If Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, what happened to the passengers?

Originally posted by walman

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
I guess you haven't looked very hard. There's actually very little if any evidence that Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon.

Here's the U.S. government's 1962 "Operation Northwoods" false-flag terrorism plan.

The passengers on Flight 77 probably ended up in a similar situation:

So you're telling me that it happened because of a combination of lack of remaining physical evidence, and because a plan that was proposed in the 60's "probably" happened in '01? Are you kidding me?

No, 9/11 was *definitely* an inside job. What happened to the passengers is anyone's guess.

Also, why say "very little...evidence"? If there is even a shred of real evidence then it proves the story. You seem to only be saying that your far-out theory must be true because the official story cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

The official story can't be proven PERIOD -- from the CNN reporter who stated that there was "no evidence of Flight 77 having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon", to the "hijacker pilot" Hani Hanjour who couldn't fly a Cessna, to the impossibly small entry hole in the Pentagon, to the lack of identifiable 757 parts and passenger bodies inside and outside the Pentagon, to the total implausibility of a passenger jet that both disintegrated and whose aluminum nose cone punched through six 2-feet thick Pentagon walls built of concrete, brick and limestone, blowing out a perfectly round 12-foot exit hole in the 'C' ring outer wall:



They just don't make 'em like they used to:




[edit on 30-1-2009 by GoldenFleece]

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

The official story can't be proven PERIOD -- from the CNN reporter who stated that there was "no evidence of Flight 77 having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon", to the "hijacker pilot" Hani Hanjour who couldn't fly a Cessna, to the impossibly small entry hole in the Pentagon, to the lack of identifiable 757 parts and passenger bodies inside and outside the Pentagon, to the total implausibility of a passenger jet that both disintegrated and whose aluminum nose cone punched through six 2-feet thick Pentagon walls built of concrete, brick and limestone, blowing out a perfectly round 12-foot exit hole in the 'C' ring outer wall

(1) What's to say that the CNN reporter misspoke, or spoke too quickly before considering all of the evidence? Does the CNN reporter still believe that there is no evidence of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon?

(2) There is a lot more to flying a plane than steering it into a target, which may have been the only thing that Hani Hanjour was able to do. You can put a 10 year old in the seat of a car, and though they may not be able to regulate their speed and breaking properly, or demonstrate an effective turn radius, or remember to signal or stop when they need to, they can still drive it into a bullseye on a brick wall if they see it.

(3) Perhaps since Hani Hanjour was such a terrible pilot, the plane hit at an angle that caused one of the engines to ricochet off the ground and hit the building, while the other went right through the building and created that hole? A 757 can travel at around 600MPH, and those engines weight around 10K lbs each. Where do they officially state that it was the nose of the plane that made the hole and not the engine?

(4) Why is it implausible that portions of the aluminum would remain? When has a plane that large, that has crash landed, ever completely disintegrated, leaving nothing of its body behind? And how do you know it sustained a direct hit and did not skid or hit the ground first? Surely that would make it more plausible that those parts would remain.

(5) That hole is not perfectly round. Fire damage would round it out, though, if there were loose pieces hanging.


Listen, I'm not trying to say there was no conspiracy. I'm not saying that it was a plane, as much as I am saying that your evidence doesn't seem to hold up.

They couldn't have all consented, the people on that plane, especially if that posted list of passengers was correct. There were kids on board without their parents going to that National Geographic thing. Unless their parents were aware, they couldn't have legally consented.

I have seen this before and agree with several posters that if there was a conspiracy, the conspiracy would be to run a commercial plane into the Pentagon. The only known perpetrators at this time are the terrorists. They are linked to OBL. If the NWO needs to be involved, show the link.
No missile did the damage unless the missile contained more than 1000 gallons of hydrocarbons. There are none with that capability. The only other flying object with that capacity is a large aircraft.
If we assume that some aircraft other than Flt 77 hit the Pentagon, we must ask what happened to the passengers as their various DNA was found at the site. Again, a previous poster has already pointed out the ludicrous nature of the Rube Goldberg plot with everything having to mesh while not beng discovered by laptop sleuths when the simple way is to fly the plane into the building.

reply to post by GoldenFleece


Think people, THINK !!!
If the passengers of AA77 didn´t die at the Pentagon, we have hundreds if not thousands of “LIERS” who have been willingly telling us lies for more than 7 years now.
There´s American Airlines, the FAA, the FBI, the NTSB, the people working at the building, dozens of witnesses, TV, radio and press reporters, firemen, policemen, soldiers, doctors, nurses, housewives, forensic examiners, priests, family and friends, etc... All of them have been lying or hiding the information. ALL OF THEM???
On the other hand, people keep referring to “Operation Northwoods.” May I remind everyone the following:
1.- This “operation” was an idea. It was not carried out. The person who came up with it got fired.
2.- Not even in that “operation” were American citizens to be killed.

Originally posted by rush969
reply to post by GoldenFleece

 

Think people, THINK !!!

Likewise.

On the other hand, people keep referring to “Operation Northwoods.” May I remind everyone the following:
1.- This “operation” was an idea. It was not carried out. The person who came up with it got fired.

Yes, an "idea" that was approved by every member of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff. And exactly who was fired? You mean when Chairman Lemnitzer was relieved of duty by JFK? Well, what happened to Kennedy? Lemnitzer became Supreme Allied Commander of NATO in January 1963.

2.- Not even in that “operation” were American citizens to be killed.

Absolutely incorrect. Just like 9/11, Iraq and Afghanistan, you don't get to start wars based on false-flag terrorism by simulating attacks on American citizens:

U.S. Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba
Book: U.S. Military Drafted Plans to Terrorize U.S. Cities to Provoke War With Cuba
By David Ruppe
ABC News
N E W  Y O R K, May 1, 2001

In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

Operation Northwoods
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Operation Northwoods, or Northwoods, was a false-flag conspiracy plan, proposed within the United States government in 1962. The plan called for CIA or other operatives to commit apparent acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Castro-led Cuba. One plan was to "develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington".

This operation is especially notable in that it included plans for hijackings and bombings followed by the use of phony evidence that would blame the terrorist acts on a foreign government, namely Cuba.

The plan states,

"The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere."

Operation Northwoods was drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and signed by then-Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer, and sent to the Secretary of Defense.

reply to post by GoldenFleece


Fleece,
What hit the Pentagon and where are the passengers? Claiming "unknown" is not sufficient if you postulate a conspiracy.

The burden of proof is on the accuser.

reply to post by pteridine


this guy sure seems to know what happend whats your take on him??


he and many in the know people seem to think that it was a black ops type of Coup d'état

they even consulted on sept. 12 and sat for 72 hours to figure out what happen since it was done with military precision, they even handed out the report to head chiefs

he says the real planes where shot down out over the ocean and ,and then the selected targets where hit by remote military drones loaded with extra fuel and explosives for the shock and aww

if he is wright then thats where the passengers are

but i really have no clue but could have very well been what happened

www.scribd.com...

www.freedomunderground.org...

reply to post by lycopersicum


Lyco,
DNA of the passengers was recovered from the Pentagon, so shoot downs over the ocean don't fit. Pieces of airplane too big to plant [engines] were also recovered. What is proposed is contrived and complicated and would have required a huge conspiracy consisting of hundreds of people.
The impact fireball and immediate fire was from 1000-3000 gallons of liquid hydrocarbons. No missile in the inventory can carry that much fuel. The easiest plan would be to use an aircraft as a cruise missile, which is consistent with the evidence. There would be no big conspiracy required of the many people who responded and recovered evidence.
The only CT that could fit with the evidence would be that the terrorists were allowed to complete their missions while the security people watched. This was true to some extent but, in my opinion, more out of missed communications and intel turf wars and not malice.
Many of those calling for a new investigation do not dispute the physical evidence and conclusions as to cause of WTC collapse and Pentagon strike, but that the investigations did not include a detailed examination of the many screw-ups and bureaucratic maneuverings that allowed the events to occur. Nobody was punished for incompetence. Nobody answered for covering up ignored reports. If the public was to pay for another investigation, I believe that is probably what they would be willing to pay for.
I believe that the true disinformation agents are the CT's that are focusing on the physical missile strikes/thermate/demolition/two planes/flyovers/hologram stuff that has no supporting evidence. Some of it is so ludicrous as to be amusing. They lead people along a never ending path that they will never allow to be resolved. Some CT's are gullible believers, some are profiteers, and a very few may be intentionally diverting attention from the actual conspiracy.

This is the conspiracy of silence and cover-up of the high ranking officials who were playing oneupsmanship games while the terrorists attacked.

posted by walman

(3) Perhaps since Hani Hanjour was such a terrible pilot, the plane hit at an angle that caused one of the engines to ricochet off the ground and hit the building, while the other went right through the building and created that hole? A 757 can travel at around 600MPH, and those engines weight around 10K lbs each. Where do they officially state that it was the nose of the plane that made the hole and not the engine?

Well you see, the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY just keeps changing or evolving if you will. And no, there is absolutely no evidence that an engine or any part of an aircraft hit the lawn or the building foundation or even the big polyurethane cable spools supposedly sitting directly in the damage path.



The 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY up to now:

1st the fragile nose cone of the aircraft fuselage poked an Exit Hole through the C-Ring wall and out into the A&E Drive. When that pile of cow manure wouldn't float, they changed the story to:

2nd one of the landing gears blasted the Exit Hole through the C-Ring wall and out into the A&E Drive. When open-minded individuals pointed out that there was no landing gear out in the A&E Drive and no damage to the B-Ring wall, they changed the story to:

3rd one of the engines blasted the Exit Hole through the C-Ring wall and out into the A&E Drive. When the same bothersome open-minded individuals pointed out that there was no jet engine out in the A&E Drive and no damage to the B-Ring wall, they changed the story to:



4th a cone of focused energy from the exploding jet fuel allegedly inside the Pentagon Wedge 1 area, blasted the Exit Hole through the C-Ring wall and out into the A&E Drive. Now the Pentagon 9-11 cover-up team has their fingers in both ears and their eyes glued shut, and refuse to listen to the observations that there is no sign of jet fuel burning out in the A&E Drive nor is there any sign of burning on the B-Ring wall, and besides there was a pile of building debris outside the Exit Hole which wasn't burned a bit. April Gallop and her little boy were not burned up with jet fuel and there was absolutely no sign of jet fuel out on the lawn, even after allegedly smacking five 337 pound light poles with the 535 mph wing tanks.

The poor befuddled fanatics just have no idea what their next pile of cow manure cause of the Exit Hole will be. Maybe back to the 1st or hang on desperately to the 4th; or maybe just try that good old MAGIC word. Sometimes you just need a miracle, and that word works real good on a lot of gullible boob tubers doesn't it?

reply to post by pteridine
you are 100% sure there is no way in the world they could not have recoverd dna from bodies from the wreckage from the ocean??

they have done that on many crashes before flight 800 rings a bell

you think 100% not possible to have planted DNA ??

there is for 100% sure that there is no way that a huge load of hydrocarbon fuel couldnt have been placed there??

im just saying anything is possible true or false ??

or do you have some kind of inside info no one else has that make you 100% wright and every other idea wrong ??

are saying all of the people that worked on that report are lieing? are wrong?

what makes you the 9/11 expert?

what makes you 100% so sure ?

just wondering is all

do you work on the inside with 100% factual insider information?

just wondering is all


[edit on 31-1-2009 by lycopersicum]

Been following a lot of 9/11 threads for a while now and just wanted to add some of my observations. In looking at some of the conspiracy evidence the only thing it kept reminding me of was a story a family friend told me. A friends father is a professional gambler/card counter and does get kicked out of casinos from time to time. One particular time he had been playing for days and racked up quite a few points on his players club card, he ended up getting asked to leave and since he was in a casino/hotel it had a bar he could stop in. He was waiting for his flight but in the meantime asked if he had any points still on his card, he ended up having several thousand dollars worth of comps on his card, so for a few hours he bought drinks for everyone in the bar and then left and caught his flight. The point of this long and boring story? He was kicked out of the casino, but one hand didn't know what the other hand was doing so he was able to still use his comps and take the casino for several thousand in alchohol. From what I've seen, if there's a conspiracy and somebody knew something, it probably wasn't info that everyone in government knew about and thus there wasn't really a conspiracy...someone may have known an attack was imminent, but that information wasn't shared knowledge, and it didn't have to be malicious, it could simply be a case of one hand not knowing what the other hand is doing.
The other thing that I've noticed is that 9/11 conspiracies seem to bring out the "experts" in all of us. I work in higher education, but know almost nothng about metallurgy, engineering, physics, etc. and I bet a lot of other posters aren't experts in these topics either...yet somehow everyone becomes an expert all of a sudden "jet oil doesn't burn hot enough to do that!" "a plane can't make a hole that big!" "there was't enough fuel to do this damage"...it's just interesting because if you read these forums you'd assume everyone is a trained chemist or something, but in reality almost everyone is just regurgitating stuff they've read on the internet...

reply to post by walman

(1) What's to say that the CNN reporter misspoke, or spoke too quickly before considering all of the evidence? Does the CNN reporter still believe that there is no evidence of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon?

Actually, the better question would be to ask Fleecey why he refuses to look at the whole transcript of what the reporter was saying. The reporter in question has NEVER said that Flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon and has on many occasions stated that people like Fleece are not accurately portraying what he said that day.

(3) Perhaps since Hani Hanjour was such a terrible pilot, the plane hit at an angle that caused one of the engines to ricochet off the ground and hit the building, while the other went right through the building and created that hole?

And yet, Hani, had a Commericial Pilots license.......and we all know they hand those out like rings in Cracker Jack boxes.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

How many commercial pilots do you know that can't rent a Cessna 172 because the check ride pilot says they "cant fly at all"?!

Hani Hanjour: 9/11 Pilot Extraordinaire

From the ridiculous to the sublime...

Federal Aviation Administration records show [Hanjour] obtained a commercial pilot's license in April 1999, but how and where he did so remains a lingering question that FAA officials refuse to discuss. His limited flying abilities do afford an insight into one feature of the attacks: The conspiracy apparently did not include a surplus of skilled pilots. [Cape Cod Times]

[Flight Academy] Staff members characterized Mr. Hanjour as polite, meek and very quiet. But most of all, the former employee said, they considered him a very bad pilot. "I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon," the former employee said. "He could not fly at all." [New York Times]

At Freeway Airport in Bowie, Md., 20 miles west of Washington, flight instructor Sheri Baxter instantly recognized the name of alleged hijacker Hani Hanjour when the FBI released a list of 19 suspects in the four hijackings. Hanjour, the only suspect on Flight 77 the FBI listed as a pilot, had come to the airport one month earlier seeking to rent a small plane.

However, when Baxter and fellow instructor Ben Conner took the slender, soft-spoken Hanjour on three test runs during the second week of August, they found he had trouble controlling and landing the single-engine Cessna 172. Even though Hanjour showed a federal pilot's license and a log book cataloging 600 hours of flying experience, chief flight instructor Marcel Bernard declined to rent him a plane without more lessons.

In the spring of 2000, Hanjour had asked to enroll in the CRM Airline Training Center in Scottsdale, Ariz., for advanced training, said the center's attorney, Gerald Chilton Jr. Hanjour had attended the school for three months in late 1996 and again in December 1997 but never finished coursework for a license to fly a single-engine aircraft, Chilton said.

When Hanjour reapplied to the center last year, "We declined to provide training to him because we didn't think he was a good enough student when he was there in 1996 and 1997" Chilton said. [Newsday]

"This guy could not solo a Cessna 150 ... and what I mean by solo is a pilot's first time out without anyone in the cockpit with him. It's the most simple, the most fundamental flying exercise one can engage in..."

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Actually, the better question would be to ask Fleecey why he refuses to look at the whole transcript of what the reporter was saying. The reporter in question has NEVER said that Flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon and has on many occasions stated that people like Fleece are not accurately portraying what he said that day.

Swampy, I've looked at the entire transcript many times and I've also heard your attempts to spin it many times.

I'm not interested in how Jamie McIntyre backpedaled AFTER his report ignited a firestorm. I'm only interested in what he witnessed standing in front of the Pentagon on 9/11: ("very small pieces of the plane" with NO identifying markings), or didn't see ("from my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.")

So once again for your edification, here's the entire transcript that's pertinent to this discussion.

Judy Woodruff: Outside the Pentagon, CNN's military affairs correspondent Jamie McIntyre.

And, Jamie, you got very close to where that plane went down.

JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Judy.

A short -- a while ago I walked right up next to the building, firefighters were still trying to put the blaze. The fire, by the way, is still burning in some parts of the Pentagon. And I took a look at the huge gaping hole that's in the side of the Pentagon in an area of the Pentagon that has been recently renovated, part of a multibillion dollar renovation program here at the Pentagon. I could see parts of the airplane that crashed into the building, very small pieces of the plane on the heliport outside the building. The biggest piece I saw was about three feet long, it was silver and had been painted green and red, but I could not see any identifying markings on the plane. I also saw a large piece of shattered glass. It appeared to be a cockpit windshield or other window from the plane.

When this plane hit the Pentagon this morning, according to the Pentagon spokesman, Craig Quigley, the defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, incredibly is described as having run out of his office and down to actually help some of the victims onto stretchers until he was ushered into the National Military Command Center, the secure Nerve Center or War Room deep inside the Pentagon, where he remains at this time.

Pentagon officials say he will stay for the time being. That is a place where all of U.S. intelligence comes in and he has complete command with his commanders around the world.

At the same time, the Pentagon has dispatched several warships out of port Norfolk, including the U.S. -- the carriers, USS George Washington and USS Kennedy. The sensible reason for that, the movement of those ships and their escort ships, is to move them from more vulnerable positions. But the Navy says they'll also head some of the aircraft carriers up toward New York with the idea that they may be able to render some kind of assistance there, given the magnitude of the tragedy there.

Back here, the fight goes on to put out the fire inside the Pentagon. The heat from that blaze was described as absolutely intense, and the number of casualties here has still not been released. Dozens of people were taken away in ambulances, and the Pentagon is still not releasing any figures on deaths. But clearly, people who had offices in that, what is now a huge gaping hole in the side of the Pentagon, clearly, there was some people killed in this tragedy -- Judy.

WOODRUFF: Jamie, Aaron was talking earlier -- or one of our correspondence was talking earlier -- I think -- actually, it was Bob Franken -- with an eyewitness who said it appeared that that Boeing 757, the American jet, American Airline jet, landed short of the Pentagon.

Can you give us any better idea of how much of the plane actually impacted the building?

MCINTYRE: You know, it might have appeared that way, but from my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. The only site is the actual site of the building that's crashed in, and as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you can pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around, which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse.

Now, even though if you look at the pictures of the Pentagon you see that the floors have all collapsed; that didn't happen immediately. It wasn't until almost about 45 minutes later that the structure was weakened enough that all of the floors collapsed.

reply to post by SPreston

SPreston, that's a 5-star post if ever I've seen one.

Originally posted by SPreston
The poor befuddled fanatics just have no idea what their next pile of cow manure cause of the Exit Hole will be. Maybe back to the 1st or hang on desperately to the 4th; or maybe just try that good old MAGIC word.

Sounds like it's time for a Pentagon Exit Hole "Magic Bullet Theory."

Amazing how the OFFICIAL Pentagon story keeps changing, but they still haven't released any photos or CCTV videos of whatever hit the Pentagon. It sure the hell wasn't Flight 77.



[edit on 31-1-2009 by GoldenFleece]

Originally posted by lycopersicum
reply to post by pteridine

 

you are 100% sure there is no way in the world they could not have recoverd dna from bodies from the wreckage from the ocean??

they have done that on many crashes before flight 800 rings a bell

you think 100% not possible to have planted DNA ??

***Flight 800 has a much better chance of being a consipracy of silence than any 911 event. Recovering DNA from the bodies of flight 800 was possible and many of the bodies were reasonably whole and identifiable.
It may be possible to fly an airplane out to sea, shoot it down, and recover the bodies that are recoverable but why go through such a contortion when there is no reason to do so.

there is for 100% sure that there is no way that a huge load of hydrocarbon fuel couldnt have been placed there??

***You would need a tanker truck's worth. Unless you find a tanker truck on the exterior wall in photos of the impact, no.

im just saying anything is possible true or false ??

***"Anything is possible" is overworked. Many things are possible, but many of those may not be very probable. Why go to the trouble of all the tortuous machinations proposed to get the same results as the obvious? Ask the CTer's why they need such. Think about it, Lyco, they kill all the passengers elsewhere and then bring the burnt bodies to the Pentagon, SECRETLY. They have the plane miss and land somewhere else while a second plane/missile strikes the Pentagon. So they plant wreckage SECRETLY. Do you realize how ludicrous all of this is?


do you work on the inside with 100% factual insider information?

***Of course not. If I did, I'd never admit it anyway.






[edit on 31-1-2009 by lycopersicum]

reply to post by pteridine

only if you look at it from a non military aspect

if it was a Coup d'état you couldnt have anything go aria could you??

if your goal was to make sure certain people offices where destroyed with said target in it , you wouldnt want to miss would you?

if certain people that where bucking the system needed to die you would want to make sure they died wouldnt you?

if certain goals needed to be met to usher in a certain political agenda you would want some untrained fly by night back woods yocal screwing up would you?

if it was an inside job you couldnt have just any joe shmoe hijacker missing the building could you? what if not everyone died on the plane ?

you wouldnt want any witnesses from inside the plane would you? or a patzi hijacker spilling the beans if he missed and didnt die then got scared and started talking like oswald did would you?

lets say you intelligence got wind of an attack,www.allthatis.co.uk... (and mind you we where told they couldnt have imagined it)they where frigging preparing for it

so you decide to let it happen but dont need loose cannons running around messing it up,so you decide to tack over and make sure it happens in a way that can be more controlled

you have a guy who need building demoed to build new updated buildings and is told no by the city you have to renovate them at the cost of 3 billion

said guy is aproached and is told by a certain person we can do it for you and get passed all the red tape you just have to keep quiet make a claim get your billions from insurance and you only had to invest 12 million up front (the down payment for said property)you just have to be whery whery quiet

its a win win for both parties

all i am saying with enough money /wright people in power you can get anything done wright??

i mean JFK did get shot

way way to many things dont add up at all

i have no clue what happend but i know what they are trying to make us believe is not all hunky dory

and unless you have inside info you have no clue what happend either and

to act like you do know

to me that is sound ludicrous

all i am saying is after the twin towers where hit there is no way in hell that the pentagon should have had even a bird fly in its air space it is the most protected building in the world

not one person here knows what happend whether they are a truther or a debunker

all that should be done is to take all the information from both sides put them side by side decipher whats real and what is not and see where it leads
it all should be a matter of fact and not a matter of opinion dont you agree?

i sure dont claim to know and either should you true or false?

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by lycopersicum

 

Lyco,
DNA of the passengers was recovered from the Pentagon, so shoot downs over the ocean don't fit. Pieces of airplane too big to plant [engines] were also recovered. What is proposed is contrived and complicated and would have required a huge conspiracy consisting of hundreds of people.
The impact fireball and immediate fire was from 1000-3000 gallons of liquid hydrocarbons. No missile in the inventory can carry that much fuel. The easiest plan would be to use an aircraft as a cruise missile, which is consistent with the evidence. There would be no big conspiracy required of the many people who responded and recovered evidence.
The only CT that could fit with the evidence would be that the terrorists were allowed to complete their missions while the security people watched. This was true to some extent but, in my opinion, more out of missed communications and intel turf wars and not malice.
Many of those calling for a new investigation do not dispute the physical evidence and conclusions as to cause of WTC collapse and Pentagon strike, but that the investigations did not include a detailed examination of the many screw-ups and bureaucratic maneuverings that allowed the events to occur. Nobody was punished for incompetence. Nobody answered for covering up ignored reports. If the public was to pay for another investigation, I believe that is probably what they would be willing to pay for.
I believe that the true disinformation agents are the CT's that are focusing on the physical missile strikes/thermate/demolition/two planes/flyovers/hologram stuff that has no supporting evidence. Some of it is so ludicrous as to be amusing. They lead people along a never ending path that they will never allow to be resolved. Some CT's are gullible believers, some are profiteers, and a very few may be intentionally diverting attention from the actual conspiracy.

This is the conspiracy of silence and cover-up of the high ranking officials who were playing oneupsmanship games while the terrorists attacked.

This is, for the most part, what I have been thinking all along, and I have never heard anyone put it so sensibly and present it so concisely. I commend you for your take on it.

I do believe that the only true conspiracy here (at least, the one which cannot be refuted, and perhaps deserves more official investigation) is probably the heads that turned while these events were occurring up to the final events.

I'm curious, though, what your take is on Building 7? The reports that I heard said it was hit by very little debris, yet it fell like a planned demolition...

www.youtube.com...

...how can that be explained to refute suspicion?

[edit on 31-1-2009 by walman]