9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

According to the Wing Commander at Andrews, from a cold start it would take 1-2 hours to generate a scramble. Arming, fueling, etc.

Hypothetical situation: Hmm, so if there was an aircraft that was guaranteed to hit the White House with an eta of 40 minutes all they could and would do is sit there and watch? Okaaay . . . not even scrambling fighters with guns? And noone go on about 'shooting over civilians.' Concessions would be made.

No, if they knew where it was, and were tracking it in real time they could launch Alert Fighters from a base near the flight path and down it. This is based on a no tracking, no notice, cold start.

Sure, they would scramble as fast as they could, but unless the base had planes on a 15 minute alert status, and within 100 miles or so, the fighters would probably get there just in time to watch the plane hit (using the 40 minute scenario above) Even then a 15 minute alert jet would have a nearly impossible assignment. Not to mention, if all the fighter had was its cannon, the pilot would almost certainly have to ram the jet to knock it down. Of which, the first pilots launched that day HAD made the decision to ram any target, since they didnt have missiles onboard.

Sorry, your friendly neighborhood Boenoid has been away working for a few days. LaBTop quoted this:

Problems with this? The part appears to be a graphite composite material used in military aircraft, and is painted WHITE. Wings of AA77 were silvery aluminum.

The control surfaces of the 757 and 767 are almost entirely made from composites, mostly Kevlar. The piece in the picture looks (maybe) like a hunk of the leading edge, or maybe one of the flap track "canoes." The "canoes" are the canoe-shaped thingies hanging down under the wings which connect them to the flaps. LaBTop also said:

The vectors of both flight paths involved seem to me totally impossible in combination with each others speed and original direction. It must have flown back.

Ever seen a foul ball go back over the catcher's head? Or over the center field wall? Two different directions with the same initial input - it's just a different angle on the bat. The same analogy explains that whatever speed the 757 was going at, the light pole doesn't magically and instantly accelerate to the same speed. In other words, a light pole hit by a flying 757 might aquire anywhere 1% to 90% of the 757's velocity. And if it has a recoil, it might even go backwards. I looked at some of Jack White's "photo studies" and wasn't impressed. The turned around light pole is probably a entirely different pole on the opposite side of the road, which appears closer because telephoto lenses "compress" the perspective. Several of his "faked" photos are nothing but a failure to understand parallax and compression. And Jack says that the strip of greener grass (not unlike the strip of greener grass on my lawn where the drainage is better) is evidence of photoshop activity - but why? This implies a technician good enough to remove a guardrail with photoshop, but too incompetent to do a basic color balance. (BTW: Jack also thinks the moon landings were faked.) rustiswordz: Regarding the film, the supposed "environmental expert" confused JP-8 fuel with the similar, but not identical, Jet-A used in the 757. The "expert" claims that a 250,000 pound plane made mostly out of 1/8" thick aluminum is supposed to cut through over a dozen feet of concrete and make a hole shaped just like a 757. And the reinforced concrete is supposed to be crushed into a pancake. Not likely: If my math is right, a block of concrete 12x12x12 feet would weigh roughly the same amount as an entire 757. A max weight 757 has less than half the density of concrete, and in the hollow parts with no fuel, like the tail, the density is a mere fraction of concrete. Again, we have the canard that the pentagon is smart enough to fake a video, but too dumb to fix the screwed up date on the tape. They're smart enough to fool the real experts and keep thousands of necessary accomplices quiet, but too dumb to fool a bunch of amateur conspiracy theorists? Bah! Color of the AAL 757: Polished aluminum on the bottom. This saved hundreds of pounds of weight (read $) in exchange for hundreds of hours of extra maintenance. But you can't polish Kevlar and get a shiney mirror finish, hence, all the composite parts are painted white or some other color. Mostly everything outside the fuselage that can move (flaps, elevators, rudder, gear doors, etc) is made from composite, except for the gear and the engine core. -Boenoid

Originally posted by Boenoid In other words, a light pole hit by a flying 757 might aquire anywhere 1% to 90% of the 757's velocity. And if it has a recoil, it might even go backwards.

Has a recoil? backwards? 1-90% a/c velocity? oh noes, if it's merely hit by the outermost tip, i would say there's a chance for a lamppost to just fall over or even remain standing. the problem is none of these poles were severely damaged (cut in half or somesuch) and they all landed within a few feet of their original locations.btw. going backwards = = cartoon physics, imho.

I looked at some of Jack White's "photo studies" and wasn't impressed. The turned around light pole is probably a entirely different pole on the opposite side of the road, which appears closer because telephoto lenses "compress" the perspective. Several of his "faked" photos are nothing but a failure to understand parallax and compression.

cannot account for what's not there www.911studies.com...: painfully obvious, that cars are changing color all the time, debris pops up, trees fall and are re-erected - that's all without going into missing guardrails around the helipost, cut-off lampposts a cars jammed between two rails www.911studies.com... sure, some points of his criticisms i cannot follow either, it's still clear as day that quite a few photos are outright fakes, though.

On another topic, I read the "Operation Pearl" thingy a poster linked to above. Problems with this story: 757 parts are clearly visible in the Pentagon wreckage, as Catherder pointed out way back when. The number of conspirators is not 36, but thousands, as it would require complicity of all the investigators of the NTSB, FAA, Boeing, and our many suppliers, and other people noted below. Note that this scenario also requires 5 Boeing jetliners to disappear. One of the crashes is real, 2 are faked with substitute jetliners, and one is faked with a missle or something. The conspirators had to buy 2 jetliners for remote control modification. Jetliners are highly controlled products made in very small quanities - we know where every one is and none are missing. Getting the two jetliners would require hundreds if not thousands of people to know what had happened, from the bankers and accountants to the part suppliers and insurance companies. The conspirators would have to have obtained highly specialized remote control mods, and had them installed and tested without being detected. Note that you can't do this work at a dirt runway - you need a big facility and several hundred experienced airplane mechanics. Again, hundreds of conspirators are required, at the airport, the mod shop, the remote control supplier, and even the job shop that supplied the mechanics. Also, you need specific Boeing experience to design the mods described, which require further hundreds if not thousands more conspirators. This is the recurring problem with all your conspiracy theories. They require involvement by everyone right down to the janitors. They require hyper-competent spies who can plant tons of fake airplane parts with proper serials numbers and everything, BUT, they can't figure out how to put the right date on a security tape. The one witness who is confused about details and says, "Maybe it was a lear jet." is given more credence than the dozens of witnesses who said, "It was some kind of a jetliner." Overall, it reveals a charming love of the anomolies that surround any accident, like lone drinking glass that survived intact when I dropped a box of dishes. Contrasted with a willing disregard for the often more boring face of reality, like the fact that there really wasn't anything special or magical about the one glass that didn't break - it was just random chance. Gentlemen, trust your friendly neighborhood Boenoid. You can conspire away on other topics, but those are 757 airplane parts in the pictures Catherder showed on the very first page of this mammoth post. They look pretty much like the parts I saw when I worked on the 757. Show me some more pictures and I may be able to identify parts I worked on. Also, the hole is consistant with the fuselage size. The hollow aluminum 757 vertical tail is not going to cut through steel reinforced concrete. Burning kerosene is going to take a long time to do much damage to a largely intact concrete structure, especially if the sprinklers are working in the adjacent sections. Boeing airplanes do not become uncontrollable when they get close to the ground. And Boeing employees are not so easily bribed or threatened that you could get hundreds of us to support a treasonous conspiracy. -Boenoid

Originally posted by watch_the_rocks Hypothetical situation: Hmm, so if there was an aircraft that was guaranteed to hit the White House with an eta of 40 minutes all they could and would do is sit there and watch? Okaaay . . . not even scrambling fighters with guns? And noone go on about 'shooting over civilians.' Concessions would be made.

You could evacuate the White House in 40 minutes, so what would be the use in scrambling fighters with guns?

Take The ATS 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Survey

A new survey is open to ATS members and guests to help get a "pulse" of what our members and visitors think of conspiracies associated with the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001. This new survey focuses on the possible levels of the conspiracies to first gauge the overall opinion of the people who visit AboveTopSecret.com. We'll keep the survey open for two weeks, then post the results. After this general survey, we'll organize follow-ups to focus more on the specific events on and related to 9/11/2001. The 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Survey: 8 Questions www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Long Lance

Originally posted by Boenoid In other words, a light pole hit by a flying 757 might aquire anywhere 1% to 90% of the 757's velocity. And if it has a recoil, it might even go backwards.

Has a recoil? backwards? 1-90% a/c velocity? oh noes, if it's merely hit by the outermost tip, i would say there's a chance for a lamppost to just fall over or even remain standing. the problem is none of these poles were severely damaged (cut in half or somesuch) and they all landed within a few feet of their original locations.btw. going backwards = = cartoon physics, imho.

Bend a sapling over until the bottom starts to break. It recoils, flips over backwards and breaks, ending up facing backwards. I didn't say it was likely just not impossible. Actually, reviewing the photo, I think the explanation is even far more prosaic even than that. The pole broke and fell downhill, which just happens to be backwards!

Originally posted by Long Lance

Originally posted by Boenoid I looked at some of Jack White's "photo studies" and wasn't impressed. ... Several of his "faked" photos are nothing but a failure to understand parallax and compression.

cannot account for what's not there www.911studies.com...: painfully obvious, that cars are changing color all the time, debris pops up, trees fall and are re-erected - that's all without going into missing guardrails around the helipost, cut-off lampposts a cars jammed between two rails www.911studies.com... sure, some points of his criticisms i cannot follow either, it's still clear as day that quite a few photos are outright fakes, though.

See the attached links for an example of "telephoto compression" changing the apparent size and placement of the background. Jack White claims to have extensive experience as a photojournalist, but he is bizarrely unfamiliar with this common and easy photographic effect which I was taught in high school photography class. cp.c-ij.com... Note also that the "white" SUV has the tire and taillights and plastic bumper cover burnt off in the first photo, just like the sportscar net to it. In the other photos Jack says it is a different car because it is green and taller and has a different bumper. Doesn't it seem obvious that the "white" paint is just galvanized steel and ashes and the car is simply unburnt in the "green" photo? Why did it burn so long? What if the car is on top of kerosene-soaked soil? Here's somebody else's burnt-up car: www.freefoto.com... Not too different, is it? And look at this: www.911studies.com... The first photo is facing the opposite direction as the later photos. The downed tree is "re-erected" in the other photos, it's not even the same tree! Again, I'm not going to say none of the photos have been messed with, but I think Jack's arguments aren't compelling. Congress wasn't impressed with Jack either: www.clavius.org... -Boenoid

I'd say, watch this documentory and judge yourself. It's very interesting. www.loosechange911.com...

Originally posted by Mdv2 I'd say, watch this documentory and judge yourself. It's very interesting. www.loosechange911.com...

Umm anyone who would believe this movie has a loose brain

wrt page #22, i know that the angles are different, but i don't know if there was more than one tree standing behind the burining cars, i don't need the same angle to judge if an object is still standing realtively close to the reference point (car). the tree is so close to the car and tall enough to fall exactly as depicted in the first photo, i don't know if there's room for another tree on the other side, which then would have to be at least far enough away to stay out of pic #2... as for the car between the rails, distortion and blur are fine and dandy, but it cannot account for what's simply not there. there's no road or pavement between the rails, which can be seen by looking below the first one... but there should be and it looks just wrong, doesn't it? cute effects are usually achieved using special lenses & setup, i can hardly see why one would use a complicated effect for media footage and i don't buy that it 'just happens' under certain circumstances. PS: i can see why congress wouldn't promote a JFK conspiracy theory.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999 Umm anyone who would believe this movie has a loose brain

If you find this documentory so ignorant, then elaborate why. Northwoods was based on similar radical ideas.

Originally posted by Mdv2

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999 Umm anyone who would believe this movie has a loose brain

If you find this documentory so ignorant, then elaborate why. Northwoods was based on similar radical ideas.

You know that "dissing" loose change is the new hype nowadays. Some kid found a viewerguide and all of a sudden everyone is enlightened and Loose Change is a piece of crap because it contains no truth whatsoever! /sarcasm

Why is this mockumentary such crap? Where should I start? It is alleged that Marvin Bush ran security for the WTC on 9/11. While he was a member of the board that did run security for the WTC, he had nothing to do with the day to day operation. In addition, he left his position as a board member in June 2000, 14 months or so before 9/11. Osama was wearing gold jewelry in the videos. Really? You can tell its gold just by looking at a picture? SINCE WHEN? Some other information that I will borrow from a site that has done a fine job of researching Loose Change.... Claim: Charles Burlingame, an ex-Navy F4 pilot who worked in the Pentagon, participated in an exercise simulating crashing a 757 into a building in October 2000, before retiring to take a job at American Airlines, Truth: Charles Burlingame started working for AA in 1979 and retired from the Naval Reserve in 1996, 4 years before these supposed exercises took place Claim: Investors with prior knowledge of 9/11 made millions buying put options on airline stock. Truth: Both the 9/11 committee and business journalists investigated this claim and found nothing unusual. Much of the investment also involved purchasing airline stock Claim: Plane crashing into World Trade Center was identified as a windowless cargo plane. Truth: The man who claimed this, Marc Birnbach, was over 2 miles away at the time (TWO MILES AWAY from two miles away ANY large jet will appear windowless) Claim, Flight 77 managed to tear 5 light poles completely out of the ground, Without damaging either the wings or the light poles themselves. Truth: We don’t know that the wings were undamaged, since they crashed into the Pentagon fractions of a second later. There are pictures of the light poles, however, which show them broken and twisted. Claim: The official explanation for flight 77 at the Pentagon is that the intense heat from the jet fuel vaporized the entire plane. Truth: No official has made that claim, and in fact numerous pieces of the plane, including the bodies of the passengers, and the black boxes were found. Claim: Karl Schwarz President and Chief Executive Officer of Patmos Nanotechnologies LLC and I-Nets Security Systems, identified the engine as being a JT8D turbojet engine belonging to an A-3 Skywarrior. Karl Schwarz is a proven fraud and conspiracy theorist, with no known background in technology or avionics. His companies are shell corporations with no employees or products. Furthermore, the A-3 Skywarrior never used a JT8D engine. (OOPS) Claim: The damage to the Pentagon was completely inconsistent with a Boeing 757? Truth: Studies by NIST, the ASCE and Purdue University, including computer simulations show that the damage was perfectly in keeping with a crashing airplane Claim: No wreckage was found on the Pentagon lawn. Truth: There are numerous pictures of plane wreckage, including those with the American Airlines paint scheme Claim: A cruise missile hit the Pentagon Truth: Over a hundred documented witnesses, and many more unrecorded, saw in broad daylight a large commercial jetliner crash into the Pentagon. Many even specifically identified the airline. To this day, not a single person has come forward claiming to have seen a cruise missile. Claim: A number of military personnel at the Pentagon specifically mentioned smelling cordite. Truth: The person (not a number of military personnel) in question was a lawyer not a munitions expert, and cordite is used in ammunition, not explosives. Hmm..........

While I was posting someone saw fit to post that "a kid found a viewer guide", Im guessing that was directed at me....Rest assured, I havent been a kid in a long time. Hell the youngest of MY kids will be in 7th grade this year. As for finding a viewer guide, yes I did. But I found a well sourced one, not to mention it fits with all the evidence I have seen about that day... To continue with discussing "Loose Change".... Claim: On July 28th, 1945, a B-52 bomber lost in the fog crashed into the 79th floor of the Empire State Building, 14 people dead, 1 million dollars in damage. But, the building stands intact to this day. Truth: It was a B-25 bomber (the B-52 was not produced until 9 years later), a propeller driven plane about 1/10th the size of a 767, and was traveling about ¼ the speed. The fire only covered part of one floor, and was extinguished in less than an hour Claim: On February 23rd, 1991, a 38 story skyscraper in Philadelphia burned for more than 19 hours and spread over 8 floors. It did not collapse. Truth: The firefighters fought the fire for 11 hours before they evacuated the building fearing a collapse. The building, which was never hit by an aircraft, was structurally unsound and later had to be demolished. Claim: 200,000 tons of steel shattered into sections no longer than a couple feet long. Truth: Sections of the World Trade Center, often hundreds of feet long survived Claim: Kevin Ryan from Underwriters Laboratories, the company that certified the steel that was used in the World Trade Center, stated the steel should not have melted at the temperatures they were exposed to. Truth: Kevin Ryan worked in the water testing department, nobody claimed the steel melted, and UL did not certify it in the first place. Claim: Bomb sniffing dogs were removed from the World Trade Center only days before the attack. Truth: Security was actually increased for a couple of weeks; this “removal” was just security returning to normal. Claim: Seismic records prove that explosives were used in the World Trade Center Truth: The Columbia University seismic center specifically states that their records do not support such a conclusion Mayor Giuliani shipped off the remains of the World Trade Center before anyone could look at it. Truth: FEMA, the FBI, the NTSB and the NIST all conducted in depth investigations, including removal and testing of debris. An extensive report is available at www.nist.gov... Claim: Not even FEMA was allowed into Ground Zero. Truth: False, they were involved in the investigation and even produced the first report Claim: At the United 93 crash site “there was nothing. Nothing that you can distinguish that a plane had crashed there. “ Truth: Extensive debris including engines, personal effects, body parts and the black boxes were found at the crash site. Pictures of many of these items were introduced into evidence as the Zacarias Moussaoui trial Claim: Wally Miller, a Somerset County coroner stated that there were no bodies found at the crash site of United 93 Truth: There were no “whole” bodies, but over 1500 body parts were found, and most of the passengers were identified through the use of DNA. Mr. Miller later reported his findings on this. www.postgazette.com... www.usnews.com... Claim: United Flight 93 landed at Cleveland Airport Truth: This was a false report, it was immediately corrected by the AP, but it still lives on in Internet legend (imagine that an internet Urban Legend) Claim: The cell phone calls from the hijacked planes could not have taken place due to the technological impossibility of placing calls from a high altitude. Truth: Most of the calls were from Airfones, which quite obviously work fine in the air. Doggone...almost out of characters.....

Claim: Nine hijackers turned up alive after 9/11 Truth: All of these claims turned up immediately after 9/11. A few were just people with the same name, the rest have been unverified. To date, none of the 19 hijackers has been seen in public Claim: $160 billion in gold is missing from the World Trade Center. Truth: Despite the fact that this would be over half the world’s gold reserves, and be nearly impossible to move secretly, this has never been reported by any reputable news source (Someone has watched "Die Hard With A Vengenance" one too many times" Claim: A reporter at the Pentagon reported there was no trace of flight 77. Truth: The reporter, Jamie McIntyre, was responding to a question regarding whether the plane crashed outside of the Pentagon. In the rest of his news reports he talks extensively about the crash, including handling pieces of the airplane himself. So thats a few dozen of Loose Change main points demolished....anyone still think it is a movie worth watching???

Yes that's what I mean. And you buy those things? Those are not explanations with hard proof I hope you realize that? They are excuses, nothing more. It's sad that people jump to solutions like this just so they don't have to accept the possibility of a government coverup. Here are some explanations:

Claim: Plane crashing into World Trade Center was identified as a windowless cargo plane. Truth: The man who claimed this, Marc Birnbach, was over 2 miles away at the time (TWO MILES AWAY from two miles away ANY large jet will appear windowless)

Oh? So suddenly it's one guy? I could've sworn even I thought it didn't look like a normal plane, it's also on video, and there's a woman yelling the same thing on CNN. Hmm? That 2 miles away theory is starting to fall pretty fast..

Claim, Flight 77 managed to tear 5 light poles completely out of the ground, Without damaging either the wings or the light poles themselves. Truth: We don’t know that the wings were undamaged, since they crashed into the Pentagon fractions of a second later. There are pictures of the light poles, however, which show them broken and twisted.

No, we don't know, we can assume that the damage wasn't big though because there wasn't anything on the ground to resemble something like uhm.. a damaged wing?

Claim: Karl Schwarz President and Chief Executive Officer of Patmos Nanotechnologies LLC and I-Nets Security Systems, identified the engine as being a JT8D turbojet engine belonging to an A-3 Skywarrior. Karl Schwarz is a proven fraud and conspiracy theorist, with no known background in technology or avionics. His companies are shell corporations with no employees or products. Furthermore, the A-3 Skywarrior never used a JT8D engine. (OOPS)

Oh? But lets leave out the people actually MAKING the boeing parts, stating that they do not belong to one? (OOPS)

Claim: No wreckage was found on the Pentagon lawn. Truth: There are numerous pictures of plane wreckage, including those with the American Airlines paint scheme

Yes, and we all know how truthworthy those are huh? There's an excellent link floating around that goes into detail how pentagon pictures were a mock up in alot of cases. Can't find it right away..

Claim: Kevin Ryan from Underwriters Laboratories, the company that certified the steel that was used in the World Trade Center, stated the steel should not have melted at the temperatures they were exposed to. Truth: Kevin Ryan worked in the water testing department, nobody claimed the steel melted, and UL did not certify it in the first place.

That's an easy one, but we all know he's right... We have countless fires in steel buildings to proof what he's saying is true. This is a very cheap trick btw "they say the steel melted, but the steel didn't have to melt! So you're wrong" What a logical fallacy. Nobody tries to claim the steel melted, in fact we KNOW it didn't melt, but we also know that it could not have given in for the very SAME reasons, a slow burning, oxygen starved fire that ended in 50 minutes, wich WOULD NOT have been enough to weaken the steel even if it was a raging inferno like they'd want us to believe.

Mayor Giuliani shipped off the remains of the World Trade Center before anyone could look at it. Truth: FEMA, the FBI, the NTSB and the NIST all conducted in depth investigations, including removal and testing of debris. An extensive report is available at www.nist.gov...

Ahahaha, that's the best one I've heard in a while, extensive and NIST in one sentence! Keep them coming, we all know how thoroughly NIST did their research, obviously, you don't.

While I agree with some of your statements, you seem to ignore/edit important conclusions drawn in the documentary. Operation Northwoods: img123.imageshack.us..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/> ‘’Painting and numbering an aircraft as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. …selected passengers… carefully prepared aliases… actual aircraft converted to a drone… Mayday signal before being blowing up by remote control. Rebuilding America’s defences: strategy, forces, and resources for a new century Written by Dick Cheney; Donald Rumsfeld; Jeff Bush, and others. The process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbour. Pearl Harbour: - Attack on American soil – major impact – resulted in a majority of the American people whom agreed a war was inevitable to defend the US, and the US interests. WTC: - Attack on American soil - major impact – resulted in a majority of the American people whom agreed a war was inevitable to defend the US, and the US interests The fact remains that no WMD have been found, which makes the claim to start a war, in order to protect the US people unfounded. Previously to the 9/11 attacks several training exercises (e.g. MASCAL) took place, simulating a Boeing 757 crashing into the building. Condoleezza Rice said shortly after the attack: 'No one ever imagined a domestic airplane could be used as a weapon'. Then why did the Pentagon, NORAD, and thus indirectly the government simulate numerous of such scenarios as MASCAL before the actual attack on 911? Mayor Willie Brown had been warned not to take his flight the next day, by whom is not clear. Some suggest it was Rice, but I haven’t been able to find any evidence confirming this accusation. However, it’s likely the phone call came from someone with government/security related ties, someone who knew about a possible (planned) terrorist attack on 911. This automatically rejects the statement of Rice in which she says no one ever imagined a domestic airplane could be used as a weapon. In addition:

WTC Security guard Hermina Jones said officials had recently taken steps to secure the towers against aerial attacks by installing bullet-proof windows and fireproof doors in the 22nd-floor computer command center...

Larry Silverstein insured the entire WTC complex just six weeks before 911, (at 3.5 billion US Dollar) specifically covering acts of terrorism

As you’ll see from the Newsday excerpt below, tight security at the Twin Towers in NYC was lightened in the days just before the 9/11 attacks. What makes the particular removal of bomb-sniffing dogs so important are statements from firemen that they heard bombs going off in the Towers on 9/11, as they were carrying out their rescue operation. Naturally, if people were planting bombs in the Towers, they would not have wanted those charges to be discovered by trained dogs prior to 9/11. This matter of the dogs and the statements of firemen about bombs were completely ignored by the 9/11 commission.

Charles Burlingame:

...the main pilot of the 9-11 Pentagon plane, former Navy and then Navy Reservist pilot Charles Burlingame, had recently, in a Reserve assignment at the Pentagon, been part of a Task Force that drafted the Pentagon's emergency response plan on what to do in case a plane hit the building - which his own plane then did. It is therefore very possible - in fact extremely likely, if not certain - that this 'task force' that Flight 77 pilot "Chick" Burlingame was part of was the Cheney counterterrorism preparedness task force, and that the Pentagon plane pilot, therefore, directly knew and even worked with/for Cheney. Burlingame's 9-11 Pentagon plane not only hit the Pentagon that morning, it struck a Command and Control center for that morning's counterterrorism "game" exercise, killing most, if not all, of the "players". We know this because Army personnel from Ft. Monmouth, New Jersey were on special duty assignment at the Pentagon that morning for an emergency response exercise and were killed when Burlingame's plane hit. Ft. Monmouth, New Jersey also happens to be the headquarters for White House/Presidential communications, including therefore probably also for Air Force One (this is discoverable) -- and recall the warning "Air Force One is next" and the 'secret code' which was called into the White House that morning which WH press secretary Ari Fleischer revealed as a means of explaining why Pres. Bush left Florida for a military base and did not return to the White House. This "warning" was probably called into the White House, if true, by either the Ft. Monmouth White House communications headquarters and/or the Ft. Monmouth counterterrorism exercise "game" players temporarily at the Pentagon that morning. This means the pilot of Flight 77 participated in MASCAL in October of 2000, an exercise which simulated a Boeing 757 crashing into the Pentagon.Flight 77 hit the one and only section of the Pentagon that had been renovated to withstand just such an attack: "Luck — if it can be called that — had it that the terrorists aimed the Boeing 757 at the only part of the Pentagon that already had been renovated in an 11-year, $1.3 billion project meant to bolster it against attack. That significantly limited the damage and loss of life by slowing the plane as it tore through the building and reducing the explosion's reach." Source: USA Today (1/01/02)

More to come. [edit on 6-7-2006 by Mdv2]