castledoom.com

[Waray]

Disclaimer: In no way this post is ment to show disrespect of any sort to the casualties of 9/11. Reason for this starter is that I enjoy my membership here and don't like to be removed for a misunderstanding.

I'm specifically asking the Americans here since, well, you live there. :/
How do you feel about the terrorist attack on the Pentagon at September 11?
I've been following a debate on another (Dutch) forum recently & was linked to a documentary (Loose Change) which questioned the plane which flew into the Pentagon (actually questioned a whole lot more). I started watching the doc with the idea it would be another over-the-top conspiracy theory documentary, but it brought some interesting & above all logical pointers about what happened on that day. So I wondered how this is in the US. Is it discussed a lot?
________
Desoto Desoto

[JuntaJoe]

The plane was supposed to attack either the White House or Congress.

This was gathered from the radar images of its erratic flight path and cell phone messages from its passengers.

The pilot could not find those buildings and was worried about being shot down prematurely.

But the Pentagon came into view and it was a quality secondary target.

The pilot also knew that there was a second plane coming into DC and would get another chance at the primary targets.

Of course, that second plane was the one that passengers pulled down in Pensylvannia.



As for how I feel? It was an act of war, imo.

No one here liked those attacks. The only debate is what should be the response to such an attack. Count me in the "burn their damn huts down and salt the earth" camp in that debate.

[Waray]

JuntaJoe wrote: This was gathered from the radar images of its erratic flight path and cell phone messages from its passengers.

Then two decent questions,

1. How come the cell phones worked in the plane?

2. Where are the remains of that plane? Each planecrash in history leaves significant debris.

And why have all video footage of surrounding buildings been confisquated and where never showed to the public? Except that one of the gasstation, which shows nothing at all.
________
SUZUKI KATANA HISTORY

[Brf]

Why wouldnt the cellphones work and who says there wasnt debris? And what "surrounding buildings" are you talking about?? The Pentagon is out by itself. There are no surrounding buildings.

[Waray]

The technology available for calling in the air with a cell phone was implemented by American/United Airlines around 2004. Normally you don't have much signal at 10 km above the ground. I owe you the test with cellphones & the implementation date by the Airliners.

Brf wrote: who says there wasnt debris .

There was. Just not your usual debris for a planecrash. I don't doubt (as is stated in vague theories around the internet) the plane could not penetrate the Pentagon entirely (the silly "oh look at the small hole in the front, how does an airplane fit theories"), it just seems odd to me there is no photographic evidence of engine blocks, tails, etc. from inside the building. Ofcourse the Pentagon is a secured building and all, but couldn't they at least show pics of the engines which partly consist out of titanium and shouldn't have burned entirely?

Brf wrote: And what "surrounding buildings" are you talking about?? The Pentagon is out by itself. There are no surrounding buildings.

Several surrounding buildings had surveillance cameras for the crash, all of them confisquated.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/16/pentagon.video/index.html

From above link:

Previously released still photographs from those cameras show the Pentagon on fire, but no images of the Boeing 757 striking the building have ever been made public.

The video requested by Judicial Watch was taken from security cameras at the Pentagon, the Sheraton National Hotel, the Nexcomm/Citgo gas station, and Virginia Department of Transportation traffic cameras.
________
Zx14 vs hayabusa

[Brf]

Who would have taken the pictures of the plane inside? As you said, it is a secure building. I dont imagine our Tabloid photographers were allowed inside....

And, as for the small hole... The Pentagon is huge. A plane-sized hole would appear small in it.

And cellphones? What cellphones did you hear about that were working 10KM up?

[Waray]

Brf wrote: Who would have taken the pictures of the plane inside? As you said, it is a secure building. I dont imagine our Tabloid photographers were allowed inside....

True, but I doubt the government just removed the debris inside & threw it away without clearly identifying it. So why didn't they disclose pictures of this?

Brf wrote: And, as for the small hole... The Pentagon is huge. A plane-sized hole would appear small in it.

As I said, I agree.

Brf wrote: And cellphones? What cellphones did you hear about that were working 10KM up?

?
That's what I said :/
The height of flight of an airliner is 10 KM. How could they get cellphone messages there?

My bottomline is, there should be a lot more evidence. Logical, clear evidence. If the case is so clear, why isn't it disclosed?
________
FORD MOTOR COMPANY OF CANADA SPECIFICATIONS

[Brf]

Actually, they would have found it very hard to crash into buildings at a height of 10KM, since there are no buildings that high. The planes were flying much lower than that.... And yes, cellphones work at 10KM, even 5 years ago, although their signals were very sporadic.

The story is that most of the supposed cellphone conversations were made-up, but there are public records of several. People make-up stories like that all the time, to sell them to tabloids, so it isnt unusual at all.

[Eddy]

Ok, I know I'll be called a tinfoil hat wearer, but I honestly don't think an airliner crashed into the Pentagon. I also firmly believe that the WTC was brought down with controlled explosives and not a couple of airplanes. This administration is very power hungry and corrupt. A few thousand of the "have-nots" wouldn't concern them.

Anyway, the Pentagon is interesting. An airplane is said to have crashed there, yet there are no airplane parts, no dead bodies, no damage to the front lawn of the building. Another telling point is that the gas station and hotel that had cameras facing the building were raided by FBI agents within minutes of the alleged crash of the plane. Interesting how they could be there within minutes when you consider that New Orleans was doomed and yet it took a week to get people there. How did they know to get there so fast? If this was a surprise, you figure shock alone would delay a response, yet the agents were at the two buildings that had footage within minutes? Come on.

Then there is the "footage" from a camera that was released. It shows a blur that is much too small to be an airplane, yet conveniently is too fast to get a clear picture of it. Yeah. Interesting. I find it amazing that the US Pentagon, the strategic HQ for the USA's entire military machine only has one grainy camera watching it. If I ran the country, you can bet I'd have a bazillion cameras on the place with internet feeds and a standing reward to anyone who sees something that shouldn't be happening.

I don't buy it at all. Bush and his cronies are one of the most dangerous things that have happened to this country because of their bloodlust and ruthlessness. 9-11 is just a convenient way for them to seize power while the sheep bleat about the evil terrorists.

[Brf]

LOL, Eddy.

[Waray]

Eddy wrote: Ok, I know I'll be called a tinfoil hat wearer, but I honestly don't think an airliner crashed into the Pentagon. I also firmly believe that the WTC was brought down with controlled explosives and not a couple of airplanes. This administration is very power hungry and corrupt. A few thousand of the "have-nots" wouldn't concern them.

Was also part of the video I watched, interesting points (believable & logical points!) but I thought it would be too heavy to throw in at once :P
Thank you Eddy.

Eddy wrote: Anyway, the Pentagon is interesting. An airplane is said to have crashed there, yet there are no airplane parts, no dead bodies, no damage to the front lawn of the building. Another telling point is that the gas station and hotel that had cameras facing the building were raided by FBI agents within minutes of the alleged crash of the plane. Interesting how they could be there within minutes when you consider that New Orleans was doomed and yet it took a week to get people there. How did they know to get there so fast? If this was a surprise, you figure shock alone would delay a response, yet the agents were at the two buildings that had footage within minutes? Come on.

To play the devil's advocate here, New Orleans isn't by far a mayor "hub/landmark" inside the US as New York or DC. It is logically acceptable that in the Pentagon knows of each non-governmental surveillance in the neighbourhood and has a back-up plan to confisquate it immediately were anything to happen. Also, each State has it's own emergency back up plans which are to be executed. I don't see how you can compare New Orleans (birthplace of some music styles) with New York (Cultural, economical & political hub of not only the US but of the world!) & DC (avoiding the obvious).
________
Extreme Vaporizer

[Waray]

Brf wrote: Actually, they would have found it very hard to crash into buildings at a height of 10KM, since there are no buildings that high. The planes were flying much lower than that.... And yes, cellphones work at 10KM, even 5 years ago, although their signals were very sporadic.

Annoying statement Brf...:P
In this hightech world a normal human reaction before crashing into a building is to send a textmessage.

A test of a plane which followed most of the trajectory of the plan showed that it the closest succesrate was below 2300 meters, of around 60% receivability.

I need to find the source though :/


For all who is interested, the video that started this argument is the following:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7763546943852727250&q=loose+change+2nd+edition&pl=true

Has some farfetched theories, but uses some strong logic as well. Whatever your opinion people, I suggest you take a look.
________
Strawberry Cough

[Brf]

First of all.... read this article on snopes.com, my favorite urban legend debunking site.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

It has a quote of where one of the airplane engines landed after breaking loose from the rest of the plane.

Also, here is picture of some debris:

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/images/debris.jpg

(snopes doesnt allow direct links)

It seems the plane bounced off the ground before crashing into the Pentagon, breaking through a 24-inch (60 centimetre) thick reinforced outer wall and then through three of the five "rings" that make up the building.

[Maus]

So which is it gonna be? One minute, the Powers That Be are inept bunglers -- dumber than a chunk of sidewalk, barely aware of sound and light, incapable of finding their butts with both hands -- and the next minute they're cunningly and seamlessly engineering a scam requiring massive preparation, down-to-the second coordination, perfect coverup and cooperative silence of thousands of people and hundreds of organizations.

I'm going with the chunk of sidewalk.

[JuntaJoe]

As for cell phones, the spouse of a senior Washington bureaucrat was probably the last call from the plane to the ground.

The Washington official recounted the call from his wife on the plane as she gave a solid description of what was happening on the plane at that time. He said she was pretty sure of the eventual outcome and was proved correct by her demise.

I seriously doubt any man would use the death of his wife to help conjure up a ficticious account of said plane crash.


In any case, I was home that morning and saw the second WTC and Pentagon crashes as they actually happened on the news. I did see the news reporters zooming in on the Pentagon and can attest to a rather large hole and debris field made by the crash. At some point you have to realize that a conspiracy has too many witnesses to hold it up. Too many civilian reporters and civilian emergency personnel were onsite to uphold a fabricated event.

Yes, the military made a point to close the site to outsiders rather quickly after the event. This is Standard Operating Proceedure for the military. But in the initial chaos, many civilian witnesses were onsite.

As for the WTC attack, I SAW the second plane hit with my own eyes on the TV. The second plane was a total surprise to the civilian news crews that had gathered after the first attack and were investigating what had actually happened.


Honestly, it does little good to buy into a vast conspiracy theory. Something on this scale would always have too many loose ends. You simply can't tell that many civilian government workers to buy into a plan that sacrifices their countrymen's lives.

Here's a quality test for said conspiracy:

How many government workers have come forward to support said conspiracy theory?

You see, any that stepped forward to the civilian press would be assured of safe harbor and a rich windfall for their proof by the news agencies.

Trust in the inherent greed of your fellow man that someone with solid bonafides would have reached for the phone and called the Washington Post to cash in had such a conspiracy existed.

[Waray]

Brf wrote: First of all.... read this article on snopes.com, my favorite urban legend debunking site.

First of all, I read that website already. Secondly, I don't think I was making clear what I'm stating:

Waray wrote: I don't doubt (as is stated in vague theories around the internet) the plane could not penetrate the Pentagon entirely (the silly "oh look at the small hole in the front, how does an airplane fit theories")

Bold text shouldn't be there, now my double negatives make it seem like I doubt it :P
I was refering there to the "Hunt the Boeing" theories.

Anyway, I believe you guys are scientifically quite competent, so tell me: why did all 3 planes burn up completely while composed of metal & titanium. Does jetfuel generate such an intense heat it's possible an entire plane burns up?
________
FREE VAPORIZER

[Waray]

JuntaJoe wrote: I did see the news reporters zooming in on the Pentagon and can attest to a rather large hole and debris field made by the crash.

I never doubted the hole. Or the debris from the Pentagon. The debris from the plane (see the nice photo provided from Brf) which interestingly isn't burned like the rest of the plane when considering it just survived a blast.

JuntaJoe wrote: Too many civilian reporters and civilian emergency personnel were onsite to uphold a fabricated event.

Don't those people show up -after- the plane crashed into the building? One simple video could show the entire truth of what happened -at the moment of impact- from a good angle. From the top of a hotelbuilding for instance. Eyewitness statements always different in "panic situations".

(Check http://www.judicialwatch.org/ for interesting details by a lawfirm that wants the tapes made public and acquired 1 already)

JuntaJoe wrote: Yes, the military made a point to close the site to outsiders rather quickly after the event. This is Standard Operating Proceedure for the military.

Absolutely logical. Though they could disclose some of their photos from inside the Pentagon. Which Statesecrets does a burned out building offer that you can't show pics made by state officials while checking the damage after the crash and checking the plane debris? We're almost 5 years later...

JuntaJoe wrote: Honestly, it does little good to buy into a vast conspiracy theory.

Absolutely true. But even the weirdest theories have some interesting viewpoints. I believe the public debate is in the interest of the democracy and you should be able to receive & question any kind of information.
Because basically speaking: the WTC shouldn't have collapsed. It was build that way. So either the materials didn't do what they supposed to (withstand the amount of heat for that amount of time) or something else happened.
________
Volcano vaporizer

[s_stabeler]

as for the WTC, waray, you actually hit the nail on the head. the materials didn't do what they were suppsoed to. it had drywall for fire insulation, so that was blown away, and the fire weakened the floor trusses, they collapsed, the WTC was doomed. end of story. it was actually a design flaw ( I'm SURE I read somewhere ages ago a statement was made by bin laden that the pans were MORE effective than they thought, they only wanted to demolish it above the impact zone) that ended the WTC, and as for the pentagon, a plane crashes into it from an anglew bove, the fuel would have created a |MASSIVE fire, which could well have melted the debris, do you know that some of the people who were killed in the WTC attacks were never foubd? their bodies had literally vaporised. and if holiday snaps were used to plan the D-Day labdings, a debris shot could be used to plan an attack on the pentagon.

[Brf]

[quote="Waray"] Brf wrote: First of all.... read this article on snopes.com, my , so tell me: why did all 3 planes burn up completely while composed of metal & titanium. Does jetfuel generate such an intense heat it's possible an entire plane burns up?

Yes jet fuel has intense heat, but the planes did not burn up completely. There was plenty left over. Re-read that Snopes page. The firechief's statement is one of the most misquoted.

He stated there were no large pieces of the plane left -- the day after the crash. The large pieces were pulverized by the 350MPH(560KPH) impact with the building, the ground beforehand, and the building collapsing onto the plane afterward.

The heat of the fire was so intense that the firefighters could not approach it until several hours after the crash, burning up what was left.

As for a picture for a hotel building... Remember what I said before about The Pentagon. It was built way out by itself in the middle of a swamp, with no surrounding buildings. What would be the quality of such a video, even if someone were lucky enough to be pointing their camera that way? Most of them were probably glued to their television sets watching the WTC footage.

There are plenty of pictures of the aftermath of the crash... I dont put much significance on the fact that only one camera was pointing the correct angle to catch the crash itself.

[Maus]

For more reading, check out the detailed 9/11: Debunking The Myths article which appeared last year in Popular Mechanics, discussing 16 of the most common 9/11 myths.

The "no debris" myths turn up on page 6:

Quote: Flight 77 Debris CLAIM: Conspiracy theorists insist there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon. "In reality, a Boeing 757 was never found," claims pentagonstrike.co.uk, which asks the question, "What hit the Pentagon on 9/11?"

FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

and indirectly on page 3 as part of the "no windows on the WTC planes" myth (includes a photo of Flight 175 debris):

Quote: While heading a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) probe into the collapse of the towers, W. Gene Corley studied the airplane wreckage. A licensed structural engineer with Construction Technology Laboratories, a consulting firm based in Skokie, Ill., Corley and his team photographed aircraft debris on the roof of WTC 5, including a chunk of fuselage that clearly had passenger windows. "It's ... from the United Airlines plane that hit Tower 2," Corley states flatly. In reviewing crash footage taken by an ABC news crew, Corley was able to track the trajectory of the fragments he studied--including a section of the landing gear and part of an engine--as they tore through the South Tower, exited from the building's north side and fell from the sky.