9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

HowardRoark, I would appreciate an answer when you have the time to my question on page 157. Thank you. Sincerely Cade

Originally posted by Zaphod58 So you're saying that if you look at a picture of a WWII fighter that had perfectly straight wings, and a modern airliner the wing angle will be exactly the same, since airliners don't have swept wings. Oops! Looks swept to me! ALL jet aircraft use swept wings, because a swept wing lets them fly closer to the speed of sound. [Oops! Seems it DOES have a sweep to it. [edit on 6/7/2006 by Zaphod58]

Wrongggg,, the wings have an angle,, they are not swept. And you have to look at the spped and altutude of the aircraft. Sice when do airliners fly close to the spped of sound, specially with fuel and passangers. [edit on 8-6-2006 by ULTIMA1]

If the angle ISN'T sweep, then you better tell Boeing, because according to them the WING SWEEP of a 757 is 25 degrees. And it's not just a sweep that lets them fly closer to the speed of sound, it's the ANGLE of the sweep. The more sweep, the closer to the speed of sound. And if angle ISN'T sweep, then define sweep for us, because EVERYTHING I find on the 757 about their wing says that it's a sweep of 25 degrees. So please, enlighten us.

( oldmanjoe.tripod.com... ) "" 290. Chance of the National Guard at Andrews Air Force base changing its website (cached files still available) on September 12, 2001 (the next day) to suddenly show no F-16 and F-18 fighter aircraft. The previous site (only a day earlier) showed both the 121st Fighter Squadron of USAF's 113th Fighter Wing (with F-16s) and the 321st Marine Fighter Attack Squadron of the 49th Marine Air Group Detachment (with F-18s) located at Andrews. That was on September 11 -- then suddenly on September 12 ... gone! As a Field Investigator for an international investigatory group, I have reason to call the Freedom of Information officer at Andrews AFB often and their answers to my questions are friendly but evasive ... "I'm sorry, sir, but I have never actually viewed the website to which you are referring. You might try contacting the Wing History Office at Langley." That leads to a run-around worse than some of what I get when checking on radar data that I think might possibly be available after reported scrambles in the middle of the night. "" I myself ( LT/ ) have those cached files and added at nr 290 that very important link to the Andrews Airforce base Sept 11 website appearance, which was suddenly changed at Sept 12 , 2001. Thanks very much to web.archive.org , the Way Back Machine, here it is : Link That hastely website change, one day later, to hide the existence of combat ready fighter wings at Andrews Airforce base on the doorstep of the Pentagon on 9/11/2001 is in my view one of the most stinking evidences that some substantial part of the high US military command was compliant to the 9/11 catastrophy. Death be wished and dealt upon this kind of treason. EXERPT : "" Marine Aircraft Group 49, Det. A In the best tradition of the Marine Corps, a "few good men and women" support two combat-ready reserve units at Andrews AFB. Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 321, a Marine Corps Reserve squadron, flies the sophisticated F/A-18 Hornet. Marine Aviation Logistics Squadron 49, Detachment A, provides maintenance and supply functions necessary to maintain a force in readiness. Additionally, the Marine Aircraft Support Detachment flies the C-12 and C-20 providing support for the commandant of the Marine Corps and other VIPs in the Washington, D.C., area. "" END EXERPT. Then there was another combat-ready fighter wing stationed at Andrews Airforce base at Sept 11 : EXERPT : "" 113th Wing (DCANG). The 113th now flies the F-16C Fighting Falcon and only recently the C-21 Learjet and C-22 Boeing 727, as a result of the DCANG unit reorganization when the 201st Airlift Squadron became part of the wing in October 1995. Training for air combat and operational airlift for national defense is the 113th's primary mission. However, as part of its dual mission, the 113th provides capable and ready response forces for the District of Columbia in the event of a natural disaster or civil emergency. Members also assist local and federal law enforcement agencies in combating drug trafficking in the District of Columbia. At Andrews, the 113th Wing, its associated DCANG units, and their people are full partners with the active Air Force. "" END EXERPT. Please also have a good read on this page, and observe what specialist groups were gathered at Andrews Airforce base : Link EXERPT : "" 89th Logistics Group. The 89th Logistics Group encompasses all off flightline maintenance, supply, transportation and contracting functions. Its units include the 89th Aircraft Generation Squadron, which will be decommissioned July 31, 89th Logistics Support Squadron, 89th Transportation Squadron, 89th Contracting Squadron and 89th Supply Squadron. As a result of a recently announced competitive sourcing study, the group is in the process of transitioning from a federal maintenance and supply workforce to a civilian contractor, DynCorp Technical Services, Inc. Due to the magnitude of the transition, the conversion is incrementally scheduled over a one-year period, from April 2001, till April 2002. "" END EXERPT. So a civilian corporation has taken over responsibility and is providing security to all US civilian and military dignitaries. Including your president, vice-president and visiting : presidents, prime ministers and royalty. How stupid can you be? That stupid. Mod edit: Truncated Link Of Great Length. [edit on 10/6/2006 by Mirthful Me]

Here follows a list of other unlikely military coincidences at and after 9/11 : Chances of Military coincidences : ( again from oldmanjoe.tripod.com... ) 26. Chance of the USAF (and all of NORAD) being incapable of scrambling even one jet (save two out of Massachusetts, far to the north) during the hour (actually more) between first knowing of hijacked aircraft and preceding the final crash into the Pentagon. The proximity of both Andrews AFB and Langley AFB close to Washington, DC makes this "chance" even less, I would surmise. Why did the fighter-interceptor aircraft at these bases stand down anyway? 114. Chance of the two F-15s that took off from Otis ANG Base flying at an average speed of 720 miles per hour towards New York prior to the second aircraft impacting the WTC at 9:02 a.m. Otis to NYC is 190 miles; planes took off at 8:52 a.m. and we are told they were still 70 miles from the WTC at the time of the impact ten minutes after the F-15s took off. Admittedly, this is a corrected item inasmuch as, although 720 mph is about half the max speed of an F-15, the 720 mph is within a reasonable "expected" average speed. 115. Chance of the President of the United States of America boarding Air Force One (after finally leaving the school building in Florida after continuing to read to the children for a half an hour) and then not returning to the nation's Capitol, Washington, DC, until 7:00 p.m. -- more than ten hours after the attacks began that morning. It was reported to the press later that he was routed and rerouted to numerous stops including Louisiana and Nebraska because the terrorists were known to have the codes to Air Force One, the President's aircraft. 116. Chance of the Arab terrorists, including the 15 Saudis who allegedly died in the four crashes, having access to the 'Special Access Required' Top Secret codes [meaning higher than Top Secret] relating to Air Force One and Presidential procedures during a time of national emergency. [Makes one wonder who all was involved and who all was/were ultimately targeted, doesn't it?] 117. Chance of the air space over Washington, DC being considered unsafe for Air Force One under any conditions for several hours after a major terrorist attack and a shutdown of commercial aircraft nationwide. [This seems highly related to the fact that no USAF fighter aircraft were positioned to stop Flight 77 from attacking the Pentagon a full hour and a half after the first plane impacted the North Tower of the World Trade Center -- but then, who knows, right?] 118. Chance of the final "we really don't know" story from the White House about the terrorists intentions vis-á-vis attacking Air Force One being buried back on page eight and page twelve of the two largest US newspapers. [Most newspapers didn't even carry the story -- and most Americans still don't know why the President was very wisely moving from one Command Post to another across the country during the hours after the 9-11 attacks.] 122. Chance of a full 35 minutes elapsing between the time that the FAA was notified that Flight 77 "was probably hijacked" and then (the FAA) notifying NORAD that something was amiss. Standard SOP says to do so instantly! 123. Chance of a full 24 minutes elapsing between the time that radio-transponder communications with Flight 11 was lost and the order for the scrambling of jets to occur. Standard SOP calls for instant scrambling of jets when any commercial aircraft is off course. 124. Chance of not a single fighter interceptor being in the vicinity of Flight 93 a full 50 minutes after it was declared hijacked. 125. Chance of NORAD refusing to use the (many) bases closer to Flights 11, 77 and 175 (the ones that crashed into buildings) that had combat-ready squadrons ready to fly. Or alternatively stated ... chance of NORAD choosing to scramble jets from as far as 130 and 200 miles away from the aircraft that were hijacked -- when, for example, both Andrews AFB and Langley AFB are nearby with combat-ready fighters and are specifically charged with protecting the very airspace being used by the hijackers! 126. Chance of the entire civilian and military air defenses of the Unites States of America collapsing entirely within one month of two meetings wherein all top chiefs of all US intelligence agencies and the President of the United States were explicitly warned that hijacking of commercial aircraft was "likely" in the very near future. 149. Chance of no fighter cover over the White House on 9-11, yet 24-hour fighter coverage over the President's ranch in Crawford, Texas during the weeks preceding 9-11. 153. Chance of the Air Defense Intercept Zone (ADIZ) just off-shore over the Atlantic Ocean not being patrolled during the time of the 9/11 attacks. It is ordinarily patrolled -- most heavily in the mornings -- by fighter aircraft 365 days a year. These aircraft could vector onto a target instantly without even having to scramble and take off from an air base. Where were they? 156. Chance of the 177th Air National Guard stationed at Pomona, New Jersey being instructed to cease normal sorties two weeks prior to 9-11. This would have been another source of potential interceptors providing coverage for both New York and Washington, D.C. 157. Chance of the Andrews Air Base website being changed just after 9-11 so as to erase mention of its combat readiness. It was there on 9-12 and gone on 9-13. Of course, it was picked up by persons like myself in cache files, but . . . The answer as to "why?" may be in the next item below. 158. Chance of Andrews Air Base with the 121st Fighter Squadron of the 113th Fighter Wing (USAF F-16s), the 321st Marine Fighter Squadron (with super F/A-18 Hornets yet) and the 49th Marine Air Guard all stationed there ... not getting a single aircraft in the air until after the Pentagon was struck. Andrews AFB is between 11 and 14 miles from the Pentagon depending upon the runway and direction of take-off (i.e., the wind direction). Langley AFB is 140 miles away which partially explains why its jets didn't get to the Washington, D.C. area in time. The operative word in that last sentence is "partially." Even at a distance of 140 miles, the fighters from Langley should have been all over the place (New York, Washington, D.C. and Pennsylvania) by the time the Pentagon was struck. 174. Chance of the Dallas Morning News reporting that Major General Paul Weaver, director of the Air national Guard would state that, "[relating to the two F-15s that did scramble from Otis AFB] . . . the pilots flew like a scalded ape, topping 500 mph, but were unable to catch up to the airliner. We had a nine minute window, and in excess of 100 miles to intercept [Flight] 175." (The top speed of those birds is Mach 2.4 or more than 1500 mph. And yes, I should know!) And surely he should have known that the jets mentioned could have flown more than 250 miles in those nine minutes. But why scramble from Otis in the first place, right? No point in belaboring that point; it was discussed in an earlier item. 175. Chance of the the US Air Force, in response to questions from the Wall Street Journal, remaining silent even until today (this item is being posted in June 2003) as to whether they sent up any planes of their own to intercept the hijacked planes. They will only say that they keep roughly twenty jets (F-15s and F-16s) on duty with the Air National Guard along the coastline to protect America from hostile aircraft entering our airspace. I mentioned the ADIZ in an earlier item, so there's no point in belaboring that issue either, right? 205. Chance of US Medicine Magazine on October 1, 2001, reporting that in May of that same year Department of Defense medical personnel trained to respond to a ... "guided missile in the form of a (hold your breath!) hijacked [Boeing] 757 airliner" crashing into the pentagon. 233. Chance of NORAD not having their escort fighters reach Air Force One until between 11:00 am and 11:30 am. NORAD has been almost silent on this because Homestead Air Station is only 182 miles from Sarasota and Tyndall Air Station is only 238 miles from Sarasota. Bush was in his motorcade by about 9:45 am and his Secret Service escort was quoted at that time as saying, "We're out of here! Can you get everyone ready?" 235. Chance of NORAD already taking part in a war game (Vigilant Guardian -- don't we wish?) at dawn on 9-11 and the Northeastern US Sector Commander (Colonel Robert Marr) stating that "We had the fighters with a little more gas on board ... a few more weapons on board.) 237. Chance of the terrorists having acquired the Secret Sevice Agency's code words for Air Force One procedures. This was apparently revealed when the Secret Service received the "Air Force One is next!" call. This call was serious enough that the pilot, Colonel Mark Tillman, asked that an armed guard be put at the cockpit door. Indeed, the plane stayed in the air at/near Sarasota for slightly more than an hour. Since this occurred after the "rocket like take-off," it appears that there may have been as many as three threats directed against Air Force One ... but by who? [There are many, many unanswered questions here ... and disturbing questions at that.] 238. Chance of the terrorists divulging to the Secret Service that they had acquired the Secret Service Agency's Air Force One "procedure codes" (if they actually had acquired them as is suggested in item #237 just above) when they could have held that information tight until a later time when our guard would be down, so to speak. ( Something doesn't quite add up here ...) 255. Chance of Major General Larry Arnold (USAF) writing in late 2001 in his defense of NORAD's response having been both "immediate" and "impressive" that "we were able to identify, track and escort suspected hijacked aircraft after the initial attacks," and that "our well-practiced reaction response outpaced the process in some instances." Combine the chance of that statement with the chance of Major General Craig McKinley (while sitting next to General Arnold) having stated at the recent May 2003 hearings that "We had not positioned prior to September 11, 2001 for the scenario that took place that day," and he went on to state that, "NORAD was utterly unprepared for the attack." In fact, he called NORAD's 9-11 readiness "a Cold War vestige." At first NORAD argued how completely ready it was on 9-11 and then (after some facts about Flight 93 became apparent) how completely incompetent it was on that same day. [Note: Equally improbable are the different timelines that NORAD has given in sworn testimony vis-a-vis their activities on 9-11.] Another nearly not addressed extremely suspicious event on 9/11, in fact, food for a whole new thread here : WTC 6 explosion : 28. Chance of Building #6 (yes, another of the WTC buildings) exploding only seconds before the South Tower collapsed ? The film of it (CNN) shows the cloud of white smoke reaching to almost one-third of the height of the Twin Towers (all of this before they fell, of course) and there has never been an explanation for that explosion. Arial photos afterwards show it was a major explosion in the very center of the building (nice, round hole) -- but no explanation. 59. Chance of a video being taken of the second plane impacting WTC Tower #2 and that same video catching a significant portion of the flight of a missile-like object (however, no contrail) traveling downwards from Tower #1 (above the explosion relative to the second plane's impact) at a 45 degree angle towards the relative position of Building #6. This might explain the explosion seen in the CNN footage described below. 60. Chance of a replay of some CNN footage shown just minutes after the second plane's impact (shown to millions of viewers) showing a significant explosion roughly where Building #6 would be (see #28, above) just after the video taken and cited in #59, above. 270. Chance of the hole seen in Building #6 in the three-dimensional elevation photos taken on September 23rd from the air by NOAA being below ground level. This gets back to one of the critical unanswered questions: what exploded with such force at/in Building #6?

www.sfgate.com.../c/a/2006/04/11/MNGK3I7A641.DTL&type=printable EXERPT : Air Force One data removed from Web Site revealed details of security measures on president's jets - Paul J. Caffera, Special to The Chronicle Tuesday, April 11, 2006 Air Force and Pentagon officials scrambled Monday to remove highly sensitive security details about the two Air Force One jetliners after The Chronicle reported that the information had been posted on a public Web site. The security information -- contained in a "technical order" -- is used by rescue crews in the event of an emergency aboard various Air Force planes. But this order included details about Air Force One's anti-missile systems, the location of Secret Service personnel within the aircraft and information on other vulnerabilities that terrorists or a hostile military force could exploit to try to damage or destroy Air Force One, the president's air carrier. The Chronicle also took extensive steps to alert the government to the order's availability on the Internet. Immediately after discovering the document, The Chronicle notified military and federal authorities about its existence. Nonetheless, a week after they were initially notified, neither the Secret Service nor Air Force officials at Andrews Air Force Base, the home of Air Force One, had caused the document to be removed. Before publishing Saturday's story, The Chronicle again contacted Andrews Air Force Base and provided officials with the Web address for the document The technical order remained on the Web until Monday afternoon. "The order came down this afternoon to remove this particular technical order from the public Web site," said John Birdsong, chief of media relations at Warner Robins Air Logistics Center, the air base in Georgia that had originally posted the order on its publicly accessible Web site According to Birdsong, the directive to remove the document came from a number of officials, including Dan McGarvey, the chief of information security for the Air Force at the Pentagon. Saturday's article "got the attention of the highest level in this building," a Pentagon official told The Chronicle on the condition that the person not be named. The article also got the attention of the White House press corps. At a daily briefing on Monday, Scott McClellan, President Bush's spokesman, was asked about The Chronicle article and if the administration was aware that potentially compromising information was available on the Internet. "I'm not going to talk about security measures," McClellan said. END EXERPT. Yep, intelligence still going strong at all military levels in the USA. Is this still a way to try to convince us all, that the military reaction to 9/11 was mainly stupidity concentrated in certain military circles, or are they really constantly at this level ?

From WTOP Radio website on July 26, 2002 www.wtopnews.com... What was that bright light in Maryland's sky??? WTOP has learned that residents near Andrews Air Force base were shaken from their beds early Friday morning by some strange activity in the air. "Incredible. Absolutely incredible" is what Renny Rogers of Waldorf calls it. Just before two in the morning, Rogers says he saw a large blue ball of light streaking across the sky. But it was the military jets that really startled him. "(The jets) were right on its tail. As the thing would move, a jet was right behind it," Rogers recalls. He is not the only one who saw it. Several people called WTOP Radio reporting seeing a bright blue or orange ball moving very fast, being chased by jets. Rogers says there was no smoke coming from the object, no flashing lights, and says it was smooth, and eerily silent. The Air National Guard confirms they scrambled the 113th squadron. Spokesman Sheldon Smith says they are investigating and in contact with NORAD. www.freedomofinfo.org...

www.aviationnow.com.../aw090971.xml This is a very detailed story about what "they" say happened on 9/11 with alert birds. What strikes me, is that the Secret Service seemed to have had authority on 9/11 over the Andrews-based 121st Fighter Sqdn. Not NORAD ! EXERPT : "" The Andrews-based 121st Fighter Sqdn. was not standing alert on Sept. 11, because the District of Columbia Air National Guard (DCANG) unit was not assigned to the North American Aerospace Defense Command air defense force. Norad had already scrambled three F-16s from their alert base at Langley AFB, Va., but they were about 12 min. from Washington when the Pentagon was struck at 9:37 a.m. (AW&ST June 3, p. 48). The 121st squadron's day had started normally. Three F-16s were flying an air-to-ground training mission on a range in North Carolina, 180 naut. mi. away. At Andrews, several officers were in a scheduling meeting when they received word that the World Trade Center had been hit by an aircraft. Minutes later, after United Airlines Flight 175 slammed into the second WTC tower, a squadron pilot called a friend in the Secret Service "to see what was going on. He was told some bad things were happening. At that time, we weren't thinking about defending anything. Our primary concern was what would happen to the air traffic system," said Lt. Col. Marc H. (Sass) Sasseville, the current 121st FS commander. On Sept. 11, he was the director of operations and air operations officer--the acting operations group commander under the 113th Wing. Soon thereafter, the Secret Service called back, asking whether the squadron could get fighters airborne. The unit's maintenance section was notified to get several F-16s armed and ready to fly. Anticipating such an order, Col. Don C. Mozley, the 113th Logistics Group commander, had already ordered his weapons officer to "break out the AIM-9s and start building them up." The missiles had to be transported from a bunker on the other side of the base, which would take a while. "After the Pentagon was hit, we were told there were more [airliners] coming. Not 'might be'; they were coming," Mozley recalled. Sasseville grabbed three F-16 pilots and gave them a curt briefing: "I have no idea what's going on, but we're flying. Here's our frequency. We'll split up the area as we have to. Just defend as required. We'll talk about the rest in the air." All four grabbed their helmets, g-suits and parachute harnesses, and headed for the operations desk to get aircraft assignments. Another call from the Secret Service commanded, "Get in the air now!" Almost simultaneously, a call from someone else in the White House declared the Washington area "a free-fire zone. That meant we were given authority to use force, if the situation required it, in defense of the nation's capital, its property and people," Sasseville said. "" END EXERPT. Read it all. As I said once before, how the hell they couldn't get a bird already at alert asap in the sky with at the minimum, some rounds of ammo for the 20-mm. gun. This whole story smells like a cooked up one, to fit the official 9/11 fighter alert story.

You have voted LaBTop for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Some great info there LaBTop! I always thought there was something extremely wrong with their excuses for the lack of responce.

Great post LaBTop, nothing makes sence, especialy because they knew in advanced of 1 hour, I just wached flight93 the movie, scrambeling jets from selfridge air base makes totaly no sence, a stand down order had to be given, or adrewas was never anounced. [edit on 8-6-2006 by pepsi78]

LaBTop While I have to admit most of your posts went way above my head (I have little or no knowledge of American Military protocols), I do have a question about your dating. It may be my misunderstanding, it may not. From your posts: "290. Chance of the National Guard at Andrews Air Force base changing its website (cached files still available) on September 12, 2001 (the next day) to suddenly show no F-16 and F-18 fighter aircraft. 157. Chance of the Andrews Air Base website being changed just after 9-11 so as to erase mention of its combat readiness. It was there on 9-12 and gone on 9-13." I haven't been able to find anything about SOP regarding the reporting of hijacked aircraft to NORAD but maybe I'm looking in the wrong place. I did, however, find this:

At 9:25, Garvey, in an historic and admirable step, and almost certainly after getting an okay from the White House, initiated a national ground stop, which forbids takeoffs and requires planes in the air to get down as soon as reasonable. The order, which has never been implemented since flying was invented in 1903, applied to virtually every single kind of machine that can takeoff — civilian, military, or law enforcement.

at 10:31, the FAA allowed all military and law enforcement flights to resume (and some flights that the FAA can't reveal that were already airborne).

Source for both quotes From the second quote, the bit that reads "(and some flights that the FAA can't reveral that were already airborne)" - what would they be? Military jets? Can you shed any light on that for me? I'm confused, but always willing to learn. I must admit that the headline to that story I quoted is "The Day the FAA Stopped the World." To me, that is a bit "over the top". They stopped America (and possibly Canada/Alaska). I have yet to believe that America is the World. Note: Before the Canadians pounce on me - yes, I know Canada is not part of the USA. I'm now going to wander off and do some research to see if any steps were taken here. Edited for spelling [edit on 9/6/06 by Aotearoa]

The disappearance of the Andrews AB website could be observed as happening during 12 or 13 Sept 2001, dependent on the geographical position to the international dateline of the (then) attentive internet reader. "" From the second quote, the bit that reads "(and some flights that the FAA can't reveal that were already airborne)" - what would they be? Military jets? Can you shed any light on that for me? I'm confused, but always willing to learn. "" A few examples : 1. Airforce One flying circles in Saratoga airspace, waiting for : 2. Fighter escort for AF1. 3. The famous C-130 from Andrews AB which observed flight 77 dive into the Pentagon. 4. The same C-130, which kept on flying, and did not land as ordered by FAA nationwide ruling. By "shear coincidence", it then crossed the path of flight 93 when it went down in Shanksville. 5. All the fighterjets mentioned in my above links, which were send astray by "shear idiots" from the obvious target zones, or flew at such rediculous low speeds that any such "idiot" could be sure that they would never reach the targets in time. All these "idiots" were swiftly promoted btw, shortly after 9/11. 6. The unidentified helicopter above the WTC tower, which flew into the dense smoke cloud above the burning tower, which was according to the NIST report stricktly forbidden since one heli pilot reported earlier on a 60 % engine power loss due to lack of oxigen when first entering the thick smoke collumn, and this unidentified heli was caught on film dumping some object(s?) on the roof, and then several very intense flashes of light came through the smoke and were filmed, just before that tower collapsed. One report even mentioned a man hanging under that heli who threw the objects on the WTC roof. 7. All the news media and police heli's flying around in New York during and after colllapses. 8. The Park Police heli flying around at the Pentagon long after plane impact. 9. All the rescue heli's at the Pentagon, and some military heli's too. 10.The military looking jet with the big tailfin observed at Shanksville by several witnesses, just before and just after impact of flight 93. 11. The light coloured big multi engine plane coming out behind the burning WTC 1 tower, flying in the opposite direction of the later incoming flight 175 which hit WTC 2. ( www.terrorize.dk... ) ( www.terrorize.dk... ) etc, etcetera. Most of these planes were airborned or kept airborne to help or defend. However, there are a few very suspicious ones. Take your own favourite picks. Mine is the C-130, probably the radar and electronics jamming version, closely followed by the white jet at Shanksville, which probably also was an electronics warfare version.

Okay, I'll take two, since they're ones I have trouble with (and/or have heard or read about). 1. The C-130, a cargo plane, vectored to try and identify the aircraft that ATC was trying to track. Note that the pilot says he was unable to match the speed of the unidentified aircraft. Source - scroll to the bottom for the story and a video. I'm unsure whether USAF cargo planes are allowed to fly through Canadian airspace but if he was heading home to his Minnesota base, Pennsylvania may have been on his flight route. 2. The other is the mysterious aircraft around the WTC. I watched that video on television for hours, despite the shock of seeing it for the first time. Each time I focused on something different. I never, ever saw the the aircraft which should have been in shot with the footage that was broadcast. Why? Was it edited out or what? It's turning up on sites (as per your Source) but I can honestly say I never saw it. It's a fairly large multi-engine jet, probably classified as "heavy" by the ATC. No one saw it on the footage? Transponder on or off? One more comment, the helicopter. No helicopter pilot in his right mind flies into dense smoke like that one apparently did. The risk of damage to engine intakes (and engine damage) and reduced visibility would stop any sane copter pilot from going anywhere near the smoke. Thoughts?

My thoughts, dear Kiwi ? Most of them complex and complicated, but I'll share a few. A thought : If you frequent a site with this specific name, and post frequently in this very specific forum, you have one or more of several objectives to do so, in my opinion these : 1. Proof that 9/11 was a concerted effort by entities and people who subscribe to the PNAC point of view. PNAC = A worldview by certain individuals, mostly americans, basically narrowminded, egocentric and megalomanic, in which the USA must clamp to superpower status, eradicate any such status-desire of present rivals and anticipate on the rise of all future rivals, and stop that rise in the earliest stages. And during that process, make as much profit possible, individually and/or as a group, which means your plans must benefit a few, and ignore the rest. Which means that the rest sometimes benefits also, but most of the time suffers or sacrifices, economically or physically. 2. Proof that all or most defenders of nr.1 are at least misguided and at the most, raving lunatics. 3. Proof that one is a skilled debater, and a subscriber to nr.1 or 2, or just likes the debate and don't mind the outcome. 4. Proof that since ancient times, slavery exists, and never ceased. Only slowly evolved from pure to paid slavery. Most of the readers here are paid slaves. They only didn't realize it yet. The slavemasters and their paymasters changed a few times in history, but the method stayed the same, pay them just enough to halt the inevitable wish for change of the powerstructure, and ALWAYS keep the absurd profits for yourself and your intimy. If that doesn't work anymore, start a war. Anywhere, anyhow, any scale....And bleed away the winds of change. Please observe that you didn't notice the word "government" in one of these reasons. Because governments are simply the visible regulatory arms of the octopus embedded in our societies. Do not wish such a heavy influence upon your governments. The slavemasters you have to pinpoint and expose. Then your government stands a chance to change, for the better of all mankind. You also don't observe the words "New World Order". Because there is not an organization you can pinpoint which implemented that frase as a flagship again after it was first uttered by Bush the elder. PNAC however is a solid piece of work you can address. Then subscribe to, or not. PNAC cashed in on the dormant fascistoid, nazi-ist, elitist, militarist and discriminatory elements in the american and british societies, and found many followers worldwide, who saw the many advantages for greedy egoists. I observed a wish to honestly research the events around 9/11 in your posts, and then you posted that US published weekly, TIME link : www.time.com... Time.com: The Day the FAA Stopped the World -- Page 1 - A thought : The Internet researchers must build a bridge to the mainstream media publishers shortly, or the web will be sanitized with force, openly or hidden in the background of the backbones. Plans are in the make to do so already, available time is limited. So, let us all together start to dissect parts of this mainstream media published essay ( from a point of view which is constantly searching for and finding - eventual and factual - conspiracy indicators ), and try to contact the writer and let her read our concerns. There are hints in this, and many other US articles, that the writers hide indicators, but are afraid of asking the questions logically derivating from the reported facts. We will ask them. - next page follows - PS : www.cnn.com... (CNN) -- New Zealand has deported a Yemeni man it says was "directly associated" with one of the September 11 hijackers in the United States. According to a U.S. investigation, Rayed Abdullah lived and trained with Hani Hanjour, who piloted American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon. (etc.) A thought : He was not directly detentioned in Guantanamo without charges after spotted, not send to the USA with any charges, but to Saudi Arabia, notorious for their torture chambers run by CIA. He is a man from Yemen. Why not send him back to his fatherland? Or press charges against him in N.Z.? Something smells substantially rotten. Even in that democratic paradise called New Zealand. Where they decimated the amount of unnecessary bureaucrats under several ministers. One ministry went from 28,000 to 1. The ministry of Works. All sacked bureaucrats are now happy employers or happy fellow-workers, earning substantially more than when they were bureaucrats. The ideal example to be followed in the rest of the western world. Read : cafr1.com... Edit: wrong ministry and amounts, was 28,000 to ONE bureaucrat! [edit on 10/6/06 by LaBTop]

grins - Top marks for picking the country (although a search would have given it away fairly quickly). With regard to your reasons for posting on ATS and in this particular forum: - I don't feel I fit into any of the categories, in fact I only learnt about some of those categories after I started posting here (PNAC, Operation Northwoods, etc). I came here looking for the truth (naive, I know) and my research so far has only taken into account around 50 websites. I have no political agenda, especially not one linked to the USA. Regarding the time.com link - it was the only one I could find at the time. I use Opera and have a lot of tabs open right now but none linked to the ground stop data. I therefore did a search. I'm sorry if I linked to a site that is not reliable but as you can appreciate, knowing what's reliable and what isn't in America is difficult for someone so far removed from the country. It's a good thought to contact the writers of articles - granted you get a reply. I've done it on one or two occasions and either had no reply or an offensive one. Rayed Abdullah: Yes, I saw that in the national newspapers yesterday. Lead story, big headlines. Below is a link to a New Zealand site that covers all the national newspapers. It's known to be reliable. In particular, watch the video - it showed something I've never seen before - a video of an aircraft flying into the Pentagon. I have no idea why he was deported to Saudi Arabia as his Visa was issued in Dubai. We're not a perfect nation, no nation is. I suspect (and I have no real grounds for this) that our National Security gets little in the way of a real work-out, so it is a bit sloppy at times. (Edit: Ooops, forgot the link: Source ) I was very interested in the link you posted about Maurice McTigue's lecture. I know New Zealand has had to "invent" a few new ideas to get it back into the world market but I had no idea about the lamb one. [edit on 11/6/06 by Aotearoa]

Re: Original post by CatHerder: Evidence That A Boeing 757 Really Did Impact the Pentagon on 9/11

Just a quick comment from a guy at Boeing. Catherder did a great job showing what we all know at Boeing - that we lost two 757's and two 767's on 9/11. Just for the record guys, there are only about 10,000 jetliners in the entire world, and only ~1000 757's. Boeing and the FAA track every single jetliner made, and we know, beyond any doubt, that 4 of our planes disappeared on 9/11. If you want to claim that some other plane flew into the Pentagon, fine. But then you have to explain what happened to 4 airplanes worth hundreds of millions of $US. These are objects the size of strip malls, and are difficult to hide. Regarding ground effect, I've read some nonsense that a plane in ground effect would be uncontrollable. Guys, your jetliner goes through ground effect every time it lands. Not a big deal. You may even have noticed a change in the feel of the aircraft, kind of a "bounce", as the plane nears the runway. I've personally been on a 757 during a flight test where we descended, twice, to maybe 5 feet above the runway at Glascow, MN without actually landing. Other stuff: the dihedral (upward angle) of the wing makes the airplane more stable in ground effect. This may not be the case in airplanes with flat wings, (like fighters) I wouldn't know. If a wingtip hit the ground, the plane would cartwheel, like in Sioux City. But the engine nacelle is mostly air. If you drag a nacelle, it's bad, but the plane stays on course. If you hit an engine hard enough, fuse pins break and the engine comes off and the again, the plane continues on course. Here's a likely nacelle impact: www.airliners.net... Burnt grass: The jet blast can toss a car over 100 feet. ( www.aviationexplorer.com... ) But at the end of our runway at Paine Field, the grass is nice and green. You'll note the grass is unaffected in the video as well. Regarding pieces: You can't buy or make convincing fake debris. Every single part has a part & serial number, and the investigators (NTSB, FAA, Boeing) can pick them out by sight. Show me a part #, and unless it is common to multiple airplanes, I can tell you what plane it came from. So if you try to pass 707 scrap off as a 757, people in the know could tell in seconds. About the missing fuselage, I haven't seen it mentioned here, but aluminum burns when pulverized and heated up. You've heard of magnesium flares? Same thing. Most "non-sparking" metals do this, according to the warning signs by our shop grinders. When the airplane hits the wall, most of the fuselage is converted into tons of shrapnel which cut through the building, and some of it is sure to be in small enough fragments to combust. This is the same concept behind certain shaped charge armor-piercing shells. ( en.wikipedia.org... en.wikipedia.org... ) And I think someone already mentioned that the 1980-vintage autoland capability on the 757 requires big, identifiable antennas sitting outside in the Pentagon parking lot. ( en.wikipedia.org... ) Thus, there were definitely pilots on board. So, you can have a conspiracy theory about where the terrorists came from, or what their goal was. That's beyond my field of experience. But a 757 definitely hit the Pentagon. That's unless you can explain several hundred missing passengers, 4 missing airplanes, and identifiable bodies and airplane parts at each crash site. Any conspiracy would also have to involve the NTSB, FAA, FBI, Boeing, the coroner, both airlines, dozens of insurance companies, Pentagon officials, the Air Force base the fake planes departed from, and every damned person on the beltway including the janitor who swept up the fake parts without noticing. This one's done, guys! Give it up. -Boenoid

Originally posted by Boenoid Re: Original post by CatHerder: Regarding ground effect, I've read some nonsense that a plane in ground effect would be uncontrollable. Guys, your jetliner goes through ground effect every time it lands. Not a big deal. You may even have noticed a change in the feel of the aircraft, kind of a "bounce", as the plane nears the runway. I've personally been on a 757 during a flight test where we descended, twice, to maybe 5 feet above the runway at Glascow, MN without actually landing.

Big difference between a plane at it's landing speed with flaps down and trimmed for landing, than a plane doing 500 mph. Pilots, at least miltary, regularly do 'touch and goes', which is what your describing, but not at 500 mph in a 757.... [edit on 11/6/2006 by ANOK]

Originally posted by ANOK Big difference between a plane at it's landing speed with flaps down and trimmed for landing, than a plane doing 500 mph. Pilots, at least miltary, regularly do 'touch and goes', which is what your describing, but not at 500 mph in a 757.... [edit on 11/6/2006 by ANOK]

As tuccy pointed out earlier in his discussion of NOE flight ( en.wikipedia.org... ) ground effect works at high speeds as well. See en.wikipedia.org... Be sure to follow the link to the Russian planes designed to fly in ground effect at all times. Boeing builds these planes like brick, er, outhouses. Consider the Aloha accident ( en.wikipedia.org... ) which came back with half a fuselage and still had only one fatality. 60 seconds in high speed ground effect won't break the wing spar. According to one Boeing history book, Howard Huges deployed the flaps of a 707 far above the maximum permitted speed and all that happened was that the flaps landed in somebody's back yard. And supposedly the Boeing pilot pretended he had made the mistake instead when the press showed up, to avoid embarassing the customer. And remember, a commercial airplane's dihedral ( en.wikipedia.org... ) stabilizes the aircraft in ways military airplanes can't match. Hey, do we really know the 757 flaps were retracted on impact? That sounds stupid, although I guess it would allow the pilot to fly faster. BTW, I also realized the conspiracy would require involvement from the supplier of the aircraft or missle that replaced the missing 757. After all, every single F-16 and C-130 and Global Hawk is also tracked by the manufacturers and the FAA and Aviation Week (Av Leak, as we call it) and even by the aerospace equivalent of trainspotters. ( www.planespotter.org... www.buzzle.com... ) So if the crash was really a Global Hawk, for example, there would have to a corresponding fake crash of a Global Hawk someplace to cover up the missing UAV. Which would require the complicity of Northrop Grumman. BTW, that plane is only 1/10th the mass of the 757, so I have a hard time seeing how it could do that much damage. www.northropgrumman.com... And then you have the parts suppliers - for safety related parts we track every single serial number, as do the parts suppliers. This is an FAA requirement. And hundreds of these parts have mandatory replacement schedules. So if you break an airplane up for parts, the serial numbers will reveal the crime. If you have an airplane you're not supposed to have, the extra parts purchases will reveal the crime. If you're missing a plane you are supposed to have, the missing parts orders will reveal the crime. SO, you have to bring all the parts suppliers, hundreds of them, in on the conspiracy as well. I guess I also don't understand why the attackers (terrorists or whoever) would attack the WTC with jetliners and the Pentagon with something else. -Boenoid

I’m sorry, Boenoid, your post is simply too logical, and is based on too much reality. Part numbers- shmart numbers. Everyone knows that “they” can silence anyone they choose to. Ask too many questions and the Cigarette-Smoking-Man shows up at your door, and the next thing you know, you have a chip implanted in your neck and you are voting a straight Republican ticket.

I'm actually quite fond of logic and reality, personally. A lot of what Boenoid said made sense. Boenoid, how close to the ground can a 757 get without grounding it's engines and if the tail is measured at ~44ft with the gear down, what would it be with gear up? Also, I'd be interested to know if Boeing's ever been asked to identify parts from any of the aircraft. ---------- Tsk, tsk, Howard, everyone knows smoking's bad for your health! Edit: confused wings with engines - Moral: never post at 3:00am [edit on 12/6/06 by Aotearoa]