The Pentagon was hit on 9/11 it wasn't staged.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
I keep close tabs on the theories surrounding 9/11, and while I find some of it plausible, some of it just isn't; eg. how can an inexperienced pilot fly a massive 757 so low to the ground, on approach to the target? But still I've not formed an opinion one way or the other.

Did you know that the "supposed" pilot of flight 77, Hani Hanjour, got kicked out of the three pilot schools he was attending because he wasn't good enough in the past.

www.newsday.com...

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.

So if he was never good enough, he couldn't have flown it into the Pentagon that low to the ground.

Yet there has been one burning question in my mind anyway, a credible answer to which I have not yet found; What happened to all of the passengers on Fl77's manifest?

Now that is one mystery I have yet to fathom. Of course with the government they can do anything like make up an entire passengers list.

[edit on 8-8-2004 by mrmulder]

[edit on 8-8-2004 by mrmulder]

Originally posted by mrmulder
Did you know that the "supposed" pilot of flight 77, Hani Hanjour, got kicked out of the three pilot schools he was attending because he wasn't good enough in the past.

So what, did it ever occur to you that he learned all that he needed to know to fly the plane into the Pentagon?

So if he was never good enough, he couldn't have flown it into the Pentagon that low to the ground.

You may want to research into the specific problems he had before you use this a evidence to back up your claim.

Bottom line, he may not have been a good enough pilot, but he was good enough to be able to crash into a building. All he had to do was point the nose in the direction of travel. They have trained monkeys to do that.

Originally posted by mrmulderDid you know that the "supposed" pilot of flight 77, Hani Hanjour, got kicked out of the three pilot schools he was attending because he wasn't good enough in the past.

www.newsday.com...
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.

So if he was never good enough, he couldn't have flown it into the Pentagon that low to the ground.

Now that is one mystery I have yet to fathom. Of course with the government they can do anything like make up an entire passengers list.

Food for thought relative to Hanjour, thank you. The passenger manifest though is possible, but not quite as convincing. I am certain the conspiracy theorists would have delved into the backgrounds of the passengers and reported any anomalies.

Originally posted by mrmulder
Did you know that the "supposed" pilot of flight 77, Hani Hanjour, got kicked out of the three pilot schools he was attending because he wasn't good enough in the past.

www.newsday.com...

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.

So if he was never good enough, he couldn't have flown it into the Pentagon that low to the ground.


[edit on 8-8-2004 by mrmulder]

Since you have shown that you know absolutely nothing about aircraft operations or aeronautics let me explain something to you. You can teach a monkey to fly an airplane. It's just like driving, but a tad more complex, as it is three dimensional instead of two. What you CAN'T teach is good common sense and what we call "pilotage skills", i.e., making the smart decisions required to safely operate an aircraft. The mechanics of flying the aircraft are fairly easy, and practice makes perfect. But bad decision making skills are something different. The school statment that, "we didn't think he was a good enough student", most likely meant that he didn't have the full package.

I've taken Boy Scout troops on tours of the full motion simulator and had them landing the thing in short order with very little assistance by me, other than throttle control and talking them through it. Think about these terrorists. They had many hours in small aircraft, and were trying to upgrade to commercial aircraft for the purposes of doing what they did. They also used computer flight simulators that are remarkably realistic. It was hardly the first time they had crashed into the Pentagon.

I fly the sim through downtown all the time. Keeps the skills sharp�.

Of course I MISS the buildings�on purpose�.

Affirmative, is your point then, that the skills necessary to become a pilot could be procured through enough hours spent on SIM games, or that the mechanics of the aircraft is such that anyone with a few flying hours in a light aircraft could master, or that it really takes little skill to propel a 757 travelling at a speed of 250-300mph, into the bottom floor of a building without skimming the ground?

I have never piloted a craft of any sort, so I am curious to know if it truly is that simple.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween

I have never piloted a craft of any sort, so I am curious to know if it truly is that simple.

You would be astounded how simple it actually is to fly an aircraft, and size makes very little difference. (No pun intended there!!! ) All military pilots who fly large aircraft transition from small aircraft to large with little or no difficulty what so ever. The mechanics of aircraft control are the same regardless of the aircraft you fly. Stick-rudder-throttle, three axis of control. The same forces of lift and drag act on all aircraft. Granted, fighters are much more maneuverable. You can fly an F-16 inverted, something you would never THINK of attempting with a C-130, but we also put Herks down on a 3500 foot long 50 foot wide dirt landing zone, aiming for a 100 foot touch down zone. Most can put it down on the 50-foot mark, which is what we aim for. Not near, ON the line. With a little practice just about anything is possible, and simulators today are so realistic as to be identical except for the "seat of the pants" you get in the real thing of a full motion sim. Some sims are actually harder to fly than the real thing. The C-130 sim is very difficult to put on the assault zone well�

So, the answer is yes, it is not just possible, it is probable. Remember, the Pentagon is huge. Would you think it possible to hit the WTC buildings? They are SKINNY compared to the Pentagon, and they hit them both! The second plane almost missed, and had to make a huge last second correction, pulling huge G's to make contact...

My personal opinion on the Pentagon plane was that he was trying to hit the center courtyard where he would have done much more damage, but hit short....the outside walls are much more sturdily built, and held up quite well for what happened to them...

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Anyone who wants to know what the normal procedure is for intercepting wayward aircrafts should look into the Payne Stewart incident a few years back. The pro golfer's lear went astray and within minutes he was surrounded by fighters, who followed him until his jet crashed.

The bottom line is this: Someone, most likely Cheney, ordered NORAD to stand down on the morning of 9-11 - while the Shrub was busy reading about goats.

By the way, Cool Hand, what exactly do you do for the Navy? Man the net?

Project DAISY?

ps.. I'm pretty sure it was a drone aircraft that went into the pentagon. I believe they re-routed the airliners out to sea where they were disposed of. The drones took their places and were directed by remote control into their targets.

I like your thinking man!

911 Stand down

It was Rummy who blew it, and no one is doing a Dam thing about it!
I guess thats politics

NORAD was unusually prepared on 9/11, because it was conducting a week-long semiannual exercise called Vigilant Guardian.

On 9/11, North American Aerospace Defense Command's (Norad) Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) was fully staffed, its key officers and enlisted supervisors already manning the operations center "battle cab." [Aviation Week]

COLONEL ROBERT MARR, US AIR FORCE: We had the fighters with a little more gas on board. A few more weapons on board. [...] We had 14 aircraft on alert, seven sites, two aircraft at each site. [ABC News]

That's a ratio of 3.5 'hot' fighter jets per hijacked airliner.

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction CJCSI 3610.01A (dated 1 June 2001) changed the protocol so that any requests for "potentially lethal support" had to come explicitly from the secretary of defense, leaving commanders in the field unable to respond to hijackings in any meaningful fashion.

President Bush and Vice President Cheney's "conversation" with the 9/11 commissioners verified that the job of issuing "potentially lethal support" belonged to Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld.

On 9/11 Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld was having breakfast with Congressional leaders when Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. His lack of action allowed the hijacked aircraft to hit their targets unimpeded.


Rumsfeld�s public testimony before the commission last March was bizarre. When Gorelick asked the Secretary of Defense what he had done to protect the nation�or even the Pentagon�during the �summer of threat� preceding the attacks, Rumsfeld replied simply that �it was a law-enforcement issue.� (So, observers were left to wonder, should the FBI be out with shoulder-launched missiles?)

�We still don�t have a full accounting of Rumsfeld�s whereabouts and knowledge on the morning of 9-11,� Gorelick acknowledged after the commission�s final public hearing. �We don�t have answers to the questions that you�re asking. But I�m going to make sure it�s nailed down,� she promised. Yet the final published report offers no further details on Rumsfeld�s inactions or the reason he was �out of the loop� (as the secretary himself put it) that morning. www.whatreallyhappened.com...

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween

I have never piloted a craft of any sort, so I am curious to know if it truly is that simple.

You would be astounded how simple it actually is to fly an aircraft, and size makes very little difference. (No pun intended there!!!

)

Perhaps, but perhaps not. You assure me that it would be relatively easy for a novice to guide a 757 into a building after skimming the ground. This article though, seems to indicate another possibility. Hence I am still not any closer to either side of the tale:

www.geocities.com...

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction
Since you have shown that you know absolutely nothing about aircraft operations or aeronautics let me explain something to you. You can teach a monkey to fly an airplane. It's just like driving, but a tad more complex, as it is three dimensional instead of two. What you CAN'T teach is good common sense and what we call "pilotage skills", i.e., making the smart decisions required to safely operate an aircraft. The mechanics of flying the aircraft are fairly easy, and practice makes perfect. But bad decision making skills are something different. The school statment that, "we didn't think he was a good enough student", most likely meant that he didn't have the full package.

I've taken Boy Scout troops on tours of the full motion simulator and had them landing the thing in short order with very little assistance by me, other than throttle control and talking them through it. Think about these terrorists. They had many hours in small aircraft, and were trying to upgrade to commercial aircraft for the purposes of doing what they did. They also used computer flight simulators that are remarkably realistic. It was hardly the first time they had crashed into the Pentagon.

I fly the sim through downtown all the time. Keeps the skills sharp�.

Of course I MISS the buildings�on purpose�.

I'm not sure if Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004 counts as a realistic enough sim, but I can vouch for that. I've only ever messed with the thing, and it's extremely easy to fudge your way through taking off and flying. Landing is pretty hard to do correctly, but everything else just takes a little common sense.

After this one came out I tried doing the same thing as the terrorists did and took control of the same kind of aircraft, and piloted it into a target. Not hard.

BUT now that I think of it, if it's so easy, why did these guys need to take so many classes?

Why couldn't they spend a couple weeks with the simulator instead of leaving a clear, convenient trail of evidence?

Originally posted by TheHeggy
BUT now that I think of it, if it's so easy, why did these guys need to take so many classes?

Why couldn't they spend a couple weeks with the simulator instead of leaving a clear, convenient trail of evidence?

You have to remember that a terrorist, especially one on a suicide mission, doesn't give a HOOT about a trail of evidence. As a matter of fact, think about the embarrassment caused when we learned that these murdering bastards used our own wide open school system against us! They WANT the publicity; and as a matter of fact DEPEND upon it to get their point across. Terrorism doesn't work if you don't hear about it....


In addition, if you want an operation to succeed, you train as much as you can and as realistically as you can. Failing to plan is planning to fail...




[edit on 9-8-2004 by Affirmative Reaction]

Originally posted by Sauron
911 Stand down

It was Rummy who blew it, and no one is doing a Dam thing about it!
I guess thats politics

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

Come on now, I thought we had gone over this before. You need to post CREDIBLE news sources, not drivel like whatreallyhappened.com. There isn't a shred of truth on that site. They think "fact checking" is where they do their banking. You are lowering yourself into the same pit that mulder has done by posting this.

Go do some REAL research with RESPECTABLE sources, and then try again....

by Affirmative Reaction
Come on now, I thought we had gone over this before. You need to post CREDIBLE news sources, not drivel like whatreallyhappened.com. There isn't a shred of truth on that site. They think "fact checking" is where they do their banking. You are lowering yourself into the same pit that mulder has done by posting this.

Go do some REAL research with RESPECTABLE sources, and then try again....

Its� PDF format
Chairman Of The Joint Chiefs Of Staff Instuctions


Read
4. Policy
a. Aircraft Piracy (Hijacking of Civil and Military Aircraft Pursuant to references a and b. the Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has exclusive responsibility to direct law enforcement activity related to actual or attempted aircraft piracy (hijacking) in the �special aircraft jurisdiction� of the United States. When requested by the Administrator. Department of Defense will provide assistance to these law enforcement efforts. Pursuant to reference c. the NMCC is the focal point within the Department of Defence for providing assistance. In the event of hijacking, the NMCC will, be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate response as authorized by reference d, forward requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defence for approval. DOD assistance to the FAA will be provided in accordance with reference d. guidance is provided in Enclosure A.

CJCS Directives Electronic Library
found the 911 stand down order
CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFF OF STAFF INSTUCTIONS (HTML Format)

Criminal Mastermind: Donald Rumsfeld
"AIRCRAFT PIRACY (HIJACKING) AND DESTRUCTION OF DERELICT AIRBORNE OBJECTS"
These are the standing orders to the military as to how to respond to hijackings over United States territory. The June 1 '01 document deliberately changed the existing policies. Previous directives were issued in 1997, 1986 and before.

What is shocking about this entire sordid episode is the total disconnect between what Donald Rumsfeld's story alleges (ignorance of inbound hijacked aircraft), and what these Chief of Staff Instructions require of the Secretary of Defense:

"b. Support.
When notified that military assistance is needed in conjunction with an aircraft piracy (hijacking) emergency, the DDO, NMCC, will:

(1) Determine whether or not the assistance needed is reasonably available from police or commercial sources. If not, the DDO, NMCC, will notify the appropriate unified command or NORAD to determine if suitable assets are available and will forward the request to the Secretary of Defense for approval in accordance with DODD 3025.15, paragraph D.7 (reference d)."

"APPROVAL"
The usage of the word "approval" is the major change here to the existing hijacking response procedures. While the text of the document tries to link this "approval" to the previous orders "DODD 3025.15," the approval is now required BEFORE providing any assistance at all. Previously, approval would be required to respond to a situation with lethal force.

This June 1st update to the orders stopped all military assistance in its tracks UNTIL approval from Donald Rumsfeld (the "Secretary of Defense") could be granted -- which, by his own admission, it was not. Rumsfeld claimed total ignorance of the inbound aircraft that attacked the Pentagon (on the opposite side of the building complex, where a construction project had been underway).*

In this manner, fighter planes were held up from immediately responding to the hijacked commercial jets on September the 11th.

The flight base commanders were ordered by the June 1st "Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction" to wait for "approval" from the Secretary of Defense before they could respond to hijackings, where they would have routinely responded in the past.

It's inconceivable that New York City could be struck by two wayward jumbo jets, and still over 30 minutes later there remained no defenses over the skies of Washington D.C., easily one of the most heavily defended places in the world.

This reality led Anatoli Kornukov, the commander-in-chief of the Russian Air Force to say: "Generally it is impossible to carry out an act of terror on the scenario which was used in the USA yesterday. (...) As soon as something like that happens here, I am reported about that right away and in a minute we are all up."

The Plot Thickens
Enter the patsy. Rumsfeld wouldn't be a mastermind if he hadn't thought of a fall guy to take the blame, if needed. This brings us to Tom White, the former Enron executive, appointed to be Secretary of the Army, and more importantly the "executive agent for the Department of Defense" on May 31, 2001 -- ONE DAY BEFORE THE NEW HIJACKING INSTRUCTIONS WERE ISSUED!

The first public statement of Donald Rumsfeld on September 11th, 2001 makes an issue of Tom White's "responsibility" for the situation:

"Secretary of the Army Tom White, who has a responsibility for incidents like this as executive agent for the Department of Defense, is also joining me." The Pentagon, Arlington, Virginia, September 11, 2001 6:42 P.M. EDT,
Criminal Mastermind: Donald Rumsfeld

Google CJCSI 3610.01A if these sources are not up to you caliber
But I'm sure you will find somthing to Baa about

Now, to put that in perspective, simply go back to the posts about the Payne Stewart incident. The possibility of having an ARMED FIGHTER scrambled in time to intercept any one of the four airliners before impact was ABSOLUTLY ZERO!

No Aircraft on alert armed since shortly after the end of the cold war.

No indication that the aircraft were actually hijacked until shortly before impact.

Makes your ascertation not only erroneous, but irresponsible.

Of course, kudos for actually finding a decent source, the CJSI that is, not the other two propaganda sites, regardless of the fact that it didn�t support your ridiculous claim.

Try again.




[edit on 9-8-2004 by Affirmative Reaction]

Originally posted by esdad71
Take a side, this is not the place to play devils advocate.

There is always a place for a Devils advocate. It is often those that play such a roll that have the greatest insights.

Originally posted by wraith30



There is always a place for a Devils advocate. It is often those that play such a roll that have the greatest insights.

It is more often true that those that do so simply like to create tumult and watch the war that ensues....

Originally posted by wraith30
There is always a place for a Devils advocate. It is often those that play such a roll that have the greatest insights.

It can also be said that they are the ones who possess the greatest ignorance.

There is no need for Devils advocacy on this issue. There is too much evidence that this attack was just as the news reported it. A terrorist act.

Further speculation is a waste of time.

I kind of feel sorry for all the mulders, Merovingians, and ECKs of the world. Especially the ones on this site where the moto is to deny ignorance. Maybe we should change it to deny stupidity.


I went through alot of this thread, but maybe I missed it. If no plane crashed into the Pentagon....what happened to the plane? Were the passengers taken to some secret location? That flight was the one with all the kids on board were they promised candy or something if they'd play along and pretended like they died a horrible death and never spoke to their families again?

Like most people around here, we either witnessed it or know people who did. I fortunately wasn't near there at the time but I know plenty of people who saw it. I'd take their word or you alls 100% of the time. They have no reason to lie about it. lol, it's funny actually.
Your websites created from people who more than likely don't even live near the affected areas and have their own political agendas vs. eyewitness accounts.

No matter how much you want it to be, there is no conspiricy. A plane was hijacked and crashed into the pentagon. If there was something we could have done about it we would have. Talk to anyone in this area who was downtown (or anywhere in this area) at the time, they will tell you VERY soon after the Pentagon was hit Jets were everywhere, so it wasn't like they were sitting back, they just didn't get here in time.

We've been through all this before. This is ridiculous.
Remember when Clinton was in office and a small plane crashed into the White House? Was that purposely allowed? Or is it possible that stuff like that can happen without NORAD the FAA or fighter jets being able to do anything about it.

Quotes by Affirmative Reaction
No Aircraft on alert armed since shortly after the end of the cold war.

Aviation Week EXERCISE JUMP STAR RESPONSE TO ATTACKS

Vigilant Guardian
Sept. 11, 2001: "American 11 heavy, Boston Center. Your transponder appears to be inoperative. Please recycle. . . . American 11 heavy, how do you read Boston Center? Over.
"Watch supervisor, I have a possible hijack of American 11 heavy. Recommend notifying Norad."
At 8:40 a.m. EDT, Tech. Sgt. Jeremy W. Powell of North American Aerospace Defense Command's (Norad) Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) in Rome, N.Y., took the first call from Boston Center. He notified NEADS commander Col. Robert K. Marr, Jr., of a possible hijacked airliner, American Airlines Flight 11.
Part of the exercise?
The colonel wondered. No; this is a real-world event, he was told. Several days into a semiannual exercise known as Vigilant Guardian, NEADS was fully staffed, its key officers and enlisted supervisors already manning the operations center "battle cab."
In retrospect, the exercise would prove to be a serendipitous enabler of a rapid military response to terrorist attacks on Sept. 11. Senior officers involved in Vigilant Guardian were manning Norad command centers throughout the U.S. and Canada, available to make immediate decisions.

Quotes by Affirmative Reaction
No Aircraft on alert armed since shortly after the end of the cold war.

Marr ordered two F-15 fighters sitting alert at Otis Air National Guard (ANG) Base, Mass., to "battle stations." "The fighters were cocked and loaded, and even had extra gas on board," he recalled.

Now, to put that in perspective, simply go back to the posts about the Payne Stewart incident. The possibility of having an ARMED FIGHTER scrambled in time to intercept any one of the four airliners before impact was ABSOLUTLY ZERO!

Makes your ascertation not only erroneous, but irresponsible

Marr called Maj. Gen. Larry Arnold, commander of the Continental U.S. Norad Region (Conar), at Tyndall AFB, Fla., told him about the suspected hijacked aircraft and suggested interceptors be scrambled. Arnold, who also heads the 1st Air Force for Air Combat Command, was in his Air Operations Center preparing for another day of the exercise.
"I told him to scramble; we'll get clearances later," Arnold said. His instincts to act first and get permission later were typical of U.S. and Canadian commanders that day. On Sept. 11, the normal scramble-approval procedure was for an FAA official to contact the National Military Command Center (NMCC) and request Pentagon air support. Someone in the NMCC would call Norad's command center and ask about availability of aircraft, then seek approval from the Defense Secretary--Donald H. Rumsfeld--to launch fighters.
Lt. Col. Timothy (Duff) Duffy, a 102 Fighter Wing (FW) F-15 pilot at Otis ANGB, had already heard about the suspected hijacking, thanks to a phone call from the FAA's Boston Approach Control. He had the call transferred to the unit's command post, grabbed Maj. Daniel (Nasty)Nash, his wingman, and started suiting up. Another officer told Duffy, "This looks like the real thing."
"Halfway to the jets, we got 'battle stations,' and I briefed Nasty on the information I had about the American Airlines flight," Duffy said. "About 4-5 min. later, we got the scramble order and took off."
Also an airline pilot, Duffy had a bad feeling about the suspected hijacking; something didn't feel right. Consequently, he jammed the F-15's throttles into afterburner and the two-ship formation devoured the 153 mi. to New York City at supersonic speeds. "It just seemed wrong. I just wanted to get there. I was in full-blower all the way," he said.

Of course, kudos for actually finding a decent source, the CJSI that is, not the other two propaganda sites, regardless of the fact that it didn�t support your ridiculous claim.

Try again.

Explain your self, same info two webs sites, one you think is good and one you don�t, you can�t prove I or mulder or anyone else for that matter wrong, you have to lower your self to the position of calling website who provide the info propagandist.
Why don�t you go research and show me that my claim the Bush Cabal did let 911 happen to further there own personal gains, is wrong?
I dare you You can�t,
your Avatar does you justice stick with flying your sim games

I'm going to play Delta Force



[edit on 9-8-2004 by Sauron]