Rumsfeld admits missile in pentagon !!

Originally posted by PepeLapiu1
I did two years of civil engineering in college, I am presemtly building a Sonex airplane from plans (not the kit build) and I took flying classes for a while but I had to give that up due to poor funds. I will probably resume when my airplane is completed and take my lessons with my own aircraft to reduce costs (if I can find an instructor dumb enough to climb in with me that is

)

A civil engineer with some private plane experience and a retired ramp supervisor do not a Certified A/P engineer make. Even then I would question their ability to figure out the math as to this break up. You would really need an expert on aviation theory, design, composition, and chemical/physical reaction. I can only speak from things I have seen first hand and pieces of the 757 I have seen up close and personal.

I have also taken some private lessons and gave them up for similar reasons, and have even thought about doing the X-plane thing to finish up. Still it’s a lot of expense to store any aircraft and maintain it, even an X-plane.

Originally posted by PepeLapiu1
Most of all, I just use a lot of common sence which is all you really need!

Well as a civil engineer, you must know that there are nuances to your field that the normal Joe off the street is not privy too, right? Like how you guys build temporary structures to re-route traffic and then tear them back up, meanwhile the public wonders why the DOT is wasting money like that. Same here, I can tell you first hand that a private plane is nothing like a commercial jet in its build, structure and composition. So some first hand experience might be better then just common sense, what might seem like common sense to you may not in fact be truth.

Originally posted by PepeLapiu1
I will be talking it up a storm about wing structures and wing strengh later on in this thread.
I hope you will join me!

Again the wings, they broke up and blew up man, is that so hard to believe? They are after all the fuel tanks, and we have no way of determining to what extent that airfoil was burning or on fire internally after the first engine was lost. To what extent were the few bolts that hold the wings to the center body melted and chemically changed or weakened? Was there an AUX fuel tank on that specific aircraft, and if so considering it would be located right above where the wings attach what was its condition, was it also on fire, or leaking fuel on to where the wings attach? Aircraft bolts are designed to shear at certain stress levels, what exactly are the specs on the bolts that hold the wings on, and the bolts that hold the engines on? And again considering that they are specifically designed as such what would the friction or possible fire do to their condition?

Well I think I have said enough, there are some folks that will never be swayed by the likes of me anyway, but I will check this thread from time to time and try and add my 2 cents. I would appreciate an answer to the questions I have already asked above in response though.


[edit on 5/24/2005 by defcon5]

See, I hesitated in telling you my esperience in this field because I knew very well you would attack my person instead of attacking the questions I pose.

The questions I pose do not require any sustancial long winding diploma, I will tackle up your post later when I get back from work but I find funny that you require answers to your questions while you haven't provided any answers to mine.

Don't you find it extremely suspicious that the only footage available prodides such poor frame rate?
Don't you find it suspicious that of all the cameras that would have caught the action where confiscated and never released?
Don't you find it suspicious that the time stamps pentagon camera footage were covered up?
Don't you find it suspicious that the frames released from that footage just happen not to show clearly the aircraft?
Don't you find it suspicious that the part found on the lawn is supossed to have been from the Bieong but the rivets were removed without any damage to the surrounding area and no suet or fire or burn damage can be seen on that part?
Don't you find it suspicious that a lousy pilot like Hani Hanjour got to perform such aerobatics with a 757 while he could not even fly a Cessna?

The list of suspicious are tremendeous and long my friend but you just ignore them all and go strait to your "explosion in mid-air" wild explanation and not addressssing any of my questions.
I have made sure to address all of your conserns and all of your posts here and that is no easy task considering you are not the only one opposing my idea.

Yet, you practically ignore all my posts and all my questions ... this is getting boring!
I don't wanna play any more but I will answer your post later!

Never mind the questions above, I know you won't try to answer them!

Originally posted by PepeLapiu1
It's been argued that the pentagon gate camera only needed be good enough for the purpose of capturing any vehicles driving in and out of that area within the first 15 feet or so of the camera's field of vision. So let's examine this assertion for a second:

At 10-15 feet away, the camera would have a field of vision of less than 20 feet wide. A small car or a rollerblader or a motorcycle travelling at only 13 mph (20 foot/second) could drive by without getting caught on any of the frames of that camera if the frame rate was indeed 1 fps. Geez! Even a fast runner could run by and not get caught on any of the frames! That is to say that at only 1 fps, that camera would be completely inneficient at doing the job you want to think it was intended to do!

Sorry folks, pepe is completely right for the security camera. It's a rigged vid with no time stamp - crystal clear. All security footage produces a time stamp especially at a secure facility. Argue all you want - you're arguing the wind. Also Grady is right, the explosion was a fuel explosion. Common sense, but still some question this.

The question begs, does there exist any vid footage that can be slowed down to show without a doubt, this was a 757? Without that evidence all we have is reasonable doubt.

Also Grady is right, the explosion was a fuel explosion. Common sense, but still some question this.

I don't agree with you here!
The expl,osion produced a bright flash and a very strong shockwave.
Neither of those are to be observed in a fuel explosion.
But I don;t really ellaborate on this now because I am presses for time tonigh, more on this and more on a lot of other stuff later on in the thread.

The question begs, does there exist any vid footage that can be slowed down to show without a doubt, this was a 757?

Of course there is!

The CITGO gas station camera:

"The FBI visited a gas station across from the Pentagon within minutes of the attack to confiscate a film that may have captured the attack. According to Jose Velasquez, who was working at the gas station at the time of the attack, the station's security cameras would have captured the attack but the film was confiscated within minutes of the crash" (source National Goegraphic News)

Here is a picture of that camera's view field

Now, wouldn't you think this would reveal a lot?

The Sheraton hotel camera footage :

"The FBI on September 11th confiscated a nearby hotel's security camera videotape, which also captured the attack. So far, the Justice Department has refused to release that videotape. They claim that it might provide some intelligence to somebody else who might want to do harm to the United States. But officials (...) at the Pentagon say they don't see any national security or criminal value to that tape." (source CNN Transcript)



So why do you think that would be dangerous to release those videos?
Dangerous to who?

The pentagon roof top cameras :

Atop the pentagon, there is a numerous amount of security cameras which would have caught the aircraft plunging into the pentagon. Those camera footages were never released. Here is some pictures of those cameras in question

Well, there's an other evidence confiscated for "national security" reasons!

The highway traffic cameras :

A countless amount of traffic cameras scattered around the near by higheways would have captured the aircraft but none have been released. Why do you think that is?

So many cameras that DID catch the aircraft going into the pentagon and yet, the only one released was the altered 5 frames from the gate camera, which really doesn't show much anyway since the revealing frames have been removed!

Cheers,
Pepe
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey!
None of my pictures are showing because the picture hosting site said I exceeded my dayli limit.
Anyone here knows a good free picture host?

Hey, are you new to this site or something ?

You are beating a dead horse. It's good to spend time on this site and read other peoples comments,opinions, blogs etc..... and get educated a little before pulling something out of your back pocket to talk about just for some points.

This site (ATS) is a great site and has a lot of references where I actually found a link too, showing that it was in fact a plane. They show the pcs of the plane parts scattered. I haven't seen to many missles with landing gear. They also showed the dimension and velocity perspecitive as well as an actuall video of the plane hitting the pentagon.

Anyway-Not to be a jerk, but you might want to take heed before writing, so you don't get slammed by a few and not just by one.

Take it easy and see you out there !

Originally posted by Truthisoutthere
They show the pcs of the plane parts scattered. I haven't seen to many missles with landing gear.

Could it be because it wasn't a missile but a Global Hawk unmanned aircraft painted to look like a commercial jet?

www.freedomfiles.org...

www.is.northropgrumman.com...

[edit on 24/5/2005 by ANOK]

What happened to the 58 passengers on flight 77? Better yet, what happened to flight 77?

Originally posted by Truthisoutthere
Hey, are you new to this site or something ?

Yup!

This site (ATS) is a great site and has a lot of references where I actually found a link too, showing that it was in fact a plane.

Here is a suggestion: if you know of such proof, on this site or elsewhere, do bring it in the thread please.

And don't post a link as your proof because i will not discuss a whole link.
If you have any proof, I suggest you bring them in this thread yourself one by one.

I will do my best to accomodate your concerns but in return, you have to do the same and accept to answer my question and my concerns, deal?

That is to say that if you bring in some of your proof and some of your solid evidence, I will explain my views on that evidence and in return you have to explain to me how, for example as in my second post here shows, the pentagon camera is completely useless, sub-standard and ridiculous in quality in comparisson to my $100 webcam.

You will also have to explain to me why they confiscated footages from all areas surrounding the pentagon mere minutes after the crash and why those footages were never released.

You see, when looking at a crime scene, you just can't pick and choose the evidences that suit your opinion, you have to deal with every single piece of evidence, do you understand that?

Now, if you got the convinctions, bring iin your evidences and your proof.
Don't give me links, I don't send you to read links and I ask you not to send me on a wild goose chase and read your research for you.

Simply trading links does not make for a healthy debate, I can hit Google and find you a millions links that would support my case but if I won't

If you kn ow your suff, you can even rewrite it in your own words as I do myself, the only links I provide are the onces to support my case and I past what's relevent here, can you do the same?

Don't worry guys, I know there have been a few posts I have not adressed yet but not a single post will be ignored, I promis to get to every single one of you in time as I find the time.

Please guys, read yopur links and paste in what part you think are relevent, don't ask me to do your research for you, I already have plenty of research and little time of my own.

And by the way, if one of you thinks you know everything about the pentagon and you candebunk me, I challenge you to a debate one-on-one, mano-a-mano, any takers?

Cheers and don't eat yellow snow ...... just trust me on that and don't ask how I know this. OK?
Pepe
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by StonewallTJJ
What happened to the 58 passengers on flight 77? Better yet, what happened to flight 77?

I started researching FLight 77 and its passengers. Approximately 16 to 21 of the 58 passangers work at classified positions in the defense sector!!!! Look at how many of them are aerospace engineers. One is a lifetime CIA operative who works for veridian as an aerospace engineer, Yamnicky is his last name. The first passenger listed, Caswell, led a team of 100 scientists for the navy. Several work for Boeing and Raytheon on the Global Hawk in El Segundo, California.

Note the mention of the Global Hawk (see my post above)...

portland.indymedia.org...

www.libertyforum.org...

tqr.mentalblockparty.com...

(reposted with proper pictures)

Now, as some have raised some questions about this following part, I have some serious questions as well!



I am building a small two place airplane in my garage and I use basically the same techniques and the same materials at the Boeing does.
My airplane, just like the Boeing is of aluminum 6061-T6 monocoque construction riveted together with aircraft grade rivets.

Now, you have to realize that airplane aluminum sheets are very light and flimsy when not riveted together but it is the way they are folded, placed and riveted together that gives them great strenght for minimum weight.

So just imagine for a second that you have a sheet on aluminum foil stappled to a 2x4 piece of wood.
Now, pull on that sheet of aluminum and see what happens.
The aluminum foil will likely rip at the stappled locations and create large dimples and large wrinkles were the stapples were.
However, this part shown above seems to have been drilled out of it's location, the rivet holes seen all over the part show no stress and the part is often ripped completely around the rivets while the rivet locations are left undamaged.

You see, every time you drill a sheet of aluminum or every time you scratch that sheet, you create what is called a stress riser.
When exposed to stress, that part will most likely break or tear at it's weakest location, namely where the stress risers are.

Let's zoom in on a specific part of that debris here:



Now, look closely as there has been a rip going all around the rivet locations, the rivets were gently lifted out of their holes or the rivet head were torn out without damaging the area around the holes.

Do you see what I mean?
If you do the same with a sheet of aluminum foil stappled to a 2x4, as you pull on the sheet to remove it, the stappled part will either rip and remain on the 2x4 or there will be severe damage done to the sheet where the stapples were.

Just do this yourself at home:
Stapple a piece of aluminum to a piece of wood and try to remove the sheet without severely damaging the sheet where the stapples are located - it just can't be done.

Now, look at the next zoomed in rivet locations:



Here again, the rivet holes are not even dented around!
It is obvious to me that this debris was not ripped off it's location by some explosive force but it was drilled out and planted there on the lawn!
I know it is difficult to realize this from a picture but if anyone of you wants to see two aircraft aluminum sheets riveted together with aircraft grade rivets, you can contact me and I will ship you a sample. You will only conclude of the extremely strong bond created by rivets and the impossibility of seperating those parts from thier riveted locatins without severely damaging the area around each and every rivet holes.

Still, there are literraly 40 or 50 different rivet locations that were completely undamaged as this part was taken off the aircraft.
You might say that the force of the explosion was so brutal and sudden that this is exactly why those rivet holes were left undamaged.
But if the explosion was so powerful, can you explain to me why that part looks completely free of suet and it appears to not have been exposed to any sort of heat or fire damage?

And again, why is it that this part was found later but it can't be seen anywhere on the following pictures taken almost immediately after the first fire trucks arrived?



See any parts on this lawn?
Where is that big part seen later on?
Guees, I can't see any aircraft debris here, can you?

Now, in the picture aboceve just look to the 3rd frame from the bottom. You can clearly see the tracks left by the fire truck on the lawn yet Defcon5 wants us to believe that a 120 ton 500 mph airplane was dragging around on that lawn ... do you see any in dications of that on any of the frames above?

There are other debris which look very suspicious to me and I will get into those later on .... stay tuned!
Same Pepe channel, same Pepe time!

Cheers,
Pepe
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(reposted with proper pictures)

Originally posted by opensecret1150
You are making the following logical flaw: "Heresy Equals Correctness".

Nope, I was not making any logical flaws, the guy attempted to make fun of me and I returned the gratuity

There is an astoundingly well detailed section on this website showing fairly conclusively that a 757 DID hit the pentagon!

I suggest you bring those evidences one by one into this thread and I will debunk them one by one.
I have indicated here on this thread that many of the evidences of a Boeing appear false and/or exagerated and/or completely made up.
Have a look at the following picture and tell me some more how you could fit a Boeing in there:



Now the picture to the right is an artist's rendition used by the 9/11 commision in their attempt to explain how the Boeing would have entered the building.
To the right is that same airplane in use with an actual picture of the pentagon crash site .... can you now understand why they used an artist rendition instead of an actual real life picture?

Cheers.
Pepe
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[edit on 24-5-2005 by PepeLapiu1]

Originally posted by PepeLapiu1
See, I hesitated in telling you my esperience in this field because I knew very well you would attack my person instead of attacking the questions I pose.

I believe that what I said included me stating myself that I don’t have the experience to be an NTSB crash investigator; it was not a personal attack on you or your profession. That being said though, just because you have some engineering education does not similarly make you qualified to assess what did or did not physically happen to an aircraft in a high speed, low altitude collision with multiple stationary objects and a hardened structure. That type of engineering is every bit as different from what is needed to assess this situation as electrical engineering, which I have studied, is. It’s a valid point, like it or not.

Originally posted by PepeLapiu1
But I find funny that you require answers to your questions while you haven't provided any answers to mine.

I apologize. I did not realize that the post on the camera information was directed at me. Personally I know NOTHING about digital imaging, video analysis and such things. It might be better to aim those types of questions at someone other then at me. I will answer them though to the best of my knowledge and based on my common sense and opinion.

Originally posted by PepeLapiu1
Don't you find it extremely suspicious that the only footage available prodides such poor
frame rate?

No, this does not really surprise me, it comes from a parking lot gate security camera, I would doubt that this type of camera requires a high frame rate. It is there to monitor entry or exit from an area of the facility, not detail. Like most security cameras in gas stations it most likely only takes one shot per second or lower to allow a 24 or 48 hour period to be recorded to one 4 hour video cassette. Seems like a pretty standard rig that is used in many security cameras that operate on recorded video cassette.

Originally posted by PepeLapiu1
Don't you find it suspicious that of all the cameras that would have caught the action where confiscated and never released?

Not particularly, again most of those cameras were security cameras and I would suspect that most worked on the type of low frame rate to save tape basis. Maybe some showed even less in less detail. Maybe some were not working or recording. I know that only about 1 in 3 traffic cams here are ever working at any one time and those are not usually recorded to tape, only to allow for real time monitoring of traffic, accidents, break downs, and the like.

Of course there could be a simpler explanation, you try and go take pictures into a military facility in this country and you stand a good chance of getting into hot water. Here we have a high level military installation which is showing something that happened during a security breach incident. Not to hard for me to think up many reasons why that footage would be withheld from the public.

Could be that they don’t want you to see that there where fighters possibly trailing the plane that could have fired on it. Could be that they don’t want you to see if one did at the last second. Could be a thousand different reasons, but still there is no good reason to believe that anything hit the building but exactly what I see hit it in that video, a 757…

Originally posted by PepeLapiu1
Don't you find it suspicious that the time stamps pentagon camera footage were covered up?

I know nothing about this particular topic, but still what does it effect if it were the case?
What are you stating that this happened at a different time, it happened more then once, I just don’t grasp the significance of it, enlighten me....

Originally posted by PepeLapiu1
Don't you find it suspicious that the frames released from that footage just happen not to show clearly the aircraft?

Are you telling me that you have personally seen the other footage and it is clearer? It is what it is, and that is a camera to record who is entering into a parking area. It is meant to show what is 10 feet or so away clearly, it was not put up with the intention that 20 years down the road someone would fly a plane through its field of view a quarter mile away and smash it into the building.

Originally posted by PepeLapiu1
Don't you find it suspicious that the part found on the lawn is supossed to have been from the Bieong but the rivets were removed without any damage to the surrounding area and no suet or fire or burn damage can be seen on that part?

Well if you’re building an X-Plane, you should have been exposed to some aircraft aluminum by now, so what are its properties?
It’s fairly strong yet still fragile when not reinforced, its fairly rigid when used in a reinforced structure, yet pliable which means that it bends or stretches. Knowing how small the rivet heads are it is not tough to imagine that if they where pulled out hard and fast enough from straight behind that they would pull right through the skin without making the hole jagged. We know that this piece came from the area forward of the emergency doors, behind the passenger door, yet might have been above a part of the wing, right? So if the wing exploded, that piece would be driven upward with a tremendous amount of speed and force, enough to pop a few rivets right thorough the skin. If you look closer at that picture you can see that there is a jagged edge where a row of rivets tore the metal as well.
As far as scorching is concerned, I have personally seen a hot started 747 shoot flames 20 feet behind the engine with no noticeable burn marks left behind. I have seen an APU fire on a DC-9 that simply left a slight dark area on the side of the plane where the paint was. Aircraft aluminum seems to hide burns and scorching pretty well from everything I have seen. Added to that if that piece where exposed to the explosion, it would have been hit from behind and would have only been in the blast as long as it took to eject it off of the aircraft which was most likely a fraction of a second.

Originally posted by PepeLapiu1
Don't you find it suspicious that a lousy pilot like Hani Hanjour got to perform such aerobatics with a 757 while he could not even fly a Cessna?

I did not see this thing doing barrel rolls up there. Try this load up MS Flight simulator, turn it on the hardest setting, and see how hard it is to do exactly what he did. Doing extreme maneuvers when you are planning to crash anyway does not take a great pilot, just a lunatic. Doing extreme maneuvers when you’re trying not to crash is a bit trickier. Finding and hitting structures as easily recognizable and large as the towers and the pentagon is no great act of Ariel genius by any stretch of the imagination. Then add to this the fact that 757/767 is one of the easiest sets of aircraft to fly ever, it has a high thrust to weight ratio, and can be pretty much programmed to fly from location to location without anything but adjustments made by the pilots to conform with ground control traffic changes.

Oh, yeah and BTW, I have flown for real as well, and have taken lessons…

Originally posted by PepeLapiu1
go strait to your "explosion in mid-air" wild explanation

Excuse me, wild explanations?

1) We know the aircraft was already damaged by striking objects (light poles, generator) in the parking lot
2) It was most likely already on fire internally.
3) Within a second later it was in contact with the building.
4) The fuselage pierced the building and the fuel tanks exploded.

I see nothing wild in this explanation, accusing the government of shooting the building with a missile then covering it up to say it was a plane is FAR FAR more out there then anything I have said.

As far as a mid air explosion, I do not believe I ever said this happened, did I?
Look at the space shuttle that burned up on re-entry, did it just go POOF and was magically gone? No it started with one structure being damaged and failing, then the next. This only might have taken 20 or 30 seconds, but in that time look how far the aircraft traveled looking like it was in ok shape…
I have seen bird strikes on aircraft do significant damage; as a matter of fact they have brought aircraft down before. Flesh on steel and at that speed it still does enough damage to crash the plane. Can you imagine the havoc reeked by steel light poles hitting a plane in its main fuel tank? Where would that fuel go? Well some would spill out on the ground, but similarly some would get between the tank and the interior of the aircraft skin, being pulled by gravity towards the center where the wings meet with the aircraft. Now add that there may have been a fire in there also, and again not tough to see what happened. It’s just that the plane crossed from the parking lot over the field and hit the building before the main explosion was in full effect.

Originally posted by PepeLapiu1
Yet, you practically ignore all my posts and all my questions ... this is getting boring!
I don't wanna play any more but I will answer your post later!

I believe that I have answered every question you have put to me so far, I am sorry if you do not like the answers. But then again extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and I have yet to see that. There is nothing extraordinary about my claims I am sure that anyone else with some aviation knowledge could easily back me up on this. Again is it possible that there is something being covered up, sure, why not, but I have seen NO PROOF that anything hit that building but a 757. I suggest looking elsewhere for any conspiracy to be found in the situation…




[edit on 5/25/2005 by defcon5]

In all civil Transport Category aircraft, whenever the aircraft is put
into certain configurations, all kinds of warning and override systems
operate. These are mandatory requirements and all checked pre-flight
before every flight to ensure their operation. This is why civil
aviation has such a high safety standard and performance.
Fly too slow without flap and leading edge high-lift devices extended or
with the landing gear retracted and the computer system will advance the
thrust levers to ensure the aircraft maintains sufficient flying speed.
Fly too low without having the aircraft in the landing configuration
(i.e. gear and flaps down) and the Ground Proximity Warning System
(GPWS) will remind you in a very loud synthesised voice which conveys
greater urgency the longer the condition persists without correction.
Computers will take over and fly the aircraft out of trouble if the
system is not purposely disabled. Purposely disable the system and
operation of the aircraft becomes restricted.

www.humanunderground.com...

Sorry for the cut and paste but this should show you how absurd the idea that someone, with very little flying experience, could pull off the manoeuvres necessary to fly a 757 into the pentagon.

Yes I'd love to see a track of you doing that with MFS. I am an avid sim flyer and use MFS often.

Originally posted by PepeLapiu1
Don't you find it suspicious that of all the cameras that would have caught the action where confiscated and never released?

What is even more interesting is that I was told by my senator's office that they contacted the Department of Defense and was told no other video existed of the Pentagon crash. That is absolute BS and obstruction of justice.

will remind you in a very loud synthesised voice which conveys
greater urgency the longer the condition persists without correction.
Computers will take over and fly the aircraft out of trouble if the
system is not purposely disabled. Purposely disable the system and
operation of the aircraft becomes restricted.

Right here this man admits that this can be overridden. I know EXACTLY what he means by it, and so would anyone that has had to do maintenance or any serious support for a ground crew. If this were not possible then I guess I was imagining the times that I have seen aircraft have to increase speed at low altitude to go around to re-approach on a runway. According to him this would not be possible because high speed and low altitude are a NO-NO, and therefore an aircraft at low altitude would be forced by the computer to make the landing even if the runway had become obstructed in the interim. The aircraft video I have seen shows this aircraft to be on a proper angle of attack and descent same as it would for making a landing, just the speed is too high and the gear not down. To me this would be the same exact situation that would occur in a Go-Around scenario, therefore it must be possible.

How would someone who could barely fly a Cesna know how to overide the computer system?
You want so badly to believe the governments story it's funny...

[edit on 25/5/2005 by ANOK]

Originally posted by ANOK
How would someone who could barely fly a Cesna know how to overide the computer system?
You want so badly to believe the governments story it's funny...

[edit on 25/5/2005 by ANOK]

Man before accusing me of anything you should go read my posts on religion. I am not one way or the other in believing anything that comes from them. However this topic was put to rest once here and now it’s coming back like a bad dream. This has nothing to do with the government it has to do with these questions I have asked before in the past and have yet to had answered EVER by anyone that believes this fictitious nonsense. I know its fiction to sell some guys books/DVD's/Video's because of what I have personally seen and experienced in doing my job in the past.

So to Reiterate, here is my question:

Originally posted by Defcon5
I have a better question to answer yours. WHY would the United States government NOT use a 757 if they wanted to fake this strike on the Pentagon, then try and cover it up?

They could not get one on short notice?
Bush spent all the 757 money betting on the Long Horns?
The United Sates Government did not have the resources, or the money to accomplish that small feat?
Would it not make more sense to in fact USE a 757 and pack it with additional munitions then fly it by remote?

Now as far as overriding the system goes, well I am not going to put that kind of information out on the web. Sufficient to say that the guy did get some simulator time in on a commercial simulator and part of the initial setting up of a cockpit from a powered down state would include his knowing what to push to override/setup the caution system, as part of the pre-flight check list. It would be one of the first things that he would have had to learn.


[edit on 5/25/2005 by defcon5]

This whole theory cracks me up!

If there was a government conspiracy behind 9/11 (I don't believe there was), they'd be laughing their butts off at this since it is so preposterous it totally discredits anything the conspiracists say.

Anyway, if it hasn't already been made clear on this thread, security cameras record at a low frame rate and would never pick up a clear video of a plane crashing into a building.

I am no expert on the field of Aviation taking this into consideration can someone please explain where the Aircraft is??? There is no Tail, Landing gear, Fuel and considering 757 fuel burns (NOT EXPLODES) at no less than 800 degrees, I would find it hard to imagine the same planes that desicrated the WTC did not do the same amount of damage to the pathetagon.

Its common knowledge look at it for yourself. 911 was NOT an accident this has been proven, NORAD stood down for almost an hour, Bin-Laden (about 4000 family members) were flown out of the country to pakistan signed by G dubya himself and Mr Bush sr. was having a meeting with Osama Bin-ladens cousin. All a coincidence I THINK NOT! Oh and the CIA were running a war game including crashing planes into the WTC hmmmmmm???? Nothing suspicious going on here.

How the F**K can a plane weighing in at almost 100 tons travelling at a minimum speed of 250* (max 600) MPH only punctures a hole in the side of a wall when according to the laws of physics and the crash at WTC it is IMPOSSIBLE! It had to be something smaller than a 757 or not an aircraft at all perhaps a bomb planted?? Hell if they had bombs in WTC 1 & 2 & 7 whats to say they didn't have in the pentagon, perhaps thats why the video was confiscated because it showed of no such plane???

Did anyone see the picture of the book on the wooden table with NO hint of burn what so ever??? Yet apparantly the plane 'vaporised' when it hit the wall of the pentagon due to such high temps.

Why can't you people except the FACT that the bushes and Bin-ladens have very strong ties, amount that to the other FACT that the American and British government trained Al-Q and you have yourself quite the strong army. Not forgetting the invincible paper passport that survived the 3000 degree temps. inside WTC that melted steel columns in both WTC towers yet paper survives it sounds like something out of a fictional novel.

As for Rumsfelds mistake in saying what he said is just another blunder he made along with Silerstein who also said that it was right to "pull" tower #7. Like pepe said rummy mumbled something inaudible just after saying the piece about the missile which leads me to be even more suspicious.

Yep thats it put all your trust, blood, sweat and tears into the mass media and government and what do you get....................Tyranny! Its as simple as that.

I personally believe it was not a Boeing 757 as ALL current evidence prove different. Keep up the good work pepe.

For what its worth a little 'evidence':

www.asile.org...
As everyone knows, on 11 September, less than an hour after the attack on the World Trade Centre, an airplane collided with the Pentagon. The Associated Press first reported that a booby-trapped truck had caused the explosion. The Pentagon quickly denied this. The official US government version of events still holds.

[edit on 25/5/05 by Hunting Veritas]