9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Very sad Howard, you are really off your game...LOL Correct me if I am wrong, but WTC and the Perntagon were crime scenes. City, County, State and Federal laws require the storage and investigation of evidence. It was destroyed so the truth would not come out.. As for your remarks about the cameras...yeah I am sure they were all out of focus or turned elsewhere, esp. the 1,000 or so on the Pentagon, the gas station, the Sheraton, and the Virgina Highway camera... as for cameras..only 2 ( one too grainy to be conclusive ) pictures of any of the "highjackers" ever turned up..for 4 flights this is ludicrous.. I don't "just throw things out there". I was a rabid right wing Republican until about 18 months past 9/11 and have been reading everything I can about this since...I am a Libertarian now. I will find some information..altho from the government who knows if it is true..about black boxes..the failure rate is not high, I am real sure... I have a good friend who spent 41 months in Vietnam and Cambodia. I will ask himn about the cordite question. I will also find the links for the folks who heard the explosions.... LN

The comment about Payne Stewart is telling....as is your comment about the maneuver by the "hijacker" who was incapable of flying a plane at all.. Anyway, here are some new important links about 9/11 : www.arcticbeacon.com... Former Bush Team Member Says WTC Collapse Likely A Controlled Demolition And 'Inside Job' Highly recognized former chief economist in Labor Department now doubts official 9/11 story, claiming suspicious facts and evidence cover-up indicate government foul play and possible criminal implications. June 12, 2005 By Greg Szymanski A former chief economist in the Labor Department during President Bush's first term now believes the official story about the collapse of the WTC is 'bogus,' saying it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7. "If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be compelling," said Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D, a former member of the Bush team who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX. ................... more here ................. and www.prisonplanet.com... 9/11: Ten Smoking Guns Prison Planet | June 14 2005 1) Why didn't NORAD fulfil its standard operating procedure and intercept the planes? Were NORAD intentionally confused by the wargames taking place on the morning of 9/11 or were they ordered to stand down? Flight 77 was known by NORAD to have been hijacked by 8:50am. Yet it is a full 48 minutes until any fighters are scrambled, as two leave Langley AFB just two minutes before Flight 77 hits the Pentagon at 9:40am. 2) What is the meaning behind the following quote attributed to Dick Cheney ...much more here ..... LN

Originally posted by Souljah - the ground in front of the explosion site was covered of sand very quickly after the crash : The good reason could be to protect people from the remains of this metal, known to cause harsh long term intoxications

I'm all for a good conspiracy and wouldn't be surprised if it was a global hawk and/or missle or a jumbo jet for that matter. BUT I always just assumed they covered the lawn with sand and compacted it down to avoid having the lawn destroyed and sunked by all the heavy equipment that would be driving over it. I think that makes sense (unfortunatly). What ever caused the damage at the Pentagon is just 1 small factor, the conspiracy is established via a lot more evidence than the actual damage caused to the Pentagon and WTC.

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis What ever caused the damage at the Pentagon is just 1 small factor, the conspiracy is established via a lot more evidence than the actual damage caused to the Pentagon and WTC.

OK - lets call thist the Cruise Missile Hypothesis. www.fas.org... The model on the bottom left would be more suitable. - On the front a conventional explosive, shaped as an "hollow charge", whose aim is to dig a hole in a wall, but limited to a few meters in action. - On the back, an uranium load. This metal has the property to explode when projected on solid materials, creating a plasma inside which the mass of metal propagates. On a smaller scale, this principle is used to destroy tanks. Depleted Uranium Burning [edit on 15/6/05 by Souljah]

Originally posted by HowardRoark Have you ever considered the possibility that they have not been released because there is nothing of interest on them. i.e. they don't show anything because they were pointed the wrong way.

Yea RIGHT! IF There is NOTHING of interest, why dont they show them? THREE separate cameras also recoreded the impact. Why have we never seen that recording? Why did the FBI come minutes after the impact and confescated the recordings? Why would they hide this Evidence from the Public? Why would they not show them, if they did not have NOTHINg to HIDE? Just show these records to Shut Us Up - if you dont have anything to hide.... OR do YOU? [edit on 15/6/05 by Souljah]

Originally posted by Souljah

Originally posted by HowardRoark Have you ever considered the possibility that they have not been released because there is nothing of interest on them. i.e. they don't show anything because they were pointed the wrong way.

Yea RIGHT! IF There is NOTHING of interest, why dont they show them? THREE separate cameras also recoreded the impact. Why have we never seen that recording? Why did the FBI come minutes after the impact and confescated the recordings? Why would they hide this Evidence from the Public? Why would they not show them, if they did not have NOTHINg to HIDE? Just show these records to Shut Us Up - if you dont have anything to hide.... OR do YOU? [edit on 15/6/05 by Souljah]

Firstly, Howard, you should put your own quote in your signature because it's one of the stupidest comments yet - although you do some good work keeping up your case and your obviously not an idiot, that comment is a complete toss and you seem smart enough to know that yourself. I wouldn't put it past them thou to come out with tapes showing blue sky's or green grass and telling us 'see we told you they had nothing on them, they were pointed the wrong way, they didn't capture anything, therefor there's no conspiracy'. Like a lot of other first time events on that day, maybe for the first time ever in the Pentagon's history, all cameras monitoring that wall of the Pentagon we're pointed in different directions, switched off or offline in some freak occurance. Or maybe there are no other cameras beside Toll Booth Willies 5 frames a second webcam? The Pentagon probably never thought they'd have to have security for America's nerve centre before 9-11, the thought never crossed their mind that someone might try to attack it!! Even if they don't pick up exactly what hit the Pentagon, surely they could show the explosion again from different angles and at full frame rather than the few dubious video frames they have released, there's no reason for suppressing that video and until they do, their must be a train of thought considering they are hiding something and then trying to work out what that is. It's not a bad thing to question events and there's A LOT of questions around 9/11, what hit the Pentagon is just one small piece of the puzzle. Didn't some people from the Hilton or one of the other non-pentagon cameras actually watch one of the tapes before it got taken off them by the FBI?? I remember that story floating around earlier, not sure if it's documented as fact thou. [edit on 15-6-2005 by TheShroudOfMemphis]

Alive and Well Khalid Almihdhar A Hijacker from Flight 77, Alive and Well? BBC Salem Alhazmi A Hijacker from Flight 77, Alive and Well? Telegraph The list of Hijacker suspects from Flight 77: Flight 77: Khalid Al-Midhar, Majed Moqed, Nawaq Alhamzi, Salem Alhamzi and Hani Hanjour The Incompetence Factor Prime suspect and the leader of the group that hijacked the Flight 77, that was supposed to be the pilot that crahsed into Pentagon was Hani Hanjour. But he couldnt fly at all - so how could he perform such a dangerous manouver with a 100 ton Boeing that was supposed to hit the Pentagon with 400-500 mph at a very low attitude?

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

So - the official story tells us that out of FIVE Hijackers, two are still alive and well, and the Pilot that was supposed to crash the airplane into the face of the Pentagon was a Very POOR Pilot, with basicly 0 hours of flying with a big, passenger airplane. What really happened to Flight 77? Who are the REAL Hijackers, if some of them are really alive and well? [edit on 15/6/05 by Souljah]

Originally posted by 25thID As for your remarks about the cameras...yeah I am sure they were all out of focus or turned elsewhere, esp. the 1,000 or so on the Pentagon, the gas station, the Sheraton, and the Virgina Highway camera...

The gas station and Sheraton cameras were security cameras. "So? What does that mean?" It means, they're range isn't the best, I know exactly where those places are and the Pentagon is not that close. It also means it's highly unlikely they caught anything significant on tape as those security cameras are for the security of those buildings not looking at the Pentagon. The highway camera looks down on the.....you guessed it....the highway. It's also very unlikely it caught anything.

as for cameras..only 2 ( one too grainy to be conclusive ) pictures of any of the "highjackers" ever turned up..for 4 flights this is ludicrous..

Alomari and Atta in Portland, ME Alhazmi, Almihdhar, and Hanjour at Dullus. Majed Moqed and Khalid Almihdhar set off alarms going through the magnetometer, but are cleared in subsequent metal detector hand wand searches. Nawaf and Salem Alhazmi at Dulles

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird It means, they're range isn't the best, I know exactly where those places are and the Pentagon is not that close. It also means it's highly unlikely they caught anything significant on tape as those security cameras are for the security of those buildings not looking at the Pentagon.

Again, IF they have NOTHING to HIDE then why dont they show that Nothing to the Public? Why dont they show the Unimportant tapes and prove us all wrong? What is stopping them in doing that? Could it be that they have something to Hide and to Protect?

...and Another Rumsfeld "slip"

Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defence, was in his office on the eastern side of the building, in a meeting with Christopher Cox, the defence policy committee chairman of the House of Representatives. Mr Rumsfeld, recalls Mr Cox, watched the TV coverage from New York and said: "Believe me, this isn't over yet. There's going to be another attack, and it could be us." Moments later, the plane hit. Mr Rumsfeld ran to the point of impact and helped load the wounded on to stretchers before retreating to the secure National Military Command Centre, beneath the building. There, he refused entreaties to evacuate even as the Centre filled with smoke.

source: Telegraph

Originally posted by Souljah Again, IF they have NOTHING to HIDE then why dont they show that Nothing to the Public? Why dont they show the Unimportant tapes and prove us all wrong? What is stopping them in doing that? Could it be that they have something to Hide and to Protect?

Go up to any bank, store, hotel, ect. and ask to see their security tapes. See what they say. ** That other so called slip by Rumsfeld has already been delt with in this thread, please go back and read it.

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird Go up to any bank, store, hotel, ect. and ask to see their security tapes. See what they say.

Hmm... The problem here is that the FBI took the Tapes away - not that the people that had the cameras would not want to show them. The Authorities DONT want to Show them - meaning that THEY are hiding something. Not the Bank. Not the Store. Not the Hotel. What would they Gain from that?

Let's address another very important issue. I was in the Army for 2 years, and had a Top Secret clearance with a Federal Government agency, which I will not name at this time, for 32.5 years. I am fully aware of the fear that people have for losing their jobs and nice pensions. I also know folks have a conscience. There is enough evidence ( if this went to a fair trial anywhere on this planet ), if you do the research, that NYPD firefighters, police officers, and other city workers were told to shut up and coerced to do this. There is also evidence that FAA records were destroyed, against Federal law, and air traffic controllers who worked that day were also coerced to shut up. The list goes on. I believe it is very true, for the simple fact, that due to the overwhelming evidence of a conspiracy the news media buries any dissenting voices. Did any of you see any media coverage of the RICO lawsuit brought against Bush and Co. by a 9/11 widow ? The point I am trying to make is, I know how this game works...play the game and get the benefits and no one get hurt..it happened in OKC and the first WTC bombing as well.. I think the whole thing is going to unravel and just about that time there will be another faked terrorist incident to blame on Syria or Iran, the draft will go into effect, and the President ( due to Executive Orders passed in the last 20 years... Patriot Acts 1 and 2, and the FEMA emergency powers already granted ) will call for martial law. There is a bill in Congress now to abolish the 2 term limit on Presidents...Things are slowly rolling downhill to the shit hole...Just IMHO LN

Originally posted by Moe Foe For one, a Concorde doesn't even have the same kind of wings. And two, there is a lot of debris there that makes it 100% obvious what kind of plane crashed. That's a ridiculous example to even try to compare.

But then, most of what you try to suggest is ridiculous. It also didn't enter a building through a hole that wouldn't allow the wings to enter, did it?

That crash has absolutely no similarities. [edit on 14-6-2005 by Moe Foe]

Well If you want I can, and have posted pictures of planes with wings like a 757 that have crashed. Nothing but little pieces of debris. The concord was barely airborn when it crashed. The plane that hit the pentagon was going full throttle. There is a HUGE difference.

Originally posted by 25thID The comment about Payne Stewart is telling

Please elaborate. How is the Payne Stewart incident comparable to 9/11? What facts about the Payne Stewart incident would you like to present. (be careful here and check them carefully )

For those who haven't made up their mind one way or the other about 9/11, here are some specifc web links that make the case for government complicity and conspiracy in toto. It is difficult to deal with the mass of information on here, when debunkers are obscuring the total picture, and nit picking small portions of it. Thank you. LN ( I would appreciate comments about the structure, content, and perception of these links also ) algoxy.com... ( be sure to access all of the links in the small blue boxes in the link above ) members.iinet.net.au... serendipity.nofadz.com... letsroll911.org... 911closeup.com...

It is difficult to deal with the mass of information on here, when debunkers are obscuring the total picture, and nit picking small portions of it.

Oh sure so lets only have them read the "truth". As for nitpicking small portions of what you call the truth, I think most if not all of it has been countered rather well. Most of those sites you point out tend to take a small snippet of information and twist it to suit their opinion. Lots of quotes or single photos taken out of context. [edit on 16/6/05 by Skibum]

Skibum : Did you bother to read anything on the sites I listed ? If you did, your comments are somewhat baffling... Larry

I will Just place my 2 cents into this Massive Barrel of Quarters and Silverdollars. I do agree, that is a VERY cool and very astounding research the creater of this thread did. But as much as I enjoy going against the majority, look at this site. 2 different point of views from the creater of this thread and the creater of this web video. www.pentagonstrike.co.uk... I am simply presenting this to show that not all conspiracies or truths are black and white. As we all know Practically everything is Very gray indeed.

Originally posted by Forsaken Druid I will Just place my 2 cents into this Massive Barrel of Quarters and Silverdollars. I do agree, that is a VERY cool and very astounding research the creater of this thread did. But as much as I enjoy going against the majority, look at this site. 2 different point of views from the creater of this thread and the creater of this web video. www.pentagonstrike.co.uk... I am simply presenting this to show that not all conspiracies or truths are black and white. As we all know Practically everything is Very gray indeed.

But surely the points mentioned in that flash have already been addressed here? (and elsewhere) Two sides, perhaps - but what I'm seeing is, one side showing evidence - as in, physical findings and scientific theory based on fact more than assumption - and the other side putting together a cute flash that shows nothing but conjecture and supposition. Where's the evidence to support the flash?