ex General of American intelligence: "9/11 was a fraud.

[thx1138]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daNr_TrBw6E

[hippifried]

Ok. 9/11 didn't happen. The buildings are still standing there, cloaked by Romulans. What happens when they get bored & the illusion disappears?

[The Hierophant]

I'm beginning to think that no one on Earth who was ever involved in the Intelligence Community of any country buys the official story of 9/11. Unfortunately, they aren't coming out with any serious revelations. Ok, whatever hit the Pentagon wasn't a 767. Yeah, no shit.

I mean, forget than the fact it's pretty much impossible for a plane that size to pull off that kind of maneuver, but the eyewitness testimony alone is enough. You have people talking about the plane flying 25 - 50 feet above them, which is corroborated by the lamp posts which were knocked down, and some surveillance photos which were released years later. If a 767 Jet flew over you at 50 feet going 500 mph, you'd be picked up like a leaf.

Now, you can say that the eyewitnesses were mistaken about how high the plane was, but the lamp posts, photos, and the damage to the pentagon all agree. Whatever hit the pentagon was flying at near ground level, and it damn sure doesn't seem like it could have been a 767.

[chefmike]

LMAO...Stubblebine is a flake....he must be suffering from dementia, either that or he spent too much time helping himself to the intelligence community's pharmaceutical products...perhaps both...or maybe it was all that time he spent trying to teach himself to walk through walls(yes it's true)...and it comes as no surprise that the pied piper of the paranoid Alex Jones is totally enamored of him...nor is it any surprise that you're posting drivel like this...again... :roll:

[notdrunk]

Now, you can say that the eyewitnesses were mistaken about how high the plane was, but the lamp posts, photos, and the damage to the pentagon all agree. Whatever hit the pentagon was flying at near ground level, and it damn sure doesn't seem like it could have been a 767.

It was a 757 that hit the Pentagon.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html

Pics of the scene in the link. I see parts of a 757 in those pics. It has been known since 9/11 that a 757 hit the Pentagon. Do not believe in those truthers.

[The Hierophant]

LMAO...Stubblebine is a flake....he must be suffering from dementia, either that or he spent too much time helping himself to the intelligence community's pharmaceutical products...perhaps both...or maybe it was all that time he spent trying to teach himself to walk through walls(yes it's true)...and it comes as no surprise that the pied piper of the paranoid Alex Jones is totally enamored of him...nor is it any surprise that you're posting drivel like this...again... :roll:

Yeah, everyone you disagree with is crazy, right? That's pretty convenient for you.

And what's with the hard-on for Alex Jones?


Anyway, excuse me, 757. The 767 is the wide body version. I wasn't aware that the 757 also doubled as a stunt fighter plane. My mistake.

[notdrunk]

Anyway, excuse me, 757. The 767 is the wide body version. I wasn't aware that the 757 also doubled as a stunt fighter plane. My mistake.

Ignoring the photographic evidence now? No hope for you.

[The Hierophant]

Anyway, excuse me, 757. The 767 is the wide body version. I wasn't aware that the 757 also doubled as a stunt fighter plane. My mistake.

Ignoring the photographic evidence now? No hope for you.

Those photos do not get anywhere close to being evidence. No one is saying that nothing hot the Pentagon. So the photos prove that something hit the Pentagon.

Not to mention, using just photos is being selective, therefore any conclusion you come to based on the photos alone is more than likely going to be wrong. There is also the flight path, eyewitness testimony, and probably most damning of all, the photographic evidence from surrounding cameras which was confiscated and never released. that footage would prove once and for all what hit the Pentagon.

Oh yeah, it's part of some ongoing, official investigation. But the few that were released (which barely show anything) don't count? And the photos of Atta at the airport in Maine with the fake timestamp? Were those not part of the official investigation?[/b]

[notdrunk]

Those photos do not get anywhere close to being evidence. No one is saying that nothing hot the Pentagon. So the photos prove that something hit the Pentagon.

Not to mention, using just photos is being selective, therefore any conclusion you come to based on the photos alone is more than likely going to be wrong. There is also the flight path, eyewitness testimony, and probably most damning of all, the photographic evidence from surrounding cameras which was confiscated and never released. that footage would prove once and for all what hit the Pentagon.

Oh yeah, it's part of some ongoing, official investigation. But the few that were released (which barely show anything) don't count? And the photos of Atta at the airport in Maine with the fake timestamp? Were those not part of the official investigation?[/b]

Oh brother. The photos show evidence of a 757 hitting the Pentagon.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1

What weapon can cause that much damage and also leave behind debris from a 757 aircraft? No weapon exists that can do that.

Keeping living in la-la land. A 757 did hit the Pentagon on 9/11/2001.

[The Hierophant]

LMAO, the photos alone are not evidence. If I posted a photo of a UFO, what would that prove? Photos alone are meaningless.

In fact, due to the small amount of debris (the rest was supposed to have "disintegrated", yet plenty of structures nearby remain intact. Astounding) the best guess I can put forth is that it was a much smaller plane. that fits with the eyewitness testimony of those that claim it was a small business jet. While those eyewitnesses may be wrong, the "smaller jet" scenario fits the reports by those who said it flew directly over them at near ground-level. It would explain how they weren't tossed around and seriously injured.

Or, instead of putting thought into it, I could just go read some random website and pretend that's proof. Because, of course, everything on the internet is true... well, maybe not everything, but whatever supports my opinion is true. Yeah, that's it.

[notdrunk]

In fact, due to the small amount of debris (the rest was supposed to have "disintegrated", yet plenty of structures nearby remain intact. Astounding) the best guess I can put forth is that it was a much smaller plane. that fits with the eyewitness testimony of those that claim it was a small business jet. While those eyewitnesses may be wrong, the "smaller jet" scenario fits the reports by those who said it flew directly over them at near ground-level. It would explain how the weren't tossed around and seriously injured or killed.


If it was a smaller plane, what happened to the passengers and the crew of Flight 77? Where they all shot by some top-secret uber black ops team or taken to some tropical island to live out their lives there?

Keep living in la-la land. You are just in denial. You want to find something that isn't there.

[trish]

It's not like the Pentagon is in the back woods and no one ever sees it. Hundreds of people were there. They saw it, they recorded it and reported it. What all but a handful of outliers reported was seeing a 747 fly into the Pentagon. They reported seeing fragments of a 747 all around the wreckage. If they're wrong, there's a 747 that's unaccounted for. It must've flown into the Bermuda triangle. There's now a memorial at the Pentagon to all the people who were on that 747 that never returned to their homes. The empirical evidence is that the missile which struck the Pentagon was a 747.

On the more theoretical side: That very day two airliners were successfully used as weapons in Manhattan. Also that day, an attempt to use an airliner as a gasoline-warhead missile was foiled over Pennsylvania. It would seem that airliners were the missiles of choice that day. If you go with the theory that it wasn't a 747 that struck the Pentagon, not only do you have to explain why everyone there saw a 747, and explain what happened to that missing 747 and explain what happened to its passengers, but you also have to explain why the conspirators decided to break with a winning tactic.

[The Hierophant]

Keep living in la-la land. You are just in denial. You want to find something that isn't there.

LOL, Isn't that exactly what you're doing? Like I said, keep reading your websites...


It's not like the Pentagon is in the back woods and no one ever sees it. Hundreds of people were there. They saw it, they recorded it and reported it. What all but a handful of outliers reported was seeing a 747 fly into the Pentagon. They reported seeing fragments of a 747 all around the wreckage. If they're wrong, there's a 747 that's unaccounted for. It must've flown into the Bermuda triangle. There's now a memorial at the Pentagon to all the people who were on that 747 that never returned to their homes. The empirical evidence is that the missile which struck the Pentagon was a 747.

Not all eyewitnesses reported seeing a large commercial aircraft. And the people who were closer to it would have less of a view, considering it was flying low. So it is the "outliers" who are the best witnesses. The closer witnesses testimony damns itself because a 757 is not going to fly 50 feet above your head at top speed with tossing you. Everyone likes to ignore that because there isn't any way to explain it. We could say that it's tough to judge altitude, but if it wasn't that low, then it wouldn't have clipped lamp posts and hit the pentagon, so we have to accept it. And if we accept it, then it wasn't a 757.



On the more theoretical side: That very day two airliners were successfully used as weapons in Manhattan. Also that day, an attempt to use an airliner as a gasoline-warhead missile was foiled over Pennsylvania. It would seem that airliners were the missiles of choice that day. If you go with the theory that it wasn't a 747 that struck the Pentagon, not only do you have to explain why everyone there saw a 747, and explain what happened to that missing 747 and explain what happened to its passengers, but you also have to explain why the conspirators decided to break with a winning tactic.

The difference between aiming for a 110 story building and aiming for a 10 story building? The question answers itself.

[trish]

Even among those observers who were further away and therefore the "best witnesses" reported seeing a 747. Only a handful of outliers among those disagree. Moreover, those who saw the wreckage reported seeing fragments of a 747. Moreover you still haven't accounted for flight 77 and each one of its sixty four passengers.

Again on the theoretical side, the missile the conspirators sent to the capitol, not a 110 story building, and crashed in Pennsylvania was another airliner. So you still haven't explained why they changed their tactics for the Pentagon.

[The Hierophant]

Even among those observers who were further away and therefore the "best witnesses" reported seeing a 747. Only a handful of outliers among those disagree. Moreover, those who saw the wreckage reported seeing fragments of a 747.

Honestly, I don't feel comfortable putting too much into what any of the witnesses have to say, unless you can find me statements from qualified observers. I mean, how many people do you know that can easily identify planes in the air flying at full speed? But the fact remains that witnesses across the street from the Pentagon reported a plane flying between 25 - 50 feet above them at full speed. I'll restate that normally I wouldn't automatically accept their judgement on the altitude, but in this case it fits with the other evidence. This is the 4th time I'm saying it and no one can address it, but if it was a 757 flying at 500mph, those witnesses probably wouldn't be around to tell us about it.



Moreover you still haven't accounted for flight 77 and each one of its sixty four passengers.

Accounting for them has little to do with my argument. It would be mere speculation. Not to mention, my position bears no burden of proof. The claim is that it was a 757. I say it was not based on the testimony of the "across the street witnesses" and the near-impossibility of the maneuver, (Remember, we were told that these planes were piloted by flight school dropouts - more like kicked-outs - who couldn't handle little puddle jumpers.) and also the fact that structures very near to the hole in the Pentagon were unscathed, despite the fact that a plane that size should have hit those structures.

Flight 77 was missing on radar for a period of time before the Pentagon was hit. Anything could have happened. There is, after all, a giant ocean nearby; Bermuda Triangles, nonwithstanding.



Again on the theoretical side, the missile the conspirators sent to the capitol, not a 110 story building, was another airliner. So you still haven't explained why they changed their tactics for the Pentagon.

See, how do you know where Flight 93 was headed? You're just blindly believing what "official sources" have to say. And I have explained it. It's easier to hit a building in the air with a giant commercial jet, than it is to hit a building on the ground with any expectation of precision.

A completely incompetent pilot expertly keeping control of a 757 flying 500mph at near ground level is quite an extraordinary claim; one for which I require extraordinary proof.

On a lighter note, I really enjoy debating with you, trish. You are super smart and you keep me on my toes. But I'm totally sick of 9/11. I'd rather talk about anything else under the sun. I'm sure that there are more worthwhile subject that we can disagree on... I'll even play devil's advocate if I have to. After all, it's much more of a challenge to argue points that you don't agree with.

[notdrunk]

Y'all truthers are funny.

[The Hierophant]

Y'all truthers are funny.

What's the matter, did you run out of websites to link to and now you have nothing else to add?

[hippifried]

Not all eyewitnesses reported seeing a large commercial aircraft. The witnesses saw something big fly into the Pentagon & turn into something not so big. There were a whole lot of people, including myself, who didn't see that, & we all have one thing in common. We weren't eyewitnesses to the event.

[notdrunk]

Y'all truthers are funny.

What's the matter, did you run out of websites to link to and now you have nothing else to add?

It is like talking to a brick wall.

-Forensic evidence that supports a 757 hitting the Pentagon..check
-Photographic evidence that supports a 757 hitting the Pentagon..check
-Eyewitnesses (including a Lt. Col in the Minnesota ANG) supporting that a commercial airplane hit the Pentagon..check

But nooooo...According to you, Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. The only thing you can come up with is a conspiracy theory.

[trish]

The reports and recording[s] of the witness[es] constitute a portion of the empirical evidence. Why would you feel less comfortable with theoretical speculations on the height of the aircraft than with the actual reports? Theory must comply with observation.

If your position was that you didn’t know whether a 747 struck the Pentagon or not, then you bare no burden of proof. But your position, if I am not mistaken, is that the Pentagon definitely was not struck by a 747. How is it that you don’t have to prove this claim? It seems to me to have the same burden of proof as anyone else whose claims to know something the rest of us don’t. The missing 747 and its passengers more than a mere inconvenience. It remains one of the gapping holes in your theory.

[edits in square brackets]

[techi]

As far as I can tell, it's believeable that a 757 hit the Pentagon on 9/11. And I'm not ready to add much weight to the analysis of some 90yr old retired army officer. That said, I think the official accounts have left a lot of questions either unanswered or answered in an incomplete/unbelievable manner.

I don't know what happened on 9/11 but I do feel that we should be demanding more answers and more accountability. Otherwise the ranks of the truthers will continue to balloon.

1) Isn't it a little ridiculous to think that someone with barely enough knowledge on how to fly a plane was able to take a 757 thru the barn storming manuvers required to hit the pentagon? An airforce veteran yes, maybe a pre-programmed or remote controlled aircraft, but a flight school flunky... I don't buy it.

2) One of the reasons that the Airforce and civilian aviation were slow to respond on 9/11 was that the Airforce was running a big drill along the eastern seaboard complete with fake hijacked aircraft on that day. How would a crazy man living in a cave in Afghanistan know to pick that day to attack the US? Just bad luck? One in a million? I doubt it. I think it's sensible to assume that the people who attacked on 9/11 knew that what US Airforce was up to that day.

3) Why did some people seem to know that 9/11 was going down in advance? The white van & 5 Israeli's that starting filming the WTC attacks BEFORE the 1st plane hit. The insider trading etc... ex-CIA Robert Baer stated "I know the guy that went to his broker in San Diego and said cash me out, it's going down tomorrow. His brother works in the whitehouse." Have Baer's statements been refuted or investigated? Were the actions of the 5 Israeli's ever properly explained?

4) Why didn't we fire people left and right over 9/11? Where was the accountability?

5) Most of the identified hijackers had Saudi passports. Yet we give the Saudi's VIP treatment while at the same time declaring war on Iraq and Afghanistan. lol what!!! Given the extreme measures carried out against other supposed terrorists, I'd have expected many a Saudi official to be invited to Chenney's exclusive caribean island resort for some enhanced vacationing.

6) September 10th, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld admits to the public that 2.3 Trillion dollars spent by the DoD are unaccounted for. Sept 11th 2001 the Pentagon gets hit. The area hit included the DoD budget office.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU4GdHLUHwU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD3Ym9-YMqg

On a side note, Cynthia McKinney has just been released today from an Israeli jail. She's the Congresswoman who had been dogging Donald Rumsfeld about 2.3 Trillion in unaccounted spending by the DoD. She was captured by Israeli's in international waters aboard a ship filled with humanitarian aid for Gaza.

The interesting thing to note here is that when a random American gets kidnapped by Somali pirates it's front page news, yet when a US Congresswoman gets kidnapped by Israeli pirates it's not even in the US mainstream news.

[The Hierophant]

The reports and recording of the witness constitute a portion of the empirical evidence. Why would you feel less comfortable with theoretical speculations on the height of the aircraft than with the actual reports? Theory must comply with observation.

If your position was that you didn’t know whether a 747 struck the Pentagon or not, then you bare no burden of proof. But your position, if I am not mistaken, is that the Pentagon definitely was not struck by a 747. How is it that you don’t have to prove this claim? It seems to me to have the same burden of proof as anyone else whose claims to know something the rest of us don’t. The missing 747 and its passengers more than a mere inconvenience. It remains one of the gapping holes in your theory.

I'm not saying that a 757 definitely did not hit the Pentagon, I'm saying that there isn't enough evidence to support the claim, and there is some good evidence that makes it extremely unlikely. Highly unlikely is a world away from definitely not.

And I certainly don't have to account for what happened to Flight 77. If I were to examine a video of a UFO and be able to identify it by certain characteristics as a helicopter, it's not incumbent upon me to find the actual helicopter in the film to prove my case.

In fact, even if I were to somehow able to say that what hit the Pentagon was definitely not a Boeing 757, I still wouldn't have to account for the fate of Flight 77. Believe it or not, one is not dependent on the other.

Hypothetical example: I am the head investigator of the crash at the Pentagon. I examine all the wreckage and can definitively state that it is not a 757. Do I have to account for the whereabouts of a missing 757 in the vicinity? Of course not.

[trish]

The evidence (witness reports and recordings, and the missing plane itself) does support the claim that a 747 crashed into the Pentagon. It’s only speculation that doesn’t support the claim. Don’t mix up observation with theory.

You claim it’s highly unlikely that a 747 struck the Pentagon. That claim requires proof. Please don’t be silly, you obviously have to account for the missing flight 77. Suppose a specific helicopter was seen by hundreds of people to have crashed on the Washington Mall. Suppose almost all those people, except a few who say it was a flying saucer, agree it was a helicopter. Suppose a helicopter meeting that description went missing at the same time. The pilot and passengers are never ever seen again. Suppose fragments of the wreckage are identified by those present as being part of that same kind of helicopter. Now based on the outlier reports, you claim it’s highly unlikely that a helicopter crashed that day. The missing helicopter, pilot and passengers are a definite obstacle to the veracity of your claim. People are going to legitimately ask, “How do you account for the missing helicopter?” Why does that question seem so compelling? It’s because the missing helicopter is a big part of the actual physical evidence. There was a flight plan filed. There are records of the passenger’s ticket information. There’s the tower’s record of take off. To ignore the helicopter is to forsake the empirical data for speculation. Likewise with flight 77.

[hippifried]

1) Isn't it a little ridiculous to think that someone with barely enough knowledge on how to fly a plane was able to take a 757 thru the barn storming manuvers required to hit the pentagon? An airforce veteran yes, maybe a pre-programmed or remote controlled aircraft, but a flight school flunky... I don't buy it.What barnstorming maneuvers? It's not hard to fly a plane once it's in the air. The hard part is taking off & landing safely. To slam into a building, all you have to do is point. The pentagon's a real big target.

[yodajazz]

On a side note, Cynthia McKinney has just been released today from an Israeli jail. She's the Congresswoman who had been dogging Donald Rumsfeld about 2.3 Trillion in unaccounted spending by the DoD. She was captured by Israeli's in international waters aboard a ship filled with humanitarian aid for Gaza.

The interesting thing to note here is that when a random American gets kidnapped by Somali pirates it's front page news, yet when a US Congresswoman gets kidnapped by Israeli pirates it's not even in the US mainstream news.

Wow! I had not heard this about Cynthia McKinney. She was also a Presidential candidate.

[Rogers]

On a side note, Cynthia McKinney has just been released today from an Israeli jail. She's the Congresswoman who had been dogging Donald Rumsfeld about 2.3 Trillion in unaccounted spending by the DoD. She was captured by Israeli's in international waters aboard a ship filled with humanitarian aid for Gaza.

The interesting thing to note here is that when a random American gets kidnapped by Somali pirates it's front page news, yet when a US Congresswoman gets kidnapped by Israeli pirates it's not even in the US mainstream news.

Wow! I had not heard this about Cynthia McKinney. She was also a Presidential candidate.

McKinney Returns to U.S. After Release From Israeli Jail
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/07/report-mckinney-released-israeli-jail-returning/

Most Americans haven't heard about the USS Liberty either.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6690425.stm

There's a simple reason why very little negative about Israel is reported by the mainstream media. There's a reason why I have to post foreign documentaries asking questions which the American media should have been asking a long time ago. The one I posted about the Israel Lobby is Dutch, and the one about Sibel Edmonds, "the most gagged person in U.S. history", is British. Also British:

Dead In The Water - The Sinking of the USS Liberty
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3319663041501647311

Back to 9/11, from which of the crashed planes wreckages were the passports of 4 of the hijackers found? Or is that a myth? Looks to have been virtually nothing left of the plane that hit the Pentagon. Always found it strange that they only scrambled fighters AFTER the Pentagon was attacked. Was it one of the General's actually sitting in the Pentagon that notified N.O.R.A.D. in the first place? :lol:

[Rogers]

6) September 10th, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld admits to the public that 2.3 Trillion dollars spent by the DoD are unaccounted for. Sept 11th 2001 the Pentagon gets hit. The area hit included the DoD budget office.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU4GdHLUHwU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD3Ym9-YMqg

Yup, the M.I.C. Neo-Cons really dodged a bullet there. Not only that, but 9/11 enabled them to spend even more billions on "bullets" to help "Rebuild America's Defenses", and make enormous personal fortunes at the same time too.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20020812a.htm

"Feith left his post in the Reagan administration's Pentagon in 1986 to found the Feith & Zell law firm, based initially in Israel, whose clients included major military contractors like Lockheed Martin and Northrup Grumman.31"
http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/beta/profile/Feith_Douglas/
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020902/vest

[The Hierophant]

The evidence (witness reports and recordings, and the missing plane itself) does support the claim that a 747 crashed into the Pentagon. It’s only speculation that doesn’t support the claim. Don’t mix up observation with theory.

The witness reports are conflicting, so that certainly isn't evidence. if you want to put your faith in witness reports, then you should look at the initial reports in which various witnesses stated they say a helicopter, the plane somersalting on the lawn, a small business jet capable of holding around 10 passengers, a USAF Fighter jet (as reported on Fox news), etc.

If you want to talk about photographs, then you have to account for both engines. There is no evidence of them impacting the building, and they weren't found on the outside of the building. Since we are talking about two giant steel engines weighing around 6 tons a piece, one underneath each wing, that's a pretty big inconsistency.

Are you going to account for the missing engines?

Of course, since there was no NTSB investigation of the crash, It's only speculation that supports the claim that a 757 did hit the Pentagon, not the other way around.



You claim it’s highly unlikely that a 747 struck the Pentagon. That claim requires proof. Please don’t be silly, you obviously have to account for the missing flight 77.

It's ridiculous to assert that I would have to account for a missing plane, if my position is that it had nothing to do with the Pentagon crash. That's why if you were, say, accused of murder, you're innocence can be proven without locating and proving the guilt of the actual killer. It would be absurd to think otherwise.



Suppose a specific helicopter was seen by hundreds of people to have crashed on the Washington Mall. Suppose almost all those people, except a few who say it was a flying saucer, agree it was a helicopter.


In the case of the Pentagon, most people disgree as to what they saw, so that can be dismissed.


Suppose a helicopter meeting that description went missing at the same time. The pilot and passengers are never ever seen again. Suppose fragments of the wreckage are identified by those present as being part of that same kind of helicopter.


Nothing at the Pentagon was positively identified as being anything. Even the FBI admits that it only assumes the small amount of wreckage found was from the hijacked plane. So that's out the window as well.



Now based on the outlier reports, you claim it’s highly unlikely that a helicopter crashed that day.

No. While some witness reports are quite compelling, i base my assumption on the fact that it would be physically impossible for it to have happened the way the official story pretends it did.

If you look at the NTSB's flight data, it proves that Flight 77 never dropped below 275 feet, thus making it very difficult for it to have hit a building 70 feet tall, let alone one inch from the ground, which is what the official story says.

There are, of course, dozens of other impossibilities.



The missing helicopter, pilot and passengers are a definite obstacle to the veracity of your claim. People are going to legitimately ask, “How do you account for the missing helicopter?” Why does that question seem so compelling? It’s because the missing helicopter is a big part of the actual physical evidence.

Of course it isn't. If Flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon, then it is a completely seperate event.



There was a flight plan filed. There are records of the passenger’s ticket information. There’s the tower’s record of take off. To ignore the helicopter is to forsake the empirical data for speculation. Likewise with flight 77.

Since there is not enough evidence that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, and ample evidence showing it to be unlikely, or in some cases, nearly impossible, it is, ironically enough, you that has to account for it's whereabouts, not me.

[trish]

You admittedly base your assumption on the theory that it would be physically impossible to have happened in accordace to the official story. I've seen no physical analysis supporting that view, just claims that that's what physics reveals. Moreover you have not snown that the demise of flight 77 is independent of all that went on that day. The fact is the "official" theory accounts for, among other things, all the missing planes. A rival theory needs to account for all the things the competitor does and more. Where is flight 77?

[notdrunk]

Are you going to account for the missing engines?

The engines would not be intact...

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/ats/pentagon757/planeparts-1.jpg

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/ats/pentagon757/Damage9.jpg



Nothing at the Pentagon was positively identified as being anything. Even the FBI admits that it only assumes the small amount of wreckage found was from the hijacked plane. So that's out the window as well.

Because most of the aircraft was nearly disintegrated when it hit the Pentagon. The Pentagon was made with reinforced concrete and the aircraft was made out of aluminum.



Since there is not enough evidence that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, and ample evidence showing it to be unlikely, or in some cases, nearly impossible, it is, ironically enough, you that has to account for it's whereabouts, not me.

You are just being delusional. You are ignoring the forensics and the photographic evidence that shows a commercial jetliner hit the Pentagon.

[The Hierophant]

You admittedly base your assumption on the theory that it would be physically impossible to have happened in accordace to the official story. I've seen no physical analysis supporting that view, just claims that that's what physics reveals. Moreover you have not snown that the demise of flight 77 is independent of all that went on that day. The fact is the "official" theory accounts for, among other things, all the missing planes. A rival theory needs to account for all the things the competitor does and more. Where is flight 77?

There are a million and one things that the official story does not account for, and I'd prefer not just makes things up to fit, as in the official story.

A "rival theory" is not what I'm proposing. I say that the evidence shows that what crashed into the Pentagon was not a Boeing 757, based on numerous facts making it unlikely. The demise of Flight 77 has absolutely nothing to do with that.

So what happened to Flight 77? It was missing from radar for 20 - 30 minutes (the only one of the four planes in which a complete flight path cannot be determined due to that fact), and when it came back on radar, it was performing in a manner that led the Flight Controllers to believe it wasn't Flight 77 at all, but an aircraft more capable of such maneuvers.




Are you going to account for the missing engines?

The engines would not be intact...

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/ats/pentagon757/planeparts-1.jpg

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/ats/pentagon757/Damage9.jpg



Nothing at the Pentagon was positively identified as being anything. Even the FBI admits that it only assumes the small amount of wreckage found was from the hijacked plane. So that's out the window as well.

Because most of the aircraft was nearly disintegrated when it hit the Pentagon. The Pentagon was made with reinforced concrete and the aircraft was made out of aluminum.

Yet, you claim that positive identifications were able to be made of the victims? Which is it?





Since there is not enough evidence that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, and ample evidence showing it to be unlikely, or in some cases, nearly impossible, it is, ironically enough, you that has to account for it's whereabouts, not me.

You are just being delusional. You are ignoring the forensics and the photographic evidence that shows a commercial jetliner hit the Pentagon.

"Your" photos do not come close to proving that Flight77 crashed into the Pentagon. it's beyond obvious that you are the one being delusional considering your willingness to believe absurdities based on the flimsiest of evidence.

There is all sorts of footage of planes hitting the Twin Towers, and none of a plane hitting the Pentagon. Officials confiscated it all. I wonder why.

[El Nino]

Truth does not fear investigation. Release the tapeS!

[notdrunk]

Yet, you claim that positive identifications were able to be made of the victims? Which is it?

body parts...bones...dna



There is all sorts of footage of planes hitting the Twin Towers, and none of a plane hitting the Pentagon. Officials confiscated it all. I wonder why.

Because there was a lot of media covering the first plane "accident" before the second plane stuck the other tower. Nobody in the media at the time knew that one of the targets was going to be the Pentagon.

The "Pentagon videos" (Pentagon security, Citgo, and Doubletree) were released a couple of years.

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Pentagon (scroll down to the bottom)

Yes, I am delusional... :roll:

[The Hierophant]

LMAO, it's amazing that people forget history so quickly. Of course the media knew that targets in DC were under threat, we all heard about additional hijacked planes in the air prior to the Pentagon being attacked. Therefore, we should have plenty of footage for the same reason we have plenty of footage of the 2nd tower being hit. In fact, Fox cameramen filmed the attack of the Pentagon and had their footage confiscated. I wonder what could have been determined from what they filmed? Too bad we will never know.

What footage is out there now? Nothing, just the "mystery plane" in the air after the attack, which to this day, no one can account for. But is there any footage of Flight 77 at all? No. I would expect at least some footage of the plane coming in, or overhead, or somewhere in the vicinity, but nope. there is absolutely no evidence that Flight 77 even made it back to DC, let alone crashed into the Pentagon. There is ample evidence against.

And I don't know what you've been smoking, but the still photo frames at the bottom of that page don't show anything. In fact, they are seemingly doctored. Look at the smudge in the top left. It changes, then goes back to what it looked like before. Add to that the fact that they were released years later, and photo analysis has already shown that the explosion in the photos, when compared with a 3-d model of the area, is in the wrong place.

Also, how phone calls saying that the plane was hijacked - which being at the top of the page seems to be that guys best evidence - proves that it crashed into the Pentagon is far beyond the realm of speculation, and into the realm of total idiocy. And that postcard with one of the "hijackers" names on it is sure some damning evidence. Sure, planes disintegrated, yet that postcard survived. It's amazing people are so gullible as to buy such absurdities. Hey, I have this really nice bridge that you might want to buy...

[notdrunk]

What Fox cameraman? You just made a statement and you have not shown proof of this alleged seizure or even provided a name.

Identification (it isn't a postcard) is not made of flammable paper or aluminum. Bodies are not made out of aluminum. I am sure the teams found other personal artifacts belonging to the passengers and crew that survived the crash and fire.

If you want to see the raw footage of those frames...here it is...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LJvFjsl6zk
http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2006/KABC1202-11pm.wmv

There is ample evidence that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon in Virgina. The remains of crew members and passengers of Flight 77 were found at the crash site.

You are just coming off as delusional. I am bringing out facts and you are just making accusations with no proof.

[notdrunk]

I am done "debating" with you because this is a waste of time and energy now. I have provided sufficient evidence that a 757 probably hit the Pentagon on 9/11/2001 killing 189 individuals. You have provided no real evidence to support your beliefs except your personal opinion. Your opinion is not considered to be expert opinion. If this was a real debate, you would of lost.

Good day to you... :wink:

[The Hierophant]

I am done "debating" with you because this is a waste of time and energy now. I have provided sufficient evidence that a 757 probably hit the Pentagon on 9/11/2001 killing 189 individuals. You have provided no real evidence to support your beliefs except your personal opinion. Your opinion is not considered to be expert opinion. If this was a real debate, you would of lost.

Good day to you... :wink:

You haven't provided any evidence, let alone sufficient, so it's no wonder that you have quite wisely decided to run away. Videos that show nothing, photographs of wreckage that could be anything, paper that doesn't burn while metal is vaporizing, and official reports that conflict with known facts, and occasionally, known physics. None of that comes close to evidence, it sounds more like a fairy tale.

I'm glad you were smart enough to put "debate" in quotes, though, considering it's quite one sided. You haven't participated at all, you just post links.

By the way, the phrase is "would have", not "would of."

[notdrunk]

You haven't provided any evidence, let alone sufficient, so it's no wonder that you have quite wisely decided to run away. Videos that show nothing, photographs of wreckage that could be anything, paper that doesn't burn while metal is vaporizing, and official reports that conflict with known facts, and occasionally, known physics. None of that comes close to evidence, it sounds more like a fairy tale.

I'm glad you were smart enough to put "debate" in quotes, though, considering it's quite one sided. You haven't participated at all, you just post links.

By the way, the phrase is "would have", not "would of."

You are funny...:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I do not have those videos or photographs stored on my computer. So, I searched the internet for those items. You have only posted your personal opinion. Just because you say something doesn't mean it is the gospel. You need something called "evidence" to support your opinion or be an expert in that particular field. You are just grasping at air. I have shown evidence to support my theory. You have done nothing.

Aluminum is very flammable. The aircraft was made with aluminum. The hijacker's identification was not "made" with paper.

My theory is that a 757 hit the Pentagon on 9/11/2001. Most people agree that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Only truthers believe that something else hit it and they are ignored because they cannot understand reason. You are just in denial.

I am starting to think that you are actually delusional; however, you are a good grammar Nazi.

Maybe someone will straighten you out because I do not have the patience to do so.

[The Hierophant]

My theory is that a 757 hit the Pentagon on 9/11/2001. Most people agree that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

Yeah, really? And where is the proof? It sure wasn't Flight 77 because the NTSB released the black box from what was supposedly Flight 77 and the data shows that the plane never went below 273 feet. The Pentagon is 71 feet, and the lampposts which were hit are less than 50 feet.

That's not my opinion, those are known facts. Facts making it impossible for Flight 77 to have crashed into the Pentagon.

Not to mention, there is no proof that Flight 77 even made it back to Washington. It was lost on radar, and what showed up 20 - 3- minutes later was a plane that Flight Controllers didn't believe was even a Boeing 757.

That's not my opinion, either. It is a known fact. A fact making it unlikely that Flight 77 even made it back to DC.

Basically, you just believe nonsense because that's what you are told to believe and that's what everyone else is doing. Great proof you have there. Proof that you're gullible, that's about it.

[techi]

1) Isn't it a little ridiculous to think that someone with barely enough knowledge on how to fly a plane was able to take a 757 thru the barn storming manuvers required to hit the pentagon? An airforce veteran yes, maybe a pre-programmed or remote controlled aircraft, but a flight school flunky... I don't buy it.What barnstorming maneuvers? It's not hard to fly a plane once it's in the air. The hard part is taking off & landing safely. To slam into a building, all you have to do is point. The pentagon's a real big target.

Look at the supposed "truther debunking" provided by notadrunk:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html

"The approach maneuver was, in several ways, extreme and unusual for a jetliner. According to reports the plane descended seven thousand feet and turned over 270 degrees in the last three minutes and then approached the west side of the Pentagon at a very low altitude, clipping some obstacles and narrowly avoiding others on its low-angle approach that ended with its careening primarily into the Pentagon's first floor. "

"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air-traffic controllers, that that was a military plane. ... You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe. "

The debunk article goes on to natter about it being technically possible for a 757 to perform that manuvre. And yeah sure fine... the plane could be a 757. BUT not one piloted by some flight school flunky. The plane made a drastic elevation drop to treetop level and buzzed the ground knocking over lampposts on it's way to the pentagon. A flight school failout did this? I think you'd have to be on crack to believe that.

So who was the pilot? I don't know. I just know that the official story is simply unbelievable.

[techi]

On a side note, Cynthia McKinney has just been released today from an Israeli jail. She's the Congresswoman who had been dogging Donald Rumsfeld about 2.3 Trillion in unaccounted spending by the DoD. She was captured by Israeli's in international waters aboard a ship filled with humanitarian aid for Gaza.

The interesting thing to note here is that when a random American gets kidnapped by Somali pirates it's front page news, yet when a US Congresswoman gets kidnapped by Israeli pirates it's not even in the US mainstream news.

Wow! I had not heard this about Cynthia McKinney. She was also a Presidential candidate.

Yeah, funny that US mainstream media makes a HUGE deal out of a couple random Americans being kidnapped by Somali pirates but when Israeli pirates kidnap a US politician there isn't ANY reporting of it at all.

[hippifried]

My theory is that a 757 hit the Pentagon on 9/11/2001. Most people agree that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

Yeah, really? And where is the proof? It sure wasn't Flight 77 because the NTSB released the black box from what was supposedly Flight 77 and the data shows that the plane never went below 273 feet. The Pentagon is 71 feet, and the lampposts which were hit are less than 50 feet.

That's not my opinion, those are known facts. Facts making it impossible for Flight 77 to have crashed into the Pentagon.Apples & oranges. The pentagon is 71 feet high, assuming that that's a real number, & lamp posts are anywhere from 20 ft to 50 ft, depending on the circumstance. Height is distance up from a point. The "point" of measurement for structures (buildings or posts) is the ground. The 273 ft on the flight data recorder is altitude. Elevation above average sea level. Washington DC isn't on the coast. It's up the Potomac. Its ground elevation runs from 0 - 409 feet. What's the altitude of the Pentagon at ground level?



Not to mention, there is no proof that Flight 77 even made it back to Washington. It was lost on radar, and what showed up 20 - 3- minutes later was a plane that Flight Controllers didn't believe was even a Boeing 757.

That's not my opinion, either. It is a known fact. A fact making it unlikely that Flight 77 even made it back to DC.

Basically, you just believe nonsense because that's what you are told to believe and that's what everyone else is doing. Great proof you have there. Proof that you're gullible, that's about it.Aaah! So now we're back to Trish's question. Where's the plane? & that leads us back to all the "...if not the plane, what hit the building?..." & blah blah blah through the roundy rounds of inanity. But there's an easy way to settle this. If the searchers of the rubble found the flight data recorder, which you say they did with that claim of a 273 ft lowest altitude point after takeoff, doesn't that box also identify the plane & flight number?

[techi]

The men accused of hijacking that plane didn't have the skill to fly a 757 into the pentagon via the documented route that the plane took.

There are so many questions about the pentagon hit because the 911 Commission investigation and report are a pile of poo.

[hippifried]

The men accused of hijacking that plane didn't have the skill to fly a 757 into the pentagon via the documented route that the plane took.

There are so many questions about the pentagon hit because the 911 Commission investigation and report are a pile of poo.Fiddle faddle. A plane is a plane. You have a stick-wheel, rudder pedals, & a power control. All the rest is about getting the plane safely from point A to point B, automatic controls, takeoff & landing, & contact with the ground. All things that they had no interest in. A passenger jet is just big, but they had hundreds of miles to turn them around. They planned this for a year or more. All the flight maps are public domain. So are the plats for government buildings. Even in 2001 you could get satellite imagry. The planes are loaded with up to date GPS. You can buy a flight simulator at Walmart that shows you all the things you have to turn off to take manual control of the plane. The pentagon is a huge building that's easy to spot from the air. What skill? They were crashing the planes.

& you know that the report is bogus... , ...How? I suppose you've read it completely, sans the national security deletes of course.

[loren]

You can show these :crazy "truthers" all the evidence. You can show them the videos, photos, and read the eye witness accounts to them (it's easier to let someone else read, and simply agree with what they say :lol: ). You can talk to them until you are literally blue in the face and out of words, they will never believe you. For them, the fictional conspiracy makes more sence than the real truth.

[techi]

You can show these :crazy "truthers" all the evidence. You can show them the videos, photos, and read the eye witness accounts to them (it's easier to let someone else read, and simply agree with what they say :lol: ). You can talk to them until you are literally blue in the face and out of words, they will never believe you. For them, the fictional conspiracy makes more sence than the real truth.

What conspiracy? I'm just saying that the 911 commission report is a pile of trash. I don't know what happened but I do know that the 911 commission report is incomplete and at times very questionable.

I really don't think you need to be an Alex Jones tinfoil nutcase or a 90 year old senile ex-army major to question the 911 Commission Report. In fact, I think you need to be braindead to be content with that investigation report.

Look at some of the ex-CIA officials that openly and publicly challenge the report:
Robert Baer
Raymond McGovern
William Christison
Melvin Goodman
Robert David Steele
Lynne Larkin
David MacMichael

And there was 0 accoutability for 911... no one was fired or demoted. Hell, the FBI didn't even manage to put together a 911 case against Bin Laden. Take a look at the FBI 10 most wanted list, Bin Laden is on there but only for the Kenya Embassy bombings. After 911 we invaded an entire country because the Taliban would not hand over Bin Laden. Yet even 8 years later our FBI still doesn't have a case to charge him with 911.

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

Also, who's the crackhead that puts Thomas Kean in charge of the 911 Commission? Thomas Kean is a director of Amerada Hess Corporation, which is involved in the Hess-Delta joint venture with Delta Oil of Saudi Arabia. The joint venture was formed in 1998 for the development and exporation of oil fields in the Caspian region. Kean might be a stand up guy but there's enough conflicts of interest here to make your head spin.

[The Hierophant]

Yeah, flying a 757 is so damn easy. The easiest part is dropping 7,000 feet in seconds, and then leveling off a few feet from the ground, then fly inches off the ground over a giant lawn to crash into only the first floor of a building. That shit is cake. And these pilots make 6 figures to fly a handful of times a year, I don't know why all of us aren't lining up with applications in our hands.

I'm probably an equally skilled pilot as Hani Hanjour; I mean, he sucked at even the simulator. I'm not half bad at it.

[techi]

ex-CIA Robert Baer states "I know the guy that went to his broker in San Diego and said cash me out, it's going down tomorrow. His brother works in the whitehouse."

Have Baer's statements been refuted or fully investigated?

Robert Baer isn't a random nobody, he spent over 20 years in the CIA and has been interviewed on numerous television shows as a mid east expert: CBS, MSNBC, FOX... all of em

His statements should not be ignorable, if it's true then we have a shitstorm on our hands. If it's false then great, but eitherway it's not something that can be left hanging. Leaving stuff like this hanging creates volumns of forums posts like this one! :)

[hippifried]

Yeah yeah yeah... The reason pilots make the big bucks is that when that dude set down in the Hudson, everybody walked away. I don't think that was a big priority for the 9/11 hijackers. Any pilot could do what they did. Anybody with minimal knowlege & training in any plane could do it. There were no fancy maneuvers. Arlington & DC are relatively flat, & the Pentagon's on the banks of the Potomac. You guy's don't know what you're talking about.

The CIA is pissed because they got raked over the coals by the 9/11 commission for being clueless. Aawww, poor babies got their feelings hurt & their budget looked at.

Not that I've looked very hard, but I haven't seen any real reference to that San Diego broker quote by Robert Baer, who retired in '97 & was hawking his book at the time of 9/11. But here's a quote by him:
"For the record, I don't believe that the World Trade Center was brought down by our own explosives, or that a rocket, rather than an airliner, hit the Pentagon. I spent a career in the CIA trying to orchestrate plots, wasn't all that good at it, and certainly couldn't carry off 9/11. Nor could the real pros I had the pleasure to work with."

[techi]

The CIA is pissed because they got raked over the coals by the 9/11 commission for being clueless. Aawww, poor babies got their feelings hurt & their budget looked at.

Not that I've looked very hard, but I haven't seen any real reference to that San Diego broker quote by Robert Baer, who retired in '97 & was hawking his book at the time of 9/11. But here's a quote by him: "For the record, I don't believe that the World Trade Center was brought down by our own explosives, or that a rocket, rather than an airliner, hit the Pentagon. I spent a career in the CIA trying to orchestrate plots, wasn't all that good at it, and certainly couldn't carry off 9/11. Nor could the real pros I had the pleasure to work with."


Just google words in the quote... "Robert Baer broker San Diego Whitehouse". There's a youtube video of him saying it so it's not like you have to take anyones word on it. The interviewers are kooks but whatever... Baer himself isn't a tinhat conspiracy type. Maybe he's just crying cause the CIA got hurt but it really doesn't seem like it to me.

And I agree, Baer has never said a rocket hit the pentagon or any of the other off the wall conspiracy stuff. What he typically does say about 911 is that the investigation left much unanswered and too many unaccountable.

Personally I believe a plane did hit the pentagon but I think the pilot had to be a pro. Maybe they incorrectly ID'd the guy or have an incomplete background on him. Dunno.

[hippifried]

The 9/11 attacks took preparation, but there was really nothing complicated about it. No weapons to smuggle. They commandeered the planes without much more than chutzpah & the knowlege that the flying public had been conditioned to remain passive during such situations. If my country hadn't been the target, I could admire the brilliance of the simplicity. The only special skill involved was a single minded focus on the mission. I imagine the spook community was awestruck. The so called "professionals" in the security biz are still chasing their tails 8 years later & trying to claim credit for it not happening again, but the truth is that it was a one shot deal that can't happen again. The flying public is no longer conditioned to remain passive in such situations.

[techi]

The investigation was terrible and incomplete. No one was held accountable on our side.

[El Nino]

Remote Control.

[techi]

One key to understanding why the 911 investigation is so bad/incomplete is Saudi money in Washington DC. It's not an exageration to say that Saudi "petro-dollars" pumped into public and private US corporations(not to mention charities) act as Washington DC's 401-K plan.

The Saudi's invest selectively and are consistently generous to those that tow the line. Everyone in DC wins by playing ball with the Saudi's so there's absolutely no incentive to rock the boat or even broach the subject for that matter. Saudi money influence in Washington is yet another example of "don't ask don't tell" DC politics.

Most of the 911 hijackers came in on Saudi passports yet all lines of inquiry that led back to Saudi Arabia were dropped like hot potato's. Saudi Ambassador Bandar was funding the member of Saudi intelligence who was acting as handler for 3 of the hijackers. Investigating those relationships was a non-starter. Who in his right mind in Washington is gonna investigate "Bandar Bush" no matter what he did or didn't do!

President Bush certainly wasn't gonna do it. Prince Bandar is very capable of financially ruining not only the Bush family but also a long laundry list of Bush allies.

I think it's clear that some of the Saudi Princes were very involved in 911. Imo, Saudi influence in Washington DC is a MUCH worse problem than the ever annoying AIPAC lobby.

[hippifried]

The number one priority of alQaeda is to depose the house of Saud.

I think there's way too much amateur speculation & second guessing in regards to 9/11. Maybe the reason for the report seeming incomplete is that there really isn't all that much information to be had. All the hijackers died. And of course, none of us are privvy to all the classified stuff.

[techi]

The number one priority of alQaeda is to depose the house of Saud.

I think there's way too much amateur speculation & second guessing in regards to 9/11. Maybe the reason for the report seeming incomplete is that there really isn't all that much information to be had. All the hijackers died. And of course, none of us are privvy to all the classified stuff.

It seems certain that the Saudi government is a rather unloved clusterfuck but I'm far less sure that Al Qaeda is targeting the house of Saud. If anything the evidence points toward Al Qaeda being a creation and tool of elements within the house of Saud.

There isn't enough information to be had on 911 because not enough questions are being asked. And yeah, that does lead to a lot of speculation, some of it pretty crazy.

[hippifried]

The questions are being asked. There's just no answers to be had. It's all speculation & assumption. I'm still not totally convinced that alQaeda is the culprit, or that Osama binLaden ordered any part of it. It's not like there's any clear forensics. Who are we supposed to ask? During his 180 plus some odd sessions on the waterboard, Khalid Sheik Mohammed claimed to be the mastermind for every terrorist attack worldwide for a decade or more. How come we never heard of him before he showed up in Guantanamo? There's something wrong with that picture.

What evidence? What do we really know other than 4 planes were jacked & 3 hit their targets?There could have even been a fifth one where they chickened out. The reality is that nobody really knows shit, & there's no way to find out. I'm relatively certain that our reactions haven't done anything to help & have been mostly counterproductive.

AlQaeda's stated priority hit list had been made public by them prior to 9/11. If memory serves:
1) House of Saud
2) Saddam Hussein (no longer a problem)
3) Israel
4) Brits
5) US
There's more but I never cared after us.

[JelenaCD]

THX1138 , i will now put you on my list of crackpots on HA !

[techi]

The questions are being asked.


That's just what isn't happening and hasn't been happening. FBI whisleblowers such as Sibel Edmonds make a common point that significant leads in the 911 attacks have not been investigated.

That doesn't mean that our government planned the 911 attacks... it just means that there's a lot of rocks out there that our government didn't want to look under.

Anyway, the "loose change" investigation is a scooby-doo college kid investigation.... it's not even remotely serious in it's methods.

Mike Ruppert makes a much more serious critical study of 911 and it's relationship to our banks, the CIA and drug laundering.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiDX6UQl2no

[techi]

Here's another FBI agent turned whistleblower:

Ex-FBI Agent: Why I Support a New 9/11 Investigation

By Coleen Rowley
http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/07/ex-fbi-agent-why-i-support-a-new-911-investigation/

I gotta say, there's every reason to believe that the 911 investigation was steered from the top down for political reasons (reasons to invade Iraq). And just look at what's coming out now on Dick Cheney running secret CIA programs outside the chain of command with no Congressional aproval. There's absolutely no reason to believe that Bush/Cheney and the gaggle of neocons that they brought into the administration didn't severly hinder/direct the 911 investigation.

[techi]

For the "towers demolition" crowd, here's a detailed rundown of the cross ownership of the impact floors of the WTC Towers along with maintanence records.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0907/S00124.htm

One thing that jumps out at me is that Bush's cousin was supposed to have a meeting on the 105th floor that morning but he moved the meeting to another building the evening before. Apparently he didn't tell very many of the meeting attendees because 11 of them died on the 105th floor.



Moving to floor 83 of the south tower, there was AON Corporation, a Chicago-based competitor of Marsh. Today, General Richard Myers, one of the people most responsible for not protecting us on 9/11, is a director at AON. But on 9/11, the most interesting character working for AON was Jim Pierce, the cousin of George W. Bush. Jim’s father Scott Pierce, formerly a partner at G.H. Walker & Co, pled guilty to 2,000 counts of mail fraud in 1985, as President of E.F. Hutton.

Jim Pierce was managing director of AON on 9/11, and he had arranged a meeting on the 105th floor of the south tower for that morning. Pierce survived that day, despite the fact that twelve people came to the meeting in the south tower, and eleven of them died. The location of the meeting had been changed, the night before, to the Millenium Hotel, where Pierce watched the south tower as it was hit by the aircraft. Apparently the meeting attendees were not all notified of the change in location.[51]

[techi]

Ok, whatever hit the Pentagon wasn't a 767. Yeah, no shit.

I mean, forget than the fact it's pretty much impossible for a plane that size to pull off that kind of maneuver, but the eyewitness testimony alone is enough. You have people talking about the plane flying 25 - 50 feet above them, which is corroborated by the lamp posts which were knocked down, and some surveillance photos which were released years later. If a 767 Jet flew over you at 50 feet going 500 mph, you'd be picked up like a leaf.

Now, you can say that the eyewitnesses were mistaken about how high the plane was, but the lamp posts, photos, and the damage to the pentagon all agree. Whatever hit the pentagon was flying at near ground level, and it damn sure doesn't seem like it could have been a 767.

I still don't have any real evidence that would suggest to me that it wasn't a plane but I did just run across this:

June 2001: NORAD exercise Amalgam Virgo 01 "was a scenario involving a cruise missile launched by "a rogue (government) or somebody" from a barge off the East Coast. "
http://www.militaryconnections.com/news_story.cfm?textnewsid=27

So it is true that as of a couple months before 9/11 the military did have a civilian barge setup to launch cruise missles stationed somewhere along the eastern seaboard. And actually, the barge could be owned by a private defense contractor... the article doesn't go into that level of detail.

I honestly don't get why we didn't have pro footage of the plane hitting the pentagon released on the day of 9/11. I just don't see how that was any kind of state secret. And god knows that camera crews were everywhere plus that area is loaded with static camera's.

[hippifried]

For the "towers demolition" crowd, here's a detailed rundown of the cross ownership of the impact floors of the WTC Towers along with maintanence records. Ok... Now what?
Is somebody making the claim that certain floors were specifically targeted? The fanatics were counting the floors during their suicide, because they wanted to hit the sweet spot? & I suppose the mainenance & meeting schedules were passed to them by the Bilderbergers or AIPAC or something.

IT'S A BUILDING THE SIZE OF A FUCKING MOUNTAIN!
Ask Patsy Cline how much skill it takes to slam an airplane into the side of a mountain. The second plane hit the corner. They were aiming at the broad side of the barn & almost missed.

Sorry, but I fail to see any relevance in who was doing what on any given floor of WTC on 9/11. I don't know. Maybe it's me. I guess I should go renew my scrip for gullibe pills?

[Rogers]

I suppose the mainenance & meeting schedules were passed to them by the Bilderbergers or AIPAC or something.

Ooooo, was that aimed at me, hippi? :lol: It isn't me who believes that Al-Qaeda weren't behind 9/11.


We took a huge leap of faith when we accepted the idea that there was some Dr Evil type mastermind sitting in Afghanistan pulling the puppet strings. Personally, I'm still not convinced, & I haven't seen anything but a lot of declarations. No evidence.
http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=45088&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=20

Or at least seemingly did until very recently. :wink:


Ok Rogers, call me spanked on the alQaeda connection to 9/11. I concede.
http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=45088&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30

If you have a problem with anything I've said about A.I.P.A.C. then you should feel free to take it to the relevant thread. I won't bite. Trust me, I have the utmost respect for you, largely because I usually agree with what you say about most things. Most things anyway...


Israel is irrelevant. It's not our job to promote Judaism or zionism, & we're not at war with Islam.

[techi]

For the "towers demolition" crowd, here's a detailed rundown of the cross ownership of the impact floors of the WTC Towers along with maintanence records. Ok... Now what?
Is somebody making the claim that certain floors were specifically targeted? The fanatics were counting the floors during their suicide, because they wanted to hit the sweet spot? & I suppose the mainenance & meeting schedules were passed to them by the Bilderbergers or AIPAC or something.

IT'S A BUILDING THE SIZE OF A FUCKING MOUNTAIN!
Ask Patsy Cline how much skill it takes to slam an airplane into the side of a mountain. The second plane hit the corner. They were aiming at the broad side of the barn & almost missed.

Sorry, but I fail to see any relevance in who was doing what on any given floor of WTC on 9/11. I don't know. Maybe it's me. I guess I should go renew my scrip for gullibe pills?

Oh, that stuff didn't interest me at all. Except the one point that I specifically mentioned regarding Bush's cousin. The facts regarding Jim Pierce don't make a whole lot of sense:

- Jim Pierce is Bush's cousin.
- Jim Pierce was the managing director of a company located in the WTC towers
- Jim Pierce scheduled a meeting for the morning of 9/11 in a meeting room on the 105th floor of his WTC tower.
- On the evening of 9/10 Jim Pierce moved his meeting out of the WTC complex and to a hotel up the street.
- The reason given for moving the meeting was that the 105th floor WTC room wasn't going to be big enough for those invited.
- 12 of those invited to the meeting still ended up going to the 105th floor of the WTC for the meetng. 11 of them died.

What doesn't add up is:
- Not telling people that the meeting has been moved defeats the purpose of getting a bigger room. In the age of cellphones it's not difficult to inform people of a meeting change.
- It's very odd that it suddenly occured to him the night before that the scheduled meeting room was too small. Why the sudden last minute after hours revelation? What details could have possibly changed that evening?

TBH, the facts point toward Jim Pierce being tipped off the evening before that he should not be in the WTC Towers the next morning. So who tipped him off? It's entirely possible that the Israeli's could have but that's probably not the only possibility.

On it's own, you could chalk this up to a terrible/clueless company director being incredibily lucky(he is related to Bush after all). But there are a mountain of such extremely lucky one in a million events that if you start explaining them all away you sound as crazy as the people that claim that no planes hit the WTC towers.

Take a look at some of the other oddities surrounding 9/11 and the anthrax attacks:

ex-CIA Agent Robert Baer says his friend went to his broker on 9/10 and said "cash me out, it's going down tomorrow". This becomes worrying when Robert Baer adds in the fact that the guys brother worked at the Whitehouse. Were solid facts about the coming attacks known by the entire administration? I think that would be a crazy over assumption. People will trade on rumors if they buy into them. At the very least I'd assume that rumors of an attack were floating around the Whitehouse.

In general, there was a lot of odd trading in the leadup to 9/11. The 9/11 commission mostly just said that the odd trading did not link back to known terrorist groups(Bin Laden & Co). I don't question that finding but I'm more interested in the possibility that information on the attacks had leaked to the investment community beforehand.

Zim American Israeli Shipping Co., Inc moved out of the WTC just days before 9/11. That wouldn't be too odd except they broke thier lease, they were paid up thru the end of the year. They lost $50,000 breaking that lease. Proof that Israel was involved? No, not hardly. It just suggests that Israeli intelligence knew that something was brewing involving the WTC.

Police received several calls from angry New Jersey residents claiming "middle-eastern" men with a white van were videotaping the disaster with shouts of joy and mockery. The men in question were arrested and it turns out that they were Israeli's. Israeli's who started taping the 911 WTC attack BEFORE the 1st plane hit and from across the river in NJ. The men were detained for months, all failed lie detector tests. This is just more evidence that Israeli intelligence knew something was up.

And there was the fact that Bush and his Whitehouse staff started taking Cipro a week before the initial Anthrax letters were even put in the mail. Who told Bush&Co to start taking Cipro and why?

I think that known facts regarding the events of 9/11 point toward the idea that many people knew of the events in advance. Bush's cousin Jim Pierce... that's just another likely case of a tipoff/warning.

[hippifried]

Clotho gathers the flax & spins the threads.
Lachesis measures the thread & positions it.
Atropos makes the final cut on each thread.
Together, the Moirae weave the great tapestry of life.

Blame the Fates. Many times, there just isn't a human explanation for coincidence.

[techi]

Clotho gathers the flax & spins the threads.
Lachesis measures the thread & positions it.
Atropos makes the final cut on each thread.
Together, the Moirae weave the great tapestry of life.

Blame the Fates. Many times, there just isn't a human explanation for coincidence.

The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves
- Shakespeare

There are answers, we might not have them yet but we'll get there.

[techi]

AlQaeda's stated priority hit list had been made public by them prior to 9/11. If memory serves:
1) House of Saud
2) Saddam Hussein (no longer a problem)
3) Israel
4) Brits
5) US
There's more but I never cared after us.

Given the information that has come out regarding Osama Bin Laden and Al Quaeda in the last few years, I think the official Al Qaeda list of demands is a fiction.

Based on what Sibel Edmonds is saying, the understanding of Al Quaeda & Osama Bin Laden provided by mainstream media and official government sources is a lie.

What does Sibel Edmonds say?
- the US government relationship with Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban did not end with the fall of the Soviet Union.
- the US government had a very intimate relationship with Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban all the way up till Sept 11, 2001. The relationship was active and heavily used.
- the United States has been using Turkey, along with actors from Pakistan, and Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia to carry out a lot of operations in central asia.

Is Sibel Edmonds just full of shit? Well, she has been screened by Daniel Ellsberg and he believes that she is credible and telling the truth. For those that don't know Daniel Ellsberg, he's the ex-Rand Corporation researcher that leaked the Pentagon Papers to the press.... helped end the Vietnam war. He's a serious guy and he's lent his credibility to what Sibel Edmonds has been saying.

Here's a recent interview with Sibel Edmonds on the matter:
http://www.bradblog.com/audio/MikeMalloy_BradFriedman_GuestHost_062409_Hour2.mp3

[hippifried]

I don't know if she's full of shit or not, & neither does anybody else, but she seems a bit nutty & she's definitely milking her position. All irrelevant because the priority list came from alQaeda through alJazeera, & they have their own sources that the FBI only wishes they could they could tap.

[techi]

I don't know if she's full of shit or not, & neither does anybody else, but she seems a bit nutty & she's definitely milking her position. All irrelevant because the priority list came from alQaeda through alJazeera, & they have their own sources that the FBI only wishes they could they could tap.

Oh, I have no doubt that the list came from alQuaeda. The question is, who has alQuaeda been working for? If alQuaeda has been working for the CIA right up to 9/11 then the sincerity of the lists content is in serious doubt.

[notdrunk]

I don't know if she's full of shit or not, & neither does anybody else, but she seems a bit nutty & she's definitely milking her position. All irrelevant because the priority list came from alQaeda through alJazeera, & they have their own sources that the FBI only wishes they could they could tap.

Oh, I have no doubt that the list came from alQuaeda. The question is, who has alQuaeda been working for? If alQuaeda has been working for the CIA right up to 9/11 then the sincerity of the lists content is in serious doubt.

Any sane person knows that Al-Qaeda was/is not in bed with the CIA. Why would the CIA work with an organization that attacks American interests?

[techi]

I don't know if she's full of shit or not, & neither does anybody else, but she seems a bit nutty & she's definitely milking her position. All irrelevant because the priority list came from alQaeda through alJazeera, & they have their own sources that the FBI only wishes they could they could tap.

Oh, I have no doubt that the list came from alQuaeda. The question is, who has alQuaeda been working for? If alQuaeda has been working for the CIA right up to 9/11 then the sincerity of the lists content is in serious doubt.

Any sane person knows that Al-Qaeda was/is not in bed with the CIA. Why would the CIA work with an organization that attacks American interests?

Apparently you think sane people don't read history books.

Notdrunk, how can you possibly say that the CIA was not at one point in bed with these people? Do you understand the origins of this group? Built by the CIA in the late 1970's with the assistance of the Saudi Arabia and Pakistan for the purpose of asymmetric warfare with the Soviets in Afghanistan. I mean... this is not even a question, it's well documented.

The only question is, when if ever did it's relations with the CIA come to an end. Official accounts state that relations broke down after the fall of the Soviet Union. Whistleblowers from our intelligence agencies sing a different tune.

You do ask one very good question. Why would elements of the US intelligence establishment support attacks against US interests? I agree, it sounds nutso. But lets take a look at some of the statements that were coming out of our foreign policy community in the years leading up to 9/11/2001:

The Neocons "Project for a New American Century": Chapter 5 of that project is entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force" talks about speeding up needed transformation via "some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor". Neocon crazy talk for sure, but these are the people that were dominant in the Bush administration. Why did these nutbags think America needed a new Pearl Harbor?

Zbigniew Brzezinski, the creator of what later became known as alQuaeda wrote a book in the 1998 called "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives". Much of that work was focused on "the exercise of power on the Eurasian landmass in a post-Soviet environment". Here's a couple quotes from the book:

"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." (p. 211)

- "The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America's engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor." (pp 24-5)

So again, we have pearl harbor references coming out of our foreign policy establishment relating to central asia and US power projection. Talk of pearl harbor and US power projection in central asia sounds like nutso crazy talk to me but I have to say that Zbigniew Brzezinksi is very smart and very influential. Why is Zbig saying these things?

Or more recently, ex-CIA Bin Laden unit agent Michael Scheuer has called for another massive attack on America by Osama Bin Laden in order to save America. The only thing that can save America is another massive attack by Bin Laden he says. Why are elements of our intelligence community still saying these seemingly crazy nutbag things?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auQJVhNH99c&feature=related

So back to your question: "Why would the CIA work with an organization that attacks American interests?" Maybe you should be asking that to our intelligence and foreign policy community since they are the ones that have been saying that such attacks are needed.

[notdrunk]

You must read crappy history books.

During the late 1980s, Al-Qaeda evolved from the Maktab al-Khidamat (MAK). The MAK was an international organization that sent Arabs to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets. Osama Bin Laden was a main leader in the MAK. The United States used the ISI (Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence) as the middle man for giving funds to the native Afghan mujahideen.

There has been no direct connection between the CIA and the MAK.

Zbigniew Brzezinski was not the creator what later became known as Al-Qaeda. Osama bin Laden created Al-Qaeda.

Scheuer isn't an active member of the intelligence community. He is a private citizen with his own opinion.

[techi]

You must read crappy history books.

During the late 1980s, Al-Qaeda evolved from the Maktab al-Khidamat (MAK). The MAK was an international organization that sent Arabs to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets. Osama Bin Laden was a main leader in the MAK. The United States used the ISI (Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence) as the middle man for giving funds to the native Afghan mujahideen.

There has been no direct connection between the CIA and the MAK.

Zbigniew Brzezinski was not the creator what later became known as Al-Qaeda. Osama bin Laden created Al-Qaeda.

Scheuer isn't an active member of the intelligence community. He is a private citizen with his own opinion.

Characterizing Scheuer as a "private citizen" is the most dishonest whitewash of a responce that I've heard in a while. The guy has been neck deep in CIA handling of Bin Laden for a lengthy period of time.

Michael Scheuer:
- 22 years in the CIA
- Chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station, 1996 to 1999
- Special Advisor to the Chief of the bin Laden unit, September 2001 to November 2004

Zbigniew Brzezinski was the architect of the entire Afghan-Soviet conflict from begining to end. He's a smart man, not the fool you portray him to be. The CIA ran the op and they basically ran the Saudi and Pakistani intelligence services too. They had thier hooks into everything.

The claim that the CIA didn't have it's hooks into the arab fighters is neocon propaganda. It's the kind of crap Yossef Bodansky spews out.

[hippifried]

Wow! You're really gettin' out there in the stratosphere now.

[notdrunk]

Characterizing Scheuer as a "private citizen" is the most dishonest whitewash of a responce that I've heard in a while. The guy has been neck deep in CIA handling of Bin Laden for a lengthy period of time.

Not a dishonest whitewash. He is currently a private citizen and he does not have influence on policy. His view does not represent the intelligence community's view.



Zbigniew Brzezinski was the architect of the entire Afghan-Soviet conflict from begining to end. He's a smart man, not the fool you portray him to be. The CIA ran the op and they basically ran the Saudi and Pakistani intelligence services too. They had thier hooks into everything.

The claim that the CIA didn't have it's hooks into the arab fighters is neocon propaganda. It's the kind of crap Yossef Bodansky spews out.

Brzezinski was the National Security Advisor for Carter. He wasn't the National Security Advisor for Reagan. So, he couldn't of been the architect from the beginning to the end. He got the ball rolling and the Reagan Administration (with others) continued to roll the ball.

What proof do you have that the the CIA ran the ISI and Saudi intelligence? And, what proof do you have that the CIA had their hooks into the Arab fighters?

[techi]

Characterizing Scheuer as a "private citizen" is the most dishonest whitewash of a responce that I've heard in a while. The guy has been neck deep in CIA handling of Bin Laden for a lengthy period of time.

Not a dishonest whitewash. He is currently a private citizen and he does not have influence on policy. His view does not represent the intelligence community's view.



He was a relevant part of the intelligence community during the time period surrouding 9/11, that's the point.

So back to your question:
"Why would the CIA work with an organization that attacks American interests?"

Well we have "the US needs a new pearl harbor" kind of crazy talk coming out of the mouths of people like Brzezinksi and the neocons in the lead up years to 9/11.

And now we have more of the same kind of crazy talk coming from Michael Scheuer, a man who was in charge of the bin laden unit.

And if that's not enough to make you blink, why not take a look at what Donald Rumsfeld has been saying since leaving office:

"An ongoing exploration of the documents related to the Pentagon's "message force multipliers" program has unearthed a clip of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld suggesting that America, having voted the Democrats back into Congressional power, could benefit from suffering another terrorist attack, and doing so in the presence of the very same military analysts who went on to provide commentary and analysis of the Iraq War."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/13/rumsfeld-on-2006-election_n_101537.html

So there you are, attacking America seems to be very popular in some of our intelligence and foreign policy circles.

[buckjohnson]

the truthers and the birthers have something in common...and that is lack of common sense.

What govenment plot has ever been as successful as 9/11. The energy, wealth, lost of lives, political commitment, etc. that 9/11 has cause has shown that the plot worked. You are talking about a government that could not even get water to some thristy folks in the Superdome. They may have liked the american citizens reaction to 9/11, i.e giving up civil rights, increase of unchecked Presidental power , increased military complex development, etc. But to think that the government could plot, must less the CIA could plot 9/11, somehow mustering the complexity of coordinating motive, treasure, people willing to give up their lives,etc.... is nonsense.

[techi]

the truthers and the birthers have something in common...and that is common sense.

Birther's are a pretty narrowly defined group with a common set of proclaimed beliefs. And TBH, the movement seems extremly politically motivated. So much so that I wonder if the majority of birthers believe or even care about the accuracy of thier claims.

Truthers have an extremely varied set of beliefs. And in fact, the only commonality is that they all tend to consider the 9/11 investigation to be incomplete and directed by political interests. They want a new investigation.

If you want to compare birthers to people that post videos claiming that no planes hit the WTC then sure... there's something in common. But there are legitimate concerns within the so called truther movement, the same cannot be said for the birthers.

[loren]

Truthers = :screwy It's amazing that :crap alex jones :puke and his brain-dead minions ("truthers") think that the Federal Government was behind 9/11. This is, after all, the same government that couldn't cover-up a simple motel room break-in [Watergate], the same government that can't deliever your mail on time, the same government that spends $10,000 on a hammer. They expect me to believe, that the same Federal Government that has proven to be :roll: so competent and possesses such foresight :roll:; actually planned and carried out the terrorist attacks on 9/11.

[techi]

Truthers = :screwy It's amazing that :crap alex jones :puke and his brain-dead minions ("truthers") think that the Federal Government was behind 9/11. This is, after all, the same government that couldn't cover-up a simple motel room break-in [Watergate], the same government that can't deliever your mail on time, the same government that spends $10,000 on a hammer. They expect me to believe, that the same Federal Government that has proven to be :roll: so competent and possesses such foresight :roll:; actually planned and carried out the terrorist attacks on 9/11.

Truther = 9/11 investigation sucked. a new investigation is needed.

Alex Jones's government conspiracies are another matter entirely.

[loren]

Truther = 9/11 investigation sucked. a new investigation is needed.

Alex Jones's government conspiracies are another matter entirely.When you concider that :crap alex jones :puke started the "truth movement" and he is heavily involved in organizing and planning its events, then no, his conspiracies are not another matter entirely. And, if you pay attention, every conspiracy that :crap alex jones :puke shouts out on his radio show, somehow works itself into the "truth movement".

[techi]

You don't have to believe a word of Alex Jones "vast government conspiracy" in order to be critical of the 9/11 commission report.

In fact, you have to be just as crazy as Alex Jones in order to fully buy into the 9/11 commission report.

And since when did Alex Jones create the truth movement? Doesn't Alex Jones just ride the wave of all available conspiracy theories that other people have created?

[El Nino]

He didn't create the truth movement... it happened naturally, all across the board; and rightly so.

[trish]

There is no truth, there is only closer. There is no truth movement, only a few fixated losers drifting farther and farther away.

[loren]

He didn't create the truth movement... it happened naturally, all across the board; and rightly so. :roll: right, naturally happened :roll:

[buckjohnson]

the truthers and the birthers have something in common...and that is lack of common sense.

What govenment plot has ever been as successful as 9/11. The energy, wealth, lost of lives, political commitment, etc. that 9/11 has cause has shown that the plot worked. You are talking about a government that could not even get water to some thristy folks in the Superdome. They may have liked the american citizens reaction to 9/11, i.e giving up civil rights, increase of unchecked Presidental power , increased military complex development, etc. But to think that the government could plot, must less the CIA could plot 9/11, somehow mustering the complexity of coordinating motive, treasure, people willing to give up their lives,etc.... is nonsense.

I meant lack of common sense

[techi]

There is no truth, there is only closer.

Exactly why there should be a new official investigation into 9/11. Bush's politically motivated investigation left us rather FAR on some key aspects such as: Saudi involvement, Rumsfelds activities during the attacks and the unresolved issues of the FAA and NORAD.

[loren]

And since when did Alex Jones create the truth movement? Doesn't Alex Jones just ride the wave of all available conspiracy theories that other people have created?I was on Youtube, just watching random news vids and I came across an Alan Colmes radio interview, he interviewed :crap alex jones :puke . At 8:37 :crap alex jones :puke says "I started it."

[techi]

And since when did Alex Jones create the truth movement? Doesn't Alex Jones just ride the wave of all available conspiracy theories that other people have created?I was on Youtube, just watching random news vids and I came across an Alan Colmes radio interview, he interviewed :crap alex jones :puke . At 8:37 :crap alex jones :puke says "I started it."

So Alex Jones is your official source of news? :lol:

Haven't you been busy saying that Alex Jones was an unreliable source of information! I agree that he's unreliable so why quote him?