another flight 77 video, again no plane!

Your points are well taken. As I stated before I have no doubt that Governments & politicians are certainly capable of evil acts against their enemies and their own people.

Originally posted by BeZerk
Have you heard of Operation Northwoods. .....

This example you gave is a great one to show what the Government is capable of. However it must be noted that this was never carried out, (as far as we know). It would seem that the system of checks and balances and President Kennedy's possible rejection of these plans prevented any of the scenarios from being carried out.

lso the Spanish American War In 1898 which elites within the US government falsely accused Spain of blowing up the USS Maine in order to shift the American people into a flag-waving frenzy which resulted in the Spanish American War.

No argument here. The US fanned the flames of war and took advantage of the disaster even though the cause was unknown.

I remember a time when Conspiracy Theorists were brandished as liars when the Japanese apparently inflicted a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. Now evidence has surfaced that Roosevelt actually knew about the attacks and let it happen. That is fact.

I don't believe that is a fact.
You might want to consider this before you make call it a fact.
www.straightdope.com...

In order to believe that Roosevelt knew about the coming Pearl Harbor attack but kept mum, you have to believe he had better information than any of his subordinates in the government or the military--information that since has been destroyed, since no one has been able to find it. Moreover, you have to believe that Roosevelt was willing to sacrifice most of the Pacific fleet, and possibly one of the most important American naval bases in the Pacific, probably crippling American operations against Japan for the next two years (by which time the Japanese would likely have taken over the Pacific and begun operations against the American West Coast) in order to gain public support for a measure the public already supported by a two-to-one margin. You also have to believe that Roosevelt--who had been Assistant Secretary of the Navy, who always claimed that if he hadn't gotten into politics he would have liked to have been an admiral, whose first campaign song for President was "Anchors Aweigh" (before being replaced by the more appropriate and upbeat "Happy Days Are Here Again")--would countenance the deaths of thousands of U.S. sailors for a few extra votes in Congress--again, for a measure that many observers felt would pass easily.

You provided some good information that gives real food for thought.
Excellent examples.
However to make the bold statement that our leaders are responsible would, in my book, require indisputable evidence. I just don't see that yet. I hope for the sake of our country your theories and others like it are proven wrong.



[edit on 2-7-2007 by Sparky63]

Originally posted by Sparky63
Your points are well taken. As I stated before I have no doubt that Governments & politicians are certainly capable of evil acts against their enemies and their own people.

Thank your for reading my points. Greatly appreciated.

Don't you think its remotely plausible that the elements within the current administration were certainly responsible for carrying out the evil acts that occured on the day of 9/11?

This example you gave is a great one to show what the Government is capable of. However it must be noted that this was never carried out, (as far as we know). It would seem that the system of checks and balances and President Kennedy's possible rejection of these plans prevented any of the scenarios from being carried out.

Operation Northwoods is a great example because it was drafted and had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff but was rejected by John F Kennedy. Less than a year after the proposal was rejected he was assassinated, i wont get into that.

Ok lets say for instance the current Joint Chiefs of Staff approved a plan to carry out 9/11, to put fear in the eyes of its citizens in supporting a war that was given the impression (media influence) that terrorists had conducted it, this would draw millions if not billions of dollars in revenue for the companies most of the of Government officials sit on by giving them Government contracts in the so called "war on terrorism" effort. With this in mind and the current President stating him self as being a "war president", don't you think its quite plausible for Bush to sign it off and go ahead with the plan?

In my eyes and Bush and Cheney's background i think its highly achievable.

No argument here. The US fanned the flames of war and took advantage of the disaster even though the cause was unknown.

Actually before an investigation had occurred for the incident, the war efforts had already been arranged.

You provided some good information that gives real food for thought.
Excellent examples.
However to make the bold statement that our leaders are responsible would, in my book, require indisputable evidence. I just don't see that yet. I hope for the sake of our country your theories and others like it are proven wrong.

Thank you, but it was not a bold statement when even the victims families disagree with the official explanation into the events. The evidence is there in broad daylight, the lies have continued since day one and will continue till the official explanation is widely accepted.

BeZerK






[edit on 2-7-2007 by BeZerk]

The 757-200 dimensions:

Tail Height: 44 ft 6 in (13.6m)
Length: 155 ft 3 in (47.32m)
Wingspan: 124 ft 10 in (38.05m)
Body Exterior Width: 12 ft 4 in (3.7m)
Fuel Capacity: 11,489 us gal (43,490l / 43,490kg)
Maximum Takeoff weight: 255,000lb (115,680kg)
Typical Cruise Speed: 0.80 Mach (573.6mph / 956kmh)
Engines used on a 757: Two 166.4kN (37,400lb) Rolls-Royce RB211-535C turbofans, or 178.8kN (40,200lb) RB211-535E4s, or 193.5kN (43,500lb) RB211-535E4-Bs, or 162.8kN (36,600lb) Pratt & Whitney PW2037s, or two 178.4kN (40,100lb) PW2040s, or 189.5kN (42,600lb) PW2043s.
Auxiliary Power Unit: Honeywell GTCP331-200

Some more pictures to take into account:

Can anyone see where a Boeing 757, apparently, hit the pentagon in the below pictures?






Does it really seem logical with the dimensions and the weight of the 757, that it did indeed crash into the pentagon

BeZerK

Originally posted by BeZerk
I posted a picture of a Boeing 757 showing the wheel that looks nothing like what they found at the pentagon.

Your picture without a source of where you got the picture from is useless in my opinion. Could you please show me another picture of a wheel on a Boeing 757. I'm not being rude or anything but the picture below is totally different from your image.

It doesn't matter where it's from, so long as it's accurate. Is it not accurate? The tire appears fatter in yours, but with no visible detail of the hub layout there, your photo is more useless than mine.

Caustic Logics image:

Source please.

But if you must know...

The wheel hub

In the first edition only, Avery compares a wheel hub found at the Pentagon to a 757's landing gear. Here's the wheel hub from the Pentagon: [pic]
And this is his photo of a 757's landing gear: [pic]
Avery claims the wheel hubs of a 757's landing gear have a larger radius-to-width ratio, and that the hub found at the Pentagon is from a smaller military plane. I'm not sure what he means by this, as all circular objects have a diameter twice their radius. Furthermore, the wheel hubs match up very well: [side-by-side pic that I used]

Source: Internet Detectives analysis of Loose Change
[ETA: It's funny that they misunderstood and mixed up diameter and width, which is why I used this source to "debunk the debunkers" a bit and added the red and blue lines - which are exactly the same lengths in each pic - to show the actual radius-width ratio]
So my source is Loose Change via Internet Detectives. The ten-hole wheel I used to compare with the Global Hawk is I believe from J.P. Desmoulins. Again, what’s the problem here? Why do you need more sources when both the “757” wheels I’ve shown match and none of the Global Hawk pics we’ve seen match at all as you said they did?

Do you still think these match or what?

And finally...

The two photographs in question below were taken just after the attack. They show the precise spot on the outer ring where the Boeing struck.

Can you find the aircraft's point of impact?

BeZerK

Yes, just from memory – it’s the wide damaged area on the first floor under the fire foam being sprayed. Seriously, this is copy-and-paste from Meyssan’s original site, with the number "7" replaced with "below";

"the two photographs in question 7 were taken just after the attack. They show the precise spot on the outer ring where the Boeing struck. Can you find the aircraft's point of impact?”

Source: Hunt The Boeing
I notice the same pictures, with the same Jpeg titles in French. You’re verging on self-parody here, as well as not citing your plaigarized sources signed with your own screen name. In case you aren’t aware of it and/or care.

Good point with the historical precedents, from the USS maine and on, Along with 9/11 conspiracy theories and associated disinfo, this is another field I find fascinating. It doesn’t help your case here at all, however. But are you even capable of surrendering the point?


[edit on 3-7-2007 by Caustic Logic]

And just as an aside:

Originally posted by Sparky63

I remember a time when Conspiracy Theorists were brandished as liars when the Japanese apparently inflicted a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. Now evidence has surfaced that Roosevelt actually knew about the attacks and let it happen. That is fact.

I don't believe that is a fact.
You might want to consider this before you make call it a fact.
www.straightdope.com...

Not only true but it's even more hardcore than that... Rooseveltt and other top people like Stimson HAD to have known it was coming, since they had engineered every aspect of it, in an eight point plan to provoke Japan into striking the Pacific Fleet AT PEARL HARBOR. This was written up by Lt. Com. Arthur H McCollum at ONI on October 7 1940 and sent to Roosevelt that night, and he ordered the fleet to remain at Pearl Harbor the next day. Fascinating, chilling, and welldocumented by this ONE document revealed to ONE guy, Robert Stinnett, a friend of Bush sr., and assoc. via the Independent Institute w/Paul Craig Roberts. Stinnett released his book Day of Deceit in 1999, repeated his core case of provocation and allowance on Dec 7 2000, again on dec 7 2001, just after the "new Pearl Harbor." Then he had a debate with a debunker where he didn't even mention the McCollum memo, dropped the issue, and has not repeated his Dec 7 seminars since then.

It's explained in a few posts I wrote up collected HERE for anyoone who cares.

Caustic Logic,

In regards to the wheel, even if that is from a Boeing 757, you still cannot dismiss the fact that, where did the rest of plane disappear to? I have seen every single picture that debunker's claim its the wreckage of a 757 but is either not clear or looks like debri from the building.

In relation to the pictures I posted you can see clearly windows are in tact how can a Boeing 757 smash into the Pentagon and leave windows in tact? Does not make sense.

In my opinion those few visible parts could have been placed to make the appearance that a 757 did crash into the pentagon. There is more evidence to suggest that a 757 did not crash into the building.

Your only answer to me in relation to the impact hole is that it is obscured by the foam, thats a good one. Even if it is under the foam, the plane should of touched the ground, which it clearly did not

Also at the time of writing that for some reason every time i tried to add the source within it, it would not work, don't ask why but seriously it was not working at all. I suppose it was my fault for not checking back to it to re-add a source, in that instance i apologize. I am also on the verge of upgrading my internet hence for it not working as fast as i would like it to. My internet is playing up so much right now that i cannot even open your source My internet should be fine by Midnight today.

BeZerK

[edit on 3-7-2007 by BeZerk]

Caustic Logic - that's a good link to interesting information (Pearl Harbour). I think the 'no plane' theory is going around in circles. The most pertinent points to come out of this particular thread are the questions: What did happen to Flight 77 if it was not crashed into the Pentagon? Would any video footage of the crash render the conspiracy argument redundant? If we had conclusive proof that Flight 77 did hit the Pentagon, what would be the next strand of enquiry?

There was most likely foreknowledge of the hijack plan, there was most likely attempts to shut down or divert direct intelligence investigations that would have lead to the disruption of the hijack plot, and there is the likelihood that Flight 77, Flight 11, Flight 175 (possibly Flight 93) were remote controlled (the hijack the hijackers theory).

[edit on 3-7-2007 by Skunky]

[edit on 3-7-2007 by Skunky]

Skunky;

In relation to the pentagon incident, why doesn't the Government release a video showing a Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon. This would indeed make me, in my opinion, re-think the whole "no 757 hit the pentagon" theory.

I do believe that some flights on 9/11 were remotely controlled. This is possible and it is fact that planes can be remotely controlled as previous studies have suggested. I will post some sources tomorrow in regards to planes being able to be remotely controlled. Unfortunately, my internet has been playing up, its ok for 10 mins then slows down and i can't even post any links or anything

BeZerK

[edit on 3-7-2007 by BeZerk]

Most of the references I post are from www.oilempire.us , not because I have a vested interest in promoting the site or it's content, but because I find the most convincing well-reasoned arguments toward conspiracy there (there are other web, literature and video sources mentioned). If we really did see video showing Flight 77 (or a 757) hitting the Pentagon (presuming it was genuine, and who would accept that now?), surely we would have to still ask Why? and How? www.oilempire.us...

Why was the Pentagon allowed to be hit after there was clear evidence of hijacked planes being used to hit key buildings (WTC) and how was that flight able to navigate to the Pentagon and strike it with such accuracy? Why was it part of the Pentagon that was the least occupied?

Skunky,

We are still asking those exact same questions. It is amazing how these terrorists managed to fly within inches off the ground to hit the pentagon head on with deadly accuracy, without even touching single shred of grass

Honestly, does it really look like from the pictures below that a Boeing with a wing span of 38.05m and Length of 47.32m, hit the pentagon? If so where is the impact hole?






I don't see know impact hole and i still see windows intact

BeZerK

i dont start very man threads but the only other one I've posted in the past year asks the same question about the timeline. I.E. just how in the hell did we let anything hit the penatagon after we knew there were terrorists with planes on the loose, and had an hour and 42 minutes since the first attack?

i however find it a stretch that the videos are not being released for any good reason if not even the reason can be produced.

Originally posted by jprophet420
i dont start very man threads but the only other one I've posted in the past year asks the same question about the timeline. I.E. just how in the hell did we let anything hit the penatagon after we knew there were terrorists with planes on the loose, and had an hour and 42 minutes since the first attack?

i however find it a stretch that the videos are not being released for any good reason if not even the reason can be produced.

I highly agree. Just release a definitive video that shows a Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon. Instead they first released 5-6 slides (images) that showed NO PLANE, then they went a released a few videos that also show NO PLANE, instead each image shows a fire ball.

It has been now 6 years and still the Government has not produced a video showing a Boeing 757 hitting the pentagon, i really doubt they can show it because a Boeing 757 did not hit the pentagon, so what did?

BeZerK

Originally posted by BeZerk
Skunky;
In relation to the pentagon incident, why doesn't the Government release a video showing a Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon. This would indeed make me, in my opinion, re-think the whole "no 757 hit the pentagon" theory.

I do believe that some flights on 9/11 were remotely controlled. This is possible and it is fact that planes can be remotely controlled as previous studies have suggested. I will post some sources tomorrow in regards to planes being able to be remotely controlled. Unfortunately, my internet has been playing up, its ok for 10 mins then slows down and i can't even post any links or anything

BeZerK
[edit on 3-7-2007 by BeZerk]

Skunky,

Ok my internet is finally working, i did say i was going to post a source for remotely controlled planes as stated above.

Here is the source that explains that a Boeing can be remotelly controlled without the need of a pilot:

The Boeing 757 and 767 are equipped with fully autonomous flight capability, they are the only two Boeing commuter aircraft capable of fully autonomous flight. They can be programmed to take off, fly to a destination and land, completely without a pilot at the controls.

As well as fully autonomous flight capability, the 767 and 757 are the ONLY COMMUTER PLANES MADE BY BOEING THAT CAN BE FLOWN VIA REMOTE CONTROL. It is a feature that is standard to all of them, all 757's and 767's can do it. The purpose for this is if there is a problem with the pilots, Norad can fly the planes to safe destinations via remote. Only in this flight mode can those craft exceed their software limits and perform to their actual physical limits because a pre existing emergency situation is assumed if this mode of flight is used. - Source

BeZerK

custom wheels

what does it prove/disprove?

bupkis?


[edit on 3-7-2007 by billybob]

I can't answer all of your questions, but I have a couple important answers.

First, you are the only person to saya 747 hit the Pentagon. Everyone else says it was smaller, I forget now if it was the 757 or 767.

I find it funny that conspiracy people demand to "see a new video" and when it is shown to them they immediately swear it is fake and demand another new one. If you think videos actually seen on 9/11 are fake why do you think unreleased videos will show what you want.

Finally, I agree that I cannot see a plane on that camera, but it was not made for observing that distance, and those security cameras rarely do the job of giving clear pictures inside their own buildings. Whay were you possibly expecting from this video?

Originally posted by TrevorALan
I can't answer all of your questions, but I have a couple important answers.

First, you are the only person to saya 747 hit the Pentagon. Everyone else says it was smaller, I forget now if it was the 757 or 767.

It was a Boeing 757.

I find it funny that conspiracy people demand to "see a new video" and when it is shown to them they immediately swear it is fake and demand another new one. If you think videos actually seen on 9/11 are fake why do you think unreleased videos will show what you want.

We demand to see a new video showing a Boeing 757 hit the pentagon. Is that too much to ask for since the Government and the official explanation maintains that a 757 did hit the pentagon, if so, prove it.

Instead they release a few still images showing nothing but a fireball and released a few videos that also show nothing but a fireball. With all the 100's of camera's around the pentagon i am sure, in fact i am positive one camera at least shows "something" hitting the pentagon.

Finally, I agree that I cannot see a plane on that camera, but it was not made for observing that distance, and those security cameras rarely do the job of giving clear pictures inside their own buildings. Whay were you possibly expecting from this video?

Good so you agree you cannot see a plane. We were expecting to see a Boeing 757 crash into the Pentagon. Obviously we did not, thus we are demanding a video that shows Boeing 757 which would support the official explanation.

BeZerK

Why would videos need to be released in the first place?What does the government have to hide if terrorists attacked the U.S.If they released all of the cam footage they are so afraid of, then everyone would accept it was a terrorist attack.That is if the footage was what they say it is.It really is that simple.So why can't we find a convincing video from one of the hundreads of cammeras surrounding one of the most protected buildings in the U.S.

Originally posted by silverking
Why would videos need to be released in the first place?What does the government have to hide if terrorists attacked the U.S.If they released all of the cam footage they are so afraid of, then everyone would accept it was a terrorist attack.That is if the footage was what they say it is.It really is that simple.So why can't we find a convincing video from one of the hundreads of cammeras surrounding one of the most protected buildings in the U.S.

Exactly, what have they got to hide if the video shows a Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon.

Refer to my above post.

BeZerK

Just something to ponder www.infowars.net...

"The FBI is withholding at least another 84 surveillance tapes that were seized in the immediate aftermath of the attack on the Pentagon."Why? Why would they have any reason whatsoever to hold 84 surveillance tapes. Let alone 1 single video that proves that what they claim happend actually happend?I'm starting to believe that anyone who thinks this was not an inside job is either mentally retarded or paid to disinform!