|
|
COMMENTS:
Have you ever seen a Boeing emit a plume of exhaust smoke upon landing either?
No?
Me neither.
i knew this was you ken 
truthfully, i don't know what happened. i do believe that the plane hit, not doubt about it. but i also firmly believe that our government knew in advance and failed to act on purpose. thats the key here. ken, that plane hit. too many eyewitnesses said it did. focus not on questioning if the planes hit, because they did, trust me, i live in nyc and those plane his the wtc. focus instead on whether bush knew and let it happen. think about it. how fortunate for him. doesn't make it any less of a conspiracy. in fact, makes it more of one and a real one. they hit. they knew. they let them.
^ditto.
In fact, y'all should read it over a couple of times.. maybe even put your finger to your lip and reflect a minute.
by Jyl on Sun Jun 04, 06 3:17pm
[+]
Fair enough Kev, you at least agree with me that the US government knew in advance and deliberately failed to act, many very reliable eyewitnesses also reported seeing a small jet hit, many eyewitnesses in retrospect will parrot what the media is telling them what they saw and that is the difference, if it looked like a 757 then it must have been one.
Once you accept US complicity, and to your credit Kev, you are with the majority on this, you are only limited by your imagination as to how far you beleive these psychopaths are perpared to stoop to fulfil their ghastly objectives.
Dreams for them, but nightmares for the rest of America.
Anyway, that video most certainly does not show an airliner, it is something far smaller, and a plume of smoke or vapour trail, that is in itself is a huge smoking gun, no pun intended. (o:
Boeing's don't eject plumes of exhaust at ground level - simple fact!
God bless you Ken for getting the truth out!
(I'm joking in case you couldn't tell).
You should try using your eyes and get out of the closet!
Do you believe that little pff of smoke is a boeing airliner?
So ken, should we ignore all the eyewitnesses who were there and saw a plane?
I think it's telling that of all the people who claim it was a missle, none of them were actually present at the time. All the eyewitnesses say it was a plane.
No more than we should ignore the eyewitnesses who saw what looked like a small commercial jet, whom you won't have heard about about because of US Government sponsored media censorship.
Now tell me you believe that smoke trailing object is a Boeing airliner?
i truly belive the jets were boeing larger jets. really do. so many people saw and i know for certain that jumbo jets hit the wtc. like i said, living here, you just need to trust me. see, the thing is, if they knew jets were going to be hijacked, like the 2 that hit the wtc and the one that crashed into the field in pennsylvania and i happen to have known someone on that plane and his name was jeremy glick, then why fake the pentagon one? no reason. americans have very little attachment to the pentagon, so there was no need to fake that. see my point? most americans don't even think about the plane that hit the pentagon. its filght 93 (pennsylvania) and the 2 that hit the wtc we think about. so, it would be too much of a risk for them to fake something with the pentagon. no, terrorists really did do it all. but, for sure the bush administration knew and sat back letting it happen, knowing that it would give them carte blanche to do what they wanted. thats the conspiracy. the reason why alot of people lose credibility is that they try to maintain that planes hit nothing and stuff like that. they did. but the big conspiracy, which is more plausible and probable is that the bush folks laughed at how it would allow them to use those events to further their own agenda. and agenda that i assure you, 99% of americans do not approve of.
If a Boeing 757 really did hit the Pentagon, and the Bush administration wants everybody to be 100% assured that it did, why don’t they do two simple things:
1) Show us the numerous videotapes that were confiscated within minutes of the attack from the Sheraton National Hotel, Jose Velasquez’ Citgo gas station, and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), along with all footage which was captured by a plethora of cameras situated around the Pentagon.
2) Better yet, after the government rescinded their original story that the 757 was “vaporized” into thin air upon impact, they claimed to have most of the wreckage stored in a warehouse. Why not simply open the doors to this hangar and let everyone see the parts? Think how easy that would be.
But for some strange reason, no one from the U.S. government is stepping forward to squash all these pesky “conspiracy rumors” that Flight 77 never hit the Pentagon. Why? Think about it. The guilty parties responsible for carrying-out the 9-11 terror attacks are loathsome mass murderers of the worst kind. If they were found guilty of committing these crimes, the citizens of this nation would scream for their heads on a silver platter.
With this simple premise in mind, if Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda terrorists were indeed behind the Pentagon attack (and not a cabal of bloodthirsty psychopaths within the U.S. government), don’t you think George Bush and his military brass would do everything in their power to PROVE it? This isn’t rocket science, folks. Wouldn’t they show us each and every confiscated videotape and say, “There, now you can see it with your own eyes – a Boeing 757 flying into the Pentagon.” To lend even more credence to their argument, they’d break-out every other video until there was such a preponderance of evidence that even the most hard-core conspiracy theorist would be convinced.
Or else they’d get Dan Rather, Bill O’Reilly, Wolf Blitzer, Peter Jennings and Tom Brokaw – along with teams of cameramen – and parade them through this mysterious hangar filled with parts from Flight 77. Then we could see the evidence in full-color on ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC and Fox News.
But guess what. Despite how utterly simple this solution is, the government isn’t doing it. Why? Because they know the videos would show that a Boeing 757 DID NOT hit the Pentagon, and there is no warehouse filled with the legitimate wreckage from Flight 77.
It’s that simple; and if you disagree with this premise, ask yourself one question: how many mass-murderers want to be arrested and convicted for their crimes (especially one as notorious as 9-11)? The answer is: none of them would. So, if our government could undeniably prove their case once-and-for-all, they would do it in a heartbeat. But they can’t. Thus, everything else – including the PentaLawn, Hani Hanjour, the 18 foot impact hole and the lack of debris – is icing on the cake further proving their guilt.
In the end, I only have a few simple words to say to the US government: show us the videos, and show us the hangar filled with wreckage. That’s not too much to ask from someone who is innocent, is it
Come on ken. Do you ever create any ballots other than these? There are plenty of photos available of the wreckage at the site. I have found those even on websites questioning the official version.
But what's that in the video Fiddle?
Hey!! Ken's providing a service here! .. Question your government.com ;o)
There were other witnesses on record who claimed to have seen something much different looking and smaller slamming into the pentagon.No assumptions here but suffice it to say I am not convinced it was a 747.Perhaps it was but there *is* non-trivial evidence that suggests it wasn't and I've yet to see it refuted by the government or anybody else including "Popular mechanics".
Side not:did anybody else notice that the 20th second frame is missing above?
Im normally fairly critical of "conspiracy theories" but anyone with an objective mind will admit that there is a fishy smell surrounding the 9/11 attack.
^ Exactly, but sometimes a government will try to keep one thing secret, and it'll fuel a conspiracy in a totally different direction. Just a thought (shrugs)
'...did anybody else notice that the 20th second frame is missing above?
- you're right Robotthinker! - frame twenty IS missing, even I missed that!
All I know for sure is what 9/11 did for W :p
by Jyl on Sun Jun 04, 06 7:05pm
[+]
20th frame is missing...umm, it's a video there are no frames. You guys are hilarious.
If you want to see the unedited video don't go to conspirary websites.
The BBC still has it up if you're interested.
Why on Earth would the government release such a crappy video if their intent was to deceive people?
I'm embarrassed that you continue to believe this, and that you continue to redo this ballot, over and over and over.
Surprise surprise, stick your head in the sand or up you're ass and attack the messenger.
Now why don't you try looking at the video, use your head and your eyes and tell me with a straight face that what you are viewing is a huge Boeing 757 airliner that just happens to have a vapour/exhaust trail streaming out from it's rear end.
I'll try and keep a straight face if you tell me 'Yes Ken, that's what it is, the government says that's a 757 airliner in the video - so it must be, I'm not going to believe what my eyes tell me!'
I'm not fond of conspiracy theories but i have to say there seems to be some incongruences around this matter. I cant tell for sure if that's a Boeing or not but i can tell you the way the terrorists crash it against the Pentagon demands exceptional flying skills (or a great deal of "luck", which seems to have been the case). I know so because my father used to be a pilot. I've also heard that the plane left no skid marks on the ground...if that's true, that's very strange stuff...
seamus
On the BBC website they show a different video. The BBC reporter states the aircraft hits the ground before hitting the pentagon. Hardly a well skilled /lucky pilot or missile.
about 89
The amount of eye witnesses gathered who stated they saw an object crash into the Pentagon
at least 45
The amount of eye witnesses who reported seeing a plane and described it with words like: 'airliner', 'big', 'silver', 'roaring', etc.
at least 23
The amount of eye witnesses who specifically said they saw an American Airlines jet. In all cases a large jet.
at least 22
The amount of witnesses who reported the noise of the plane was very loud to deafening.
at least 17
The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a plane running down light poles when crossing the highways.
at least 12
The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw and heard the plane increase its throttle at the last seconds.
at least 11
The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a C-130H flying 30 seconds behind a jetliner.
at least 5
The amount of eye witnesses who specifically stated they saw the plane had its gear up.
at least 2
The amount of eye witnesses who stated that they saw a small corporate jet, without doing any creative interpretating of the witness accounts.
at least 0 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a missile. What the person thought he heard isn't relevant!
at least 0 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a military jet fighter at the time of the crash.
at least 0 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a Global Hawk at the time of the crash.
at least 3 The amount of witnesses who reported the sound of the plane was quite noiseless. (One of them acknowledged it was the shock)
at least 1 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw the plane had it's gear down. (Indirect, said a wheel hit a pole)
So what have we got, 45 who saw a big passenger liner. 2 who saw a commuter jet, 0 people who saw a missile, 0 people who saw a global hawk, 0 people who saw a fighter plane.
Exactly Seamus.
Here's an interesting piece from a group of professors who have formed a truth movement, these people have far more brains than all of you '19 Arabs with box cutters bringing America to it's knees in the nuclear age' brainwashed official conspiracy theorists;
EXPERTS CLAIM OFFICIAL 9/11 STORY IS A HOAX
Scholars for 9/11 Truth call for verification and publication by an international consortium.
Duluth, MN (PRWEB) January 30, 2006 -- A group of distinguished experts and scholars, including Robert M. Bowman, James H. Fetzer, Wayne Madsen, John McMurtry, Morgan Reynolds, and Andreas von Buelow, have concluded that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11.
They have joined with others in common cause as members of "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" (S9/11T), because they are convinced, based on their own research, that the administration has been deceiving the nation about critical events in New York and Washington, D.C.
These experts suggest these events may have been orchestrated by elements within the administration to manipulate Americans into supporting policies at home and abroad they would never have condoned absent "another Pearl Harbor."
They believe that this White House is incapable of investigating itself and hope the possibility that Congress might hold an unaccountable administration accountable is not merely naive or wishful thinking.
They are encouraging news services around the world to secure scientific advice by taking advantage of university resources to verify or to falsify their discoveries. Extraordinary situations, they believe, require extraordinary measures.
If this were done, they contend, one of the great hoaxes of history would stand naked before the eyes of the world and its perpetrators would be clearly exposed, which may be the only hope for saving this nation from ever greater abuse.
They hope this might include The New York Times, which, in their opinion, has repeatedly failed to exercise the leadership expected from our nation's newspaper of record by a series of inexplicable lapses. It has failed to vigorously investigate tainted elections, lies leading to the war in Iraq, or illegal NSA spying on the American people, major unconstitutional events. In their view, The Times might compensate for its loss of stature by helping to reveal the truth about one of the great turning-point events of modern history.
Stunning as it may be to acknowledge, they observe, the government has brought but one indictment against anyone and, to the best of their knowledge, has not even reprimanded anyone for incompetence or dereliction of duty. The official conspiracy theory--that nineteen Arab hijackers under control of one man in the wilds of Afghanistan brought this about--is unsupportable by the evidential data, which they have studied. They even believe there are good reasons for suspecting that video tapes officially attributed to Osama bin Laden are not genuine.
They have found the government's own investigation to be severely flawed. The 9/11 Commission, designated to investigate the attack, was directed by Philip Zelikow, part of the Bush transition team in the NSA sector and the co-author of a book with Condoleezza Rice. A Bush supporter and director of national security affairs, he could hardly be expected to conduct an objective and impartial investigation.
They have discovered that The 9/11 Commission Report is replete with omissions, distortions, and factual errors, which David Ray Griffin has documented in his book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. The official report, for example, entirely ignores the collapse of WTC7, a 47-story building, which was hit by no airplanes, was only damaged by a few small fires, and fell seven hours after the attack.
Here are some of the kinds of considerations that these experts and scholars find profoundly troubling:
In the history of structural engineering, steel-frame high-rise buildings have never been brought down due to fires either before or since 9/11, so how can fires have brought down three in one day? How is this possible?
The BBC has reported that at least five of the nineteen alleged "hijackers" have turned up alive and well living in Saudi Arabia, yet according to the FBI, they were among those killed in the attacks. How is this possible?
Frank DeMartini, a project manager for the WTC, said the buildings were designed with load redistribution capabilities to withstand the impact of airliners, whose effects would be like "puncturing mosquito netting with a pencil." Yet they completely collapsed. How is this possible?
Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700°F, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800°F under optimal conditions, and UL certified the steel used to 2,000°F for six hours, the buildings cannot have collapsed due to heat from the fires. How is this possible?
Flight 77, which allegedly hit the building, left the radar screen in the vicinity of the Ohio/Kentucky border, only to "reappear" in very close proximity to the Pentagon shortly before impact. How is this possible?
Foreign "terrorists" who were clever enough to coordinate hijacking four commercial airliners seemingly did not know that the least damage to the Pentagon would be done by hitting its west wing. How is this possible?
Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, in an underground bunker at the White House, watched Vice President Cheney castigate a young officer for asking, as the plane drew closer and closer to the Pentagon, "Do the orders still stand?" The order cannot have been to shoot it down, but must have been the opposite. How is this possible?
A former Inspector General for the Air Force has observed that Flight 93, which allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania, should have left debris scattered over an area less than the size of a city block; but it is scattered over an area of about eight square miles. How is this possible?
A tape recording of interviews with air traffic controllers on duty on 9/11 was deliberately crushed, cut into very small pieces, and distributed in assorted places to insure its total destruction. How is this possible?
The Pentagon conducted a training exercise called "MASCAL" simulating the crash of a Boeing 757 into the building on 24 October 2000, and yet Condoleezza Rice, among others, has repeatedly asserted that "no one ever imagined" a domestic airplane could be used as a weapon. How is this possible?
Their own physics research has established that only controlled demolitions are consistent with the near-gravity speed of fall and virtually symmetrical collapse of all three of the WTC buildings. While turning concrete into very fine dust, they fell straight-down into their own footprints.
These experts and scholars have found themselves obliged to conclude that the 9/11 atrocity represents an instance of the approach--which has been identified by Karl Rove, the President's closest adviser--of "creating our own reality."
Gen. Partin was director of the U.S. Air Force Armaments Technology Laboratory, where he designed and tested many types of missiles, warheads, and ordnance against various building structures and armor.
"When you slam an aluminum aircraft at high velocity into a concrete structure, it's going to do exactly what we saw happen at the Pentagon on 9/11," Partin said. "If you look at a frontal mass cross-section of the plane, you see a cylinder of aluminum skin with stringers. When it impacts with the exterior wall at 700-800 feet per second, much of the kinetic energy of the plane converts to thermal energy, and much of the aluminum converts to vapor, burning to aluminum oxide. That's why on the still photos from Pentagon surveillance camera, you first see the frame with that brilliant white luminescent flash just before the frame of the orange fireball, the jet fuel burning. The aluminum cylinder of the plane fuselage is acting like a shaped charge penetrating a steel plate. It keeps penetrating until it is consumed. The Boeing 757 is over 150 feet long, so it's going to penetrate quite a ways before it's spent. The wings have a much lower mass cross-section and are loaded with fuel besides, so there is little left of them except small bits and pieces."
...so in short, Bush probably was correct, in his use of the word 'vaporise'.
"...so in short, Bush probably was correct, in his use of the word 'vaporise'."
by wolf_nipple_chips
Ha ha ha!
Like your brains are vaporised!!!
You are reduced to quoting that moron who is so stupid he doesn't know whether to scratch his watch or wind his balls?
Are you MAD?
Can't you think for yourself???
It's so sad - If he told you Santa really existed you'd probably believe that too.
So the object that penetrated those six walls to exit in a neat round smoke charred hole was the only piece not to vaporise right?
I've heard it all now, this is embarrassing.
Bush claimed a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon then vaporised, and that is why there was no wreckage?
That is UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE.
The titanium used in the 12 tons of engines does not even melt at temperatures reached by mixing jet fuel and pure oxygen much less vaporise.
Titanium was chosen for the engines because it would not even weaken when subjected to an optimum mixture of jet fuel and air for hours on end during ordinary flight.
Why do you even bother Nipple?
You are totally contradicting yourself too - you ludicrously claimed in another ballot of mine that the engines PENETRATED the reinforced facade and then exploded!
Ha!
You are making a total tit of yourself here nipple.
But it's great to watch, keep it up, I eagerly await your next master class in the art of contradictory inconsistent nonsense, and your own uniquely expedient redefining the laws of physics. (o:
Now why don't you try looking at the video, use your head and your eyes and tell me with a straight face that what you are viewing is a huge Boeing 757 airliner that just happens to have a vapour/exhaust trail streaming out from it's rear end.
I'll try and keep a straight face if you tell me 'Yes Ken, that's what it is, the government says that's a 757 airliner in the video - so it must be, I'm not going to believe what my eyes tell me!'
^It's not clear what that video shows. It's useless for both arguments. That's why I've never mentioned it, and why desperate peeple like you continue to refer to it.
If the police had a murder captured on video, taken from a mile away, which showed nothing more than a blur, they'd throw it in the rubbish.
"You are reduced to quoting that moron who is so stupid he doesn't know whether to scratch his watch or wind his balls? Can't you think for yourself???"
It called a source Ken. Remember those?
"So the object that penetrated those six walls to exit in a neat round smoke charred hole was the only piece not to vaporise right?"
TWO WALLS!!!
At what point did I say the whole thing vaporised? Come on, show me where I said that. There was clearly other wreckage.
"The titanium used in the 12 tons of engines does not even melt at temperatures reached by mixing jet fuel and pure oxygen much less vaporise."
At what point did I say the whole thing vaporised? Come on, show me where I said that. There was clearly other wreckage.
"Titanium was chosen for the engines because it would not even weaken when subjected to an optimum mixture of jet fuel and air for hours on end during ordinary flight."
Yaaaaawn. At what point did I say the whole thing vaporised? Come on, show me where I said that. There was clearly other wreckage.
"You are totally contradicting yourself too - you ludicrously claimed in another ballot of mine that the engines PENETRATED the reinforced facade and then exploded!"
Where is the contradiction? Yes they did penetrate the building - hence the fucking holes moron!!!!
So let me get this right. A plane travelling at 800 feet a second hits a wall.
Does it
A - Stop dead in its tracks and within a split second explodes.
B - Continue with it's forward motion(greatly reduced) then within a split second explodes
Ken, if something vaporised into ALUMINIUM OXIDE, would you expect that something to be Titanium? No.
So, which part of the plane would have been the most likely parts to vaporise?
**wind blowing - cue tumbleweed**
Jamie McIntyre...
"A while ago I walked right up next to the building, firefighters were still trying to put the blaze. The fire, by the way, is still burning in some parts of the Pentagon. And I took a look at the huge gaping hole that's in the side of the Pentagon in an area of the Pentagon that has been recently renovated, part of a multibillion dollar renovation program here at the Pentagon. I could see parts of the airplane that crashed into the building, very small pieces of the plane on the heliport outside the building. The biggest piece I saw was about three feet long, it was silver and had been painted green and red, but I could not see any identifying markings on the plane. I also saw a large piece of shattered glass. It appeared to be a cockpit windshield or other window from the plane."
transcripts . cnn . com / TRANSCRIPTS / 0109 / 11 / bn . 35 . html
And Ken still relies on this man as part of the pitiful collection of supposed evidence he uses to back up his argument - even if it is contradictory. LOL
^THATS embarrassing!!
“JAMIE MCINTYRE: From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.
The only site, is the actual side of the building that's crashed in. And as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse.
Even though if you look at the pictures of the Pentagon you see that the floors have all collapsed, that didn't happen immediately. It wasn't until almost about 45 minutes later that the structure was weakened enough that all of the floors collapsed.”
Lying again, and misquoting by you're own definition you half-witted hypocrite.
What did he say leading up to the above quote in you're pathetic subnission? - that he saw that pristine three foot piece of aluminium that we all saw, that one that must have been the one and only piece of hull not 'vaporised'! as in you're new loony theory.
I see you had a swipe at this man's integrity again - implying that he is an unreliable witness, eh - he happens to be an outstanding veteran journalist working for the biggest news dedicated channel in America, this from a liar who wouldn't be fit to carry his luggage!
Once again you try to discredit any source that contradicts your own mad conspiracy theory, that for the first time in aviation history a passenger airliner just vaporised into thin air, which just happened to be on the same day that for the first time in history three steel framed buildings collapsed because of fires that were almost out!
Oh and I almost forgot that gem you came up with that 'the Pentagon has only two brick walls with flimsy office partitions in between'
HA HA HA!
Now that IS embarrassing!
Typo correction - 'submission' (o:
I see you've bipassed my questions yet again.
Ken, that is the exact transcript from the CNN website I'm afraid - completely accurate, no omission of context. His exact words.
Lets recap....
"And I took a look at the huge gaping hole that's in the side of the Pentagon in an area of the Pentagon"
"I could see parts of the airplane that crashed into the building"
Note Airplane, Crash and Building.
OK Ken, he is an excellent journalist, extremely respected and totally reliable, and you trust him 100%.
That settles that then.
So we all agree. His following statement was totally true.
"I could see parts of the airplane that crashed into the building"
Case closed.
Here's an excerpt from an interesting blog I came across on another website;
'It’s more difficult for an experienced pilot to land on the runway target as speed goes up.
Factor in the 500+ kts these high jacked planes were flying and I can tell you, most airline pilots could not hit the landing spot on a runway let alone hit a building. Not on the first or 2nd try … The plane that flew into the Pentagon was flown with particular skill. The 767/757 both have never exceed indicated speeds of 320kts. These planes were being flown at 500+. The one that hit the Pentagon was said to be going about 550kts. At that speed it made a very steeply banked turn at 100 to 200 feet above ground level . It then rolled out on a direct course for the Pentagon hitting the relative small target. (3 story building) This is one HELL of a master bit of flying!!!!
Then , you have the navigation problem. It’s not unusual for an airline pilot to have difficulty finding a large airport from 5 miles without using radio nav. But this is a whole subject in itself. I could write a page or two on that subject alone.
PS: Retired after 36 years as a 747-400 line check airman with major airline.
PPS: Remember the attempt of a private pilot trying to crash a Cessna 150 into the White House some years back? He could not hit his target flying at 120mph and crashed into the lawn.
“(END-Ken)
- but a guy who couldn't even fly a Cessna was - we are supposed to believe - the master pilot sitting at the controls of that airliner!
I suppose you believe that too nipple don't you? - go on say 'yeah'
'Yeah Ken, I believe that too, the US government told me, so it must be true, even though it's impossible, - just like they told me that the plane vaporised to explain why there was virtually no wreckage!'
Hey DUH - he said all that before coming to the conclusion that no plane could possibly have hit, AFTER he had analysed all the data he then went on air and broadcast to America his conclusion with these words -
“JAMIE MCINTYRE: From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.
The only site, is the actual side of the building that's crashed in. And as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse.
Even though if you look at the pictures of the Pentagon you see that the floors have all collapsed, that didn't happen immediately. It wasn't until almost about 45 minutes later that the structure was weakened enough that all of the floors collapsed.”
- Note in particular, and something we can all verify from the photos -
'And as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around'
That's what he broadcast to all America and the world after inspecting the crash site.
THAT was his conclusion.
(o:
He said - "I could see parts of the airplane that crashed into the building"
Case closed.
I supposed I must have missed the bit about him seeing bits of missile.
Perhap when he uses the word "plane" and "crashed", he actually means "missile" and "fired". right Ken?
"Hey DUH - he said all that before coming to the conclusion that no plane could possibly have hit, AFTER he had analysed all the data he then went on air and broadcast to America his conclusion with these words - "
Errrrr, no. He said that all in the same interview....
"Outside the Pentagon, CNN's military affairs correspondent Jamie McIntyre.
And, Jamie, you got very close to where that plane went down.
JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Judy.
A short -- a while ago I walked right up next to the building, firefighters were still trying to put the blaze. The fire, by the way, is still burning in some parts of the Pentagon. And I took a look at the huge gaping hole that's in the side of the Pentagon in an area of the Pentagon that has been recently renovated, part of a multibillion dollar renovation program here at the Pentagon. I could see parts of the airplane that crashed into the building, very small pieces of the plane on the heliport outside the building. The biggest piece I saw was about three feet long, it was silver and had been painted green and red, but I could not see any identifying markings on the plane. I also saw a large piece of shattered glass. It appeared to be a cockpit windshield or other window from the plane.
When this plane hit the Pentagon this morning, according to the Pentagon spokesman, Craig Quigley, the defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, incredibly is described as having run out of his office and down to actually help some of the victims onto stretchers until he was ushered into the National Military Command Center, the secure Nerve Center or War Room deep inside the Pentagon, where he remains at this time.
Pentagon officials say he will stay for the time being. That is a place where all of U.S. intelligence comes in and he has complete command with his commanders around the world.
At the same time, the Pentagon has dispatched several warships out of port Norfolk, including the U.S. -- the carriers, USS George Washington and USS Kennedy. The sensible reason for that, the movement of those ships and their escort ships, is to move them from more vulnerable positions. But the Navy says they'll also head some of the aircraft carriers up toward New York with the idea that they may be able to render some kind of assistance there, given the magnitude of the tragedy there.
Back here, the fight goes on to put out the fire inside the Pentagon. The heat from that blaze was described as absolutely intense, and the number of casualties here has still not been released. Dozens of people were taken away in ambulances, and the Pentagon is still not releasing any figures on deaths. But clearly, people who had offices in that, what is now a huge gaping hole in the side of the Pentagon, clearly, there was some people killed in this tragedy -- Judy.
WOODRUFF: Jamie, Aaron was talking earlier -- or one of our correspondence was talking earlier -- I think -- actually, it was Bob Franken -- with an eyewitness who said it appeared that that Boeing 757, the American jet, American Airline jet, landed short of the Pentagon.
Can you give us any better idea of how much of the plane actually impacted the building?
MCINTYRE: You know, it might have appeared that way, but from my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. The only site is the actual site of the building that's crashed in, and as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you can pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around, which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse.
Now, even though if you look at the pictures of the Pentagon you see that the floors have all collapsed; that didn't happen immediately. It wasn't until almost about 45 minutes later that the structure was weakened enough that all of the floors collapsed. WOODRUFF: And Jamie, this happened -- we are now able to reconstruct -- about 9:38 this morning. At that time, Jamie, what are we talking about, dozens, hundreds of people at work in the building?"
Key quotes...
"And I took a look at the huge gaping hole that's in the side of the Pentagon"
"I could see parts of the airplane that crashed into the building, very small pieces of the plane on the heliport outside the building. "
"The biggest piece I saw was about three feet long, it was silver and had been painted green and red"
" I also saw a large piece of shattered glass. It appeared to be a cockpit windshield or other window from the plane."
Then, in response to the question of whether the plane hit the ground first, or not...
"You know, it might have appeared that way, but from my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon"
"The only site is the actual site of the building that's crashed in"
"the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you can pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around, which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon"
See, it's all very interesting when you put that quotes into context.
DUH DUH DUH!
Try and use you're little brain, he was referring at the time to what he obviously ASSUMED were plane pieces, not even identifiable as being from a plane as the they were small enough that you could pick them up with your hands! DUH!
He had just arrived to inspect the site and had already learnt that two jets had hit the towers, so obviously assumed he was looking at Plane wreckage and not - as Donald Rumsfeld referred himself to as 'The missile that hit this building!
It obviously soon dawned on him that no plane had hit, and that was the report he went with, a CNN news report that was broadcast all across the world in which he clearly states that NO plane hit the Pentagon.
Going mad aren't you that this broadcast is such damning evidence that no plane hit the Pentagon. (o:
Here is the video folks;
http:// thewebfairy.com /911/pentagon/ index.html
Now your turn Nipple- let's see your video?
Well - where is it?
Don't think you have one do you? (o:
^IT'S NOT CLEAR WHAT THAT VIDEO SHOWS. It's useless for both arguments. That's why I've never mentioned it, and why desperate peeple (spelt 'people' DUH -Ken) like you continue to refer to it.
If the police had a murder captured on video, taken from a mile away, which showed nothing more than a blur, they'd throw it in the rubbish.
by wolf_nipple_chips
THOUGHT YOU BELIEVED IT WAS A 757 BOEING NIPPLE?
WHY DIDN'T YOU JUST STATE UNEQUIVICALLY THAT THAT WAS WHAT YOU WERE LOOKING AT IN THE VIDEO?
Is it because it actually looks nothing like a 757 and you know it!
That video of a murder isn't from a mile away either, it's from 100 yards away max, and the murder weapon - a 757 airliner according to you - should be clearly visible, but even by you're own admission clearly is not!
So what's in the video nipple, what in that video that looks like huge 757 Boeing airliner to you, I'll give you a little help -explain away the exhaust/vapour trail away for a start okay? -and we await your reply with bated breath. (o:
"so obviously assumed he was looking at Plane wreckage"
"It obviously soon dawned on him that no plane had hit, and that was the report he went with, a CNN news report that was broadcast all across the world in which he clearly states that NO plane hit the Pentagon."
Yes a CNN report which I've just given you. I which he mentions...
"And I took a look at the huge gaping hole that's in the side of the Pentagon"
"I could see parts of the airplane that crashed into the building, very small pieces of the plane on the heliport outside the building. "
"The biggest piece I saw was about three feet long, it was silver and had been painted green and red"
" I also saw a large piece of shattered glass. It appeared to be a cockpit windshield or other window from the plane."
Then, in response to the question of whether the plane hit the ground first, or not...
"You know, it might have appeared that way, but from my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon"
"The only site is the actual site of the building that's crashed in"
"the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you can pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around, which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon"
RE: CCTV
It's a blur. Nothing more, nothing less.
The security camera was right at the end of the Pentagon wall - which stretched for 921 feet. The plane hit two third of the way along from the camera - which equates to 600 odd feet.
100 yards? Jesus!!! Have you doen any research?
RE: CCTV
It's a blur. Nothing more, nothing less.
The security camera was right at the end of the Pentagon wall - which stretched for 921 feet. The plane hit two third of the way along from the camera - which equates to 600 odd feet.
100 yards? Jesus!!! Have you doen ('done' - Ken ;o) any research?
by wolf_nipple_chips on Jun 09, 2006 1:27am
Wrong again, it's clearly not taken from the Pentagon wall! - How could it possibly show the whole facade if it was located on top of the wall? DUUUH!
'The security camera was right at the end of the Pentagon wall' - nipple.
It was taken from a parking lot security camera located about a quarter way up from the end of the Pentagon wall, and it didn't hit two thirds up from the end of the wall, nearer halfway, (lying again?) so like I maintained 100 yards is just about right.
'Jesus!!! Have you doen any research?' - Nipple
The sweet irony. (o:
Ken, just look again, and don't waste my time denying something so rediculous.
dcpages . com / Tourism / Maps / pix / Pentagon . jpg
The wall that was hit was the one on the left. We can clearly see the road just in front of the camera in the CCTV footage, this is the same road that goes around the top left angle of the pentagon in this picture.
The plane itself hit below the helipad.
Clearly you haven't done any reasearch
Oh, and I see you've quickly moved on from the fact that your star witness said...
"And I took a look at the huge gaping hole that's in the side of the Pentagon"
"I could see parts of the airplane that crashed into the building, very small pieces of the plane on the heliport outside the building. "
Then, in response to the question of whether the plane hit the ground first, or not...
"You know, it might have appeared that way, but from my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon"
"The only site is the actual site of the building that's crashed in"
"the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you can pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around, which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon"
See, it's all very interesting when you put that quotes into context.
by wolf_nipple_chips on Jun 08, 2006 6:15am
EXACTLY! That's it in context!
Well done. (o:
So, you will see then what a joke your argument is.
The interviewer asked if the plane had crashed near to the Pentagon FIRST - before hitting the building.
He basically said no, the only crash site is the actual building.
This fits with my intepretation the official intepretation exactly.
The plane hit the building cleanly - it didn't crash first.
Well done!!!
I see you've given up on the lie that the CCTV was only 100 yards away. Well done.
"How could it possibly show the whole facade if it was located on top of the wall? DUUUH! "
Where the hell did I say it was on the "top" of the wall?
Your just making stuff up now.
YOu just made a three paragraph comment based around something I didn't even say. Are you alright?
'The security camera was right at the end of the Pentagon wall' - nipple.
Blatant lie, you are only fooling yourself, that is clearly not video from the end of the pentagon wall, and most - if not all - were situated on top of the wall by the way, and I wasn't quoting you either, duh!
You are a liar sir, plain, and very simple.
It was taken from the CCTV camera that sat in the security gate - which sat at the end of the pentagon wall - just look at the damn picture.
Seeing that your being your usual lazy self, I've supplied a new pic on my userpage.
Top circle is where the CCTV is, the bottom where the crash scene is.
Just in front of the crash scene was the underground maintenance access -this can just be seen in the bottom circle.
100 YARDS - MY ARSE!!!!
You can't see a plane on that video- besides, it's not a video. It's just a set of the same old frames put together as a 'pretend' video.
They have recordings from EIGHTY-FIVE CAMERAS, so why only show from one angle???
You like diversions don't you Ken?
The Pentagon lawn WAS NOT "pristine" as Ken makes out
(geocities . com / osram007 / photos / WTCtable3f . jpg)
(KEN QUICKLY DIVERTS TO THE NEXT POINT)
There WERE "dents" (more like huge holes) in the Pentagon wall - something Ken denied - "not even a dent" he said.
(pentagon . batcave . net / r01750r-_2a . jpg)
(KEN QUICKLY DIVERTS TO THE NEXT POINT)
The pentagon was made up of supporting columns, NOT walls as Ken made out. (see my userpic)
(KEN QUICKLY DIVERTS TO THE NEXT POINT)
The rings of the pentagon only came into effect on the second story, as the first two floors were OPEN PLAN - and full of supporting columns - something Ken denied. (see my userpic)
(KEN QUICKLY DIVERTS TO THE NEXT POINT)
The CCTV camera was not "only 100 yards" away as Ken made out - try 600 FEET. (see my userpic)
(KEN QUICKLY DIVERTS TO THE NEXT POINT)
Ken is presented with the fact that 89 PEOPLE saw a big airliner hit the Pentagon.
(911research . wtc7 . net / pentagon / analysis / witnesses . html)
(KEN QUICKLY DIVERTS TO THE NEXT POINT)
There are pictures of BODIES available - something Ken denied even when presented with links.
(911research . wtc7 . net / pentagon / evidence / photos / humanremains . html)
(KEN QUICKLY DIVERTS TO THE NEXT POINT)
Ken claimed it was a missile, when presented with the question of how a missile could knock down lamp posts that were not in a straight line...
(KEN QUICKLY DIVERTS TO THE NEXT POINT)
Ken presents Tom Selbert as a reliable witness to the pentagon crash - he was actually watching the TV in New York.
(KEN QUICKLY DIVERTS TO THE NEXT POINT)
Ken presents Mike Walters as a reliable witness to the pentagon crash. He fails to notice that Walter actually says "I saw this plane, a jet, American Airlines jet coming" in this quote. Pure contradiction.
(KEN QUICKLY DIVERTS TO THE NEXT POINT)
Ken present Danielle O'Brien as a reliable source. He fails to notice that she actually says "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe." in this quote. Pure contradiction.
(KEN QUICKLY DIVERTS TO THE NEXT POINT)
Ken uses the testimony of a flight school trainer as evidence that a hijackers couldn't fly. He fails to realise that if there wasn't a plane, there wouldn't have been any hijackers, there wouldn't have been any flight training which means there wouldn't have been a flight school trainer. The fact that there IS a testimony contradicts Kens argument.
(KEN QUICKLY DIVERTS TO THE NEXT POINT)
Ken uses CNN's Jamie Mcintyre as his star witness. He fails to read the whole interview in which he states - "I could see parts of the airplane that crashed into the building, very small pieces of the plane on the heliport outside the building." and
"And I took a look at the huge gaping hole that's in the side of the Pentagon"
(transcripts . cnn . com / TRANSCRIPTS / 0109 / 11 / bn . 35 . html)
(KEN QUICKLY DIVERTS TO THE NEXT POINT)
And now this ballot.
Ken makes out that this is a accurate representation of the boeing 757 involved, when in fact it's bigger than a jumbo 747.
(KEN QUICKLY DIVERTS TO THE NEXT POINT)
Oh wait, does he have any more points? No? So we go back round and round and round and round until we all get bored and fall asleep.
Where are your pictures of Global Hawk wreckage?
Where are you pictures of missile pieces?
Where are your witnesses who said they saw a Global Hawk?
Where are your witnesses who said they saw a Missile?
You haven't given me anything other than a blurred video and some contradictory quotes.
Exactly Coldcircuit, (o:
See the devious and diversionary way he tried to hook his whole argument on the nonsense of the location of a single camera, completely and conveniently missing the whole point, that it is the content of the video, which clearly shows that nothing like a 757 airliner impacted the Pentagon.
A-3 Military Jet Secretly Re-Fitted With Missiles Just Prior to 9/11; Places More Doubt On Official Story That A Boeing 757 Hit The Pentagon
Former Republican Washington insider speaks with employees who worked on secret jet project and who now fear for their lives since others who worked on the project have mysteriously turned up dead
By Greg Szymanski
A one time Republican insider, now turned party rebel, said he has uncovered more damaging evidence, proving the government’s official story about 9/11 is "nothing but a pack of lies."
Karl Schwarz of Georgia, who was one of the main architects of the Republican takeover of Congress during the Clinton Presidency, has made finding the truth about the WTC attacks his passion and his new mission.
Recently he uncovered an obscure piece of video footage, clearly showing a 757 jetliner did not strike the WTC as reported by the government.
Now Schwarz said he has uncovered explosive evidence that will eventually prove "something other than a 757 jetliner hit the Pentagon" also contrary to government reports.
"I have been told by two civilian defense contractors employees that they and others retro-fitted missiles and remote control systems onto A-3 jets at a Colorado public airport just prior to September 11 in a highly secretive government operation carried out under the cover of darkness," said Schwarz, who added the employees asked to remain anonymous in order to protect their lives.
"What makes this testimony important is previously A-3 parts were uncovered in the Pentagon wreckage, parts that are much smaller than those of a Boeing 757," said Schwarz, who has been extremely critical of the Bush administration’s handling of 9/11.
Recently, over his distrust of Bush and the general neo-con takeover of America, Schwarz has decided to throw his own hat in the Presidential ring in 2008 under the banner of new independent party yet to be named.
Regarding the Pentagon crash, when Schwarz refers to the A-3 parts found at the 9/11 crash site, he is referring to the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) photographs taken immediately after the attacks. The photographs clearly indicated that the few aircraft parts found at the Pentagon did not fit the description of Boeing 757 parts but rather fit the description of a small jet, very similar to an A-3 Sky Warrior
The Pentagon crash has always been an ‘Achilles Heel’ in the government’s 9/11 official story as independent investigators have compiled strong evidence revealing the impossibility of a large Boeing 757 causing the strike.
The 16-foot entry hole left from the Pentagon impact has been the subject of much debate with investigators, who have been denied access to most of the remaining evidence, including aircraft parts and surveillance photos immediately confiscated by agents after the crash. Investigators nonetheless speculate that an air-to-ground missile (AGM) possibly fired from a small military jet caused the hole.
Besides the several parts recovered after the crash resembling parts from a A-3 Sky Warrior jet, investigators call attention to the fact FBI agents within minutes after impact confiscated surveillance tapes and even a tape from a gas station across the street from the Pentagon, which had a clear view of the incoming object.
Further, they cite initial reports made by air traffic controllers, who reported the incoming object headed towards the Pentagon was a small military jet instead of a commercial Boeing 757. Since the initial report, controllers, however, have been silenced by official gag orders and subpoena or even have not sought their testimony by the recent 9/11 Commission.
"It’s all very suspicious," said Schwarz, who also said the government agents quickly removed most of the wreckage evidence from the scene, obstructed justice and basically tampered with a murder scene investigation. "To date none of this evidence has been inspected or used to determine what hit the Pentagon."
Highly suspicious over the obvious government cover-up, Schwarz said his personal investigation led him to the Ft.Collins Municipal Airport and his discussions with the employees who re-fitted the A-3 Sky Warrior with AGM missiles just prior to 9/11.
"The two witnesses say that separate military contractor teams working independently at different times refitted the military jets with updated missiles, Raytheon's Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) remote control systems, fire control systems, engines, transponders, and radio-radar-navigation systems--a total makeover, seemingly for an operation more important than just a simple missile testing platform for defense contractor Hughes-Raytheon," said Schwarz, who interviewed the employees in February.
"It is very interesting that the Hughes division manufactures the AGMs while the Raytheon division maintains the last few A-3 Sky Warriors in operation and also manufactures the Global Hawk UAV remote control systems."
Schwarz said he began researching Raytheon records for any connections to 9/11, finding out that only Raytheon executives and the Air Force would have known any inside information on the A-3 systems as well as who was involved in the re-fitting operations.
Coincidentally, five key Raytheon executives died onboard three of the four doomed 9/11 flights, a mystery that Schwarz claims is more than just a coincidence. The executives who perished on 9/11 include: Stanley Hall, director of the Electronic Warfare Program (American 77); David Kovalcin, senior mechanical engineer for Electronic Systems (American 11); Peter Gay, vice president of Electronic Systems on special assignment at the El Segundo, CA division office where the Global Hawk UAV remote control system is made (American 11); Kenneth Waldie, senior quality control engineer for Electronic Systems (American 11); and Herbert Homer, a corporate executive working with the Department of Defense (United 175).
"Why were they all on these planes? Nobody’s ever bothered to find out," asked Schwarz. "They all died without a grand jury investigation into their records, visits or calls to Ft. Collins-Loveland airport or testimony related to other related matter involving the re-fitting of the A-3’s prior to 9/11"
Schwarz said the men were unaware of the A-3 jets destinations after the work was completed, but said each was placed in a small, separate hanger just big enough for a work crew and one A-3 Sky Warrior.
"The men told me specifically they were instructed and under strict orders not to discuss what the military teams were doing or what they saw," said Schwarz.
According to available government records, the Air Force has at least four A-3s in current operation and Hughes-Raytheon has 12-14 Sky Warriors operating, according to available records.
"The plane used at the Pentagon on 9/11 may have been brought in from Tucson, Arizona from Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, which has numerous decommissioned planes taken out of service and stored there in an arid environment," said Schwarz, adding that using an out-of-service plane would erase any paper trail identifying the actual jet.
"Whoever did this had about a billion dollars to work with, according to my intelligence sources who have come forward. One crew came in to fit the jet for remote-UAV systems, another crew put in the fire control systems and another installed the new jet engines, another the AGMs, etc., and all at different times to spread out the information flow on who did what."
Schwarz said the military’s likely response to the whole story is that the A-3's were being fitted with system platforms to test-fire missiles. However, he added the timeline for the re-fittings and the recovery of A-3 parts at the Pentagon crash site makes the government possible response highly speculative if not totally unbelievable.
85 Closed Circuit TV Cameras - where's the REAL VIDEO footage from ALL THOSE OTHER CAMERAS??? Can any of the OBVIOUS shills on this site answer this question? No they can not!
They can only make up insults and excuses and LIE, LIE, LIE.
NEVER in the ENTIRE HISTORY of steel & concrete tower buildings has it been possible for a building to collapse at near freefall speed without it being a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.
If you wish to dispute this, cite a SINGLE EXAMPLE and provide a link to photos or video - you won't find any - BECAUSE IT HAS NEVER HAPPENED!
Physicists who have examined this subject are starting to call the NIST engineers IDIOTS for even pretending that it's possible, and I can go into detail showing exactly WHY it is impossible with the laws of Physics.
You should also be aware, that NIST could not prove it happened without an controlled demolition either. Their simulations repeatedly could not simulate the actual collapse of WTC 1 and 2, with the empirical evidence, and they finally gave up and stopped at "poised for collapse" because the buildings would not collapse in the simulations. Everything after that in their report is just assumption to explain WHAT THEY COULD NOT SIMULATE WITH THE EMPIRICAL DATA!
It is also IMPOSSIBLE for cellphones to make phone calls from aircraft flying at 550mph and six miles up, and it's STILL IMPOSSIBLE when flying 550mph only 1000ft up because the cellular antenna network is not designed for this, and the antennas are aimed at the ground, NOT AT THE SKY, nor can they complete the handshake in time before the cellphone is out of range when moving above 450mph! Therefore, those cellphone calls from the planes WERE ALL FAKE!
Uh, I've made a cell phone call from a plane before, at altitude, at speed, it is NOT impossible
Or sat phone, or whatever they are. Have you never been IN a plane before? They have a lot of different types of phone set ups in the planes. It's hard to hear someone on them, but you can call someone from a plane. You should maybe study a little bit, before ruining your entire theory like that.
Conspiracy theorists derive an element of complete lunacy not so much from current events or situations, but due to an uncontrollable need to fixate what they see in the movie theaters into real life events. They cannot differentiate between what is happening in real life and the promotable illusions of which they have projected within the confines of their own minds, the sick and twisted disconnected fantasies of grandeur corruption and ultimate misuse of power, the salivate over every new theory that comes along, however idiotic or implausible it may be. It's really sad, to be honest.
((Uh, I've made a cell phone call from a plane before, at altitude, at speed, it is NOT impossible
by jappy on Jun 30, 2006 2:53am))
((Or sat phone, or whatever they are. ...
by jappy on Jun 30, 2006 2:55am))
Jappy proving that he has NO IDEA WTF he is talking about.
Sorry, mate, but CELLPHONE CALLS are IMPOSSIBLE from passenger jets flying at high altitude at cruising speeds of 450mph or more. Stop LYING.
Cellphones use a CELLULAR NETWORK, they CAN NOT, AND NEVER COULD use satellites directly except the military versions. Are you are a government shill, Jappy? Is this why you are confused and dumb?
*L* no one is paying me anything, I sat on a plane at 30,000 feet several years back, used the phone from the back of the headrest, on my way back from watching the Nebraska Cornhuskers defeat Texas A&M in the Big 12 Title Game in San Antonio, and called my buddy in Omaha to tell him how the game went. He said he could hear me just fine but I had a lot of trouble hearing him.
Sorry if this makes things hard on you.
used the phone from the back of the headrest,..
by jappy on Jun 30, 2006 5:15pm
^^^ Moron alert, the twit above can't tell the difference between an airfone, a satphone, and a cellphone.
Sorry, moron. Cellphones don't work on metalskinned passenger jets flying 5-6 miles up, and over 500mph. That's because 1) cellular network aerials don't point at the sky, they aim to cover the users on the ground. 2) anything above 70mph, cellphones have great difficulty in making a connection let alone maintaining one, and above 450mph it's straight out impossible even if the passenger jet was flying NOE below radar (which is like wow, a 115ton passenger jet being piloted NOE?! You have got to be on drugs, but OCT fools like you have been known to make such moronic claims.)
'...It is IMPOSSIBLE for cellphones to make phone calls from aircraft flying at 550mph and six miles up, and it's STILL IMPOSSIBLE when flying 550mph only 1000ft up because the cellular antenna network is not designed for this, and the antennas are aimed at the ground, NOT AT THE SKY, nor can they complete the handshake in time before the cellphone is out of range when moving above 450mph!....'
- Coldcircuit
WATCH OUT FOR MAD CONSPIRACY THEORIES!!!
(reposted from internet sources)
PARANOID FANTASIES ABOUT SEPT 11
Astute observers of history are aware that for every notable event there will be at least one, usually several wild conspiracy theories which spring up around it.
"Mahatma Ghandi’s ghost throttled Hendrix"
"Saddam Hussein was breeding an army of genetically modified Yeti".
"Hitler was half Werewolf"
"Space aliens replaced Nixon with a clone" etc,etc.
The bigger the event, the more ridiculous and more numerous are the fanciful rantings which circulate in relation to it.
So it's hardly surprising that the events of Sept 11 2001 have spawned their fair share of these ludicrous fairy tales.
And as always, there is - sadly - a small but gullible percentage of the population eager to lap up these tall tales, regardless of facts or rational analysis.
One of the wilder stories circulating about Sept 11, and one that has attracted something of a cult following amongst conspiracy buffs is that it was carried out by 19 fanatical Arab hijackers, masterminded by an evil genius named Osama bin Laden, with no apparent motivation other than that they "hate our freedoms."
Never a group of people to be bothered by facts, the perpetrators of this cartoon fantasy have constructed an elaborately woven web of delusions and unsubstantiated hearsay in order to promote this garbage across the internet and the media to the extent that a number of otherwise rational people have actually fallen under its spell.
Normally I don't even bother debunking this kind of junk, but the effect that this paranoid myth is beginning to have requires a little rational analysis, in order to consign it to the same rubbish bin as all such silly conspiracy theories.
These crackpots even contend that the extremist Bush regime was caught unaware by the attacks, had no hand in organizing them, and actually would have stopped them if it had been able to.
Blindly ignoring the stand down of the US air-force, the insider trading on airline stocks - which remains uninvestigated, the complicit behaviour of Bush on the morning of the attacks, the controlled demolition of the WTC, the firing of a missile into the Pentagon and a host of other documented proofs that the Bush regime was behind the attacks, the conspiracy theorists stick doggedly to a silly story about 19 Arab hijackers somehow managing to commandeer 4 planes simultaneously and fly them around US airspace for nearly 2 hours , crashing them into important buildings, without the US intelligence services having any idea that it was coming, and without the Air Force knowing what to do.
The huge difficulties with such a stupid story force them to invent even more stupid stories to distract from its core silliness, and thus it has escalated into a mythic fantasy of truly gargantuan proportions.
It's difficult to apply rational analysis to such unmitigated stupidity, but that is the task which I take on in this article. However, it should be noted that one of the curious characteristics of conspiracy theorists is that they effortlessly change their so called evidence in response to each aspect which is debunked. As soon as one delusion is unmasked, they simply invent another to replace it, and deny that the first ever existed.
Eventually, when they have turned full circle through this endlessly changing fantasy fog, they then re-invent the original delusion and deny that you ever debunked it, thus beginning the circle once more. This technique is known as "the fruit loop" and saves the conspiracy theorist from ever having to see any of their ideas through to their (il)logical conclusions.
According to the practitioners of the fruit loop, 19 Arabs took over the 4 planes by subduing the passengers and crew through the use of guns, knives ,box cutters and gas, and then used electronic guidance systems which they had smuggled on board to fly the planes to their targets.
The suspension of disbelief required for this outrageous concoction is only for the hard core conspiracy theorist.
For a start, they conveniently skip over the awkward fact that there weren't any Arabs on the planes.
If there were, one must speculate that they somehow got on board without being filmed by any of the security cameras and without being registered on the passenger lists.
But the curly question of how they are supposed to have got on board is all too mundane for the exciting world of the conspiracy theorist.
With vague mumblings that they must have been using false ID ( but never specifying which IDs they are alleged to have used, or how these were traced to their real identities), they quickly bypass this problem, to relate exciting and sinister tales about how some of the fictitious fiends were actually searched before boarding because they looked suspicious.
However, as inevitably happens with any web of lies, this simply paints them into an even more difficult corner. How are they supposed to have got on board with all that stuff if they were searched ? And if they used gas in a confined space, they would have been affected themselves unless they also had masks in their luggage.
"Excuse me sir, why do you have a box cutter, a gun, a container of gas, a gas mask and an electronic guidance unit in your luggage?"
"A present for your grandmother? Very well sir, on you get."
"Very strange", thinks the security officer. "That's the fourth Arabic man without an Arabic name who just got on board with a knife, gun or box cutter and gas mask. And why does that security camera keep flicking off every time one these characters shows up? Must be one of those days I guess..."
Asking any of these basic questions to a conspiracy theorist is likely to cause a sudden leap to the claim that we know that they were on board because they left a credit card trail for the tickets they had purchased and cars they had rented. So if they used credit cards that identified them, how does that reconcile with the claim that they used false IDs to get on to the plane?
But by this time, the fruit loop is in full swing, as the conspiracy theorist tries to stay one jump ahead of this annoying and awkward rational analysis. They will point to the fact that the hijackers passports were allegedly found at the crash scenes. "So there!" they exalt triumphantly, their fanatical faces lighting up with that deranged look of one who has just a revelation of questionable sanity.
Hmm? So they got on board with false IDs but took their real passports with them? However, by this time the fruit loop has been completely circumnavigated, and the conspiracy theorist exclaims impatiently "Who said anything about false IDs? We know what seats they were sitting in! Their presence is well documented!" And so the whole loop starts again.
"Well, why aren't they on the passenger lists?"
"You numbskull ! They assumed the identities of other passengers!" And so on…
Finally, out of sheer fascination with this circular method of creative delusion, the rational sceptic will allow them to get away with this loop, in order to move on to the next question, and see what further delights await us in the unravelling of this marvellously stupid story.
"Uh, how come their passports survived fiery crashes that completely incinerated the planes and all the passengers? "
The answer of course is that its just one of those strange co-incidences, those little quirks of fate that do happen from time to time. You know, like the same person winning the lottery four weeks in a row. The odds are astronomical, but these things do happen...
This is another favourite deductive method of the conspiracy theorist. The "improbability drive", in which they decide upon a conclusion without any evidence whatsoever to suggest it, and then speculate a series of wildly improbable events and unbelievable co-incidences to try to support it, shrugging off the implausibility of each event with the vague assertion that sometimes the impossible happens (just about all the time in their world).
There is a principle called "Occam's razor" which suggests that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the simplest explanation is most likely to be correct.
Having for the sake of amusement, allowed them to get away with the silly story of the 19 invisible Arabs, we move on to the question of how they are supposed to have taken over the planes.
Hijacking a plane is not an easy thing to do. Hijacking it without the crew being able to alert Air Traffic Control (ATC ) is almost impossible. The crew needs only to punch in a four digit code to alert ATC to a hijacking. Unconcerned with the awkward question of plausibility, the conspiracy buffs maintain that on that Sept 11, the invisible hijackers took over the plane by the crude method of threatening people with box cutters and knives, shooting and stabbing passengers to try to lure the crew out of the cockpit and spraying gas (after they had attached their masks, obviously). And yet, miraculously they were able to take control of the plane without the crew first getting a chance to punch in the hijacking code.
Not just on one plane, but on all four. At this point in the tale, the conspiracy theorist is again forced to call upon the services of the improbability drive.
So now that our incredibly lucky hijackers have taken control of the planes, all four pilots fly them with breath taking skill and certainty to their fiery end, all four pilots unflinching in their steely resolve for a swift meeting with Allah. Apart from their psychotic hatred of "our freedoms", it was their fanatical devotion to Islam which enabled them to summon up the iron will for this dreadful deed.
Which is strange, because according to another piece of hearsay peddled by the conspiracy buffs, these guys actually went out drinking and womanizing the night before their great martyrdom, even leaving their Korans in the bar -really impeccable Islamic behaviour - and then got up at 5am the next morning to pull off the greatest covert operation in history. This also requires us to believe that they were even clear headed enough to learn how to fly the huge planes by reading flight manuals in Arabic in the car on the way to the airport. We know this because they supposedly left the flight manuals there for us to find.
It gets better. Their practical training had allegedly been limited to Cessnas and flight simulators, but this was no barrier to the unflinching certainty with which they took over the planes and skilfully guided them to their doom. If they are supposed to have done their flight training with these tools, which would be available just about anywhere in the world, its not clear why they would have decided to risk blowing their cover to US intelligence services by doing the training in Florida, rather than somewhere in the Middle East, but such reasoning is foreign to the foggy world of the conspiracy theorist, too trapped in the constant rotation of the fruit loop to make their unsubstantiated fabrications seem even semi- believable.
Having triumphantly established a circular delusion in support of the mythical Arabs, the conspiracy theorist now confronts the difficult question of why there's nothing left of the planes. Anybody who has seen the endlessly replayed footage of the second plane going into the WTC will realize that for a plane to instantly blow itself up into nothing like that, it would have to be packed with explosives. Planes do not and cannot blow up into nothing in that manner when they crash.
But lets humour the conspiracy theorists and suppose that this crude cartoon designed to hide whatever really hit the building was actually a real plane.
Did the mythical Arabs also haul a huge heap of explosives on board, and mange to deploy them in such a manner that they went off in the exact instant of the crash, completely vaporising the plane? This is a little difficult even for the conspiracy theorist, who at this point decides that its easier to invent new laws of physics in order to keep the delusion rolling along.
There weren't any explosives. It wasn't an inside job. The plane blew up into nothing from its exploding fuel load!
Remarkable! Sluggishly combustible jet fuel which is basically kerosene, and usually burns at about 400c has suddenly taken on the qualities of a ferociously explosive demolition agent, vaporizing 70 tons of aircraft into a puff of smoke. Never mind that a plane of that size contains around 23 tons of steel and titanium, of which even the melting points are about four times that of the normal combustion temperature of kerosene. And forget about the boiling point of these metals, which is what would be required to vaporize a plane. And then there's about 47 tons of aluminium to be accounted for. In excess of 15lbs of metal for each gallon of kerosene.
For the conspiracy theorist, such inconvenient facts are vaguely dismissed as "mumbo jumbo". This convenient little phrase is their answer to just about anything factual or logical. Like a conjurer pulling a rabbit out of a hat, they suddenly become fanatically insistent about the devastating explosive qualities of kerosene, something hitherto completely unknown to science, but just discovered by them, this very minute.
Determinedly ignoring the fact that never before or since in aviation history has a plane vaporised into nothing from an exploding fuel load, the conspiracy theorist relies upon Hollywood images, where the effects are always larger than life, and certainly larger than the intellects of these cretins.
"Its a well known fact that planes blow up into nothing on impact!" they state with pompous certainty. "Watch any Bruce Willis movie!"
"Care to provide any documented examples? If it's a well known fact, then presumably this well known fact springs from some kind of documentation - other than Bruce Willis movies ?"
At this point the mad but cunning eyes of the conspiracy theorist will narrow as they sense the corner into which they have backed themselves and plan their escape by means of another stunning back flip.
"Ah, but planes have never crashed into buildings before, so there's no way of telling." they counter with a sly grin.
“Well, actually planes have crashed into buildings before and since, and not vaporised into nothing.”
"But not big planes, with that much fuel ! ", they shriek in hysterical denial.
“Or that much metal to vaporise. “
"Yes, but not hijacked planes !"
"Are you suggesting that whether the crash is deliberate or accidental affects the combustion qualities of the fuel?"
"Now you're just being silly".
Although collisions with buildings are rare, planes frequently crash into mountains, streets, other aircraft, nosedive into the ground, or have bombs planted aboard them, and don't vaporise into nothing. What's so special about hitting a building?
But by now, the conspiracy theorist has once again sailed happily around the fruit loop. "Its a well documented fact that planes explode into nothing on impact."
Effortlessly weaving back and forth between the position that its a "well known fact" and that "its never happened before, so we have nothing to compare it to", the conspiracy theorist has now convinced themselves (if not too many other people) that the WTC plane was not loaded with explosives, and that the instant vaporisation of the plane in a massive fireball was the same as any other plane crash you might care to mention. Round and round the fruit loop…
But the hurdles which confront the conspiracy theorist are many, and they are now forced to implement even creative more uses for the newly discovered shockingly destructive qualities of kerosene. They have to explain how the Arabs also engineered the elegant vertical collapse of both the WTC towers as well as building 7, and for this awkward fact the easiest counter is to simply deny that it was a controlled demolition, and claim that the buildings collapsed from fire caused by the burning kerosene.
This makes it necessary to sweep aside the second law of thermodynamics and propose kerosene which is not only impossibly destructive, but also recycles itself for a second burning in violation of the law of degradation of energy. You see, it not only consumed itself in a sudden catastrophic fireball , vaporising a 70 ton plane into nothing, but then came back for a second go, burning at 2000C for another hour at the impact point, melting the skyscraper's steel like butter. And while it was doing all this it also poured down the elevator shafts starting fires all through the building. When I was at school there a little thing called the entropy law which suggests that a given portion of fuel can only burn once, something which is readily observable in the real world, even for those who didn't make it to junior high school science. But this is no problem for the conspiracy theorist. Their insane eyes glinting madly, they claim that a few thousand gallons of kerosene is enough to
: completely vaporise a 70 ton aircraft
: have enough left over to burn so ferociously for over an hour at the impact point that it melted massive steel construction beams ( melting point about double the maximum combustion temperature of the fuel ).
: still have enough left over to pour down the elevator shafts and start similarly destructive fires all through the building.
Kerosene really is remarkable stuff! How chilling to realize that those kerosene heaters we had in the house when I was a kid were deadly bombs, just waiting to go off. One false move and the entire street might have been vaporised. And never again will I take kerosene lamps out camping. One moment you're there innocently holding the lamp - the next - kapow! Vaporised into nothing - along with the rest of the camp site - with still enough of the deadly stuff left to start a massive forest fire.
These whackos are actually claiming that the mythical raging inferno allegedly created by this miraculously recycling, and impossibly hot burning kerosene melted or at least softened the steel supports of the skyscraper. Oblivious to the fact that the smoke coming from the WTC was black, which indicates an oxygen starved fire -therefore not particularly hot, they trumpet an alleged temperature in the building of 2000 C , without a shred of evidence to support this curious suspension of the laws of physics.
Not content with this ludicrous garbage, they then contend that as the steel girders softened they came straight down instead of buckling and twisting and falling sideways.
Since they're already re-engineered the combustion qualities of kerosene, violated the second law of thermodynamics, and re-invented the structural properties of steel, why let a little thing like the laws of gravity get in the way?
All three buildings fell in a time almost identical to that of a free falling object, dropped from that height, meaning that its physically impossible for it to have collapsed by the method of the top floors smashing through the lower floors. But according to the conspiracy theorists, the laws of gravity were temporarily suspended on the morning of Sept 11.
It appears that the evil psychic power of those dreadful Arabs knows no bounds. Even after they were dead, they were able, by the power of their evil spirits, to force down the towers at a speed physically impossible under the laws of gravity, had it been meeting any resistance from fireproofed steel structures, originally designed to withstand many tons of hurricane force wind as well as the impact of a large passenger jet straying off course.
Clearly, these conspiracy nuts never did their science homework at school, but did become extremely adept at inventing tall tales for why.
"Muslim terrorists stole my notes, sir"
"No miss, the kerosene heater blew up and vaporised everything in the street, except for my passport."
"You see sir, the school bus was hijacked by Arabs who destroyed my homework because they hate our freedoms."
Or perhaps they misunderstood the term "creative science" and mistakenly thought that coming up with such rubbish was in fact, their science homework.
The ferocious heat generated by the ghastly kerosene was, according to the conspiracy theorists, the reason why so many of the WTC victims can't be identified. DNA is destroyed by such heat. This is quite remarkable, because according to the conspiracy theorist, the nature of DNA suddenly changes if you go to a different city. That's right! If you are killed by an Arab terrorist in NY, your DNA will be destroyed by such temperatures. But if you are killed by an Arab terrorist in Washington DC, your DNA will be so robust that it can survive temperatures which completely vaporise a 70 ton aircraft.
You see, these loonies have somehow concocted the idea that the missile which hit the pentagon was not a missile at all, but one of the hijacked planes. And to prove this unlikely premise, they point to a propaganda statement from the Bush regime, which rather stupidly claims that all but one of the people aboard the plane were identified from the site by DNA testing, even though nothing remains of the plane. The plane was vaporised by the fuel tank explosion, maintain these space loonies, but the people inside it were all but one identified by DNA testing.
So there you have it. The qualities of DNA are different, depending upon which city you're in, or perhaps depending upon which fairy story you're trying to sell at any particular time.
This concoction about one of the hijacked planes hitting the Pentagon really is a howler. For those not familiar with the layout of the Pentagon, it consists of 5 rings of building, each with a space in between of lower building height. Each ring of building is about 30 to 35 ft deep, with a similar depth of lower level space between the rings.
The missile which the Bush regime fired into it, went in at about a 45 degree angle, punching a neat hole less than 20 ft wide, less than 20 ft high through three rings-about 250 ft into the building
A little later a section of wall about 65 ft wide collapsed in the outer ring. Since the plane which the conspiracy theorists claim to be responsible for the impact had a wing span of 125 ft and a length of 155 ft , and a tail height of 40 ft, and there was no wreckage of the plane, either inside or outside the building, and the lawns outside were still smooth and green enough to play golf on, this crazy delusion is clearly physically impossible.
But hey, we've already disregarded the combustion qualities of kerosene, the properties of DNA, the laws of gravity, the second law of thermodynamics, and invented imaginary properties for building materials, so what the hell - why not throw in a little spatial impossibility as well ?
I would have thought that the observation that a solid object cannot pass through another solid object without leaving a hole at least as big as itself is reasonably sound science. But to the conspiracy nut, this is "mumbo jumbo". It conflicts with their mad delusion, so it must be wrong although trying to get then to explain the specifics of how it could be wrong is a futile endeavour.
Conspiracy nuts fly into a curious panic whenever the Pentagon missile is mentioned. They shriek that the plane was vaporised by it's exploding fuel load and point to the WTC crash as evidence of this behaviour.
(Fruit loop warning !! )
Like an insect which has just been sprayed, running back and forth in its last mad death throes, they first argue that the reason the hole is so small is that plane never entered the wall, having blown up outside, and then suddenly back flip to explain the 250 ft deep missile hole by saying that the plane disappeared all the way into the building, and then blew up inside the building (even though the building shows no sign of such damage).
As for what happened to the wings - here's where they get really creative. The wings snapped off and folded into the fuselage which then carried them into the building, which then closed up behind the plane like a piece of meat.
When it suits them they'll also claim that the plane slid in on its belly, (ignoring the undamaged lawn) while at the same time citing alleged witnesses to the plane diving steeply into the building from above. How they reconcile these two scenarios as being compatible is truly a study in stupidity.
Once they get desperate enough, you can be sure that the UFO conspiracy stuff will make an appearance. The Arabs are in league with the Martians. Space aliens snatched the remains of the Pentagon plane and fixed most of the hole in the wall, just to confuse people. They gave the Arabs invisibility pills to help get them onto the planes. Little green men were seen were seen talking to Bin Laden a few weeks prior to the attacks.
As the nation gears up to impeach the traitor Bush, and prevent his endless war, it's not helpful to have these idiots distracting from the process by spreading silly conspiracy theories about mythical Arabs, stories which do nothing but play into the hands of the extremist Bush regime.
At a less serious time, we might tolerate such crackpots with amused detachment, but they need to understand that the treachery which was perpetrated on Sept 11, and the subsequent war crimes committed in "retaliation" are far too serious for us to allow such frivolous self indulgence to go unchallenged.
Those who are truly addicted to conspiracy delusions should find a more appropriate outlet for their paranoia.
It's time to stop the loony conspiracy theories about Sept 11
I don't know what it was BUT compare that explosion with the ones when the planes hit the towers - big difference.
Fuck knows.
85 cameras. Why aren't they showing real video instead of this "non-video" made of old frames put together? Why aren't they showing the real video? Why aren't they showing the video from those 85 cameras, and always only this one angle?
That video has the wrong date and time.
Make sure you keep on voting for your own ballots ken, we can see it in your 'recent activity' section. Well done. LOL!!
Lost the argument - think it's called sour grapes, bye loser (o:
Don't let those facts in Ken.
You keep looking at your smoke trailing Boeing smoking gun airliner in that video up there, while I enjoy the real world.
|
|
