"Why worry yourselves over things of this nature? Don't you have the Kardashian and Middleton pregnancies to be concerned about? Go back to reading your tabloids like you're supposed to."
And to add.....an ever growing police/military force that will taser, beat, pepperspray any kind of a protest or gathering that happens. There are a billion laws about gathering on the street and protesting that somehow overshadow the main constitutional right of peaceful protest. They will proclaim it malicious and in the way of normal business operation and you will get fucked up.
Son, it sounds like you just woke up from hibernation ;O)
At some point people forgot the Government works for us. I blame HFCS and other Monsanto products that has feminized our country. Once they knew we were going to win the cold war they realized the killers they had been creating needed taming. Sucks we never took our country back
Because the American public are brainwashed dolts. They have been made to feel afraid and ashamed to question the official story. They don't want to face the scowels and being called a freak for daring to question the sacred narrative.
The 9/11 "official story" can be plainly deduced as a lie, fraud, cover up by just a little research. The contradictions will make your head spin.
The official story doesn't make sense. But, a shocked (true psychological shock) American public, with their blank minds susceptible to suggestion as they replayed the planes hitting the towers over and over on TV, believed the bullshit as if it was a mass hypnotherapy.
It's one of the oldest brainwash technics there is.
Here is an example. Top of the page.
Are you going to provide any evidence that 83 cameras caught the Pentagon impact or are we supposed to take your words for it?
(I already know the mistake you made. I'm just asking because so many people call non-9/11 truthers "sheep" and I have yet to see a single piece of evidence to your claim.)
The initial FOIA requested videotapes that might have shown what hit the pentagon.
The initial search turned up 85 tapes. Basically someone went into a computer and came up with 85 results.
Not that 85 tapes exist that show the plane hitting the Pentagon, just that they had 85 tapes collected of videotape evidence from the entire 9/11 event by the Washington FBI office.
Of these 85 tapes:
56 "of these videotapes did not show either the Pentagon building, the Pentagon crash site, or the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11."
Of the remaining 29 videotapes, 16 "did not show the Pentagon crash site and did not show the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon."
Of the 13 remaining tapes, 12 "only showed the Pentagon after the impact of Flight 77."
Only one tape showed the Pentagon impact: the Pentagon's own security camera footage, that would later be released.
Included in here are the two major releases of the Citgo gas station and DoubleTree hotel cameras that do not show Flight 77 impacting the Pentagon. These are the only two cameras that truthers have said that the FBI "mysteriously confiscated" the footage from.
I would remind everyone that there is a broad, universal consensus among pilots and flight trainers that there is no way that all of the planes could possibly have been flown with enough expertise to have hit those 'targets' unless they were remotely piloted (i.e., Dov Zakheim style), especially the 'plane' which hit the pentagon.
The Pilot that was flying the plane that hit the Pentagon, was Ex Military, worked with the Pentagon for 17 years, participated in drills which depicted a Boeing 757 hitting the pentagon, and later retired. He got a Job at AA as a Pilot. Guess whos plane hit the Pentagon that day.
I'm not ruling out drones, expecially not for the Twin Towers.
OK, so you're saying that it wasn't a 'hijacker', then. That's the 'plane' whose flight recorder has no instances of the cockpit door being opened at all, IIRC.
Now, why in the world would the pilot, knowing that he and everyone else on the plane were going to die, deliberately aim for that exact spot and kill many more? Was this pilot conspiring with the hijackers? He had some options, didn't he?
Honestly, I doubt there were even Hijackers. Theres no proof if any hijackers were on the plane at all. They had a list of the "Terrorists" that had boarded each plane. As of Post 9/11 I think 9 of 15 were still alive and well. Some had never been to America.
The only thing that needed to happen, was he had to be the Pilot. Thats the only thing they needed to make sure this plane hit the Pentagon, was to make sure he was the Pilot.
I'm ignorant in the subject. If the govt says it was a plane, there must have been a list of passengers. And if there were passengers, there must have been families interviewed. Are there any interviews with family members of the passengers?
The better question is why in October of 2000, was the Pentagon conducting training exercises, which simulate a Boeing 757 crashing into the Pentagon.
An Ex Navy F4 Pilot, participated in an earlier version if this drill. He then retires, after working with the pentagon for 17 years and becomes a Pilot at AA. Guess whos plane crashes into the Pentagon during 9/11.
because the pentagon is right next to Reagan airport and there is a non-trivial risk of a plane on approach or take-off hitting it. they never trained for someone hijacking a plane and deliberately attacking the pentagon with it.
Yet, They did.
-1999 - NATO start to conduct drills which simulate the Pentagon and both the WTC are hit by a Boeing 757.
- October 2000 - Pentagon Conduct drills in which simulate Hijacked Boeing 757 crasheing into the Pentagon.
The icing on the cake, is the Pilot of the Plane that we are told hit the Pentagon. He is an Ex-Navy F4 Pilot, who also worked with the Pentagon for 17 years, who also took part in these drills.
What is your evidence for these assertions? In particular, that "NATO start to conduct drills which simulate the Pentagon and both the WTC are hit by a Boeing 757. - October 2000 - Pentagon Conduct drills in which simulate Hijacked Boeing 757 crasheing into the Pentagon"?
In sum, first there is no support for the notion that Burlingame had anything to do with the plane crash training at the Pentagon. In fact, he had been out of the Air Force for 20 years at that point and had only worked in the Pentagon part time as a member of the national guard until 1997, while working full time as an AA pilot (the latter point is based on the Philly Inquirer article cited in the wikipedia link you included above, so I'm not sure how you missed it contradicting your assertions...). Second, the plane crash training was exactly how I described it--training for a civilian aviation accident, not training for the type of attack that occurred on 9-11. There are plenty of links that flesh all this out with actual sources in the above. If you have reason to believe they are wrong or have other sources not considered in the above, please do share them.
I can point out many things I feel are wrong with many sections of the Bible, but I fail to see the relevance of that here. If you cannot actually challenge the evidence, it would be much more dignified to just admit as much and bow out of the conversation; continuing on only show cases your willingness to believe in something you cannot defend. Hmmmmm. Come to think of it, I think I've stumbled upon the root of your affinity for the Bible....
Heres the exactly Quote from the Expert. "The Pentagon conducted a training exercise called "MASCAL" simulating the crash of a Boeing 757 into the building on 24 October 2000, and yet Condoleezza Rice, among others, has repeatedly asserted that "no one ever imagined" a domestic airplane could be used as a weapon.'http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/PressRelease30Jan2006.html
So, before 9/11 they were already doing drills as if a Hijacked 757 hits the Pentagon.. Now, If no one thinks a plane like that can be used as a weapon, why was the Pentagon doing drill scenarios for something that people thought couldn't happen?
So you're saying there is no way, that an F4 Pilot, who then goes to work for AA, who also worked for the Pentagon, who also drafted an incident almost identical to what happened on 9/11, didn't have anything to do with what happened.
That quote does not say anything about a hijacked airlplane hitting the building, though. Do you really not see that? Why do you keep adding the hijacked language when you characterize it?
The actual quote is entirely consistent with what I've shown you: the pentagon is right in the incoming and outbound flight paths for Reagan Int'l Airport. They would of course train for a civilian accident contingency.
Re the guy who quit working at the pentagon several years before you allege the training took place, yes, I would assert it likely he had nothing to do with the training. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
"The fire and smoke from the downed passenger aircraft billows from the Pentagon courtyard. Defense Protective Services Police seal the crash sight. Army medics, nurses and doctors scramble to organize aid. An Arlington Fire Department chief dispatches his equipment to the affected areas.
Don Abbott, of Command Emergency Response Training, walks over to the Pentagon and extinguishes the flames. The Pentagon was a model and the 'plane crash' was a simulated one.
The Pentagon Mass Casualty Exercise, as the crash was called, was just one of several scenarios that emergency response teams were exposed to Oct. 24-26 in the Office of the Secretaries of Defense conference room. ...
A major player in the exercise was the Arlington Fire Department.
'Our role is fire and rescue,' Battalion Chief R.W. Cornwell said. 'We get to see how each other operates and the roles and responsibilities of each. You have to plan for this. Look at all the air traffic around here.'"
None of the talk about the plane scenario mentions it being part of a terrorist attack on the pentagon. In fact, they describe the plane in the scenario as having crashed in the courtyard (not hitting the building directly) and the fire chief explicitly notes that his worry about a plane crash is driven by the amount of air traffic in the area. Again, those are entirely consistent with the drill being about a civil aviation accident due to the location of the pentagon and inconsistent with your as-of-yet unsupported claim that they were part of a terrorist attack scenario. But that's not even the end of it. The article does, in fact, reference another scenario that they trained for that was a terrorist attack scenario at a nearby construction site, and that scenario does not seem to have involved planes. The specific discussion of construction site training being about a terrorist attack and the omission of such a key fact from the airliner crash training should give rise to a strong inference that the airplane scenario was not a terrorist scenario. Taking that inference with the quoted comments above, I think it is hard to conclude otherwise absent evidence to the contrary, which you have yet to present.
Okay, If a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, show me the damage it did from the Wing Section Crashing into the Pentagon, or the Giant marks on the ground where the plane skidded across the grass and into the Pentagon. As eye Witness accounts state.
Show me the engine pieces that of the 757, that they didnt find. The engine they found belonged to a much smaller plane, and not a 757
To be clear before we go on, do you agree that there is no actual evidence to support your earlier assertions about the scope of the training exercise and Burlingame's involvement in them?
I'm happy to move on to other points, but I want to make sure you are being earnest and not just changing the subject to avoid accepting criticism of your previous assertions.
Pretty much. We had the tech to the fly planes via remote since 1984. Why would the plane hit the 1 Part of the Pentagon that was made to withstand such a blow? Why would both NATO and the Pentagon be conducting drills for just such an occasion?
Why was there only a hole in the wall up until the collapse of Pentagon Wall E?
The 'official' version is that The hijackers on American Airlines Flight 77 were led by Hani Hanjour, who supposedly piloted the aircraft into the Pentagon. The guy had never flown a jet before, and therefore never a commercial airliner, by the way.
Who is this other guy you are saying actually did it?
Theres no Official Report. They don't know who the terrorists on the plane where. Like I said above, half of the people on their list of "9/11 Hijackers" are still alive.
The Major Reason would be to give us a reason to start a war in the Middle East.
Everyone has their own Agenda. The amount of money that was made on 9/11 was mind blowing. He could have done it for the money, and just disappeared. Who Knows.
a matter of national security most likely is the official reason. I don't think there's any law stating they are required to be released. Also, if it really is a cover up, it was a missle rather than an airplane, then obviously they wouldn't want you to know the truth.
If it was a plane, we would all be tired of constantly seeing the footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon. Trust me.
If there was anything even remotely plausible to show, it would have been 'leaked' to the press a LONG time ago and played relentlessly, just like the impact at WTC.
The Pentagon isn't your local 7-11. There are valid reasons not to show the video(s) when a military complex belonging to the largest military force the world has ever known was compromised.
It does fuel all this speculation though. so who knows.
My own personal take on it is the same thought I had as I watched the two towers crumble. "That was more than just an airplane or two to cause this". I knew immediately there were explosives involved. It was way too controlled. It virtually fell on its own footprint. That only happens with controlled demolition. It was just odd, that nobody in the news ever really talked about after that first few hours once the spin machine took effect.
Is it possible that security cams were not positioned or functioned to capture stuff that is going on at the pentagon? Especially a jet which flew into it at such a high speed, that any low frame rate security cam likely missed the point of impact. Is there any point in feeding more "no plane" conspiracies?
Without specific knowledge of the industry, I would venture that most security cams record at much less than 24 fps. It would take up a lot more storage space than say 1 or 2 fps, without really capturing much more of significance. Very few are probably positioned to capture events going on across a highway from the building they are surveilling.
I did a research paper a few years back on the 9/11 conspiracy, working from memory here -
The section of the Pentagon that was hit, was actually renovated before the plane hit. Actually, they finished renovations, on 9/11. The missile, that hit the pentagon went through all 3 layers of Reinforced Concrete, and out the back of the 3rd layers. The layers being C, D and E. E being the outside wall.
If a Plane hit the Pentagon, there would be a lot more destruction than what was shown. The measurements of a Boeing 757-200 is as follows.
- Wing Section - 124 ft 10 in (38.05 m)
- Entire Length - 155 ft 3 in (47.32 m)
- Tail Section- 44 ft 6 in (13.6 m)
I think the hole in the pentagon was something like 12 or 13 feet in Diameter. Thats it, 13 feet, from a a Boeing 757-200, with a wing section of over 100 feet, leaves a 13 foot hole, goes through 3 layers of reinforced concrete, and stops after punching through the 3rd layer.
They didn't find any bodies, because "The immense heat from the Jet Fuel Vaporized everyone," yet, they were able to ID almost everyone. The best part about it, all of the computers damaged, the ones that were in the pentagon, weren't able to be recovered.
That's a lot of insider information that just completely vanished without any chance of retrieving it.
Well in Theory, thats what they want us to beleieve. The picked up metal scraps, of what they thought was a plane. They did find an engine, but it was one that belonged to a small Single Engine Plane.
I'm not sure what UAVs have inside of them, but t has crossed my mind in the past that it could have been a UAV, hence why people are saying it was a plane.
Like I said above, I'm pulling info out of my head from a few years ago, the actual source was from a Documentary I watched - which can be found here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IWJX879fOk
I've tried arguing this whole thing with some imbecile a few days ago. He was very insistent that it was a plane and that there was in fact plane wreckage. However, if you observe pictures of other plane crashes, and compare them to the Pentagon and the flight that went down in the field, it is blatantly obvious that the crash sites look vastly different.
And I am no physicist, but I do know it takes a great amount of energy to completely vaporize a human, and something tells me these crashes did not produce that needed energy.
Exactly, theres nothing other than the hole in terms of damage to the building. Theres no skid marks, the spools or wire are still there. There is absolutely nothing that tells me, "Oh, A Plane hit this."
And if I am not mistaken, the coroner at the scene of the crashed plane in the field said how strange it was that there were no bodies. Also, many people were wondering where the wreckage was.
As I said in my reply above, there needs to be more context to those images. When Flight 93 crashed it was going almost 600 mph, do you know if there's examples to compare it to of planes going that fast when they crashed?
Most crashes (and I'm willing to bet quite a few of those) occur at much lower speeds, either on takeoff or landing or from pilots efforts to slow the plane down. The author seems to be using similar plane size as the variable to compare to, but a 757 that crashes at 200 mph and a 757 that crashes at 600 mph would look very different.
I went to google, typed in plane crashes, searched images. Very simple. You can go to YouTube, and do the same thing. Or find documentaries where comparisons are shown.
Theres a problem with that though. 80% of plane crashes occur on either takeoff or landing, when the planes are going much slower. The kinetic energy going into crash is exponentially higher for a plane going 600 mph than a plane going 300 mph or less, so it's safe to assume the damage would be much greater. Just looking at the google images alone gives no context for the crash, and it's safe to assume this was the case for many of them. In order to accurately compare you'd need pictures of planes that were going full speed when they crashed.
And you know this how...? That sounds like a complete bullshit answer, there would've been more damage to the area near the Pentagon if this were the case.
But clearly, using your brain is not allowed anymore, you HAVE to be an expert on anything in order to come to any conclusion about it. That seems to be the case here, lately.
When the "Plane" hit the pentagon, it left nothing but a hole. The picture you're linking, in which I watched the video for, is when Everyone is already on seen, way after the plane crashed.
But, since we have a picture, how me any wreckage of a Boeing 757-200.
But, they also ID'd everyone on the plane, despite lacking any blood evidence. 184 out of 189 People were IDd, the last 5 are made up of the 5 Patsys Terroists that were on that plane.
I'm blind when it comes to planes, had to Wiki for this part, hopefully I'm right.
The cross section of a Boeing 757-200 is roughly 155 feet.
In the states victims are generally verified using DNA. Passenger lists and Pentagon attendance lists were used to assist I'm sure, however DNA is traditional.
That's... not really how missiles work. Making them bigger (after a certain point!) doesn't necessarily give them more range or make them more versatile. You end up with diminishing returns since you now need to carry more fuel for your heavier missile, have larger control surfaces to produce enough lift, can't store as many as you could if they were smaller, spend more time maintaining them (since there's now more things on the missile that can break), and limit what platforms can use the now-tremendous missile. Why would they need a "drone missile" (???) when you could use a typical cruise missile to do the same thing?
In fact, if you're going to fake an attack on the Pentagon, why not just wire up a real plane and fly it in via remote control? The person actually flying the plane could be in a chase plane (you could probably justify it by saying that they were attempting to intercept the aircraft). Now you don't have to worry about amateur video footage showing that you actually flew a tremendously impractical weapon into the Pentagon.
How would you get that many people to go along with it, too? You'd need the cooperation of the airline (someone would notice if one of their flights crashed but they still somehow had all their planes!), people to pretend to be families of the people on the plane, people to know those people (so that they didn't just seem like plants), etc etc?
Yeah, but... why? What benefit does endurance give you when you could just launch the cruise missile from something that can sit on station for months, like a warship? Cruise missiles can already fly extremely low to avoid detection. Making it big like that would render it less agile and far more easily detected -- its radar cross section would be much larger than that of a typical missile. If the "drone missile" crashes, you have no guarantee that the explosives will even work.
Drone missiles would be a super practical and awesome thing if we hadn't yet invented aircraft. Why not just use your favorite multi-role fighter? Put up a tanker and it can stay on station for hours. It has a narrow fuselage that contains electronics, steering systems, communications, and fuel tanks. They do not travel as fast as cruise missiles and can fly low to avoid radar. When they're high in the air, they're relatively quiet! When you want to blow something up, fire a missile or drop a bomb. Or, hell, just use a regular drone. "Drone missiles" are a terrifically impractical idea.
Look at it as it crosses over the freeway though, it is about as long as the freeway is wide. The drone itself is only around 30 feet long or so. The missile is in no way longer than that. The object in the gif looks very easily a lot longer than 30 ft.
Well yes I do agree there can be weapons us the public do not know about, but this would also be the missile itself we are seeing, not the drone. I just find it hard to beleive a secret one is much bigger than the ones we know about. From the 8 or so I looked up that are in service/have been in service the largest was 38 feet in length. I know we can not fully come to a decision based off this gif, but my personal opinion does not think the missile would be that large.
Damn, I read that article and seemed to have missed that part.. thought it would have stuck out at me, guess not. I shall do my own searching/researching.
99 comments
38 N3G4T1V3_CR33P 2013-04-24
because they don't want us to know what really happened.
28 [deleted] 2013-04-24
[deleted]
49 andybev01 2013-04-24
"Go back to sleep America." - Bill Hicks
27 Man-Drill 2013-04-24
"... You are free, to do as we tell you."
9 MustangGuy 2013-04-24
"Why worry yourselves over things of this nature? Don't you have the Kardashian and Middleton pregnancies to be concerned about? Go back to reading your tabloids like you're supposed to."
5 amgoingtohell 2013-04-24
"The American people don't read." - CIA's first civilian director Allen Dulles
1 [deleted] 2013-04-24
They don't give a fuck about you...like I do.
6 cpl-punishment 2013-04-24
people can't be bothered to.
2 ZippiMaestro 2013-04-24
And to add.....an ever growing police/military force that will taser, beat, pepperspray any kind of a protest or gathering that happens. There are a billion laws about gathering on the street and protesting that somehow overshadow the main constitutional right of peaceful protest. They will proclaim it malicious and in the way of normal business operation and you will get fucked up.
Son, it sounds like you just woke up from hibernation ;O)
1 Digitel 2013-04-24
At some point people forgot the Government works for us. I blame HFCS and other Monsanto products that has feminized our country. Once they knew we were going to win the cold war they realized the killers they had been creating needed taming. Sucks we never took our country back
0 jimmyb207 2013-04-24
Because the American public are brainwashed dolts. They have been made to feel afraid and ashamed to question the official story. They don't want to face the scowels and being called a freak for daring to question the sacred narrative.
The 9/11 "official story" can be plainly deduced as a lie, fraud, cover up by just a little research. The contradictions will make your head spin.
The official story doesn't make sense. But, a shocked (true psychological shock) American public, with their blank minds susceptible to suggestion as they replayed the planes hitting the towers over and over on TV, believed the bullshit as if it was a mass hypnotherapy.
It's one of the oldest brainwash technics there is. Here is an example. Top of the page.
14 _Dimension 2013-04-24
Are you going to provide any evidence that 83 cameras caught the Pentagon impact or are we supposed to take your words for it?
(I already know the mistake you made. I'm just asking because so many people call non-9/11 truthers "sheep" and I have yet to see a single piece of evidence to your claim.)
15 _Dimension 2013-04-24
Here is the mistake you made:
The initial FOIA requested videotapes that might have shown what hit the pentagon.
The initial search turned up 85 tapes. Basically someone went into a computer and came up with 85 results.
Not that 85 tapes exist that show the plane hitting the Pentagon, just that they had 85 tapes collected of videotape evidence from the entire 9/11 event by the Washington FBI office.
Of these 85 tapes:
56 "of these videotapes did not show either the Pentagon building, the Pentagon crash site, or the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11."
Of the remaining 29 videotapes, 16 "did not show the Pentagon crash site and did not show the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon."
Of the 13 remaining tapes, 12 "only showed the Pentagon after the impact of Flight 77."
Only one tape showed the Pentagon impact: the Pentagon's own security camera footage, that would later be released.
Included in here are the two major releases of the Citgo gas station and DoubleTree hotel cameras that do not show Flight 77 impacting the Pentagon. These are the only two cameras that truthers have said that the FBI "mysteriously confiscated" the footage from.
If you want to know what is exactly on those 85 tapes, here is a list.
6 [deleted] 2013-04-24
[deleted]
2 _Dimension 2013-04-24
It was, in 2010.
1 AncientThong 2013-04-24
Nothing else caught the impact. Okay great. But none of those tapes caught it flying sometime before?
13 weks 2013-04-24
83 seems like an awfully specific number, source?
3 [deleted] 2013-04-24
[deleted]
-4 aksid 2013-04-24
that movie is like a decade old. why are you posting this here like it's news?
-6 brahmide01 2013-04-24
There are 57 communists in the US government!
0 Armchair_Marxist 2013-04-24
I have that list, right here in my pocket.
9 Sailer 2013-04-24
I would remind everyone that there is a broad, universal consensus among pilots and flight trainers that there is no way that all of the planes could possibly have been flown with enough expertise to have hit those 'targets' unless they were remotely piloted (i.e., Dov Zakheim style), especially the 'plane' which hit the pentagon.
2 platinum_peter 2013-04-24
Thank you for linking.
1 padwani 2013-04-24
The Pilot that was flying the plane that hit the Pentagon, was Ex Military, worked with the Pentagon for 17 years, participated in drills which depicted a Boeing 757 hitting the pentagon, and later retired. He got a Job at AA as a Pilot. Guess whos plane hit the Pentagon that day.
I'm not ruling out drones, expecially not for the Twin Towers.
1 Sailer 2013-04-24
OK, so you're saying that it wasn't a 'hijacker', then. That's the 'plane' whose flight recorder has no instances of the cockpit door being opened at all, IIRC.
Now, why in the world would the pilot, knowing that he and everyone else on the plane were going to die, deliberately aim for that exact spot and kill many more? Was this pilot conspiring with the hijackers? He had some options, didn't he?
A lot of questions are raised by your assertion.
2 padwani 2013-04-24
Honestly, I doubt there were even Hijackers. Theres no proof if any hijackers were on the plane at all. They had a list of the "Terrorists" that had boarded each plane. As of Post 9/11 I think 9 of 15 were still alive and well. Some had never been to America.
The only thing that needed to happen, was he had to be the Pilot. Thats the only thing they needed to make sure this plane hit the Pentagon, was to make sure he was the Pilot.
1 ReptileDad 2013-04-24
Sorry if you have already provided in the thread, but do you have a source on the ex-military pilot that you speak of? I have never heard that
1 padwani 2013-04-24
http://youtu.be/2IWJX879fOk?t=4m50s
1 ReptileDad 2013-04-24
thanks for the quick response
1 gbaldwin81 2013-04-24
How did they sneak all those plane parts into the building without anyone noticing?
1 Sailer 2013-04-24
Got any photos which can document your assertion?
3 gbaldwin81 2013-04-24
http://rense.com/general32/phot.htm
6 alexmtz101 2013-04-24
I'm ignorant in the subject. If the govt says it was a plane, there must have been a list of passengers. And if there were passengers, there must have been families interviewed. Are there any interviews with family members of the passengers?
3 [deleted] 2013-04-24
[deleted]
1 kahirsch 2013-04-24
List of passengers on AAL 77
Note that one of them, Barbara Olson, was well known at the time and was flying to New York to appear on Bill Maher's Politically Incorrect show.
Relatives and friends of the passengers have been interviewed many times.
5 padwani 2013-04-24
The better question is why in October of 2000, was the Pentagon conducting training exercises, which simulate a Boeing 757 crashing into the Pentagon.
An Ex Navy F4 Pilot, participated in an earlier version if this drill. He then retires, after working with the pentagon for 17 years and becomes a Pilot at AA. Guess whos plane crashes into the Pentagon during 9/11.
0 tttorosaurus 2013-04-24
because the pentagon is right next to Reagan airport and there is a non-trivial risk of a plane on approach or take-off hitting it. they never trained for someone hijacking a plane and deliberately attacking the pentagon with it.
http://goo.gl/maps/a8wJC
0 padwani 2013-04-24
Yet, They did. -1999 - NATO start to conduct drills which simulate the Pentagon and both the WTC are hit by a Boeing 757. - October 2000 - Pentagon Conduct drills in which simulate Hijacked Boeing 757 crasheing into the Pentagon.
The icing on the cake, is the Pilot of the Plane that we are told hit the Pentagon. He is an Ex-Navy F4 Pilot, who also worked with the Pentagon for 17 years, who also took part in these drills.
2 tttorosaurus 2013-04-24
What is your evidence for these assertions? In particular, that "NATO start to conduct drills which simulate the Pentagon and both the WTC are hit by a Boeing 757. - October 2000 - Pentagon Conduct drills in which simulate Hijacked Boeing 757 crasheing into the Pentagon"?
EDIT: here is a very thorough debunking of the exact claims you are parroting: http://www.911myths.com/html/burlingame_and_mascal.html
In sum, first there is no support for the notion that Burlingame had anything to do with the plane crash training at the Pentagon. In fact, he had been out of the Air Force for 20 years at that point and had only worked in the Pentagon part time as a member of the national guard until 1997, while working full time as an AA pilot (the latter point is based on the Philly Inquirer article cited in the wikipedia link you included above, so I'm not sure how you missed it contradicting your assertions...). Second, the plane crash training was exactly how I described it--training for a civilian aviation accident, not training for the type of attack that occurred on 9-11. There are plenty of links that flesh all this out with actual sources in the above. If you have reason to believe they are wrong or have other sources not considered in the above, please do share them.
-1 [deleted] 2013-04-24
[deleted]
1 tttorosaurus 2013-04-24
Can you be specific about what the authors there got wrong in this particular instance?
-1 [deleted] 2013-04-24
[deleted]
2 tttorosaurus 2013-04-24
I can point out many things I feel are wrong with many sections of the Bible, but I fail to see the relevance of that here. If you cannot actually challenge the evidence, it would be much more dignified to just admit as much and bow out of the conversation; continuing on only show cases your willingness to believe in something you cannot defend. Hmmmmm. Come to think of it, I think I've stumbled upon the root of your affinity for the Bible....
-1 padwani 2013-04-24
Heres the exactly Quote from the Expert. "The Pentagon conducted a training exercise called "MASCAL" simulating the crash of a Boeing 757 into the building on 24 October 2000, and yet Condoleezza Rice, among others, has repeatedly asserted that "no one ever imagined" a domestic airplane could be used as a weapon.' http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/PressRelease30Jan2006.html
So, before 9/11 they were already doing drills as if a Hijacked 757 hits the Pentagon.. Now, If no one thinks a plane like that can be used as a weapon, why was the Pentagon doing drill scenarios for something that people thought couldn't happen?
So you're saying there is no way, that an F4 Pilot, who then goes to work for AA, who also worked for the Pentagon, who also drafted an incident almost identical to what happened on 9/11, didn't have anything to do with what happened.
Okay
2 tttorosaurus 2013-04-24
That quote does not say anything about a hijacked airlplane hitting the building, though. Do you really not see that? Why do you keep adding the hijacked language when you characterize it?
The actual quote is entirely consistent with what I've shown you: the pentagon is right in the incoming and outbound flight paths for Reagan Int'l Airport. They would of course train for a civilian accident contingency.
Re the guy who quit working at the pentagon several years before you allege the training took place, yes, I would assert it likely he had nothing to do with the training. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
EDIT: here is a link to an article describing the 2000 MASCAL exercise at the Pentagon: http://web.archive.org/web/20041026105828/http://www.dcmilitary.com/army/pentagram/5_44/local_news/2852-1.html
"The fire and smoke from the downed passenger aircraft billows from the Pentagon courtyard. Defense Protective Services Police seal the crash sight. Army medics, nurses and doctors scramble to organize aid. An Arlington Fire Department chief dispatches his equipment to the affected areas.
Don Abbott, of Command Emergency Response Training, walks over to the Pentagon and extinguishes the flames. The Pentagon was a model and the 'plane crash' was a simulated one.
The Pentagon Mass Casualty Exercise, as the crash was called, was just one of several scenarios that emergency response teams were exposed to Oct. 24-26 in the Office of the Secretaries of Defense conference room. ...
A major player in the exercise was the Arlington Fire Department.
'Our role is fire and rescue,' Battalion Chief R.W. Cornwell said. 'We get to see how each other operates and the roles and responsibilities of each. You have to plan for this. Look at all the air traffic around here.'"
None of the talk about the plane scenario mentions it being part of a terrorist attack on the pentagon. In fact, they describe the plane in the scenario as having crashed in the courtyard (not hitting the building directly) and the fire chief explicitly notes that his worry about a plane crash is driven by the amount of air traffic in the area. Again, those are entirely consistent with the drill being about a civil aviation accident due to the location of the pentagon and inconsistent with your as-of-yet unsupported claim that they were part of a terrorist attack scenario. But that's not even the end of it. The article does, in fact, reference another scenario that they trained for that was a terrorist attack scenario at a nearby construction site, and that scenario does not seem to have involved planes. The specific discussion of construction site training being about a terrorist attack and the omission of such a key fact from the airliner crash training should give rise to a strong inference that the airplane scenario was not a terrorist scenario. Taking that inference with the quoted comments above, I think it is hard to conclude otherwise absent evidence to the contrary, which you have yet to present.
0 padwani 2013-04-24
Okay, If a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, show me the damage it did from the Wing Section Crashing into the Pentagon, or the Giant marks on the ground where the plane skidded across the grass and into the Pentagon. As eye Witness accounts state.
Show me the engine pieces that of the 757, that they didnt find. The engine they found belonged to a much smaller plane, and not a 757
3 tttorosaurus 2013-04-24
To be clear before we go on, do you agree that there is no actual evidence to support your earlier assertions about the scope of the training exercise and Burlingame's involvement in them?
I'm happy to move on to other points, but I want to make sure you are being earnest and not just changing the subject to avoid accepting criticism of your previous assertions.
3 _Dimension 2013-04-24
Here is a detailed analysis of the part of the engine they found. And yes, it is a part of a 757 engine.
Here are a couple of diagrams that show the hole is big enough for a plane
You'll have to be more specific and tell me what witnesses said what you claim.
0 Sailer 2013-04-24
So you are saying that this ex Navy F4 pilot deliberately flew the plane into the Pentagon?
1 padwani 2013-04-24
Pretty much. We had the tech to the fly planes via remote since 1984. Why would the plane hit the 1 Part of the Pentagon that was made to withstand such a blow? Why would both NATO and the Pentagon be conducting drills for just such an occasion?
Why was there only a hole in the wall up until the collapse of Pentagon Wall E?
2 Sailer 2013-04-24
The 'official' version is that The hijackers on American Airlines Flight 77 were led by Hani Hanjour, who supposedly piloted the aircraft into the Pentagon. The guy had never flown a jet before, and therefore never a commercial airliner, by the way.
Who is this other guy you are saying actually did it?
1 padwani 2013-04-24
Theres no Official Report. They don't know who the terrorists on the plane where. Like I said above, half of the people on their list of "9/11 Hijackers" are still alive.
The Guy I'm referring to, was the actual Pilot of the Plane. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Burlingame
Funny, he's Ex Military, and Ex Pentagon, and his Wiki is Empty...
1 Sailer 2013-04-24
What do you suppose I meant when I typed 'official'?
OK, so why did Burlingame fly his plane into the Pentagon?
1 padwani 2013-04-24
The Major Reason would be to give us a reason to start a war in the Middle East.
Everyone has their own Agenda. The amount of money that was made on 9/11 was mind blowing. He could have done it for the money, and just disappeared. Who Knows.
1 muckraker2 2013-04-24
a matter of national security most likely is the official reason. I don't think there's any law stating they are required to be released. Also, if it really is a cover up, it was a missle rather than an airplane, then obviously they wouldn't want you to know the truth.
4 [deleted] 2013-04-24
[deleted]
3 ronintetsuro 2013-04-24
If it was a plane, we would all be tired of constantly seeing the footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon. Trust me.
If there was anything even remotely plausible to show, it would have been 'leaked' to the press a LONG time ago and played relentlessly, just like the impact at WTC.
2 [deleted] 2013-04-24
Sorry but, logical reasoning doesn't work against them..
1 muckraker2 2013-04-24
The Pentagon isn't your local 7-11. There are valid reasons not to show the video(s) when a military complex belonging to the largest military force the world has ever known was compromised.
It does fuel all this speculation though. so who knows.
My own personal take on it is the same thought I had as I watched the two towers crumble. "That was more than just an airplane or two to cause this". I knew immediately there were explosives involved. It was way too controlled. It virtually fell on its own footprint. That only happens with controlled demolition. It was just odd, that nobody in the news ever really talked about after that first few hours once the spin machine took effect.
1 In-yo-diddly-hole 2013-04-24
i would guess the red army post 1945 is the largest military the world has ever known
0 onlysaneman_ 2013-04-24
Carrot on a stick.
1 [deleted] 2013-04-24
[deleted]
3 [deleted] 2013-04-24
[deleted]
2 [deleted] 2013-04-24
[deleted]
-3 [deleted] 2013-04-24
[deleted]
7 [deleted] 2013-04-24
[deleted]
1 BadTRAFFIC 2013-04-24
A picture speaks a thousand words ... or NOT.
1 MathW 2013-04-24
Is it possible that security cams were not positioned or functioned to capture stuff that is going on at the pentagon? Especially a jet which flew into it at such a high speed, that any low frame rate security cam likely missed the point of impact. Is there any point in feeding more "no plane" conspiracies?
1 [deleted] 2013-04-24
[deleted]
1 MathW 2013-04-24
Without specific knowledge of the industry, I would venture that most security cams record at much less than 24 fps. It would take up a lot more storage space than say 1 or 2 fps, without really capturing much more of significance. Very few are probably positioned to capture events going on across a highway from the building they are surveilling.
-6 ArmyTrainingSir 2013-04-24
You haven't seen any pictures of the dismembered children from the Newtown shooting. Are you wanting to see those pictures too?
2 [deleted] 2013-04-24
Shill
0 ArmyTrainingSir2 2013-04-24
I'm not sure what that means, but thanks for the thought!
1 [deleted] 2013-04-24
Surrre you don't.
1 ArmyTrainingSir2 2013-04-24
So you do want to see the dismembered children from the Newtown shooting?
1 [deleted] 2013-04-24
What does Newtown have to do with the Pentagon? I'd like to see evidence that an airplane hit the Pentagon.
-7 TooBigForHollywood 2013-04-24
http://s019.radikal.ru/i611/1303/31/b9e844aeb2c4.gif, footage of a cruise missile impacting the Pentagon, September 11, 2001 .. http://s60.radikal.ru/i169/1003/f7/5dbc426c4403.gif .. large view!
15 stordoff 2013-04-24
Video of the GIF. It's a fake, using this stock footage.
7 ronintetsuro 2013-04-24
This has been debunked as fake for over a decade.
Any first year A/V student can see this is total garbage.
2 MakesStuff_Up 2013-04-24
It exploded before it really penetrated much. It looks like a missile, but it must have been a really shitty missile if it was one.
Also, why is this camera moving? Is this from a helicopter or something?
7 padwani 2013-04-24
The section of the Pentagon that was hit, was actually renovated before the plane hit. Actually, they finished renovations, on 9/11. The missile, that hit the pentagon went through all 3 layers of Reinforced Concrete, and out the back of the 3rd layers. The layers being C, D and E. E being the outside wall.
If a Plane hit the Pentagon, there would be a lot more destruction than what was shown. The measurements of a Boeing 757-200 is as follows.
I think the hole in the pentagon was something like 12 or 13 feet in Diameter. Thats it, 13 feet, from a a Boeing 757-200, with a wing section of over 100 feet, leaves a 13 foot hole, goes through 3 layers of reinforced concrete, and stops after punching through the 3rd layer.
They didn't find any bodies, because "The immense heat from the Jet Fuel Vaporized everyone," yet, they were able to ID almost everyone. The best part about it, all of the computers damaged, the ones that were in the pentagon, weren't able to be recovered.
That's a lot of insider information that just completely vanished without any chance of retrieving it.
3 LordofPterosaurs 2013-04-24
Speaking of plane parts, wouldn't the engines been more or less intact as a giant lump of metal, that would have rolled through that building?
2 padwani 2013-04-24
Well in Theory, thats what they want us to beleieve. The picked up metal scraps, of what they thought was a plane. They did find an engine, but it was one that belonged to a small Single Engine Plane.
I'm not sure what UAVs have inside of them, but t has crossed my mind in the past that it could have been a UAV, hence why people are saying it was a plane.
2 IAmAMansquito 2013-04-24
"They did find an engine, but it was one that belonged to a small Single Engine Plane" Legitimate SOURCE???
2 padwani 2013-04-24
Like I said above, I'm pulling info out of my head from a few years ago, the actual source was from a Documentary I watched - which can be found here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IWJX879fOk
Here's an article you should read too. The engine came form an A-3.http://tomflocco.com/fs/WitnessesLink.htm
2 lamercat 2013-04-24
I've tried arguing this whole thing with some imbecile a few days ago. He was very insistent that it was a plane and that there was in fact plane wreckage. However, if you observe pictures of other plane crashes, and compare them to the Pentagon and the flight that went down in the field, it is blatantly obvious that the crash sites look vastly different.
And I am no physicist, but I do know it takes a great amount of energy to completely vaporize a human, and something tells me these crashes did not produce that needed energy.
1 padwani 2013-04-24
Exactly, theres nothing other than the hole in terms of damage to the building. Theres no skid marks, the spools or wire are still there. There is absolutely nothing that tells me, "Oh, A Plane hit this."
1 lamercat 2013-04-24
And if I am not mistaken, the coroner at the scene of the crashed plane in the field said how strange it was that there were no bodies. Also, many people were wondering where the wreckage was.
1 padwani 2013-04-24
And this is where the Flight 94 conspiracy comes in.
1 lamercat 2013-04-24
Flight 93* (FTFY)
http://doingmypart.wordpress.com/2008/03/07/plane-crashes-through-the-years-compared-to-flight-93/
A plane did not crash in that field.
1 [deleted] 2013-04-24
[deleted]
2 lamercat 2013-04-24
http://doingmypart.wordpress.com/2008/03/07/plane-crashes-through-the-years-compared-to-flight-93/
This does a good job explaining how the Flight 93 crash site doesn't even make sense.
2 ____________ 2013-04-24
As I said in my reply above, there needs to be more context to those images. When Flight 93 crashed it was going almost 600 mph, do you know if there's examples to compare it to of planes going that fast when they crashed?
Most crashes (and I'm willing to bet quite a few of those) occur at much lower speeds, either on takeoff or landing or from pilots efforts to slow the plane down. The author seems to be using similar plane size as the variable to compare to, but a 757 that crashes at 200 mph and a 757 that crashes at 600 mph would look very different.
1 lamercat 2013-04-24
I went to google, typed in plane crashes, searched images. Very simple. You can go to YouTube, and do the same thing. Or find documentaries where comparisons are shown.
1 ____________ 2013-04-24
Theres a problem with that though. 80% of plane crashes occur on either takeoff or landing, when the planes are going much slower. The kinetic energy going into crash is exponentially higher for a plane going 600 mph than a plane going 300 mph or less, so it's safe to assume the damage would be much greater. Just looking at the google images alone gives no context for the crash, and it's safe to assume this was the case for many of them. In order to accurately compare you'd need pictures of planes that were going full speed when they crashed.
1 IAmAMansquito 2013-04-24
The plane lost a lot of momentum because it clipped the ground before it hit the Pentagon.
1 padwani 2013-04-24
Please, how me any picture of the pentagon during that day that shows damage to the ground.
1 lamercat 2013-04-24
And you know this how...? That sounds like a complete bullshit answer, there would've been more damage to the area near the Pentagon if this were the case.
But clearly, using your brain is not allowed anymore, you HAVE to be an expert on anything in order to come to any conclusion about it. That seems to be the case here, lately.
1 [deleted] 2013-04-24
[deleted]
1 padwani 2013-04-24
When the "Plane" hit the pentagon, it left nothing but a hole. The picture you're linking, in which I watched the video for, is when Everyone is already on seen, way after the plane crashed.
But, since we have a picture, how me any wreckage of a Boeing 757-200.
0 [deleted] 2013-04-24
[deleted]
3 padwani 2013-04-24
But, they also ID'd everyone on the plane, despite lacking any blood evidence. 184 out of 189 People were IDd, the last 5 are made up of the 5
PatsysTerroists that were on that plane.I'm blind when it comes to planes, had to Wiki for this part, hopefully I'm right. The cross section of a Boeing 757-200 is roughly 155 feet.
2 [deleted] 2013-04-24
[deleted]
1 platinum_peter 2013-04-24
In the states victims are generally verified using DNA. Passenger lists and Pentagon attendance lists were used to assist I'm sure, however DNA is traditional.
6 [deleted] 2013-04-24
I think this has been proven fake.
1 moparornocar 2013-04-24
Look at how big it looks though, most cruise missiles are not that long or large.
5 [deleted] 2013-04-24
[deleted]
6 frostyllamas 2013-04-24
That's... not really how missiles work. Making them bigger (after a certain point!) doesn't necessarily give them more range or make them more versatile. You end up with diminishing returns since you now need to carry more fuel for your heavier missile, have larger control surfaces to produce enough lift, can't store as many as you could if they were smaller, spend more time maintaining them (since there's now more things on the missile that can break), and limit what platforms can use the now-tremendous missile. Why would they need a "drone missile" (???) when you could use a typical cruise missile to do the same thing?
In fact, if you're going to fake an attack on the Pentagon, why not just wire up a real plane and fly it in via remote control? The person actually flying the plane could be in a chase plane (you could probably justify it by saying that they were attempting to intercept the aircraft). Now you don't have to worry about amateur video footage showing that you actually flew a tremendously impractical weapon into the Pentagon.
How would you get that many people to go along with it, too? You'd need the cooperation of the airline (someone would notice if one of their flights crashed but they still somehow had all their planes!), people to pretend to be families of the people on the plane, people to know those people (so that they didn't just seem like plants), etc etc?
0 [deleted] 2013-04-24
[deleted]
3 frostyllamas 2013-04-24
(the downvote isn't me, for what it's worth)
Yeah, but... why? What benefit does endurance give you when you could just launch the cruise missile from something that can sit on station for months, like a warship? Cruise missiles can already fly extremely low to avoid detection. Making it big like that would render it less agile and far more easily detected -- its radar cross section would be much larger than that of a typical missile. If the "drone missile" crashes, you have no guarantee that the explosives will even work.
Drone missiles would be a super practical and awesome thing if we hadn't yet invented aircraft. Why not just use your favorite multi-role fighter? Put up a tanker and it can stay on station for hours. It has a narrow fuselage that contains electronics, steering systems, communications, and fuel tanks. They do not travel as fast as cruise missiles and can fly low to avoid radar. When they're high in the air, they're relatively quiet! When you want to blow something up, fire a missile or drop a bomb. Or, hell, just use a regular drone. "Drone missiles" are a terrifically impractical idea.
2 moparornocar 2013-04-24
Look at it as it crosses over the freeway though, it is about as long as the freeway is wide. The drone itself is only around 30 feet long or so. The missile is in no way longer than that. The object in the gif looks very easily a lot longer than 30 ft.
1 [deleted] 2013-04-24
[deleted]
2 moparornocar 2013-04-24
Well yes I do agree there can be weapons us the public do not know about, but this would also be the missile itself we are seeing, not the drone. I just find it hard to beleive a secret one is much bigger than the ones we know about. From the 8 or so I looked up that are in service/have been in service the largest was 38 feet in length. I know we can not fully come to a decision based off this gif, but my personal opinion does not think the missile would be that large.
1 lamercat 2013-04-24
Never heard of these, source? Just curious.
1 [deleted] 2013-04-24
[deleted]
1 lamercat 2013-04-24
Damn, I read that article and seemed to have missed that part.. thought it would have stuck out at me, guess not. I shall do my own searching/researching.
1 [deleted] 2013-04-24
[deleted]
1 lamercat 2013-04-24
Damn you don't do that to me, today has not been a good day. I will forgive you, I guess...
1 netgod2002 2013-04-24
Where did you get that first .gif from? I haven't seen it.
0 moparornocar 2013-04-24
That is a pretty fucking big missile.