the democrat party so they win again... Maybe more evidence will come out days before the election just to make us look stupid? You never know how tricky Rove can be...

So lets be careful about character assassinations like debunkers working for Bush. I'm a proud liberal and only want to see the truth be told. If you have evidence I'm wrong then put it on the table and let everyone decide for themselves.

Second, knowing what I know about conspiracy sites and the people behind them, the video will not prove anything so some people. They will simply say the government special effects department created it.

[Peter Frank]

21. Why do you think the fed seized the tapes in the first place?... n/t

[Debunking911]

22. Are you suggesting

they shouldn't have collected all the evidence? I would expect the feds to do their job and gather all the evidence as soon as possible. This is standard for ANY investigation, be it local or federal.

[Peter Frank]

32. OK -- Then why haven't the tapes been made public?

With all the spectacular footage of WTC galvanizing Americans in favor of the war on terror, why not help the cause along by releasing the Pentagon tapes?

[MervinFerd]

35. Because no one takes this wild tale seriously.

And because the Pentagon is always secretive.

[mirandapriestly]

80. bwa hahahah

you are not very good at making arguments.

[MervinFerd]

30. Tapes would prove nothing.

Besides disposing of the plane and passengers, any agency faking the Pentagon attack would have to:

Plant body parts with appropriate DNA.
Plant airplane parts.
Fake or coerce the testimony of dozens of eyewitnesses.
Fake or coerce the conclusion of dozens of investigators, military officers, reporters who saw the damage.
Fake or coerce the testimony and records of the air traffic control system and other radars
Outfit an expensive fighter jet, get a pilot to fly it, explain what happened the fighter or rocket..
etc....

If you believe all that is plausible, a few tapes aren't going to convince you.

And, this has nothing whatever to do with "defense of the Bush regime". You are doing carrying Bush's water by spreading this malarkey.

[Virginia Dare]

23. I personally know two people

who saw a plane fly into the Pentagon. One was a recovered alcoholic, and it sent her back to AA. The other one was with her young son, and it sent her son to therapy. Both were in vehicles on 395, (which is the highway that runs past the Pentagon) at the time.

The rest of it, I can't explain, but personally have doubts that just one passenger jetliner could have caused the type of damage that was caused there that day.

[MervinFerd]

24. They were abducted by Space Aliens.

It's completely proven that 9/11 could never have been accomplished by mortal humans. There had to be help from Beings with Greater Powers.

Bush has been in league with the Space Aliens since 1990. They helped him stop drinking by giving him powerful drug treatments not known to the pharmaceutical industry.

Bush may actually, secretly, be a Space Alien. He was left here under Deep Cover and got into the drinking problem because of the loneliness of being the only Space Alien in Texas.

Or, maybe, the plane crashed into the Pentagon like bunches of witnesses and Common Sense says it did.

[Debunking911]

36. Why not?

You have about as much proof for this as CD.

[MervinFerd]

37. Spontaneous Airframe Combustion.....

I no longer believe in Space Aliens.

I think the airliner just burst into flames and disappeared.

It's like Spontaneous Human Combustion, only with aluminum.

[petgoat]

41. About as much proof

but there's a big difference.

CD has a great deal of evidence. And the evidence that would have been proof (the steel, the
blueprints) has been destroyed and suppressed.

There is no evidence for the space alien theory, let alone proof. You could stand some lessons
in epistemology from Dr. Griffin and Dr. Fetzer.

[Jazz2006]

58. Nah, there's just as much "proof "of space aliens, the Illuminati,

(and its lesser known sub-groups, the Ignorati and the Obscuri) as well as crop circles, the Montauk project and Reptoids (whatever - insert conspiracy theory here) as there is "proof" of controlled demolitions at the towers on Sept. 11/01.

Or, to use more neutral terms... there is just as much evidence of space aliens, the Illuminati, crop circles, the Montauk project and Reptoids (whatever - insert conspiracy theory here) as there is evidence of controlled demolitions at the towers on Sept. 11/01.

Moreover, Griffin and Fetzer are not individuals to whom I would recommend anyone look to for lessons in epistemology.

What makes you think anyone should look to either or both of them for such lessons?

[petgoat]

105. You miss the point of my post: the proof has been destroyed,

but there is evidence. Your failure to distinguish between evidence and proof
(suggesting that the difference is mere semantics or a question of "neutrality")
suggests your lawyering might well be improved by study of Dr. Griffin and
Dr. Fetzer, both of whom have written books on epistemology.

[Debunking911]

73. So has the evidence of aliens ans space lasers

Prove me wrong.

[mirandapriestly]

81. They don't bother themselves with actually reading

what they are complaining is not true.

[SidDithers]

72. I like the way you think, MervinFerd...

Welcome to DU! :)

Sid

[mirandapriestly]

82. Tell me Mervin Fraud, do you ever go on "alien" forums

where people believe in extraterrestrials and whatnot and try to "prove" that what they are saying is not true? Because you seem to believe that people who question the official conspiracy theory are the same as people who believe in aliens, so it stands to reason that you would go on alien and ufo forums and "debate" (if you can call it that) them. Do you? (I have a feeling you are not going to understand what I'm saying and you're going to call it a "straw man" which you people call everything.)

[MervinFerd]

90. Conspiracism always uses the same invalid logic, whatever the subject.

The preferred conclusion is true.

All facts consistent with the conclusion are proof; all facts not consistent with the conclusion are proof of the coverup.

Neat method. You can prove anything with it.

Seriously. Arguments that can prove ANYthing, prove NOthing. Assertions have to be falsifiable to be meaningful.

[mirandapriestly]

97. You need to stop cut & pasting from logic web sites

You're not making any sense. Over and over again you say how stupid conspiracy theories about 911 are. When asked to explain why you say they are so stupid that it isn't worth explaining. Yet you spend hours a day posting here. That doesn't make any sense and you should not be talking about logic.

[petgoat]

103. Mr. Kettle, you use the same logic, starting from the conclusion.

that there's no such thing as a conspiracy because it's soooooo complicated and
someone would have talked.

In your world all bank robberies are done by lone gunmen--regardless of the facts.

[Chomp]

25. I don't want to put words in MIHOP mouths

but surely the only possible explanations would be:

1. The plane was flown to a secret site somewhere and the passengers executed.

2. The plane was flown to a secret site somewhere and the passengers held captive.

3. The plane was flown to a secret site somewhere and the passengers let go free.

4. The plane was crashed elsewhere killing everyone on board.

5. The plane was blasted to smitereens in mid-air somewhere killing everyone on board.


Have I left any possibilities out? Maybe my imagination is just too limited to conceive the full range of possibilites.

So, I challenge no-plane-at-Pentagon people to take their pick (or of course suggest other possible explanations).

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

27. 6. Using technology salvaged from the Montauk Project, a vortex

was created transporting the plane and passengers to Mars in the year 2101 where they will be discovered by the first manned mission from Earth.

[MervinFerd]

28. Do the Space Aliens know about this?

Won't they be upset if we are using Vortex Technology without their help?

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

33. Well initially when alien contact was established it proved very

beneficial as we exchanged technologies. Sadly, an alien of unknown origin obtained access to one of the time tunnel's and killed several scientists as well as destroying much of the equiptment. I must admit, it's only my speculation that the program has been reactivated. One only hopes that Preston Nichols' continued "debriefing" of 'Montauk Boys' will uncover this latest layer of illuminati secrecy.

[MervinFerd]

29. 7. Space Aliens.

[MervinFerd]

38. 8. Spontaneous Airframe Combustion.....

Like Spontaneous Human Combustion, only with aluminum.

[petgoat]

42. Anyone capable of crashing a planeload of passengers into the Pentagon

is capable of crashing the planeload of passengers into the sea.

I'm reluctant to suggest this because (see posts 8 and 39) the 757/no-757 controversy
I consider a waste of time, and I don't want to have to speculate on ways the plane
might have escaped radar detection.

I don't think disposing of one airplane and 65 or so passengers in this wide world
requires the aid of martians, superhuman government agencies, jewish elves, the yeti,
elvis, or whatever fanciful spoof is considered fashionable this week.

[MervinFerd]

43. Spontaneous Airframe Combustion.

It's like Spontaneous Human Combustion, only with aluminum.

The military has been working on weaponizing this phenomenon for decades. No need for explosives or powerful lasers. Just aim a low power Scalar Electromagnetic Wave Beam at the target to get the Spontaneous Combustion started.

Using it for airplanes is a very recent innovation. It was just an accidental discovery that aluminum would also spontaneously combust. It's a VERY hot combustion.

It's presently unknown whether the technique can be extended to steel, which would be very useful. Tanks and armored vehicles.

Present theories suggest that depleted uranium is impervious to spontaneous combustion, so the M1-A1 tanks are safe.

[petgoat]

46. Have a little respect.

189 people died there. The OP was a serious question, and your joke is not improving on its
third telling.

[MervinFerd]

49. The disrespect is in using this tragedy for idle amusement.

Which is what this ridiculous conspiracy hobby is about.

[petgoat]

51. You don't know the motivations of everyone who is here.

It may be a "ridiculous conspiracy hobby" for you, but some of us have
serious reasons for wanting to understand what happened.

[MervinFerd]

53. Yeah, I don't know which is worse--Hobbyist or TrueBeliever

Well, no, the TrueBeliever is worse.

Tim McVeigh believed the Secret Government did all kinds of nefarious deeds. So he took action.

[petgoat]

56. If we already had all the answers (like Bunk does) we wouldn't

have to ask the questions, would we?

Since the government has not even addressed--let alone answered--the
questions, we don't have the answers and neither does Bunk.

[mirandapriestly]

57. No, the worst are ignorant people

who don't question fairy tales because they give them something to believe in, like the "War on Terror" and American "heroes" bravely standing up to wild eyed Islamic terrorists with box cutters.

[Chomp]

61. Ok Miranda,

why don't you stay on the side of righteousness and tell us which of the options 1-5 from post 25 is most likely in your opinion?

That would show you to be above the "ignorance" you bemoan.

If you choose - yet again - to avoid the substance of the matter, then I'm sorry, THAT would be ignorant.

[rman]

63. Imo it's idle speculation to try and figure out what really happened,

while not having the means to uncover evidence other than what's already in the public domain.

What's important here is that many - including OCT-ers like yourself - agree that it is in principal possible to fake an attack such as the one on the Pentagon. In other words, that Black Ops of this kind and this scale are not impossible.
This is regardless of which of the options you presented one thinks is most plausible.
It doesn't matter whether passengers were shot or crashed into the ocean - in both cases those people are dead and in both cases it's MIHOP.

What exactly did happen is only relevant in the context of a real investigation.

[Grateful for Hope]

64. I like your thinking

"What exactly did happen is only relevant in the context of a real investigation.".

I hope we will someday see a "real" one. Hopefully when the Dems take control of the House and Senate in November some "real" investigating will happen.

[Chomp]

75. With respect rman,

I can't agree with the premises in your post.

The fact that something is in princial possible is absolutely no basis whatsoever for believing it happened. That is ludicrous. In principal, the Russian Mafia could have done it, or the Cubans or the British, but nobody is fingering them.

No, the theory only becomes meaningful if you are able to provide an alternative narrative to the "OCT" narrative, and further that you can support this narrative with reasonable/objective facts/explanations of events.

Hence, the WTC falls are demo jobs. Or, there was a truck bomb/drone missle at the Pentagon. Motive is explained by things like PNAC, BFEE, oil etc. A narrative with reasonable evidence.

It doesn't therefore seem reasonable to me that on the one hand MIHOPers come up with such theories and narratives, but then just stop dead when the question of a missing aeroplane pops up.

So it DOES matter what you think happened to the plane. Saying that it could in principle have been done away with by Black Ops, but that the deatials don't matter is quite simply an untenable position to take.

Finally, speculation or not, there is still one inescapable fact: if the plane didn't hit the Pantagon then one of the 5 above scanrios MUST be true.

[rman]

86. The premise of my post is not

that the fact that it's possible is the basis for belief in MIHOP.

To me, MIHOP is a general theory, not a detailed alternative narrative about what happened.
To me, the basis for MIHOP is that the OCT is full of holes. In addition there are many indicators that 'the government' has the means and motive to do it and to cover it up.

MIHOP doesn't stop dead when the missing plane comes up - it already has been explained many times over. Any of the scenarios that you presented wrt the plane is plausible. My stating which of those i think is the most plausible doesn't add anything to it.
It's just i personally grow tired of repeating the same arguments over and over. Seriously, the "what happened to the plane" question comes up just about every week or so, and usually (as in this case) it turns out to be a hit-and-run post.

[Chomp]

88. But if I turn

your argument around 180 degrees rman, I get the following:

"I believe the OCT to be no more than a general theory, the basis of which is that MIHOP is full of holes, for example the missing Pentagon plane. In addition there is plenty of evidence that a group of radical Islamists perped it. Thus, I don't need to account for any aspect of the theory".

Your argument is entirely tautological and prescribed: "I believe in MIHOP because OCT isn't true, and because I won't debate the details, my mind can NEVER change on the matter".

...


It seems to me that both arguments ("OCT"/MIHOP) are in the same boat and that the only way of finding the truth is to debate the details. Thus "OCT" need to account for the missing Pentagon video evidence, and MIHOP need to account for the missing Pentgaon plane.

[MervinFerd]

93. Details.....

Chomp,
There is a problem with debating details when the claim is patently ridiculous.

A non-local example:

Some folks claim the Apollo Moon Landings were faked. They can show photos apparently showing the shadow of a seagull on Neil Armstrong, or something. I can't debate that photo--that would take an investigation into its history and custody and processing that I haven't the time or resources to manage. And if I debunk THAT photo, there will be another one after it.

But, I don't need to do that. Because there is so much OTHER evidence that the landings were real, the probability that the photo is fake or misinterpreted is much greater than the probability that the Moon landings were faked.

So, I dismiss this claim as silly and go on with life.

Same thing applies here. We can debate the little pieces of evidence and anomalies endlessly, or we can note that there is overwhelming evidence that the jet indeed crashed into the Pentagon and get on with life.

If these folks were not so destructive of the image of Democrats and Progressives in general, I'd leave them to fester in their dungeon. Unfortunately, we need to debate them once in a while.

[rman]

100. I already have debated the details - just not with you

And i don't feel a particular need to try and convince you.

The missing plane isn't a hole in MIHOP - you yourself came up with several plausible explanations.

[mirandapriestly]

84. when do I avoid "the substance of the matter"?

I don't have to answer your invented questions, which have nothing to do with what happened. It is just trickery designed to distract from the matter at hand which is that the events of 911 were impossible the way that they have been told to us.

[Chomp]

89. With respect

Miranda, that is not the matter at hand.

The matter at hand in this section of the thread is post #25: which of the 5 possibilies for the fate of the Pentagon plane is most likely from the MIHOP perspective?

Dozens of posts later, I still don't know the answer to that very simple question.

[mirandapriestly]

99. You make up a bunch of stuff then ask people to

disprove it.

[Chomp]

101. Aaaaarrrgghhh!

What am I asking you to disprove???? Miranda, I am not asking you to disprove anything!!!!

I am asking what happened to the plane. On this forum there are loads and loads and loads and loads and loads and loads of theories about everything from demo squads to drone missiles, and yet the matter of where the plane went is somehow not worthy of such discussion?????

Where did the Penatgon plane go if it didn't crash into the Pentagon?????

Never mind any shit I make up, what's YOUR opinion?

[SidDithers]

106. Crickets...

as usual.

Sid

[petgoat]

107. What happened to the plane is a moot wart on a moot butt.

The no-757 controversy is a moot point because complicity is shown by the failure of
the Pentagon's SAMs to shoot the 757 (or whatever) down.

You act as if disposing of an airplane is impossible. The seas are vast, the plane is small.

Miranda and rman quite wisely choose not to waste time discussing personal opinions and
baseless speculation.

[Chomp]

109. I'm very sorry

it is such a waste of everyone's valuable time.

I'll withdraw battered and brusied from the fact-pummelling I've taken.

[petgoat]

115. I'm very sorry

for my expression of impatience.

I'm all over the internet, and have grown weary of freepers' techniques of
1) demanding that you speculate, and then attacking you for speculating and
2) preferring to discuss opinions, which are complex, rather than facts, which
are more manageable.

I associated you with the debunk crowd, and did not allow for the fact that you
were from Ireland.

[Chomp]

116. lol

Ok Petgoat, no problem.

Hopefully we can stay on vaguely civil terms even if we hugely disagree about this.


Cheers.

[MervinFerd]

70. But raising silly issues just perpetuates the real lies.

There is just no issue here.

Even if the CIA was somehow deeply involved in 9/11 they wouldn't do anything so utterly stupid as this---disposing of an airliner and passengers in some elaborate manner and then hitting the P'gon with a missile and faking the crime scene.

That just makes no sense at all.

They would crash the damn plane into the P'gon and be done with it.

Even many of the MIHOP crowd realize that this issue is a diversion.

[petgoat]

104. Why does that make no sense?

Maybe the plan went awry because flight 93 was delayed. I've always wondered
why the hijackers went all the way to Ohio before doubling back on DC. Maybe
the passengers of 77 revolted too.

What makes no sense is a critical mission that requires flying a 757 in a 270 degree
turn diving 7000 feet and flying just feet off the ground to hit a target only 70 feet
or so high. There's too much that can go wrong there.

I don't see what's so elaborate about flying an aircraft into the sea, so as usual
you're inventing complications that don't exist.

[rman]

62. You must be new here

We're used to ridicule - it's really nothing more than a concealment for lack of rational arguments.

[MervinFerd]

68. If a position is plainly stupid, ridicule is the appropriate argument.

[rman]

71. Exept that you don't bother so show that it is stupid -

rather you try to imply that it is, by means of ridicule.

[MervinFerd]

76. In this case, its not really necessary.

Res ipsa loquitur.

"The thing speaks for itself."

[rman]

85. That's what you say.

[MervinFerd]

91. Remember the intial post of this thread!!!

What happened to the jet airplane and all the people on it?

There is no explanation that makes sense except that the plane rammed into the pentagon.

We are looking at a VERY public event in which many thousands of people were directly involved, many thousands of records generated, many thousands of investigators directly investigating, hundreds of eyewitnesses, numerous radars tracking the plane,

AND

a missing jetliner and its passengers.

All interacting in unpredictable ways.


YOU
insist that the whole thing was faked--that the gov't hijacked the plane and disposed of it -somehow- and faked the phone calls from passengers and faked the crash scene down to airplane parts and dead bodies. And faked the radar records and the flight control tapes and God knows how many other details. All requiring many hundreds or thousands of skilled people performing flawlessly. And keeping quiet about it.


That's just silly.

I do not NEED to argue the issue. It's just SILLY.

All this does is make progressives and Democrats look SILLY.

You are not seeking truth,
you are just -----

SILLY.

[SidDithers]

74. If you like "Spontaneous Airframe Combustion"...

you should check out petgoat's theory of "Spontaneous Concrete Pulverization" where the top 30 floors of WTC2 "turned to dust in midair".

Sid

[MervinFerd]

77. "Spontaneous Concrete Pulverization"---I like it!

Can it be triggered by beams of Scalar Electromagnetic Waves?

[petgoat]

108. I've advanced no theory of spontaneous concrete pulv.

Isn't it obvious that if the concrete turned to duct in midair it was done by explosives?

If it didn't turn to dust in midair, then why don't we see pictures of a pile of broken
concrete slabs?

[Chomp]

26. Deleted dupe

Deleted dupe

[Christophera]

47. PENTAGON IS RED HERRING:caution-Wide Conflict In Witness Reports

and facts missing.

All facts missing at the pentagon out weigh any factor that MAY be an issue. Until videotapes are produced the wide conflicts in witness testimony make the pentagon scene unworthy of 9-11 truthseekers time. It is a decoy event for the truth movement.

The double, identical free fall issue at the WTC is the only worthy issue of 9-11. We know this is very compelling, try an focus on it.

Answering the original post question marginalizes the 9-11 truth movement by invoking flamable speculation required foil hat protection, we don't need to associate with that.

[Woody Box]

111. LAGOON

Plane Crash in the Pentagon Lagoon?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x41380