United 93

[Dv8]

I quoted someone on the harpoon, I personally dont know what did the damage as I am no munitions expert. Dont call me numbnuts again.

A large passenger jet did NOT hit the pentagon is what I know, and what logic tells. You say there are too many holes in conspiracies, there are too many holes in the truth brother, way too many.

[owequitit]

I quoted someone on the harpoon, I personally dont know what did the damage as I am no munitions expert. Dont call me numbnuts again.

A large passenger jet did NOT hit the pentagon is what I know, and what logic tells. You say there are too many holes in conspiracies, there are too many holes in the truth brother, way too many.

Tell your friend not to quit his day job.

I don't completely retract the statement because I am not the one refusing to see important information. I read the conspiracy sites. Then I asked questions. Then I found answers that could be substantiated by fact (not government fact, science fact). Your stories didn't hold water.

Sorry

Any time you would like to sit down and rationalize my findings, let me know. I've got books, galore and can put you in touch with people who know what they are talking about, if you so desire.

See, I am not hiding anything here. I'll put it all out on the table, but not on here because I am tired of typing.

Also, you would all be well advised to look up "propaganda" in the dictionary

Propaganda - n 1) The systematic widespread promotion of a particular doctrine or idea. 2) Material distributed to win people over to a particular doctrine.

How do we achieve #2, which is actually getting people to believe what we want them to?

We spread partial truths and information, but we do it in manner that makes it appear as though we have a cohesive and logical story, that is both unbiased and complete.

Research the Nazi Party if you want to see a truly effective propaganda machine. They had Hitler convinced that they were in control of Europe right up to the bitter end.

Clearly, that was not the case.

Bowling for Columbine, Farenheit 911, and your beloved conspiracy theory, all fall into this same category as far as I can tell.

Ultimately, believe what you want. I am not the one seeing partial truth here. Start looking into your theories from a more scientific standpoint and cracks will appear. Then holes, then lies, or misinformation. They can't even get the DIMENSIONS OF THE HOLE IN THE BUILDING CORRECT. Nor do they have a cohesive story line when taken as a big picture.

Go ahead, look at some of the links I posted. I dare you. Don't just look and dismiss them though, understand them. They back up their claims.

Oh, and the last thing that really irked me that I would like to discuss is the "hasty removal of debris" from the crash site. Go talk to any paramedic or EMT and see what the priorities at a crash site are.

1) Save lives

2) Preserve evidence.

In that order. I hope you would agree with that priority.

In order to get as many people into that crash (which would have been like getting into a cave), they had to clear some of the debris, as it would have been an obstrution in some way shape or form. That is pretty standard for a response.

Maybe I will go find an Airport Emergency Response plan and show you that is pretty much standard operating procedure in a crash at an airport too. They will preserve what they can, but if it even has a remote chance of being in the way, it is gone.

Because the preservation of evidence could potentially have been so critical in determining cause/involvement, the other government agencies would have attempted to save what they could for later use, even the smallest part. Everytime someone moves it, touches it, or leaves it there for further potential damage, the possibility for destroying evidence goes up.

The solution to the US Air 427 crash ultimately came down to an actuator the size of a coke can... on an airplane that is 120' long and 30 someodd feet high...

All Bush's fault?

I guess the first attempt to bring the WTC and the attack on the USS Cole were orchestrated by him too weren't they? After all, Bill Clinton was President then. Are you sure it isn't all being orchestrated by his grandson too? PUHLEASE!

Bottom line: Our government has created a group of people that want to see us die and suffer. Even people from that region of the world who don't agree with them believe it to be true. Hell some of them know them. Our government did so many underhanded, backwards, self serving things over there, we actually got our own fan club...of people who want to kill us.

Even if Sept 11th WAS a conspiracy (it is still entirely possible), it was pulled off using my previously mentioned route as opposed to this half assed attempt at "hiding nothing".

Let's be real here. You want me to buy your theory, when nothing really supports it beneath the surface, AND you want me to believe these people are smart enough to control the world with their NWO... Yet they can't come up with a better way to do it than this?

PUHLEASE.

If they are smart enough to control the entire world, you will never see it coming.

[owequitit]

I quoted someone on the harpoon, I personally dont know what did the damage as I am no munitions expert. Dont call me numbnuts again.

A large passenger jet did NOT hit the pentagon is what I know, and what logic tells. You say there are too many holes in conspiracies, there are too many holes in the truth brother, way too many.

Yeah, sorry about the numbnuts thing. LOL! Got a little fired up. Sorry about that.

[Dv8]

I havnt really explained my opinion yet, and I doubt I will as I will probably be sitting here for a few hours. I pretty much quoted on what my friend said over IM. The truth has more holes in it then the conspiracy I follow does, that, is what I know.

[owequitit]

I havnt really explained my opinion yet, and I doubt I will as I will probably be sitting here for a few hours. I pretty much quoted on what my friend said over IM. The truth has more holes in it then the conspiracy I follow does, that, is what I know.

For the sake of neutrality, we will assume that an "object" penetrated the Pentagon, and then we will look at why the "object" evidence is consistent with a 757.

Based on anything I have seen. The biggest arguements for the "no plane" theory are this. I will try to be brief:

1)People described what they saw "like a rocket" (these were all taken out of context. The full transcripts of what was actually said, are available in my previous links).

2) People described a "small 8-12 passenger airplane" approaching a runway at the Pentagon that didn't exist" (this is a good question, but most of the people who saw a smaller plane were a little farther away, and at an odd angle, or both. Either way, even an 8-12 passenger jet is significantly bigger than any explosive cruise missle). Most eyewitness accounts certainly conclude that it was a 757 or something similar, including several airline pilots. Either way, an "object" was seen on approach to the building. The majority of eyewitness testimony, puts it at a very large object, painted like an AA jet. It was also described by some to be a 737, which can appear similar to a 757 to the untrained eye. Of course they didn't tell you that either.

3)People described the approaching target as "quiet", yet all eyewitness testimony in the vicinity describes that the airplane went to full power only seconds before impact. A turbine engine is significantly quieter at idle than takeoff, even a 757. An airliner will also accelerate very easily in a descent, even with the power at idle (due to their aerodynamic efficiency). The flaps and landing gear on the approaching airplane were both up, which means this fact would have been very true, especially at the descent angles they were flying. This lends credibility to the airspeed AND power setting.

4) The theorists say that the hole was too small for a 757 to penetrate.

Verifiable measurements of the MAIN entrance hole were about 64'. The fuselage on that airplane is 12'6". That means the hole was large enough to account for the fuselage, the hump under the fuselage where the wings join, and a fair section of the wings as well, including the engines and just about past the engines on both wings.

Most people probably assume that the hole wasn't tall enough because of the tail, but most likely it would have sheared off or in someway come apart because of the forces involved (much like the main wings, which are actually much stronger).

This is not inconsistent with some eyewitness reports that said part of it LOOKED to be sticking out when the flames erupted, although they did not all say that. There is a picture on one of my links of a peice of debris that is polised aluminum with a red stripe and a white stripe. I can just about guarantee you from personal airplane experience that this is most likely the bottom section of the tail directly below the vertical tail, where the paint continues around to the right side of the airplane. This is a commonly identifiable crash piece as it is fairly unique, and often survives the crash.

It is also consistent with other airplane crash histories where the tail often shears off. Many times, the break actually occurs further ahead on the fuselage, with the vertical and horizontal tails and a section of fuselage seperating. This is also consistent with observed and documented structural damage at the Pentagon. Whatever penetrated the wall, did so with maximum force at the wall. It then continued all the way to the center courtyard, losing momentum the entire way.

Impact damage further correlates with this fact because every concrete column on the facade of the building was destroyed along a distance that agrees EXACTLY with the expected span of a 757 approaching from a 50 degree angle (horizontally, not vertically). There was also more extensive damage to the right, which is consistent with the crash, because the airplane approached the wall from the right, meaning the fuselage and right wing struck just prior to the left wing. The first part to hit always absorbs the most force, so the fuselage and right wing took the brunt.

This is backed up in photographic evidence (if you know what to look for) as well as the independent structural report that I also provided a link to. The damage continued through the building with decreasing size, force, and severity the whole way. This would indicate an object that was both slowing down, and possibly breaking apart, not something that blew up as a sole method of entrance.

The dissipation of crash forces is not consistent with explosive damage, because it did not propogate or disipate in a way that shows an explosive pattern, even from something as a cruise missle. Explosives typically have an epicenter, and then a radial spread pattern. Even focused explosives like a Claymore have a repeatable and predictable pattern, as do placed charges designed to bring down a building.

An 8 to 12 seat small jet would be hard pressed to have enough momentum to penetrate the Pentagon that far, and as previously stated, the documented damage isn't consistant with an explosive aid.

The 757 in question probably would have weighed right around 180,000-200,000 lbs. Even the large biz jets are pressed to weigh 70,000 lbs at maximum takeoff weight.

What is the momentum difference with a weight disparity like that?

The Boeing 767s that were used to bring down the WTC were chosen for 2 VERY specific reasons.

1)They were carrying a large fuel load, which would help promote fire on impact.

2)They were also big enough to bring down the towers from a structural standpoint.

Back in the 1960's when the towers were designed, they were designed to survive a hit from a Boeing 707 (a little lighter at max takeoff weight than a 757), and not only stand, but survive and be repaired. They did this because they thought an airliner on approach in bad weather might get lost and accidentally hit the towers.

They also assumed that since they were landing, they would be relatively low on gas.

Coincidence? The 757 most likely would not have brought them down, and whoever flew into the tower wanted to make sure they came down. Hence the Boeing 767s with full tanks.

With the weight difference between the 757 and 767 being that important, what do you suppose the difference between a fully loaded 70,000 lb bizjet and a 757 would have been?

I can only say this with some certainty. The destruction would have been far less.



Yes, the angle and circumstance of the crash impact seems improbable, but the impact was improbable in the first place. They are consistent with the capabilities of the plane AND the debris found away from the crash site. Yes, there was debris and damage to light poles away from the crash site. Eyewitness testimony corroborates this too. Of course, they didn't tell you that either.

Most likely what happened, in my opinion, was the pilot was going to impact a point prior to the Pentagon and kept pulling back in an effort to extend his path to the target. This would have led to a low shallow approach, with the plane slowing down, because it is trading airspeed for altitude. That may be why he applied power at the end (although the two that hit towers applied power before impact too). The planes that hit the towers were traveling substantially faster as well I believe. This manuever is highly similar to a landing configuration just before touchdown, as you are constantly pulling back in an effort to reduce your vertical velocity at touchdown. It is possible to approach a runway significantly steeper than normal or significantly shallower than normal.

[owequitit]

5) The part of the Pentagon Facade damage that seemed odd to me, was the fact that there was damage down where the wing supposedly impacted (you can see the steel beams in photographs) yet the limestone/concrete walls in between the beams was intact. At the other end of the crash site, the debris being pushed by the nose of the object managed to penetrate the wall when the total force would have been less.

I know they can explain this in structural engineering terms, but I believe it would have something to do with force distribution. Most of the wing impact went through the hole. The outer portions of the wing are both lighter and weaker in terms of strength. When the outer portions hit, I believe, they supposedly hit a horizontal beam which can be seen in pictures. The force of the impact would have been distributed along the entire length of the impact, as opposed to focused in a small area. This would have been caused by the fact that most of a wings strength is in the spars, which would have literally "slapped" the wall along their length. It still seems a little odd, but when the fact that the wing out board of the engines is not as massive, is thinner, and isn't as strong, it is feasible I suppose. I can almost guarantee though that engineering data would back it up.

I also know for a fact that if a ground service vehicle (a catering truck for instance) can inflict severe damage to a wing at a very slow speed, just by backing into it. I can only imagine what a concrete wall at 350 MPH would do.

The exit wound in the courtyard wall is also consistent, because whatever penetrated the building would have certainly been pushing debris ahead of it, like the bow wake on a boat. While the actual body may not have penetrated the wall, as claimed in the initial reports, the debris being pushed ahead of the "body" would certainly have had a large amount of momentum, and nowhere to go, as the confines of where it was being pushed may have limited sidways movement. The fact that the head of the debris field appears to have hit the other side of the Pentagon BETWEEN 2 columns, as shown in photographs, that could explain how the wall broke apart on that end. Don't know that is fact, but based on the rest of the physical evidence, it is consistent, and could be proved or disproved.

So far, this is all documented physical evidence, with all data published, as well as the names of those who published it. You can:

1) Verify their existence, knowledge, and background.

2) These are people that design cutting edge structures every day and say they will stand. I have no reason to doubt that.

3) All data could be verified in an experimental fashion.

They also have a lot more evidence than a few grainy photographs the conspiracy websites manage to rely on. They blow them up to the point where they are so grainy, you can hardly make out detail, and then claim "here is proof."

6) The lack of wreckage inside the Pentagon.

If you look at air crashes, airplanes typically break up in to much smaller peices. This is in crashes where the intention is NOT to crash. When a plane is smashed into something at top speed, it would probably be possible to get pieces so small, the airplane could be viewed as "disintegrated".

1) The first problem I have with this statement is that the Building collapsed. I don't know if anyone noticed all the rubble laying around in the pictures, but my guess would be that small peices of aluminum would hide will in there.

2) When the plane burst into flames, the heat would have been contained by the surroundings. This would have intensified the effects of the jet fuel burning. Since it burns at a temp much hotter than is required to melt aluminum, and since it was focused, it is possible that it melted. I can melt cans in a camp fire pretty easily, without an oven.

The biggest excuse for impossibility that I find for this is: "aluminum radiates heat too fast to melt in that amount of time."

This is crap and here is why. An object either transfers heat easily, or it does not. This goes for both absorbtion and radiation. If the environment is hotter than the aluminum, then it MUST absorb heat. If the aluminum is hotter than the environment, it will radiate heat. The law works both ways, and it will transfer heat at the same speed either way. Simple physics.

So, now we have jet fuel exploding at 800 degrees C, and an aluminum wreckage at something less. The result? The aluminum absorbs heat, and it does it in a manner quicker than it would in the open because of the oven effect of the building. So now the question is, was it enough to melt it? How hard would it be to hide a bunch of small chunks of aluminum in rubble like that? They may not have even had to vaporize to be "not visible"

That I can't verify without an experiment that exactly recreates the circumstances, but the laws of physics appear to be aligned in the right direction yet again.

I am not seeing a lot of holes here, and I am not using government spoon fed info either. The only peice that could be argued against is the structural report, but again it was a INDEPENDENT board, and they have documented EVERYTHING. Plus too many people saw stuff and agree with them.

You will also never convince me of a million person conspiracy. Sorry, I know too much about human nature, and witness testimony to buy it. Even if they don't INTEND to slip up, lying people eventually say or do something wrong. That is how they catch criminals. With a million people having to lie for the rest of their lives without slipping, is improbable at best.

Not done yet, but that is it for this post.

[Dv8]

Man you are really into this. I agree with many of your statements, but of course I disagree with some. Take the light posts on the interstate, have you seen pictures of them? There really was no structural damage, it was almost as if they simple popped out of the ground. I dont know, as I said before, my opinion would be a great novel, and I havnt done enough digging to come up with something completely believable. Eventually I may decide to pursue this with more interest, but in the mean time I have some other things to worry about, like my engine swap, and my trip on a 'pirate ship' next week. Heeheeee.

[owequitit]

Man you are really into this. I agree with many of your statements, but of course I disagree with some. Take the light posts on the interstate, have you seen pictures of them? There really was no structural damage, it was almost as if they simple popped out of the ground. I dont know, as I said before, my opinion would be a great novel, and I havnt done enough digging to come up with something completely believable. Eventually I may decide to pursue this with more interest, but in the mean time I have some other things to worry about, like my engine swap, and my trip on a 'pirate ship' next week. Heeheeee.

Again consistent with airplane damage. The weakest link breaks first, and the foundation of lightpoles aren't designed for that kind of impact. Steel has some bending to it, so I think it could happen. I will look to see if I can find any past crashes that involved either light poles or approach lighting (similar to light poles) and see if it was consistent with that too.

I am really into it NOW. That is because I got tired of all the people telling me "you believe the government" so you are a member of the spoon fed masses. And all this from a group of 16 year olds who can't see the holes it the websites they are bowing in Gospel to.

1) The story I believe is backed up by actual facts, specs and photographs, as well as personal knowledge of aviation. The facts came from people who actually know the material, not a self proclaimed internet scientist who ingnores or neglects half of the variables. Not grainy photographs, speculation, and the misinformation of telling partial truths (not providing an entire quote, or using it out of context is BLATANT misinformation).

2) Every conclusion, opinion, or position I hold is verifiable. Like I said, I will be happy at any point in time to sit down with any one person and explain my position, using neutral information.

Is there some speculation? Sure, there has to be. It is impossible to know every single detail about every single factor, in every single crash. That is just reality. Even with crashes that don't involve the government.

There are still two major questions that linger in my mind. One I have a possible explanation for, and the other I do not.

1)Why would the airplane fly over the Pentagon, make a 10 mile circle over the most restricted and defended airspace in the country, and then descend to crash into the part of the Pentagon that it flew over in the first place? Why not just fly straight into the target? Wouldn't that have been a lot less risky?

The only thing I can think of here, is that they couldn't find the target. Visibility out of an airliner cockpit is not very good, especially if you have never flown one before. With the angles of visibility, it is possible that it had already disappeared under the nose, when they started looking for it.

Other than that, I am blank on that one.

2) Why hit the newly renovated, and structurally much stronger section of the Pentagon that was well known to be empty? It isn't like they didn't do their homework.

Would you not want to inflict maximum damage? It is a confusing looking building, but that is pretty much still an unanswered question. Unless the cockpit workload was too high and they got confused on where they were. It is feasible, but still I am not sure about that.

Ultimately, I think most people just HAVE to think they are being lied to.

Most of the ones I have found, are Bush haters, and most of the rest just think everything is a conspiracy.

Have fun on the pirate ship. I always wanted to crew one of the tall ships that tours the world... that would be fun.

[sublime]

i guess i caused a huge conflict if this thread already has 4 pages, fuck i just said the movie was good, lol.

[phatdoughnut]

Theres to many holes in the story for me, only telling us what they want us to know so our minds wonder and try to make the story fit the scene.

Shouldnt there be wing debri on the road or some where close by if the wings are really that sensative?

[Dv8]

Im done with this thread. If the American gov't starts fucking with my state of well being, then its time to play, and not nicely.

[owequitit]

Here is an interesting read about the previously mentioned group attempting to control the world, the Freemasons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasons

It is not as official as a regular encyclopedia, but it is consistent with the World Book etc, and in most cases Wiki is accurate.

My question is this:

How does a group with NO central organizational structure, have a central group plotting to take over the world?

It states right in there that it is basically a bunch of independent chapters that all agree to acknowledge each other... That is the extent of the "central" organization.

My grandfather was also a Mason, for about 40 years. He actually made it past the mason point and became a Shriner, and was one of those for several decades. He even held the Presidency.

He was a moral person who believed in God, and raised his kids to be polite considerate and sharing. He was an honest, hardworker, and a good person. He would do just about anything for anybody, and yet, I am to believe that he is a Satanist and evil because someone did a couple months worth of research...

Have you ever heard of the Shriner's childrens hospitals? Same organization. What an evil organization to want to provide the best medical care for children. They should burn in hell.

Many people assume that because they are a "secret" organization, they are up to no good. If that was the case, every marriage would be Satanic. Sometimes their are secrets and things not shared with others between people that have a common bond.

If you notice the groups that often deride this organization, they are in many cases, biased in and of themselves.

I imagine that a lot of the controversy stems from the fact that they believe in 1 supreme being (regardless of who it is), and refuse to tell people who that is (although some chapters, require trinity faith, specifically). That usually flags the organization as "Satanic" in many ultra conservative circles, because they aren't mandating that "God", in the trinity sense, take the stage.

They aren't saying they don't believe in God, they are saying that it is up to you to decide, as long as it is monotheastic. Sounds like promoting freedom to me.

Especially, since their origins are believed to be among FREE Scottish MASON workers in and around the 16th Century.

The problem with learning and reading everything, is that it is interpreted through YOUR "window" (or beliefs and biases), and while you would certainly believe your position to be the best, it is often not the only one.

To truly be a free thinker, you must assume the roll from someone else's point of view.

Oh yeah, and they are so "secret" that you can go join if you wish. Someone has to nominate you, and then the chapter has to vote on you, but it is very similar to a fraternity or sorority.

[owequitit]

Theres to many holes in the story for me, only telling us what they want us to know so our minds wonder and try to make the story fit the scene.

Shouldnt there be wing debri on the road or some where close by if the wings are really that sensative?

What holes exactly? Maybe I haven't looked into those yet. I am curious to hear.

It depends, on what hit the light poles. Usually the fairings come off first (stuff like the little canoe things that cover the flap mechanisms at the rear of the wing), and then other stuff will usually come off. Perhaps, they broke into little pieces, or maybe the debris was picked up before a lot of photographers got there. Again, due to the sensitivity of the debris, they would have been all over it. There may not have been a lot, it depends how hard they hit. At that altitude, wing vortices (think horizontal tornados originating from the 757's wing tips) may have played a prominant role in bringing down poles or scattering debris.

At their worst, 757 wing vortices are strong enough to cause problems for airliners like 737's. That is why they can be termed "heavy" in their radio call sign (this indicates to controllers and aircrews that extra spacing is necessary due to these vortices).

There are too many variables to say, yes this should definitely have happened, unless you are an accident investigator and know how to interpret the info. Even then there is a lot of educated guessing. Most of what I have posted has been supported by others in the "know", or is based on probable conjecture from previous accidents.

Also, it isn't that the wings are WEAK. They are WEAKER in some respects than others (i.e. front to back vs up and down). As for the comment about their sensitivity, it is easy to damage them to the point that a rational person who wants to live would not fly the plane, but they were already airborne, and they had no intention of living, so normal thought patterns go out the window at that point. The wings will usually survive some damage and stay togther, but you wouldn't conciously want to depend on it any longer than you have to.

There was an accident back in the 70's I think where a TWA 707 had a mid-air collision with another airplane. I think it was about 16' worth of wing that was severed from the TWA plane, and not only did it land safely, but it was repaired and put back into service. But clearly it wasn't strong enough to survive the impact.

Airplanes are hard to explain from a structural stand point with out being technical. I guess a good way too look at it would be an ecosystem.

Each part of that ecosystem performs a vital function, and is dependent on all the other parts of that same system. Together, they are strong and can accomplish a lot, but if you remove one part, it gets weaker. If you damage or remove enough parts, it will fail.

Airplanes are really the same. Every structural part of that plane is critical. Remove one, and it might not fail, but it will be weakened. It might also fail, and if part of it starts failing structurally, the rest might not be far behind.

It is just like any other accident. Mass and inertia have a lot to do with it. The mass of the airplane vs a couple of light poles = airplane wins, especially at high speed. The poles likely did damage to the airplane, but to what extent, I don't know. The mass of the Pentagon vs an airplane = the Pentagon wins.

Look at the towers. They were much more penetrable than the Pentagon AND the plane was significantly larger. The plane went out swinging, but the tower most certainly won. The actual plane never made it all the way through, the tower, but the force did.

The plane crashes didn't even cause the collapse of the towers, the ensuing fire, coupled with the structural damage did. Had the fuel variable been removed, they most likely would have continued standing, for awhile at least. Without the airplane damage, or with a smaller plane, they may have stood as well.

That comes from the guys who designed and built it, in conjuction with the structural performance report that was similar to the one on the Pentagon.

It is all covered in the History channel video that I provided a link to.

Like I said, who ever decided to use a 767 did so for a very specific reason.

One of the problems with any airplane crash, is that people EXPECT to see certain things. These expectations are not always realistic. One example of the expectation to see something is large identifiable debris. A wing for instance, or a tail section. Unforutnately, that does not always occur, but when it doesn't and the gov't is involved, it is automatically a conspiracy.

Look at the Valujet crash in the Everglades. Again, much slower, and with an attempt to not crash. The airplane also had significantly less momentum due to smaller size and slower speed. Yet, construction was similar to a 757/767/747/A320/A340 or any other current commercial airliner. Does there appear to be much debris? Yes, it was a swamp. But in the case of the Pentagon, the building pretty much came down on top of it, probably burying a lot of it.

I think there was a conspiracy theory on the Valujet crash too. Turned out to be a number of factors from lazy, careless people that caused a fire, and brought the plane down.

Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with raising questions when something appears out of sort. But just because it appears out of sort, doesn't necessarily mean that it is.

The conclusion should support the evidence, not the other way around.

I still think my proposed conspiracy theory is plausible, and with all the black budgets lurking, it would probably be impossible to connect the gov't to the terroists. The would be the best way to execute "the plan".

Personally, I think there are too many variables in life though, and I don't tend to subscribe to conspiracies readily. Too many people come and go, or are defeated in election, or many other things. Everyone I have looked at, doesn't hold up very well under scrutiny.

I think that ultimately, the only conspiracy has been our inept Federal management pretty much since the Kennedy administration foward. They created enemies that are extreme. Now we have to deal with it.

The amount of planning for something like this isn't an overnight thing, and it took time. It took the terrorist a couple of years to plan it. Assuming they were hired by the US Gov't, the process would have started several years before that...at least.

If you are curious about the aircraft mentioned in this thread, simply go here for pictures:

www.airliners.net They have endless pictures of pretty much every make/model you could dream of.

for aircraft specs go here:

Boeing 757

Boeing 737 (the -700 model is the most common)

767-200ER

DC-9-30 (VALUJET Crash)

[rebels]

owequitit, I'll make this quick.. but from the 5 frames that the government has released to the public of what it is hitting the Pentagon, that sure as hell doesn't look like a 747 to me.

Unless they have powers like Inspector Gadget.. definitely not a 747 in those 5 frames.

[skubydobdo]

For those of you who think that some missile hit the Pentagon this is for you. I am a pilot and about to start working as an air traffic controller (better pay off-the-bat ). The AA 757 was seen by many controllers the entire time from when it took off until it hit the Pentagon. When the hijackers turned off the transponder it doesnt simply "dissappear" from the screen as most movies would say. There's no identification, altitude, airspeed, origin or destination as usual, but there's still the "blip" per se. This "blip" flew around and went straight into that building. That's all there is too it. I never saw the movie and i don't need to. I'll stick to watching footage of us bombing the shit out of other people.