9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Well the reasonably sized hole in the wall, with all the internal damage is a good place to start. The plane didn't just hit the wall and stop it wen't into the building and exploded. Do you think that all of that debris is going to come flying back out the hole it went into and form a nice pile on the lawn for everyone to see?

Originally posted by Zaphod58 But apparently since you guys BELIEVE what the "truth" is, it's all irrelevant.

You just proved my point again, why are you getting so upset? What do we believe? That the official story is a lie right, basicaly? What do you believe? That the official story is true right, basicaly? So what guys "BELIEVE" what the "truth" is again? Hmmmm? I know that sentence makes no sense, but yours didn't either. But I think it makes the point.

No, there's a big difference between BELIEVING that there were 200 fighters waiting to launch and intercept every airplane over the US on 9/11, and the FACT that there were TWENTY planes ready to launch. Yes you may believe that the official story is a coverup, and I don't have any problems if that's what you want to believe. My problem is when people start to deny easily verifiable FACTS to make them fit their beliefs. You want to debate what hit the Pentagon, respectfully, and without calling names and insulting each other, let's debate it, but don't start changing things to fit your beliefs, like has been done many times. [edit on 11/17/2005 by Zaphod58]

Zaphod58, I will try to clarify the issue of the fighter intercept for you, not so I can show that you are wrong, simply to discredit you; after all, we all make errors and lack certain knowledge and there's nothing wrong with that. However, when what you claim gives false impressions, I feel that a clarification is in order. You state that there were only 14 fighters covering the entire US of A and commented:

Originally posted by Zaphod58 Did you bother to read what I posted last night about the alert fighters that were armed and ready to launch on 9/11? Do you REALIZE how many fighters were covering the ENTIRE UNITED STATES on 9/11? Do you know where they were based at? There were a grand total of SEVEN BASES with FOURTEEN FIGHTERS ready to launch.

Now, one google search later, and I came up with this (excerpts of relevant timeline): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (8:20 a.m.): Flight 77 Takes Off 10 Minutes Late Flight 77 departs Dulles International Airport near Washington, ten minutes after its 8:10 scheduled departure time. [CNN, 9/17/01; Washington Post, 9/12/01; Guardian, 10/17/01; 9/11 Commission Report, 6/17/04; Associated Press, 8/19/02 (B)] 8:25 a.m.: Boston Flight Control Tells Other Centers About Hijack, but Not NORAD The Guardian reports that Boston flight control "notifies several air traffic control centers that a hijack is taking place." But it does not notify NORAD for another 6-15 minutes, depending on the account. [Guardian, 10/17/01] However, the Indianapolis flight controller monitoring Flight 77 claims to not know about this or Flight 175's hijacking twenty minutes later at 8:56 a.m. Additionally, the flight controllers at New York City's La Guardia airport are never told about the hijacked planes and learn about them from watching the news. [Bergen Record, 1/4/04] People and organizations involved: North American Aerospace Defense Command, La Guardia Airport, Boston flight control 8:46 a.m.: Fighters Are Training over North Carolina; Not Recalled to Washington Until Much Later At the time of the first WTC crash, three F-16s assigned to Andrews Air Force Base, ten miles from Washington, are flying an air-to-ground training mission to drop some bombs and hit a refueling tanker, on a range in North Carolina, 207 miles away from their base. However, it is only when they are halfway back to Andrews that lead pilot Major Billy Hutchison is able to talk to the acting supervisor of flying at Andrews, Lt. Col. Phil Thompson, who tells him to return to the base "buster" (as fast as his aircraft will fly). After landing back at Andrews, Hutchison is told to take off immediately, and does so at 10:33 a.m. The other two pilots, Marc Sasseville and Heather Penney, take off from Andrews at 10:42 a.m., after having their planes loaded with 20mm training rounds. These three pilots will therefore not be patrolling the skies above Washington until after about 10:45 a.m. [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 9/9/02; Air War Over America, by Leslie Filson, 1/04, p. 56] F-16s can travel at a maximum speed of 1,500 mph. [Associated Press, 6/16/00] Traveling even at 1,100 mph (the speed NORAD Major General Larry Arnold says two fighters from Massachusetts travel toward Flight 175 [MSNBC, 9/23/01 (C); Slate, 1/16/02] ), at least one of these F-16s could have returned from North Carolina to Washington within ten minutes and started patrolling the skies well before 9:00 a.m. People and organizations involved: Phil Thompson, NBC, Marc Sasseville, Heather Penney Garcia, Billy Hutchison 8:50 a.m.: Last Radio Contact with Flight 77 The last radio contact with Flight 77 is made when a pilot asks for clearance to fly higher. However, six minutes later, the plane fails to respond to a routine instruction. Presumably, it is hijacked during that time. Indianapolis flight control center is handling the plane by this time. [Guardian, 10/17/01; Boston Globe, 11/23/01; New York Times, 10/16/01; 9/11 Commission Report, 6/17/04] People and organizations involved: Indianapolis flight control (8:54 a.m.): Flight 77 Veers Off Course Flight 77 from Washington begins to go off course over southern Ohio, turning to the southwest. [Washington Post, 9/12/01; Newsday, 9/23/01; 9/11 Commission Report, 6/17/04] (After 8:56-9:24 a.m.): Pentagon Emergency Center Knows Flight 77 Is Hijacked; NORAD Not Notified? The New York Times reports, "During the hour or so that American Airlines Flight 77 [is] under the control of hijackers, up to the moment it struck the west side of the Pentagon, military officials in [the Pentagon's NMCC] [are] urgently talking to law enforcement and air traffic control officials about what to do." [New York Times, 9/15/01 (C)] Yet, although the Pentagon's NMCC reportedly knows of the hijacking, NORAD reportedly is not notified until 9:24 a.m. by some accounts, and not notified at all by others. [NORAD, 9/18/01; 9/11 Commission Report, 6/17/04] People and organizations involved: North American Aerospace Defense Command, National Military Command Center (Before 9:00 a.m.): American Airlines Learns of Flight 77 Problems; Cancels All Flight Take Offs in the Northeast; NORAD Not Notified American Airlines headquarters in Fort Worth, Texas, learns that Flight 77 is not responding to radio calls, is not emitting a transponder signal, and flight control has lost its location since 8:56 a.m. [9/11 Commission Report, 1/27/04] According to the Wall Street Journal, a call from the FAA roughly says that Flight 77 has "turned off its transponder and turned around. Controllers [have] lost radio communications with the plane. Without hearing from anyone on the plane, American [doesn't] know its location." American Airlines executive Gerard Arpey gives an order to stop all American flight take-offs in the Northeast. By 8:59 a.m., American Airlines begins attempts to contact the flight using ACARS (a digital communications system used primarily for aircraft-to-airline messages). Around this time, Within minutes, American gets word that United also has lost contact with a missing airliner (presumably Flight 175). When reports of the second WTC come through after 9:03 a.m., one manager recalls mistakenly shouting, "How did 77 get to New York and we didn't know it?" [Wall Street Journal, 10/15/01; 9/11 Commission Final Report, 7/24/04, p. 454] People and organizations involved: Gerard Arpey, Federal Aviation Administration, American Airlines, North American Aerospace Defense Command (After 9:03 a.m.): Air Base Commanders Offer to Help NORAD; Timing of Acceptance Unclear Shortly after the second WTC crash, calls from fighter units begin "pouring into NORAD and sector operations centers, asking, 'What can we do to help?' " In Syracuse, New York, an Air National Guard commander tells NEADS commander Robert Marr, "Give me ten [minutes] and I can give you hot guns. Give me 30 [minutes] and I'll have heat-seeker [missiles]. Give me an hour and I can give you slammers [Amraams]." Marr replies, "I want it all." [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/02] Reportedly, Marr says, "Get to the phones. Call every Air National Guard unit in the land. Prepare to put jets in the air. The nation is under attack." [Newhouse News Service, 1/25/02] Canadian Major General Eric Findley, based in Colorado and in charge of NORAD that day, reportedly has his staff immediately order as many fighters in the air as possible. [Ottawa Citizen, 9/11/02] However, according to another account, NORAD does not accept the offers until about an hour later: "By 10:01 a.m., the Command Center began calling several bases across the country for help." [Toledo Blade, 12/9/01] The 9/11 Commission later concludes that a command for other bases to prepare fighters to scramble is not given until 9:49 a.m. In fact, it appears the first fighters from other bases to take off are those from Syracuse at 10:44 a.m. This is over an hour and a half after Syracuse's initial offer to help, and not long after a general ban on all flights, including military ones, is lifted at 10:31 a.m. (see 10:31 a.m.) These are apparently the fourth set of fighters scrambled from the ground. Previously, three fighters from Langley, two from Otis, and two from Toledo, Ohio, were scrambled at 10:01 a.m. (see 10:01 a.m.), but did not launch until fifteen minutes later. [Toledo Blade, 12/9/01] People and organizations involved: Robert Marr, Eric Findley, North American Aerospace Defense Command 9:09 a.m.: NORAD Said to Order Langley Fighters to Battle Stations Alert; Pilots Say This Happens Much Later The mission crew commander at NEADS is considering launching F-16s at Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, towards New York to provide backup for the Otis fighters. However, the command area at NEADS overlooking the operations floor (the "Battle Cab") orders "battle stations only at Langley." [] [9/11 Commission Final Report, 7/04, p. 460] Consequently, at this time, according to some reports, NORAD orders the Langley fighters on battle stations alert. Around this time, the FAA Command Center reports that 11 aircraft are either not in communication with FAA facilities, or flying unexpected routes. [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/02; 9/11 Commission Final Report, 7/24/04, p. 460] The 9/11 Commission also later accepts this version, claiming that the intent of the alert was not to protect Washington, but because there is a concern that the fighters currently hovering over New York City will run low on fuel, and need to be replaced, and also because of the general uncertainty of the situation in the sky. [9/11 Commission Report, 6/17/04; 9/11 Commission Final Report, 7/24/04, p. 460] NEADS Commander Robert Marr says that after seeing Flight 175 hit the WTC (at 9:03 a.m.), "we're thinking New York City is under attack," so he directs the Langley pilots to battle stations. "The plan was to protect New York City." [Air War Over America, by Leslie Filson, 1/04, pp 60] However, at least one pilot, Major Dean Eckmann, asserts that the battle stations alert does not occur until 9:21 a.m. Another pilot, code-named Honey (presumably Craig Borgstrom), asserts that this does not occur until 9:24 a.m. [BBC, 9/1/02] People and organizations involved: North American Aerospace Defense Command, Craig Borgstrom, Dean Eckmann, Langley Air Force Base, Federal Aviation Administration 9:30 a.m.: Langley Fighters Take Off Toward Washington; They Could Reach City in Six Minutes but Take Half an Hour The three F-16s at Langley, Virginia, get airborne. [NORAD, 9/18/01; ABC News, 9/11/02; Washington Post, 9/12/01; 9/11 Commission Report, 6/17/04] The pilots are Major Brad Derrig, Captain Craig Borgstrom, and Major Dean Eckmann, all from the North Dakota Air National Guard's 119th Fighter Wing stationed at Langley. [Associated Press, 8/19/02 (C); ABC News, 9/11/02] If the assumed NORAD departure time is correct, the F-16s would have to travel slightly over 700 mph to reach Washington before Flight 77 does. The maximum speed of an F-16 is 1,500 mph. [Associated Press, 6/16/00] Even traveling at 1,300 mph, these planes could have reached Washington in six minutes—well before any claim of when Flight 77 crashed. Yet it is claimed they are accidentally directed over the Atlantic Ocean instead, and they will only reach Washington about 30 minutes later. NORAD commander Major General Larry Arnold admits in 2003 testimony that had the fighters been going at full speed, "it is physically possible that they could have gotten over Washington" before Flight 77. But asked if the fighters would have had shootdown authorization had they reached the hijacked plane, Arnold says no, claiming that even by this time in the morning it is only "through hindsight that we are certain that this was a coordinated attack on the United States." [9/11 Commission Report, 5/23/03 Sources: Larry Arnold] People and organizations involved: Craig Borgstrom, Dean Eckmann, Brad Derrig (9:30-9:37 a.m.): Langley Fighters Fly East to Ocean Instead of North to Washington; Explanations Differ The three Langley fighters are airborne, but just where they go and how fast are in dispute. There are varying accounts that the fighters are ordered to Washington, New York, Baltimore, or no destination at all. The 9/11 Commission Reports that, in fact, the pilots don't understand there is an emergency and head east. They give three reasons. "First, unlike a normal scramble order, this order did not include a distance to the target, or the target's location. Second, a 'generic' flight plan incorrectly led the Langley fighters to believe they were ordered to fly due east (090) for 60 miles. The purpose of the generic flight plan was to quickly get the aircraft airborne and out of local airspace. Third, the lead pilot and local FAA controller incorrectly assumed the flight plan instruction to go '090 for 60' was newer guidance that superseded the original scramble order." [9/11 Commission Report, 6/17/04] However, the Wall Street Journal gives a different explanation, surprisingly from 9/11 Commission testimony. "Once they got in the air, the Langley fighters observed peacetime noise restrictions requiring that they fly more slowly than supersonic speed and takeoff over water, pointed away from Washington, according to testimony before the [9/11 Commission]." The fighters that departed to New York City over 30 minutes earlier at 8:52 a.m. (see 8:52 a.m.) traveled faster than supersonic because they realized they were in a national emergency. [Wall Street Journal, 3/22/04] In 2003 testimony, NORAD Commander Major General Larry Arnold explains that the fighters head over the ocean because NORAD is "looking outward" and has to have clearance to fly over land. [9/11 Commission Report, 5/23/03] One of the Langley pilots, Craig Borgstrom, later says that after taking off, "They (NEADS) [are] giving us the heading and altitude of north-northeast up to 20,000 feet. Then shortly after takeoff they changed our heading more north-westerly and gave us max-subsonic. That's as fast as you can go without breaking the sound barrier." Reportedly, the Langley fighters are now being vectored toward Washington, instead of New York. [Air War Over America, by Leslie Filson, 1/04, pp 63-65] Yet, in contrast to these accounts, the BBC reports that just before takeoff at 9:24 a.m., the pilots are specifically told that Flight 77 may have been hijacked, and they get a cockpit signal indicating they are in an emergency wartime situation (see (9:24 a.m.)). All the above accounts concur that, for whatever reason, the fighters go too far east. They don't reach Washington until roughly around 10:00 a.m. People and organizations involved: North American Aerospace Defense Command, Larry Arnold 9:37 a.m.: Flight 77 Crashes into Reinforced Section of the Pentagon Flight 77 crashes into the Pentagon. Approximately 125 people on the ground are later determined killed or missing. [NORAD, 9/18/01; CNN, 9/17/01; Guardian, 10/17/01; USA Today, 8/13/02; ABC News, 9/11/02; CBS News, 9/11/02 (B); Associated Press, 8/19/02 (B); MSNBC, 9/3/02] Flight 77 strikes the only side of the Pentagon that had recently been renovated—it was "within days of being totally [renovated]." [Defense Department, 9/15/01] "It was the only area of the Pentagon with a sprinkler system, and it had been reconstructed with a web of steel columns and bars to withstand bomb blasts. The area struck by the plane also had blast-resistant windows—two inches thick and 2,500 pounds each—that stayed intact during the crash and fire. While perhaps, 4,500 people normally would have been working in the hardest-hit areas, because of the renovation work only about 800 were there..." More than 25,000 people work at the Pentagon. [Los Angeles Times, 9/16/01 (C)] People and organizations involved: US Department of Defense, Pentagon source: Center for Cooperative Research ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Zaphod58, you claimed that, "On 9/11, there were a grand total of SEVEN Air National Guard bases with armed fighters ready to take off and intercept any planes that were entering the country without identifcation. That's FOURTEEN fighters that were armed, refueled and ready to take off. Andrews AFB Washington was NOT one of them." You also seem to imply that no fighters could have made it to the Pentagon so as to intercept Flight 77 before it entered restricted airspace. You are rewriting history and omitting many key details: 1) Boston flight control notifies several air traffic control centers that a hijack is taking place at 8:25 am. It notifies NORAD 6-15 minutes later. 2) At the time the first plane hits the WTC, at 8:46 am, three F-16s assigned to Andrews AFB are flying a training mission over N. Carolina and are not told to return to base "buster" until they've completed their training much later and are halfway back. 3) Traveling even at 1,100 mph (the speed NORAD Major General Larry Arnold says two fighters from Massachusetts travel toward Flight 175), at least one of these F-16s could have returned from North Carolina to Washington within ten minutes and started patrolling the skies well before 9:00 a.m. 4) Last radio contact with Flight 77 was at 8:50 am. Four minutes later it veers off course. Two minutes later its transponder is turned off. 5) Although the Pentagon's NMCC reportedly knows of the hijacking, NORAD reportedly is not notified until 9:24 a.m. by some accounts, and not notified at all by others. 6) Before 9:00 am, American Airlines learns that Flight 77 is not responding to radio calls, is not emitting a transponder signal, and flight control has lost its location since 8:56 am and executive Gerard Arpey gives an order to stop all American flight take-offs in the Northeast. 7) At 9:00 am, calls from fighter units begin pouring into NORAD and sector operations centers, asking, 'What can we do to help?' NORAD accepts their offers one hour later, at 10:00 am. 8) According to NORAD, it orders the Langley fighters on battle stations alert for New York at 9:09 am. However, pilots claim this alert was given after 9:21 am. 9) At 9:30 am, fighters from Langley take off for Washington. Instead of arriving there in 6 minutes, it takes them 30. The explanations for this are pretty unbelievable. 10) At 9:37 am, Flight 77, allegedly, crashes into the Pentagon. So, was the timeline and facts of that morning, with regards to Flight 77, simply a matter of there not being enough fighters to go and intercept it, as you keep telling pepsi78? Hardly. Fighters from Andrews AFB were allowed to complete their training over N. Carolina instead of immediately called back. They could have been patrolling over the Pentagon well before 9:00 am. Furthermore, other squadrons throughout N. America offered assistance well before the Pentagon was hit. Their assistance was accepted after Flight 77 supposedly crashed into it. Finally, despite the 30 minute delay between the hijacking and NORAD's response to it, the fighters it scrambled from Langley for Washington could still have intercepted Flight 77 but they did not because they went flying out to the Atlantic Ocean instead of towards Washington. Please click on my link of the source I used for this and take the time to read it all most carefully. I gave you the relevant excerpts but you really ought to read it yourself and cross-reference it with other sources. Maybe that way you'll stop wrongly giving an attitude to people like pepsi78 who may not have a good command of English but whose essence of what they're arguing about is much closer to the truth than yours.

Ok, now let me rebut a few things that YOU got flat out wrong in your rebuttal. Fighters on training flights, unless it's a missile shooting exercise, DO NOT fly with missiles and guns armed. Sure there were planes that could have intercepted them. UNARMED fighters. The exercise over North Carolina was a BOMBING exercise. They were carrying BOMBS, not air to air weapons. There was an article out there, I can't remember where, with a quote from several higher ranking people from Andrews that stated it would take a MINIMUM of 45 minutes for them to arm fighters to launch to intercept planes, but probably closer to TWO HOURS. They have to get notification to arm, or make the decision to arm them, get into the weapons storage area with the weapons trailers, get the weapons loaded onto the trailers, get them out to the flight line where the planes are, get them loaded on the planes, and then prep the planes and launch them. The planes that were airborne would have taken longer to arm and relaunch than the planes that were on the ground already. And you're right, I WAS wrong about the fighters ready to launch. It was twenty, not fourteen. Now since you seem to think I'm rewriting history, maybe YOU can answer a question for ME. What would be the point in sending fighters with no air to air weapons, or bombs, to intercept an airplane? What would you have them do, ram it? When at this time no hijacked plane had been flown into a target in this manner, at any point in history? Prior to 9/11 NO HIJACKED PLANE had been intentionally crashed into something as a weapon. They were in no hurry to intercept them because they thought they would be landed somewhere and demands made. And yah I'm giving attitude, because people are so closed minded that they decide they are right about everything and refuse to even CONSIDER any other point of view about ANY PART of this. And before you say anything about me, which I'm sure someone will, yes I considered other points of view, and made up my own mind about things based on what I KNOW to be true, and what I KNOW about how things operate, not based on rumor and misinformation from a documentary. [edit on 11/17/2005 by Zaphod58] [edit on 11/17/2005 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by Zaphod58 Well the reasonably sized hole in the wall, with all the internal damage is a good place to start. The plane didn't just hit the wall and stop it wen't into the building and exploded. Do you think that all of that debris is going to come flying back out the hole it went into and form a nice pile on the lawn for everyone to see?

Where are 50-100 tons of debris in the interior then? There are pictures from the interior of the Pentagon as well. Furthermore, if 50-100 tons of airliner debris were sitting in the interior, one would be able to see significant amounts of it from the outside looking in. There are pictures from the interior, there are pictures of the exterior, there are pictures of the interior looking in from the exterior. Do you see a significant amount, nay, tons upon tons of airliner debris in there? BTW, that 5 frame video shows that the explosion occured on the outside. Now of course part of that explosion would go towards the interior, but nevertheless, most of the explosion happens outside. So, then, how come most of the explosion occurs outside (strangely expanding only vertically instead of initially horizontally, btw), yet you claim the plane exploded inside. Let me guess: the plane exploded into confetti outside, the confetti punched through the Pentagon in a neat, 15ft circular hole, anything else like a starboard engine that had previously exploded upon hitting an external generator got sucked through that 15 ft hole as well, pre-exploded confetti following exploding-on-the-wall confetti, whereupon all the confetti laid to rest inside. Did I get that right?

That was a Boeing 737-400 that crashed. Take-off weight is 150,000 pounds. Here are the specs: No. Of Engines: 2 Aircraft Type: Jet Passenger Capacity (Max): 168 Passenger Capacity (Min): 146 Range (in Miles): 2487 Cruising Speed (MPH): 577 Payload Capacity (in Lbs): 40300 Wingspan: 94 Length: 119 Height: 36 Takeoff Weight (in Lbs): 150,000 Body Type: Cabin Type: pressurized Now, where's the 119 foot long airplane in that picture? That's the entire debris field. Where are the wings? Where are all the other big recognizeable pieces of plane? Yes, smaller airplane, different circumstances, but good example of what happens when a plane crashes.

LOL I can see a lot of large pieces of wreckage in that pic. I don't get it? [edit on 17/11/2005 by ANOK]

Where were the wings? Where were the engines? Where were the craters from them impacting? Can you tell WHAT the large pieces are?

Originally posted by Zaphod58 Ok, now let me rebut a few things that YOU got flat out wrong in your rebuttal. Fighters on training flights, unless it's a missile shooting exercise, DO NOT fly with missiles and guns armed. Sure there were planes that could have intercepted them. UNARMED fighters. The exercise over North Carolina was a BOMBING exercise. They were carrying BOMBS, not air to air weapons.

I got flat out wrong? Where? Did I say that the Andrews AFB fighters that were training over N. Carolina were armed to shoot down Flight 77? Hardly. I, (actually not I, the cross-referenced reports of that day) say that they could have reached and patrolled the skies over the Pentagon well in advance. No one, myself included, stated that they could have been there to shoot the plane down. Please be precise when it comes to such a significant point.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 There was an article out there, I can't remember where, with a quote from several higher ranking people from Andrews that stated it would take a MINIMUM of 45 minutes for them to arm fighters to launch to intercept planes, but probably closer to TWO HOURS. They have to get notification to arm, or make the decision to arm them, get into the weapons storage area with the weapons trailers, get the weapons loaded onto the trailers, get them out to the flight line where the planes are, get them loaded on the planes, and then prep the planes and launch them. The planes that were airborne would have taken longer to arm and relaunch than the planes that were on the ground already. And you're right, I WAS wrong about the fighters ready to launch. It was twenty, not fourteen.

Sorry but you were wrong about just about everything. Seeing as how it took me about an hour and a half to research, digest, summarize and respond while it took you about 5 minutes to come back with an answer, I would say that you did not click and read what I sourced for you, much less ponder it. And your quick response obviously shows that you still aren't reading and analyzing just about anything. 1) Andrews AFB fighters were allowed to complete their training instead of "busting" back immediately at 8:46. A commercial airliner has just crashed into the WTC with a second airliner following a few minutes later yet they let those three fighters continue their training for an hour??? Do you think that since they had no air-to-air missiles, why bother sending them over to Washington at all??? Are you kidding me? 2) NMCC immediately knows of Flight 77's hijacking but NORAD doesn't scramble fighters towards Washington until 9:30 am??? 3) When the Langley fighters finally do scramble to intercept, armed, btw, they could still have intercepted Flight 77, yet, they head out to the Atlantic Ocean??? What the heck did I get flat out wrong that you rebutted? The only thing you did was to totally avoid all the significant points while making false statements about one. This is how you "consider other points of view"???

Originally posted by Zaphod58 Now since you seem to think I'm rewriting history, maybe YOU can answer a question for ME. What would be the point in sending fighters with no air to air weapons, or bombs, to intercept an airplane? What would you have them do, ram it? When at this time no hijacked plane had been flown into a target in this manner, at any point in history? Prior to 9/11 NO HIJACKED PLANE had been intentionally crashed into something as a weapon. They were in no hurry to intercept them because they thought they would be landed somewhere and demands made.

Once again, you display that you do not even inspect the sources presented to you, the ones you claim that you consider. If you truly were open minded, and since you insist on this issue so vehemently, it truly surprises me that you did not bother to read my post well and check its verifiable sources: 1) I couldn't give a crap what had happened prior to 9/11. The truth of the matter is that at 8:46 am a commercial airliner crashed into the WTC. So, from 8:47 onwards, with the 2nd WTC strike so as to dramatize the situation even further, planes were raining from the skies onto buildings. From 8:47 onwards, anyone with half a brain knew that the nation was under attack so keep warbling on about past history all you want. Two planes have crashed into the WTC, two others, shortly after, veer off course, turn off transponders etc etc, yet you claim "what's the hurry to intercept them"?!?!?!?! 2) As far as your "what would you have them do, ram it?" question, it's funny you should mention that because, "Within minutes of American Airlines Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon on Sept. 11, Air National Guard F-16s took off from here in response to a plea from the White House to "Get in the air now!" Those fighters were flown by three pilots who had decided, on their own, to ram a hijacked airliner and force it to crash, if necessary. Such action almost certainly would have been fatal for them, but could have prevented another terrorism catastrophe in Washington. One of those F-16s launched with no armament--no missiles and no usable ammunition in its 20-mm. gun. The other two "Vipers" only had a full load of 20-mm. "ball" or training rounds, not the high-explosive incendiary (HEI) bullets required for combat, and no air-to-air missiles." - www.aviationnow.com.../aw090971.xml" target="_blank" class="postlink">Aviation Week & Space Technology, 9/9/03 Too bad they weren't in the air in time to intercept it, but as you can see, those pilots, without air-to-air armament, decided to do just that: ram themselves into the oncoming hijacked plane. Like I said before, if you truly were interested in keeping an open mind, you would have avoided getting bitten by something that was just sourced to you.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 And yah I'm giving attitude, because people are so closed minded that they decide they are right about everything and refuse to even CONSIDER any other point of view about ANY PART of this. And before you say anything about me, which I'm sure someone will, yes I considered other points of view, and made up my own mind about things based on what I KNOW to be true, and what I KNOW about how things operate, not based on rumor and misinformation from a documentary. [edit on 11/17/2005 by Zaphod58] [edit on 11/17/2005 by Zaphod58]

Seeing as how you clearly displayed that you did not read and analyze what was presented to your vehement insistence on this issue, I find your claim truly ironic. Furthermore, I did not source for you "rumor and misinformation from a documentary", I sourced a wealth of information from: - The Washington Post - The Guardian - The 9/11 Commission Report - The Associated Press - The Bergen Record - Aviation Week & Space Technology - Air War Over America, by Leslie Filson - MSNBC - The Boston Globe - The New York Times - Newsday - NORAD - The Wall Street Journal - NEADS commander Robert Marr and other pilots - Newhouse News Service - The Ottawa Citizen - The Toledo Blade - BBC - USA Today - ABC News - CBS News Too bad you put your attitude before your open-mindedness. So tell me again where was I flat out wrong and where you refuted me. Also, tell us about how open minded you are, considering I spent an hour and half so as to receive a smartalecky response in a few short minutes Also, tell us again how Flight 77 couldn't have been intercepted when in fact unarmed fighters could have been over the Pentagon well in advance with armed fighters following in time to shoot the plane down

It took me five minutes to research this because I spent TWO DAYS researching this previously. But of course. You're right about everything, so why should you believe anything anyone else says. And again, WHAT would be the point of patrolling with unarmed fighters? No way is an F-16 going to stop a 757 from hitting a target, short of ramming it, and even then it's not guaranteed to work. [edit on 11/17/2005 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by Zaphod58 Now, where's the 119 foot long airplane in that picture? That's the entire debris field. Where are the wings? Where are all the other big recognizeable pieces of plane? Yes, smaller airplane, different circumstances, but good example of what happens when a plane crashes.

Are you kidding me? First of all, tons of wreckage can easily be seen. You have still not told me if you can see any tons of wreckage at the Pentagon crash site. Second, why don't you provide closeup crash pictures as well? There aren't any? Well then find a crash that does have closeups along with the panoramic view so you don't compare apples to oranges. The Pentagon crash has closeups, yet, we still cannot see much of anything. In fact, we cannot find just about any wreckage. One can easily see so much wreckage in your single panoramic picture, yet panoramic pictures and closeups of the Pentagon crash can't seem to indicate anything. Now, let me post this picture and comment for the 3rd or 4th time in here and this time you tell me if you see anything recognizable: This crash is an Airbus A310-324 that plunged into a field at an 80 degree nose-down steep dive. Now, imagine an aircraft screaming to the ground at an 80 degree nose-down angle. One would think that it is doing well in excess of 400mph at impact, wouldn’t one? I mean it’s doing 200 KIAS going on 250 while climbing to 10,000 ft. One would also think that upon hitting the field which must be much more solid than the Pentagon, it would be pulverized in a similar "Pentagon crash" fashion eh? No identifiable parts except perhaps the nose gear, odd titanium engine parts and the rest is shredded confetti, a la Pentagon, right? Now, Look at that picture of that A310 that did an 80 degree nose-down impact in a field and tell me if you see anything more, much more than you can see at the Pentagon. Do you see much of any wreckage in this Airbus crash closeup? Sure you do. Do you even see identifiable wreckage in this Airbus crash closeup? Sure you do. Do you see much of anything at the Pentagon crash, closeup or no closeup? No.

Oh, sorry for only having ONE picture of a crash posted where I have easy access to it. This is my last post on this thread. It's degenerated to where you guys know everything, and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong about everything. No matter what they know.

No aris acording to him they all vanish after the explosion and not at the point of the explosion. Acording to him a part of the engine creates this at teh other end. And acording to him a hole engine does not create a hole at first impact. I mean i am more than resonable but peter pan adventures are for kids. Take a good look at the picture [edit on 17-11-2005 by pepsi78] [edit on 17-11-2005 by pepsi78]

Originally posted by Zaphod58 It took me five minutes to research this because I spent TWO DAYS researching this previously.

Then why do you claim that armed fighters could not have intercepted the flight? Why do you ask questions that have been answered already? Why do you have just about the entire timeline dead wrong? Why do you not know the particulars of something that you say you researched for two days?

Originally posted by Zaphod58 But of course. You're right about everything, so why should you believe anything anyone else says.

My friend, when I, unlike you, research something, I tend to get it right. You, on the other hand, get it ass backwards and consequently make ridiculous claims, as I've just easily demostrated. And furthermore, I don't insist, like you do, about things that I know next to nothing about. That tends to keep my accuracy pretty high. Now, your derogatory generalization about me is so childish, I will only point out that: 1) I'm hardly right about everything, as I've shown in here when admitting a couple of errors. 2) I don't believe anything anyone says, just on their word. I will research it myself to see how much of it stands. That's called critical and individual thinking. It's a good think I engage in critical thinking, wishing to research and cross-reference what I am told because if I simply believed what I was told, I would be full of others' crapola info that they pass off as "knowledge", you included, when in fact they have no idea what they're talking about on some things they claim.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 And again, WHAT would be the point of patrolling with unarmed fighters? No way is an F-16 going to stop a 757 from hitting a target, short of ramming it, and even then it's not guaranteed to work. [edit on 11/17/2005 by Zaphod58]

Gee, I dunno, go ask those fighter pilots that were going to do just that on 9/11 Now, why don't you go back to giving an attitude to those you disagree with; it seems it's the thing you are most capable of doing... Sorry for being a dick to you, but seeing as how I've tried to lighten up conversation and be friendly with you for 3 days, even putting true effort in our discussion, politely asking you to verify what I say for yourself etc etc while you still are on your high horse (me pulling numbers out of my ass, totally condescending to pepsi78 etc etc), I give up on your attitude and will respond in kind. Civilly, but in kind.

I will search the hole internet to show him that the hole dc district is based on military signatures and that the patern for comertial planes is very limited and any brake of course from it will result in interception. I will do that .

Originally posted by Zaphod58 Oh, sorry for only having ONE picture of a crash posted where I have easy access to it.

This is my last post on this thread. It's degenerated to where you guys know everything, and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong about everything. No matter what they know.

Do you want some cheese with your whine? Could you please attempt to justify your comment? The way I see it, you've had an attitude problem all along. When I had said that the 757 was 160 tons instead of 100, you immediately shot back something about me pulling numbers out of my ass. When pepsi78 voiced his opinion on the destruction of the plane on the Pentagon, you were most condescending. When I cross-referenced your Air Force readiness and capabilities on 9/11 and found your claims to be severly lacking, you had a snit fit instead of maturely discussing, despite me spending an hour and a half writing a civil and constructive response. Furthermore, I haven't seen you admit to anything; either you claim you're an expert or there's nothing but silence from you (when you're not too busy being rude). Let me tell you, my friend, I am the politest guy to everyone around me, including on the internet, when I see that they're good people. The minute, though, that somebody starts sounding like a rude smartass, I'm all over them like a cheap suit. Despite your smartass way towards me and others for the past three days, I've still tried to debate with you. It seems that you have found the going to be difficult because it's not pepsi78 who cannot articulate his thoughts in English that well that is standing opposite you, it is I. And as far as I'm concerned, I'm hardly impressed with your expertise, much less your tactics. So whine all you want.