9/11 Lie?

[Old'n'Slow]

These guys were trained pilots and if a pilot can land a liner on a runway which is narrower than the pentagon and jets can land on a pitching carrier at night then I suspect that a few moderately trained pilots can hit a building the size of the pentagon.

It's not that they hit it, it's where they had to have hit it for there to be no discernable plane wreckage visible. A little higher and we'd have had visible wreckage on the roof-the remnants of the tail. A little lower and there would be a gouge in the lawn before the impact area.

The wings are just hollow and full of fuel. They would just go splat upon impact spreading jet fuel along the building on either side of the hole causing a big fire on each side. Sort of like that picture you JUST posted.

But what about the engines??? Let's not even discount your bullet analogy-the supposed plane did NOT hit the Pentagon head on. More like 30-45 degrees. But....the engines weigh about 7300lbs each and are easily the most "solid" things on an aircraft. They're full of titanium and steel parts. Where are the holes they left? There should've been 3 holes, right? Because they sure weren't visible outside on the lawn...I'm waiting for the flight recorder data showing airspeed and attitude up until impact. I have a feeling it will never be revealed because the actual data from AA77 might not support this maskirovka we're being shown.

Oh and "couldn't find the Mall"??? With the Washington Monument sticking up like a beacon and the Capitol on one of the highest hills in the area? A wide grassy strip flanked by buildings? I don't believe that one. I've flown in and out DC many times and that area is utterly obvious even from less than 5000ft. This pilot who allegedly flew with such brio missed the Capitol?

One last thing...just because a plane turns off its transponder, it does not become invisible to radar. We would have known exactly where that plane was. Our high tech armed services weren't able to scramble fighters to even intercept a single unauthorized commercial plane entering the most secure airspace in the world...?

Fishy, fishy story...

[Ryan Stewart]

Leaving DC being familiar with the area is different from fying in not knowing where you are. And flying low makes it hard to spot things. There were countless witnesses on the highway who saw the plane flying low overhead. Its also one way to avoid radar, especially since inland we dont have extensive military grade radar networks.

The pentagon is reinforced concrete for this very reason. It was built for wartime and an expected attack. Engines? You mean the things that are spinning at thousands of RPMs, not solid like a R-ICE, and like the one that exploded sending debris into an airliner after sucking in a bird back in the late 90s. They are far more fragile than youd think. NOTHING on a plane is built for this, they dont anticipate a survivable impact so they dont build safety cages and things. Titanium is a very soft metal, like carbon fiber its stronger than steel in some areas but it doesnt mean its just plain stronger. Its also thinner on these applications. They use titanium because its lighter in plated applications but it doesnt mean its indestructable. Like aluminum its VERY mallable.

All of these theories are really grasping at straws. Personally, i dont think our govt has the coordination to pull off a conspiracy as complex as you people are conjecturing. They couldnt even cover up a blowjob.

[AdironRider]

What are you trying to say?

That you could hop into a 757, and fly it at near cruise speed to a landing point exactly at the base of a building without hitting the ground before impacting the building, or hitting an upper floor? Oh, and not leave a hole in the building bigger than a truck?

Just wondering....

Dude, like I said in my previous post. Does anyone else have their pilots license? I do and yes, I think I could.

[rwh11385]

flying isn't hard, it's the landing (lots of friends in avation). probably aiming a plane into a building is gonna be easier than safely touching down

[AdironRider]

Landing is only hard the first couple times you do it. You just need to get a feel for it and trust your guages.

[Old'n'Slow]

Leaving DC being familiar with the area is different from fying in not knowing where you are. And flying low makes it hard to spot things. There were countless witnesses on the highway who saw the plane flying low overhead. Its also one way to avoid radar, especially since inland we dont have extensive military grade radar networks.

From AirDisaster.com:

American Airlines Flight 77 departed Washington's Dulles International Airport at approximately 9:20am local time on a flight to Los Angeles. Shortly thereafter, Washington TRACON lost contact with the aircraft's crew, and the plane's transponder was switched off. A primary target representing the aircraft was seen proceeding directly toward the White House. The plane was seen to veer away from the White House, enter a high speed dive, and impact the side of the Department of Defense (Pentagon) building in Washington, D.C. This crash was the third in a series of orchestrated terrorist acts carried out by suicide hijackers that affected the United States on September 11.

It would appear that something on radar found the White House just fine...

The pentagon is reinforced concrete for this very reason. It was built for wartime and an expected attack. Engines? You mean the things that are spinning at thousands of RPMs, not solid like a R-ICE, and like the one that exploded sending debris into an airliner after sucking in a bird back in the late 90s. They are far more fragile than youd think. NOTHING on a plane is built for this, they dont anticipate a survivable impact so they dont build safety cages and things. Titanium is a very soft metal, like carbon fiber its stronger than steel in some areas but it doesnt mean its just plain stronger. Its also thinner on these applications. They use titanium because its lighter in plated applications but it doesnt mean its indestructable. Like aluminum its VERY mallable.

I haven't seen many crash photos of planes where even when the fuselage is smashed beyond recognition, the engines remain recognizable. That's all I was saying. I understand the metallurgical implications.

All of these theories are really grasping at straws. Personally, i dont think our govt has the coordination to pull off a conspiracy as complex as you people are conjecturing. They couldnt even cover up a blowjob.

So several very well hooked-up people with ample access and resources within the government couldn't, but 19 guys with box cutters and apparently more luck than skill could? If you don't think there are goings-on we are not privvy to in DC, in the shadows and out of the light, well...there always have been, and probably always will be. There are simply far too many holes in the official story to be believable. A war game with eerily similar circumstances that morning? Rumsfeld calling the shots? A complete stand down in the face of 4 near simultaneous hijackings? If the alleged hijackers knew of this, then who told them? 9/11 Report mute on such issues? I consider myself a patriot, and these questions must be asked until answers are forthcoming.

I know there is much conjecture, and all I'm trying to do is say we have lots of video of WTC 1&2 getting hit by planes, but of all the cameras that were running near the Pentagon that morning all we've ever seen is an edited 5 frame video from a bad angle in which a plane is not visible. Things that make you go "hmmmmm"....

[Ryan Stewart]

1. headed directly toward the white house is a pretty blanket statement. On my way to work I am, techincally, heading directly toward the white house. Veered off implies a change in vector but states nothing about the planes location. It could have changed vector well outside of DC, I would need to see data showing the vector and change. For all we know he could have been on the target and then just said, "Hey I recognize that building."

2. Find me data of them launching a GE turbine engine into reinforced concrete and still looking remotely like anything that was once part of a plane and I would believe you all the way on that one. For good measure it should be running at full speed upon impact.

3. I was referring to the cover-up. And as for organiziation of such an attack just look to the middle east, or Africa for that matter. It is much easier to orchestrate something like that clandestinely in a small group of radicals than getting a large govt organization on board. Coming up with witnesses who were on the highway, in the parking lot, and in the building.

As for the video. Downtown NYC. Do you have any guess as to how many newscrews and cameras are operating there at this very moment? Shit, even in my little suburban collegetown I can turn to the local city channel and see one of 16 cameras pointed at various angles of landmarks downtown. All you need is tall buildings or towers and you have access to all kinds of angles. Not to mention the peoples who ran into their bedrooms and grabbed the handycam after the first plane hit. The pentagon is on a campus, flat land, no apartments across the street, and not dead in the middle of the busiest city in the world and the newsmedia capitol of the US.

[Scott314]

Dude, like I said in my previous post. Does anyone else have their pilots license? I do and yes, I think I could.

No, but I do have some flying experience. My father has been a jet pilot for a long time...

Peoples responses here tell me that they haven't seen very many crash pictures of airplanes and/or don't know a whole lot about flying...

[assoutE12]

What are you trying to say?

That you could hop into a 757, and fly it at near cruise speed to a landing point exactly at the base of a building without hitting the ground before impacting the building, or hitting an upper floor? Oh, and not leave a hole in the building bigger than a truck?

Just wondering....

I don't have my pilots licence, but I have logged a few hours in quite a few different planes.
And I'm pretty sure I could hit a building with a plane.
But It would make a hole where I hit it, and there would be some wrekage from the plane.

[Ryan Stewart]

Well there is a big difference between a lightweight that makes loft at 80mph and a liner doing 220+ loaded with a contiential load of fuel.

Also I am sure there was plane bits found, just not whole wings and tails that you guys are wishing for. Im sure they found half a window and landing gear.

[Erick]

I have a fair amount of experience with Learjets (41 hours logged) and I have to agree that it is possible to hit a ground target without much effort, especially by giving yourself distance for a good approach. With enough distance to plan out your heading (or target) it doesnt matter if you're in a Piper Cub or a business jet. Anyone with a Private Pilot license (incluiding the ground course, plus the airtime with CFIs + solos and the check ride) can operate a jet liner well enough to crash it into a building.

My father and I talked about this before and he agreed with me on this, even being a huge anti-conspiracy person. He believes in almost everything he sees in the news and it's a huge debate everytime we go into 9/11. He has flown over 5000 hours in business jets and 1000 in 737s for anyone questioning his credibility.

Now, conspiracy? Who the hell knows..... personally I think some answers are shady. The official story is that Middle Eastern pilots with very little experience did it. I have no trouble believing that much.

- Erick

[uofom3]

there is a lot of bullshit surrounding this topic, and it is complicated to sift through. That said, I personally do have a hard time believing certain aspects about the events of 9/11. To say that they did not happen or that lives were not lost is obviously a false statement. There are a few things that have been mentioned in the course of this particular debate that make me wonder why people can so steadfastly defend the government.

People continuously make comments about "official documents". Guess who creates the official documents? The same people who allegedly helped to create this disaster. I am not saying that they are fabricating anything, but take this into considderation: One of my professors once told me how he worked for a congressman back in the day. In the office, if he was taking a stance on something, he wrote four letters; one to his supports, his opposition, his same-party representatives, and the opposite-party representatives. Everyone one of them "sort of" said the same thing, but could be intepreted differently by each group. What does this have to do with anything here? Even at the more basic government level, and certianly not the national security level, everything is distorted and lied about it. Think about how much easier it would be to do that behind closed doors and line up the chain of command. When you have all of the resources of the U.S. government at your disposal, you can bassically create anything.

This also would not be the first time something like this happened in American history. JFK, Roswell, "area 51", and the flight of fighter/bombers from the 50's that "vanished into the bermuda triangle" or some shit. All of these things have reasons to be questioned, and there are a good deal of questions the government is unwilling to answer for "national security reasons". I can buy the fact that our aircraft carriers got lucky and were out on exercise when the japs attacked pearl habor, fine. But i cannot wrap my mind around the concept of how little wreckage is at the pentagon. Look at the hole, the light polls, ect. Ever seen the footage of that United DC-10 that crashed and flipped in the midwest? shit goes EVERYWHERE. and we have already established that jp4 (what, 140 octaine?) does not burn hot enough to melt titanium. Regardless of your viewpoint on this, these things have to be considdered.

People also have said,"Why would our government do this?" Well, considder the post 9/11 events and the previous bush administration. Flash back to desert storm; we are literally less than a few hours out of baghdad iraq and the chance to shut Saddam down once and for all, but bush senior fags out and leaves. Pissed, Saddam goes back to terrorizing his population and rebuilding to try and avoid this problem from happening again. 9/11 happens and now we are at great risk of middle-eastern terrorist threat. Bush attacks Afghanistan and then finds a link between saddam and terrorists (which has now been openly acknowledged as being incorrect). But what else happened? Oil prices surged. The economy is now running the largest BD in history. Our current accounts are going down to nothing. Bush failed to acknowledge the economical impact on the nation of a war effort (just like his father, which is what cost him re-election), and now has seriously fucked up the situation. We can only continue defering debt for so long, but thats another discussion. Anyway, Bush jr. has managed to do what bush sr. could not; oust saddam. Fine, but this is a direct by-product of 9/11. And while we're thinking about it, why not go after other countries like Iran, or Saudi Arabia? We have found terrorist links to them, why not bomb the shit out of their countries? another question to ask yourself.

The lives lost on all flights that day were horrible and no case can be made against that. But damn, everyone seems to know someone on those planes? I mean seriously, i can think of 10 people off the top of my head who personally knew someone on those planes. If they all know someone that means I could account for maybe 20 complete strangers out of the several hundred who died directly as a result of being on those aircraft. There are 2 people on this forum who have spoken to account for 4 of the several hundred passengers. I am not saying that there deaths are less important, tragic, or costly. I am saying that the reason for their death may not have been as some would like to make it seen.

What is funny to me about all of this is I am a conservative, and do not buy into liberal bull shit. I am also a capitalist, so I have no problem with people making money after 9/11, it just is an enormous shame that the profits came at the loss of innocent American Civilians. What worries me is that people from the conservative party cannot see this as potentially being at VERY least partly the governments fault or design. By becomming lemmings and believing the smoke and mirrors it becomes immediately obvious that the government can succeed at anything. They are pulling the publics attention one way, and then doing something while the attention is held. Example; with all the hype around area 51 and "groom lake", does anyone actually think crazy stuff is going on there? of course not. its a front, our government is not nearly that stupid. they probably have all of the crazy shit stuffed in some desolate part of shithole north dakota where no one would give a shit to look.

Again, i'm not advocating that this is some evil plot by the U.S. government, but there are some inconsistancies that bother me. By having people skeptical, it makes our government answer to the public and at least keep them on their toes. The people who are blindly aggreeing with the government are also more likely to be contributing to the chances of "another hitler" than those who are questioning the government.

Also - bush is a majorly religious dude... who's to say he didn't create the christian holy war? think about how many islams have been hosed down by our millitary in the middle east, ultimately all because of religious differences. The worlds population is no better than the barbarians of centurys past, only now we can fly planes into buldings instead of burning people at the stick.

cheers

[Ryan Stewart]

Bush senior "fagged out" because the colation (we were one of 28 nations allied against Iraq in GW1) decided they didnt want to take over Iraq but to "put Saddams military back in the box for 10 years."

Our economy and gas prices are worse than before the war. I would hope that even the most dull of individuals would be able to figure out that waging war (alone would do it) in an oil producing nation would rise the costs.

We would have been better off conquering Mexico, Argentinia, or Canada since they have more (or more acessable) oil than Iraq. they also wouldnt cause a muslim uprising.

I will admit that Saddam had little to nothing to do with 9/11, which is why I didnt bring it up in here.

[uofom3]

I wouldn't suggest that we caused 9/11 to go into iraq for oil. We did not need to do that. I'm saying that because of the "coalition wanting to leave" we left, and this time we didn't care so much about permission. Is removing saddam a good thing? yes, absolutely, or maybe not? look how well his former diciples are handling "freedom and democracy".

Gas prices need to be seperated from the larger economic issues the war has caused... namely the largest BD in history and almost zeroing the current accounts. "any idiot" or whatever should realize that the cost of oil would increase thanks to supply and demand, but the problems is the rest of the idiots do not understand what will happen if we continue to push this debt to the future and constantly stay in a short run economy. The other problem is with all of this government spending, we could not possibly tax the public enough to reach a balance budget without bassically creating an instant and overwhelming powerful recession. We can only put the debt off for so long before we default on the foreign investment. Doing that would have a HUGE impact on the global economy, since the U.S. dollar is bassically the closest thing we have to a world currency denomination. Gas prices will sort themselves out, but throwing more money at this "war" is the economical opposite of what needs to be done.

[CleanAzzE30z]

Argentinia

Argentina.


We also have the best steak in the world, absolutely gorgeous women with insane backsides, and beautiful, beautiful scenery. From the snow-capped resorts of Bariloche, to the tropical falls of Iguazu. Yes, Im biased. Lets not mention the futbol. :D

Mariano