Politics Pentagon Strike

[Glenn]

They did. They said it hit the helicopter landing pad.

Indeed they did. I guess I skimmed over that part. :blush:

They probably said they were incompetent pilots because they never paid attention during landing training.

Could be. Or maybe because they hit the ground first. Anyway, it seems like that would be the easiest to fake.

I did see that it said something about the plane clipping light poles, too, although it didn't say where. But I guess if most of the other stuff is wrong then the angle of entry given by the flash video stands a high probability of being wrong too.

I don't know, all in all it looks like the official story checks out to me.

 

[Miss_apollo7]

Well, I don't really believe this conspiracy theory, as the plane with its crew and passengers are still missing, so my question would be if it was a missile, or smaller jet - where is the big one with its passengers???

The conspiracy theory on the Pentagon strike is also presented by a French author, Tierry Meyssan, who has made big money on his theory and has written a book on it as well as giving interviews and lecturers defending his case.

Thierry Meyssan's best seller in France "proves" how no plane ever crashed on the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, and it also states that Bin Laden was a US agent paid by Bush to destroy secret CIA offices in the World Trade Center.

IN France, there are a lot of conspiracy-theory books on such matters; After the Empire, France against the Empire, The Devil?s Footprint, Bush?s Secret World, The New World Disorder, Washington and the World. Sometimes, these books can be found on the shelves of history books.

However, it is not that much different to American critics of Bush e.g. Michael Moore with his documentary (hehe), Noam Chomsky and Norman Mailer.

The link was not my taste, as it was made like a cool action scene and sensationalised with rock music-beats and all...Why the need for this music??

 

[meme9898]

it's all a bunch of propaganda

 

[TwistedMac]

gdammit.. propaganda for WHAT!? it's just speculation.. it's not like the albanian governament wants you to stop eating seal or anything because of this.. there is no propaganda.

 

[Satori]

I agree, Mac. It is just speculation, nothing more, and everyone is entitled to reach their own conclusions.

Here's something I got a kick out of and hope you all will too:

http://proliberty.com/observer/20030811.htm

 

[cross-platform]

I agree, Mac. It is just speculation, nothing more, and everyone is entitled to reach their own conclusions.

Here's something I got a kick out of and hope you all will too:

http://proliberty.com/observer/20030811.htm

Hmm, seems pretty short on references to sources. I am also wondering where the guns, knives, gas, and gas masks came from. I don't remember anyone ever saying that, though I could be wrong. I am sure there is more to 9/11 than what they tell us, but this is a little much. All in all, it was an interesting read, but nothing to take seriously at all, as it doesn't seem to be too dependent on fact.

 

[Satori]

Hmm, seems pretty short on references to sources. I am also wondering where the guns, knives, gas, and gas masks came from. I don't remember anyone ever saying that, though I could be wrong. I am sure there is more to 9/11 than what they tell us, but this is a little much. All in all, it was an interesting read, but nothing to take seriously at all, as it doesn't seem to be too dependent on fact.

Perhaps you didn't notice this statement from the opening paragraph of the article:

The following is a rather clever and immensely sarcastic approach to the government's explanation of 9/11 ....

That's why I said I got a kick out of it and hoped everyone else would too!

 

[blessed]

nice theory... although the main problem is not that camera tapes got confiscated yadayadayada, but the fact that (40 minutes?) after 2 planes crashed into the trade centre, a plane that was drastically off course didnt get blown to smitherines within seconds by f-16's that should have been scrambled to all of the planes that veered off course (in the US this is standard procedure, and nearly all planes that go off course get an unfriendly fighter jet say hi to them... well at least intil 9/11)... that either screams conspiracy or cries severe incompetence of the most competent state in the world...

cool ...the dust brothers... seems so fitting.

 

[Satori]

nice theory... although the main problem is not that camera tapes got confiscated yadayadayada, but the fact that (40 minutes?) after 2 planes crashed into the trade centre, a plane that was drastically off course didnt get blown to smitherines within seconds by f-16's that should have been scrambled to all of the planes that veered off course (in the US this is standard procedure, and nearly all planes that go off course get an unfriendly fighter jet say hi to them... well at least intil 9/11)... that either screams conspiracy or cries severe incompetence of the most competent state in the world...

cool ...the dust brothers... seems so fitting.

I know!! That's what other people have said too. In fact, this is what someone else posted about it at another forum:

Usually any airplane which deviates from its flight plan in the US is noticed immediately and asked to return to that route. If it does not, it will have a military plane or two alongside it in 15 minutes. They will ask it to return to its route. If it does not comply, it will be shot down. This actually happened to one golf-professional (I forget the name), who was flying in his own private small jet and had deviated from the route by mistake. He was very quick to return to his original flight plan.

If this is the usual practise, then why were the 9/11 planes allowed to deviate from their routes without any action for as long as an hour and a half? Something was definitely amiss. :souka:

 

[meme9898]

it's propaganda supported by the democrates, they all comdem the swift boat vets because they attack kerrys record and try to destroy his charactor, but when a MOVIE nontheless comes out and attacks bush none of the dems say anything. They applaud Micheal Moore saying"its a good movie that needed to be made". Please, gimme a break this is a great movie for the Socialist pigs of the world, its embraced and played nation-wide in cuba, what does that tell you? It tells me Moore is a Socialist PIG, people are going out to the movies to see this film, and by the time their done they think they have seen an absolutly true documentory and decide which way they will vote because of it. This was Moores intention no doubt, it has gone nicely for him, and all the sociolist PIGS of the world.

I SPIT ON THIS FILM!!!!!!!

I'm sorry i seem to have posted this in the wrong area

sorry

 

[Satori]

I'm sorry i seem to have posted this in the wrong area

sorry

Maybe someone could delete his post, since he has already duplicated it over in the Fahrenheit thread?? Thanks.

 

[CC1]

If this is the usual practise, then why were the 9/11 planes allowed to deviate from their routes without any action for as long as an hour and a half? Something was definitely amiss. :souka:

This is the usual practice, but no one expected the planes to be used as weapons. This was only suspected to be a hijacking. They are only going to authorize shooting down a commercial airliner if they were fairly certain that something truly awful was going to happen. No one ever figured that they would fly the planes into a building. Think about it. If the order had been given to shoot those planes down, killing hundreds of innocent people, we would be having the same conversation saying why did they shoot them down? This was one of those damned if you do damned if you don't scenarios, but I guarantee the next time a plane deviates like that and does not respond to the tower, BOOM! No more questions asked! But then there will be more people condemning the gov't for allowing the planes to be shot down! And the critics will be coming out of the woodwork again!

 

[Maciamo]

I can't imagine why they would lie if it had been a missile rather than an airplane. :? Both are equally horrifying. Maybe they think an American target being hit by a missile would be a scarrier thought for the public to handle.

My understanding is that the missile could have been launched from an American base, that is from the US army itself. To my knowledge, there is no missile that could have reached the Pentagon with such precision and without being detected or stopped if it came from outside the US (and probably not Canada, but from the Middle East or something). That is why I think it can only have come from within the US.

That would be much more troublesome for 2 reasons.
1) Was the missile launched by saboteurs/terrorists within a US Army base ?(serious security issue)
2) Did the US army (or government) itself launched the missile (how many people died at the Pentagon ? How many important people ?). If they did, they might also have organised the whole 9/11 attack, and the purpose would have been to stir public rage to get public approval to invade Afghanisthan and especially Iraq.

 

[Satori]

This is the usual practice, but no one expected the planes to be used as weapons. This was only suspected to be a hijacking. They are only going to authorize shooting down a commercial airliner if they were fairly certain that something truly awful was going to happen. No one ever figured that they would fly the planes into a building. Think about it. If the order had been given to shoot those planes down, killing hundreds of innocent people, we would be having the same conversation saying why did they shoot them down? This was one of those damned if you do damned if you don't scenarios, but I guarantee the next time a plane deviates like that and does not respond to the tower, BOOM! No more questions asked! But then there will be more people condemning the gov't for allowing the planes to be shot down! And the critics will be coming out of the woodwork again!

Wait. Are you saying there was a military plane flying next to them for a while before they hit the towers? Because it is my understanding that if they are asked to correct their couse and do not do so immediately, a military plane or two will fly alongside of them, in order to force them to do so. If they still do not comply, then, and only then, are they shot down. So are you saying they did have military escorts prior to flying into the towers? Because I don't remember hearing that they did. Maybe I missed that? :?

My understanding is that the missile could have been launched from an American base, that is from the US army itself. To my knowledge, there is no missile that could have reached the Pentagon with such precision and without being detected or stopped if it came from outside the US (and probably not Canada, but from the Middle East or something). That is why I think it can only have come from within the US.

That would be much more troublesome for 2 reasons.
1) Was the missile launched by saboteurs/terrorists within a US Army base ?(serious security issue)
2) Did the US army (or government) itself launched the missile (how many people died at the Pentagon ? How many important people ?). If they did, they might also have organised the whole 9/11 attack, and the purpose would have been to stir public rage to get public approval to invade Afghanisthan and especially Iraq.

Well said, Maciamo!! Excellent points.

 

[CC1]

Wait. Are you saying there was a military plane flying next to them for a while before they hit the towers? Because it is my understanding that if they are asked to correct their couse and do not do so immediately, a military plane or two will fly alongside of them, in order to force them to do so. If they still do not comply, then, and only then, are they shot down. So are you saying they did have military escorts prior to flying into the towers? Because I don't remember hearing that they did. Maybe I missed that? :?

No, no jets were ever dispatched because no one knew what kind of threat it was. That is part of the procedure though. Most of the break down was within the FAA and the controllers. No threat was detected, and there seemed to be a lot of confusion (understandable). Sorry if I misled you.

 

[Satori]

No, no jets were ever dispatched because no one knew what kind of threat it was. That is part of the procedure though. Most of the break down was within the FAA and the controllers. No threat was detected, and there seemed to be a lot of confusion (understandable). Sorry if I misled you.

Oh, that's okay. I was just trying to get more clarification, that's all. So then I guess the question is, why didn't anyone see commercial airlines diverting way off course as a problem?? And even if they thought it was a hijacking, then why weren't military planes immediately sent to accompany them? Something is still very wrong there ... :?

 

[Maciamo]

Well, I don't really believe this conspiracy theory, as the plane with its crew and passengers are still missing, so my question would be if it was a missile, or smaller jet - where is the big one with its passengers???

Could it be that there was no other plane and it was just government propaganda to hide the fact it was there own missile or army plane ?

Could it be that the plane missing was that of Osama bin Laden's relatives fleeing the US, as was suggested by Micheal Moore ? (well, in this case, I'd rather think the plane left after the WTC attack, when airports were already shut down).

 

[Lina Inverse]

My understanding is that the missile could have been launched from an American base, that is from the US army itself. To my knowledge, there is no missile that could have reached the Pentagon with such precision and without being detected or stopped if it came from outside the US (and probably not Canada, but from the Middle East or something). That is why I think it can only have come from within the US.

That would be much more troublesome for 2 reasons.
1) Was the missile launched by saboteurs/terrorists within a US Army base ?(serious security issue)
2) Did the US army (or government) itself launched the missile (how many people died at the Pentagon ? How many important people ?). If they did, they might also have organised the whole 9/11 attack, and the purpose would have been to stir public rage to get public approval to invade Afghanisthan and especially Iraq.

You're raising some very good points there! :haihai:
I also think that most probably the missile came from within the US, probably according to your point 2), just to get the public to justify the actions they intended.
Also, I'd say that the 9/11 incident could've been avoided if they really wanted to. Now I'm not saying that they planned it entirely, but possibly they took advantage of some low-rate terrorists who just happened to be there and never would've managed to do anything normally. Just imagine, four planes way off course going at a very low altitude for quite some time, headed straight at the World Trade Center, and absolutely no one noticed anything before it was too late? Was the entire air surveillance sleeping? And FBI/CIA/whatever as well? Hardly. kashii:
I see it like this:
"Sir, four planes have just been hijacked. However, the hijackers are just some small fish, we'll deal with the easily."
"Ok, do that... wait, where are they headed to?"
"Looks like they're on collision course with the WTC."
"Hmm... that could just create the publicity we need to get our new anti-privacy laws accepted. Then let's say that some terrorists from Iraq did it. They still haven't paid us for the last weapons we sold them just shortly ago, so we'll show 'em!"

 

[bossel]

Oh, that's okay. I was just trying to get more clarification, that's all. So then I guess the question is, why didn't anyone see commercial airlines diverting way off course as a problem?? And even if they thought it was a hijacking, then why weren't military planes immediately sent to accompany them? Something is still very wrong there ... :?

Some time ago I've found this page from the UK parliament. It deals with the protection against such attacks as on the WTC. In this document is a short explanation of what happened in the US regarding interception of the passenger jets.

Quote.
" 46. There are also significant doubts over whether there would actually be sufficient time for QRA aircraft to be able to respond to any perceived threat from a rogue civilian aircraft. In the United States on 11 September according to reports from the North American Air Defence Command, within six minutes of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) notification of the first hijacking?just as the first aircraft was reaching the south tower of the World Trade Center?two Air National Guard F-15 air defence interceptors at Otis Air National Guard Base in Falmouth, Massachusetts, received their scramble order. These two F-15s were about 70 miles from Manhattan?approximately eight minutes flying time?when the second aircraft struck the north tower.

Some thirteen minutes after NORAD's notification of a third aircraft hijacking, the Pentagon was struck. Two Air Force F-16s were scrambled from Langley Air Force Base in Hampton, Virginia. They were approximately 105 miles (12 minutes flying time) from the Pentagon when it was hit. These F-16s were in position over Washington when they were redirected to intercept United Airways Flight 93, and were about 100 miles away when it crashed in western Pennsylvania.[66]"

 

[Satori]

Thanks for that information, Bossel, as well as the link. I read more of the information at that site, and there is still something that I find confusing. Apparently, the pilots themselves did not use the transponder to indicate they were in trouble. Instead, the earliest warnings of the attacks came from calls made by the passengers on board. Therefore, the QRA were not launched in time to do much to stop the planes.

7. A suspect aircraft may be identified in a number of ways. It may have deviated unaccountably from its planned course. There may have been communication from the aircraft itself. All commercial aircraft have an instrument, known as a transponder, to send electronic signals to indicate that they are in trouble (including that they have been hijacked). Some of the earliest warnings of the attacks of 11 September were mobile phone calls from passengers on board the hijacked planes. Once such an aircraft has been identified, by whatever means, it will be tracked. Quick Reaction Alert (QRA) aircraft may be launched to intercept and shadow the aircraft. If it has originated outside UK airspace, it may already be under surveillance, in which case it would be handed over to UK authorities at the Flight Information Region boundary.[56] The decision to scramble QRA aircraft would be taken by the duty controller at UK CAOC.[57] The presumption is that if there is any doubt over whether an aeroplane should be intercepted, QRA aircraft are launched?

Also, could you provide me with a link to the videos of the WTC towers collapse, so that I can view what you were describing earlier and compare it again to what I read about it? I'm not sure where to find that. I just know that from what I read in one of the links Thomas provided, it is believed that both a detonation at the bottom and the heat from the planes caused the collapse, not one or the other. But I can't examine that issue more closely without being able to view the visible collapse you spoke of. Thanks.