United 93

[sublime]

Looks are decieving. You saw a silver streak for a fraction of a second over a 10 degree width of reality.

How long do you suppose it would take a plane travelling at over 500MPH to cover that distance? A fraction of a second. Just like in the video.

Don't believe me? Go watch the Reno Air Races sometime. Even at the Indy 500, they are only traveling at 220MPH, you have a direct view with a clear camera that shoots 30 frames per second, and they are hauling ass. Oh, yeah, the cameras are much closer.

see the thing is, a missle can travel at the same speed as a plane or even faster do to the velocity. what do you think?

[owequitit]

I am assuming?

Again YOU assume that all info was quoted by the government.

You just don't seem to understand investigations apparently.

1) INDEPENDENT structural engineers surveyed the damage, and made reports based on their expertise. They were not spoon fed information by the government. It was gathered with on-site survey and analysis, using whatever methods/instruments/protocols they deemed necessary. Hence, INDEPENDENT investigation. That's how it works in circumstances such as these. Like it or not. They have photographs of the documented damage in the links I provided, so it is hard to argue that it is what they were "told" to say. Independent crash investigators looked into the airplane end of it. One of the guys is a professor here in our safety dept. He is called on to investigate most plane crashes, not just ones involving the Pentagon. At the very least, he usually serves as an advisor, or consultant. Again, findings were consistent with documented damages, with photographic evidence. Due to the criminal aspect of the investigation, some stuff is still classified. That is just smart business in an ongoing investigation. Tipping your poker hand for the sake on non-believers would not only be irresponsible, it would be assinine.

He hasn't biased any crash information in the past, so I have no reason to believe that him or any others like him would. Again, consistent crash data with past events. Even assuming that they did change it, why does it stack up against known data from past crashes? Now it has undergone scrutiny twice, and is still standing.

Obviously, at some point the government has to get involved because 1) a gov't building was hit 2) the government always gets involved in such plane crashes because of the order of magnitude, either throught the NTSB, or the FBI (in the case of criminal involvement).

2) It seems odd to me that all evidence points directly to a 757 hitting the Pentagon including, but not limited to:

a) Eye witness testimony - including people with no affiliation to the gov't, who saw an American Airlines 757 hit the building. Or the eyewitness accounts that saw the plane make a 10 mile wide circle over the city, fly back to where it was, and then plunge into the building.

b) Radar tapes - which are recorded at all times, and tracked the flight right to its termination at the Pentagon. They showed the same pass, circle, and approach as eyewitness testimony.

c)All damage and debris are consistent with something EXACTLY the same size as a 757... approach path, damage to off site materials (lightpoles etc), the impact hole in the facade of the Pentagon, the damage internal to the Pentagon, the damage to objects outside the Pentagon, the debris field both inside and outside the Pentagon. The exit wound which in addition to the lawn on the approach end, and the interior were litterally full of debris, again with photographic evidence.

d) the video, which although hard to see, has an object apparently about 2 stories high approach at a high rate of speed, at a shallow trajectory consistent with the rest of the data. Most people assume that it isn't big enough, because the Pentagon does not APPEAR to be that large. Let us not forget that the Pentagon is THE LARGEST OFFICE BUILDING IN THE WORLD. It is in fact 77 feet tall or twice the size of the said aircraft INCLUDING the tail section. Ironic that the elongated part of the object appears to be about 1/3 the height of the Pentagon then, which again is consistent with crash data, as the fuselage penetrated floors 1 and 2.

There are other more clear videos of the crash, but they have not been released yet. I don't know why, nor have I attempted to make excuses.

You keep bringing up my unwillingness to address "the hypocrisies in our government."

That is another matter entirely, for starters. Government is by nature hypocritical. It stems from the fact that you have elected politicians that were elected by different constituents all with different agendas and priorities. There is the ground work. Your lovely brown-nosing self serving politicians, all want to get re-elected, so they say or do (or pretend to do) whatever they have to in order to keep you in their pocket for next time.

That is pretty much all there is to hypocrisy. Now you keep telling me that everything is under the thumb of one person, and that all of this information could be biased, yet there have been no leaks, no nothing.

Sorry, but even in the best of political climates, the government has a hard time managing to do ANYTHING with total secrecy, including wars and operations. The DoD gets pretty close most days, but even there is a plethora of leaks. Yet in 5 years, there has been nothing more than speculation on the part of a bunch of websites who think EVERYTHING is a conspiracy...

Sorry, but it is my personal expericence that you people are giving the gov't WAY too much credit. Bill Clinton couldn't even keep a blow job in the privacy of his own office secret, and you are trying to make be believe that Bush has his little elf eared thumb on this whole thing, when he can't even control what his top people are doing very well????

Whatever.

Sorry to break it to you, and you aren't going to believe me anyway, but I went into this whole thing with an open mind. And I reviewed and read and processed. Both sides. Equally.

Then I started looking into the published evidence, which can be quantified and confirmed by INDEPENDENT analysis, data, math, science and everything else that goes into building evidence for ANY case. Then I started looking at the backgrounds of the individuals who gathered it. Again, the conclusion was drawn based on educated study, that there are too many hands in the cookie jar for everything to just automatically adhere into a cohesive story. Just an opinion, but again based on educated guess.

I am still looking, and if cracks start to appear in the evidence that I trust, then I will change my tune. I can pretty much guarantee that isn't going to happen though.

You assume (again, I am not the only one assuming) that most of the evidence has not been released. But without knowing what HAS NOT been released, that is a pretty bold assumption.

What we do have and how it relates to MY position:

1) Eyewitness testimony from people who were ACTUALLY there. These people believe very firmly that that plane hit. So now we have the theory to go on, and the beginnings of a case. Nobody knows better than those who were there. Eyewitness testimony is sometimes unreliable, and can be supplanted by scientific data, in the event they disagree.

2) Photographic evidence. Again, too many independent photographers who were there snapping photos as it was occuring. Witnesses, fire-fighters, by standers, etc. I have a hard time believing the gov't got ahold of every person, and every role of film, and doctored them all to match. If you or anybody else wants to, fine, be my guest.

3) Structural reports - we know the extent of the damage on the building. Again, photographic evidence, and documented scientific ananlysis.

4) Physics study of the crash from the perspective of the airplane. Odd, that 5,000 years worth of physics knowledge, all backs up everything else.

5) Radar tapes. We can track the plane to impact at the Pentagon. Radar does have a limitation, in that if another plane is close enough, they may not be able to see both targets. I don't know what those numbers are, but doesn't it seem odd that the switch would have not occured at the time of impact? Again corroborated by people who were actually there and saw the 757 crash.

So, we have a fair review of the crash scene. Which corroborates a 757 crash.

We have a fair review of the debris (from ACTUAL experts) that corroborates a 757 crash.

We have 89 eyewitness testimonies (most have no affiliation to the Pentagon) that either 1) saw the plane crash or 2) were fairly close to the Pentagon when it crashed. This corroborates a 757 crash as well.

The scene, the witnesses and the science all agree.

[owequitit]

That pretty much covers the majority of the evidence needed to determine the probability that the plane actually crashed into the Pentagon. There are a few unanswered questions, although I haven't really found any in relation to the plane actually crashing, that have no answer. I could wonder why they did somethings, but then I wonder that about many people on most days.

Of course, most people won't buy that, because they don't want to. Look how many people put their life in their doctor's hands and then don't buy what HE has to say. It isn't mysterious to me.

To me, the question isn't whether it crashed into the Pentagon, it is why was it crashed into the Pentagon, and who was really involved. That is another matter entirely, and one to which I don't know an answer.

Keep in mind too, that ,as I said before, I never went looking into this with the perspective that I was going to prove the plane crashed. That is the wrong attitude to research with, and ultimately, the only thing I was trying to prove to myself was what most likely happened. I went into this thread with a knowledge that certain things about the crash seemed plausible, which you would see by my original post that Fizzbob tried to bash on me for.

I know what I know, and I got tired of all headbashing I was receiving because I KNEW that certain aspects were plausible. So I started looking. At both sides. Equally and evenly.

Unfortunately, once I started comparing the conspiracy theory sites and the other information, subjecting everything to the same evaluation, one side help up, and one did not. That is normally the case with most conspiracy theories I have ever looked at, and the main reason I am skeptical of them.

Of course, everything that I put faith in could be verified, scrutinized and repeated if desired, so it was much more sturdy from a scientific standpoint. All major pieces of evidence also complimented each other and pointed in the same direction, even under scrutiny. The theory websites couldn't even get most of the facts straight. Times, hole sizes, witness accounts, etc etc varied from place to place. This seems odd to me, because most of them got most of what they attempted to use from the same sources I have (i.e. witness testimony), and then just neglected the rest of it.

Case in point: The "cable reels" that were "right in front" of the Pentagon. They asked how it was possible for a plane to penetrate the wall and not damage them... To which I wondered how it was possible for ANYTHING to penetrate that wall and not damage them... Have you ever seen what a "cruise missle" does to it's target? It ain't pretty, I can say that much. So what was the truth? Those cable reels were located around 80 feet from the front of the building, but the camera angle made it appear as though they were right on top of it. In fact, the stuff that was located right near the building WAS damaged, and was damaged in a manner consistent with a 757.

I have said it at least twice before in this thread and I will say it again. Nothing will ever convince me of the million man conspiracy theory because it is unrealistic. Period.

So you can all go on believing what you want, and just keep trying to poke holes in my story. I don't care. You can say I am being spoonfed altered data, by the machine, and that I am not capable of free thought. I don't care. You can say I am making assumptions (as opposed to educated guesses), I really don't care.

You can even blame it all on Bush, I really don't care.

The cracks aren't in my story. Read the links I posted. I dare you. If nothing else, you will learn more about it. I keep hearing over and over about all of this altered data, yet the one site in particular www.911research.com has more independent data than dependent data.

My original intention in this thread was to provide a counterbalancing viewpoint, to all these so called "freethinking" websites and individuals on here. I did this not because I am biased, but because I knew certain aspects of what was being presented were blatantly false. I remember watching this stuff for 3 days straight in real time, while it was happening. Unfortunately, I remember almost everything and knew some of the websites were lying, just from memory.

In case you haven't noticed, I don't exactly hold the popular opinion in this topic, so who is really following the herd?

Freethinkers indeed.

[owequitit]

see the thing is, a missle can travel at the same speed as a plane or even faster do to the velocity. what do you think?

All of the missles that are likely to have been used, are 20 feet or less in length and less than 3' in diameter. You wouldn't have even seen it in the video. They are near impossible to see in high quality video from a wide angle. One of the reasons they were designed that way.

As far as speed goes, the airplane was estimated to be moving about 540 MPH at impact. The only missle that will do much more than that is the harpoon, and it is smaller still.

Any missles that have even been suggested would NOT have been anywhere near two stories tall. Their entrance wound would have been much smaller, and there was absolutely no evidence of an explosive warhead.

Like I said earlier, explosions have their own particular way of moving outward from the source, and the people who know such things didn't find any evidence of it.

The size of the streak was almost identical to how a 757 would appear at very low level next to that particular building. Go look at the diagrams of a 757 hitting. They are all animated to scale. They are available at www.911research.com.

[phatdoughnut]

This really looks like a plane?

[bracersi]

I am assuming?

Again YOU assume that all info was quoted by the government.

You made up another assumption to make it look like I am assuming....you are a complicated guy. I never said that.... I said the evidence was handed down by the government, which it was.....never did I say you are quoting the government. I did notice and acknowledge your work and study and that you went through many different non-partisan reports. You got lost in my words some how. You talk as if I have a agenda. I don't. A plane could have very well hit the pentagon...are there things out there that make me question other wise? yes!....do I know the truth? NO! Do I claim to know the truth? NO! Have I in any way tried to push a crazy idea or scheme on you? NO! Do I believe a crazy scheme has happend? I don't know! You are fighting with yourself now.....because even when I just posted my non-bias opinion....you still manage to say that I said things that I never said....It's like you play me out to be arguing with you about what you believe, when I am not just so you can continue arguing. Have fun playing with yourself.

[bracersi]

As far as speed goes, the airplane was estimated to be moving about 540 MPH at impact. The only missle that will do much more than that is the harpoon, and it is smaller still.

I am sorry but that is way off. I use to work with harm missles and they easily reach a speed of 700mph+......Not to mention many others.

[owequitit]

This really looks like a plane?

Does what look like a plane?

[owequitit]

I am sorry but that is way off. I use to work with harm missles and they easily reach a speed of 700mph+......Not to mention many others.

The cruise missles that are the most likely to be used and are the largest do not attain those speeds. They are not supersonic. Believe it or not, they are not all supersonic.

Well at least we have resorted to technicalities now.

[owequitit]

You made up another assumption to make it look like I am assuming....you are a complicated guy. I never said that.... I said the evidence was handed down by the government, which it was.....never did I say you are quoting the government. I did notice and acknowledge your work and study and that you went through many different non-partisan reports. You got lost in my words some how. You talk as if I have a agenda. I don't. A plane could have very well hit the pentagon...are there things out there that make me question other wise? yes!....do I know the truth? NO! Do I claim to know the truth? NO! Have I in any way tried to push a crazy idea or scheme on you? NO! Do I believe a crazy scheme has happend? I don't know! You are fighting with yourself now.....because even when I just posted my non-bias opinion....you still manage to say that I said things that I never said....It's like you play me out to be arguing with you about what you believe, when I am not just so you can continue arguing. Have fun playing with yourself.

I assumed nothing. Read your own quote. You said everything was handed down by the government, and it was not. I know you said this, because you just repeated it in the above post. That isn't an assumption, it is a fact. It was independently gathered on scene and given to the government. Your flow of information is backwards.

[bracersi]

I assumed nothing. Read your own quote. You said everything was handed down by the government, and it was not. I know you said this, because you just repeated it in the above post. That isn't an assumption, it is a fact. It was independently gathered on scene and given to the government. Your flow of information is backwards.

All evidence was collected by the FBI. That is a government ran association the last ime I checked........ And you assumed everything about the meaning of my posts. One of these is you constantly refering to me backing some wild plot by the government to hide shit, which I never backed...which I have pointed out multiple times. I could very well believe everything you have pointed out....but government handling of certain situations tells me something is up so I leave all possibilities open. You for some reason insist on people seeing your way no matter what.

[phatdoughnut]

So your assuming that hes assuming that were all assumming.

Does what look like a plane?

exactly.

[owequitit]

The evidence was collected by the FBI. That is a government ran association the last ime I checked........ And you assumed everything about the meaning of my posts. One of these is you constantly refering to me backing some wild plot by the government to hide shit, which I never backed...which I have pointed out multiple times. I could very well believe everything you have pointed out....but government handling of certain situations tells me something is up so I leave all possibilities open. You for some reason insist on people seeing your way no matter what.

The evidence was gathered by the FBI. In most plane crashes it is gathered by the NTSB. SO WHAT'S YOUR POINT? As long as the gathering process is documented, then nothing changes.

The only thing being illustrated here is your lack of understanding of the evidenciary process.

You act like you are blowing my case all to hell, when in actuality you are doing nothing but trying to run the thread around and around and around.

It is a good diversion tactic though.

[bracersi]

The evidence was gathered by the FBI. In most plane crashes it is gathered by the NTSB. SO WHAT'S YOUR POINT? As long as the gathering process is documented, then nothing changes.

The only thing being illustrated here is your lack of understanding of the evidenciary process.

You act like you are blowing my case all to hell, when in actuality you are doing nothing but trying to run the thread around and around and around.

It is a good diversion tactic though.

Trying to blow your case......lol....If I read correctly the FBI in conjuction with the DOD was the project runner for the collection of evidence in this situation. It might be documented....also especially after working for the DOD a lot of documents get misplaced and lost. Actually that has happend a lot lately. Not trying to divert anything.....im simply pointing out that evidence could possibly be tamperd with or lost to produce a different out come.....you know.....kind of like that memo that got misplaced....I can't remember the name of it.....it is really vague....something about "binladen determined to attack inside the U.S.? or something like that".....but I guess that is impossible in your mind. But I guess I will just see more posts of how I am trying to divert or call you out as a "bush lover" , trying to blow your case......or who knows what other wild acusation you will have of me as a defense.

[owequitit]

So your assuming that hes assuming that were all assumming.




exactly.

I knew you were going to try this tactic.

You pick one frame of the grainy video that really shows nothing, and then act like you have stumbled on the cure for aids. It is times like this I wish I have my video editing suite back, so that I could disect it, digitize it, and post it on here.

How did you get that photo? Is that one of the 5 frames from the un-official composite video that was generated by combining JPEGs?

You post a frame with nothing on it, (the plane appeared in 1 maybe 2 frames of the actual video, can't say more acurately than that because I have no means to). I will see what I can work with at home...

*edit- it does appear to be the "object" on the right of the screen based on what I can match with the actual video, but you certainly can't tell detail...

and then you say EXACTLY.

The plane appeared as a small silver streak in one maybe two frames of the video. Keep in mind too that the camera was located several hundred feet from the corner of the Pentagon, and the plane struck the building about another 500' beyond the Pentagon, so now we are dealing with an image, captured by a parking lot camera, about 1,000' from the crash site, and you are surprised that the streak would appear so small?

Even if you can "freeze" the streak, at that distance, with that technology, you probably aren't going to see anything of detail anyway. That camera was meant to have just enough clarity to be able to make out enough detail to identify a car. Hence the grainyness, which I have addressed about umpteen times in this thread. Notice how you can see detail on the car that IS RIGHT FREAKING THERE, but just barely? You honestly expect to see detail on a streak 1,000 feet away that is viewed between concrete posts?

And then you say it is a missile? How big do you suppose a 20' missile looks from 1.000'? You probably would be hard pressed to see it when it was sitting still, let alone moving at almost 600 MPH.

Also, I have said this before, but apparently, you didn't understand then. I don't know what would have changed, but we will try again.

The plane hit the Pentagon just on the other side of the larger part of the facade (i.e. the taller part that you can make out at the middle part of the wall. It appears similar to a decorative entrance at an old style courthouse.)

1) When you identify this part of the wall, move to step 2.

2) Just on the other side of this decorative portion of the facade, the wall goes back to the normal height for the rest of the length of that wall.

3) Just passed this point, is where the 757 hit. When you identify this point move to step 4.

4) This part of the building is 5 stories tall, plus the design stuff over the 5th floor, so say about 6 stories. When you can approximately see the stories, move to step 5.

5) Measure out roughly one third of the height of the building, at the point that we have identified. This will be approximately 2 stories.

6) If you can manage to see the streak, and get the video frozen, congratulations. It took me about 10 tries each time I tried it. But then again I am a little slow.

7) Because of what is available for this analysis, we have to do some ballpark guess work. We will give it the TLAR (That Looks About Right) check and see what we come up with. If I felt like getting really elaborate, we could do all kinds of geometry and calculus, but I really don't care if you believe me that much...

8) So here we go. Taking the estimated height of 2 stories at the point of impact, we now need to compare it to the long part of the streak. By my estimation, I get 1, maybe 1 1/4 stories upon initial analysis.

Too small? We aren't done yet. The first thing we must consider to get a more accurate estimation is the angle of approach. The airplane did not approach at an exact 90 degree angle from the camera, meaning that it didn't just streak from right to left. The plane was at about a 45 degree angle to the building (approaching closer to the camera as it moves from right to left) and the camera was at an angle to the building, so we are dealing with a slight geometry issue here. I am going to go out on a limb and say that 1-1 1/4 of a floors worth of height is probably within the margin of error considering that 1) the video fully and completely sucks, and 2) the aircraft was moving at just under 800 feet per second (hence why it was in 1, maybe 2 frames).

OK, so that is what we MIGHT expect to see from a 757. What about a cruise missle?

1) We know the height of the windows in the vicinity of the impact to be 5 feet wide, by 7 feet tall. We know that both the Tomahawk is about 18 feet long and has a diameter of 20 inches.

Here is a link with pictures: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/bgm-109.htm

So we would expect that Tomahawk to be 1/4 the size of 1 window on 1 floor. It moves at about 550 MPH, so it would move right to left at about the same speed as the purported "757."

My problem with the Tomahawk is this: If it is 20 inches in diameter, how do you explain the streak being clearly bigger than 1 window or even 1 floor? Most of the other domestic missles capable of carrying out the task are smaller than the Tomahawk, so how do they measure up?

Here is a common link to most of the known missles in the US inventory.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/index.html

There were also no reports of rocket trails, so if it was something other than a plane, it must have been powered by a jet engine. There are only a couple of those, of which the Tomahawk is just about the biggest.

What about an unmanned aerial vehicle, such as Darkstar? They aren't big enough either, not to mention their design also makes them almost impossible to spot. When a B-2 flies over (a big ass airplane almost the size of a 757) it is hard to tell which way is up, even when it is going slow, and you KNOW which way is up...

Perhaps it was something as of yet still classified. But that is another matter of speculation entirely.

Also, how do you explain something that clearly had engines on the wings, as reported by witnesses? They tend to stick out like sore thumbs... Don't you think eyewitnesses such as airline pilots would be able to tell the differnce between a 20 foot by 20 inch missle and a 757 flying nearby? Whatabout off field damage?

Basically the point is this: The video means nothing. It isn't clear enough to show really anything other than an object that was larger than a missle. What was it? Who knows. I never claimed that the video meant anything, nor did I ever say it conclusively proved anything.

BUT! At the same time, it doesn't prove that it WASN'T a 757 either.

There is another old aviation saying: The notes will kill you. The basic meaning of this is that not everything is as it appears. You must also consider any special circumstances that may alter the situation (i.e., higher than normal winds) because if you do not, the outcome can vary significantly.

That is the case with a lot of this evidence. There are extenuating circumstances to much of it, that the conspiracy presenters either don't tell you about, or don't consider. That can change everything.

Is it possible that it is doctored? Sure, although most of the structural reviews were done by independent parties. Doctored info also tends not to stand up under real scrutiny because scientifically, everything has to be verifiable and is often not. They also give you all the information you need to scrutinize. That tends to tell me they aren't hiding anything. The conspiracy theories I have seen do no such thing.

But whatever, I don't know anything about paperwork, science or the government. I am making this all up...

Ultimately, I stand by my story. If you want to actually take the time to read through what I provided links to, you are more than welcome to draw your own conclusion. I have drawn mine on an individual basis, using rational thought, consideration, and knowledge. I considered both sides without prejudice. Believe what you want, but consider all things before you do. One of the nice things about the stuff I have provided, is that it can be substantiated. That means that if you want to go build your own experiment using all of the same materials, under the same circumstances, using scientifically excepted methods, you can. That is what the scientific process really is all about. Being able to repeat a very specific set of circumstances and achieving the same result over and over.

This thread is pretty much done, but while looking around and reading some more yesterday, I found some of the pictures that were used in 'U.S. v. Moussaoui'. Look at all pictures on this link, as there is a ton of aircraft debris to be seen, even some identifiable as that of an American Airlines plane. Most of these were taken in short order after the crash, some even prior to the collapse of the Pentagon. How did they get all this scattered in time, if it is a conspiracy?

WARNING! There are pictures of human remains on the link. Not for weak stomachs, and may not be work safe. Proceed at your own RISK!!!!!

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/index.html#parts