Fred Hansen
New member
Tamara,
Is there any way to post that link in a way that people who aren't logged in to THR can read it?
Is there any way to post that link in a way that people who aren't logged in to THR can read it?
Pentagon Conspiracy?
- Thread starter fyrestarter
- Start date
- Status
Nice pic, Fred! Being in the telecommunications industry, I'm very familiar with those spools, and those are indeed, steel. Not as cheap as wooden ones, but more durable, and they do reuse both types.
If anyone is interested in buying a few to see if they burn when soaked in jet fuel, I think these folks can help you out.
Well, from that website I linked:
That measurement refers to the diameter of the inner load bearing surface, not the flanges. I've seen them run from about 4' to 10' or so, looking at the flanges.
That picture of the burnt reels is hard to make out, but there's a fireman in the lower left of that picture that gives some scale - I'd say those reels are in the 5' range or so, wouldn't you? Typical stuff for telephone or heavy electrical cable.
That measurement refers to the diameter of the inner load bearing surface, not the flanges. I've seen them run from about 4' to 10' or so, looking at the flanges.
That picture of the burnt reels is hard to make out, but there's a fireman in the lower left of that picture that gives some scale - I'd say those reels are in the 5' range or so, wouldn't you? Typical stuff for telephone or heavy electrical cable.
As for the FBI swooping down and grabbing every video they could find, and the crash investigation not being carried out in typical FAA fashion, what would you expect?
This is the PENTAGON!! The Capital City of Paranoia! You need a security clearance just to clean the toilets!!!! (I'm not exaggerating.)
Of COURSE this crash would not be handled in a typical manner!
This is the PENTAGON!! The Capital City of Paranoia! You need a security clearance just to clean the toilets!!!! (I'm not exaggerating.)
Of COURSE this crash would not be handled in a typical manner!
Quartus,
Naturally, the FBI grabbing everything in sight would be expected, in order to gather all the evidence. Not releasing video tape or other recorded material and data after the fact is guaranteed to serious raise questions, particularly when there are glaring contradictions and discrepencies in the whole story.
The Pentagon is certainly subject to special controls and a measure of secrecy because of the nature of it's function. However an ordinary commercial airliner on the otherhand is not, and neither is all the information and data surrounding it's flight. And there is no excuse whatsoever in making a secret over such material and data. If there is, then what you are basically saying is that the Federal government has the right and the power to do as it dam well pleases, and can cover up anything it pleases regardless of what it is. That is hardly the government we want - or is it?
Naturally, the FBI grabbing everything in sight would be expected, in order to gather all the evidence. Not releasing video tape or other recorded material and data after the fact is guaranteed to serious raise questions, particularly when there are glaring contradictions and discrepencies in the whole story.
The Pentagon is certainly subject to special controls and a measure of secrecy because of the nature of it's function. However an ordinary commercial airliner on the otherhand is not, and neither is all the information and data surrounding it's flight. And there is no excuse whatsoever in making a secret over such material and data. If there is, then what you are basically saying is that the Federal government has the right and the power to do as it dam well pleases, and can cover up anything it pleases regardless of what it is. That is hardly the government we want - or is it?
Most people have a reason for doing something. Most governments act in a similar manner and don't arbitrarily decide to cover something up.
What possible (and preferabily reasonable and intelligent) reason would the US government have it hiding what plane hit the Pentagon?
Are we to believe that administration that couldn't find WMD in Iraq, whether real or planted, managed to pull off a conspiracy of this magnatude without a single piece of physical evidence being found to contradict it or any leaks from the conspirators?
What possible (and preferabily reasonable and intelligent) reason would the US government have it hiding what plane hit the Pentagon?
Are we to believe that administration that couldn't find WMD in Iraq, whether real or planted, managed to pull off a conspiracy of this magnatude without a single piece of physical evidence being found to contradict it or any leaks from the conspirators?
cool hand luke 22:36
New member
Discussing some of the "evidence" of the conspiracy:
Lack of marks on the grass: The plane is described as diving into the Pentagon at a steep angle and impacting almost exactly on the outer wall's lower sill by the eyewitnesses. There would not be any marks on the verge around the building under those circumstances.
Lack of an NTSB investigation: The NTSB only does an accident reconstruction of the type most people are familiar with if the cause of a crash is unknown. In the case of American Airlines flight 77, recordings made of transmissions to the Air Traffic Control Center, and cell phone calls to the 911 operator by people on the plane clearly indicate the plane was hijacked. Given what happened earlier in the day at the WTC, it was obvious the plane was deliberately crashed into the Pentagon. Under those circumstances there was absolutely no reason for the NTSB to do a reconstruction of the aircraft.
The impossibility of cell phone calls from an aircraft: This is repeated constantly by the conspiracy theorists, and is the biggest misconception. Cell phones work better on an aircraft since there will be numerous cell nodes accessible to it with no terrain to interfere. Use of cell phones on an aircraft is only prohibited by the FAA out of concern that they may interfere with the aircraft's nav/com systems.
The "small hole" in the Pentagon outer ring: I walked around the perimeter of the crash site the next day, as close as LEO and F&R would allow, and several times afterwards. Sure looked like a massive amount of damage to me. That "small hole" in the outer ring was about 60 ft. long, with outer floors and walls collapsed into it.
Lack of marks on the grass: The plane is described as diving into the Pentagon at a steep angle and impacting almost exactly on the outer wall's lower sill by the eyewitnesses. There would not be any marks on the verge around the building under those circumstances.
Lack of an NTSB investigation: The NTSB only does an accident reconstruction of the type most people are familiar with if the cause of a crash is unknown. In the case of American Airlines flight 77, recordings made of transmissions to the Air Traffic Control Center, and cell phone calls to the 911 operator by people on the plane clearly indicate the plane was hijacked. Given what happened earlier in the day at the WTC, it was obvious the plane was deliberately crashed into the Pentagon. Under those circumstances there was absolutely no reason for the NTSB to do a reconstruction of the aircraft.
The impossibility of cell phone calls from an aircraft: This is repeated constantly by the conspiracy theorists, and is the biggest misconception. Cell phones work better on an aircraft since there will be numerous cell nodes accessible to it with no terrain to interfere. Use of cell phones on an aircraft is only prohibited by the FAA out of concern that they may interfere with the aircraft's nav/com systems.
The "small hole" in the Pentagon outer ring: I walked around the perimeter of the crash site the next day, as close as LEO and F&R would allow, and several times afterwards. Sure looked like a massive amount of damage to me. That "small hole" in the outer ring was about 60 ft. long, with outer floors and walls collapsed into it.
As for the myriad other cameras that should have captured images of the plane, err, learjet, err, missile, err, superman...
Surveillance video cameras are cheap pieces of junk. Did you watch carefully the pentagon parking-lot camera? The only thing such cameras are good for is tracking blobs. You can look at a picture of someone and say, yep, that's a person, or yep, that's a hat. If you're lucky, you can read nearby license plates.
If a plane is going 500mph, you think such worthless cameras are going to provide images that satisfy the conspiracy theorists? The videos would show streaks that could be anything.
What I found most interesting was that the date stamp on the pentagon parking-lot video that was released was wrong. It was a few hours off, as if someone had added it in another timezone without thinking.
Absence of other evidence proves nothing. If you want to prove conspiracy, take the pentagon parking lot video apart and prove it to be fake. Figure out the angle of the sun and where the shadows should be.
Surveillance video cameras are cheap pieces of junk. Did you watch carefully the pentagon parking-lot camera? The only thing such cameras are good for is tracking blobs. You can look at a picture of someone and say, yep, that's a person, or yep, that's a hat. If you're lucky, you can read nearby license plates.
If a plane is going 500mph, you think such worthless cameras are going to provide images that satisfy the conspiracy theorists? The videos would show streaks that could be anything.
What I found most interesting was that the date stamp on the pentagon parking-lot video that was released was wrong. It was a few hours off, as if someone had added it in another timezone without thinking.
Absence of other evidence proves nothing. If you want to prove conspiracy, take the pentagon parking lot video apart and prove it to be fake. Figure out the angle of the sun and where the shadows should be.
Hkmp5sd
Right. Very true.
Good question; seeing as they have stated that it was an American Airlines Boeing 757 on a scheduled commercial flight. Or was it?
There is ample evidence to contradict it, both witnesses and the physical evidence. Much of this could perhaps be resolved were the physical evidence under wraps be made available for open analysis, and all the witnesses brought forward to publicly testify. This evidence and witnesses need to be brought before a real independent commssion with some legal clout. Those people involved in the stonewalling of the FBI's effort to thwart the attacks and involved in other areas of this cherade need to be called to testify under oath.
"Conspirators" generally do not bite the hand that feeds them or especially, protects them. When the stakes are this high I doubt the life expectency of anyone having firsthand knowledge going public would be very long. And who are they going to go to? CNN? FOX News? People have come out before and blown the whistle - look at Special Agent Rawley and the many others. Their evidence is reduced to "claims", and the issues are smoothly converted to "error" and "shortsightedness" etc. An "independent commission" doesn't even name the culpable parties. There is a distinctive pattern of behavior by our government, and the media, in simply riding out the most unconscienable acts and omissions - and then burying them.
If you examine some popular reaction to Operation Northwood, where a deception of such magnitude is blatantly spelled out, it is written off as something "that governments do". This is interesting too in the light of some of the "evidence" of Saddam Hussein's government wrongdoing. What are the chances such a thing being written off so easily were it to emerge from the vaults in Baghdad? Or any other "target" nation?
Classic doublethink.
Right. Very true.
Good question; seeing as they have stated that it was an American Airlines Boeing 757 on a scheduled commercial flight. Or was it?
There is ample evidence to contradict it, both witnesses and the physical evidence. Much of this could perhaps be resolved were the physical evidence under wraps be made available for open analysis, and all the witnesses brought forward to publicly testify. This evidence and witnesses need to be brought before a real independent commssion with some legal clout. Those people involved in the stonewalling of the FBI's effort to thwart the attacks and involved in other areas of this cherade need to be called to testify under oath.
"Conspirators" generally do not bite the hand that feeds them or especially, protects them. When the stakes are this high I doubt the life expectency of anyone having firsthand knowledge going public would be very long. And who are they going to go to? CNN? FOX News? People have come out before and blown the whistle - look at Special Agent Rawley and the many others. Their evidence is reduced to "claims", and the issues are smoothly converted to "error" and "shortsightedness" etc. An "independent commission" doesn't even name the culpable parties. There is a distinctive pattern of behavior by our government, and the media, in simply riding out the most unconscienable acts and omissions - and then burying them.
If you examine some popular reaction to Operation Northwood, where a deception of such magnitude is blatantly spelled out, it is written off as something "that governments do". This is interesting too in the light of some of the "evidence" of Saddam Hussein's government wrongdoing. What are the chances such a thing being written off so easily were it to emerge from the vaults in Baghdad? Or any other "target" nation?
Classic doublethink.
Cool Hand Luke
Well, actually, a good number of witnesses claim the aircraft struck the ground first. And just about all the witnesses describe the aircraft coming in at ground level from a considerable distance out.
I think you will find that an NTSB investigation is required by Federal law in all instances of commercial aircraft regulated by the FAA.
I believe in the case of Flight 77 there were no indictions of a hijack. There are online transacripts available of the radio traffic and at some point it simply ends. And no cell coversations that I recall.
In the case of those where it is claimed there was, why are they not available for open scrutiny? Anyone heard anything or seen anything of then Solicitor General Olsen, the husband of Barbara Olsen since then?
Cell phones transmit no signal that will interfere with an aircraft's navigation system. The reason you can not use a cell phone on an aircraft is that it will disrupt the cell network over a large area. There are new cell phones coming out that are ok to use on aircraft, but there were none available or in use in september 2001. Barbara Olsen is alleged to have used one of the inflight phones on the plane. Problem is, they require a credit card, and supposedly she did not have that with her.
Well, perhaps at that point much had been cleared away; but the first film and photos of the entry point look pretty darn small.
Well, actually, a good number of witnesses claim the aircraft struck the ground first. And just about all the witnesses describe the aircraft coming in at ground level from a considerable distance out.
I think you will find that an NTSB investigation is required by Federal law in all instances of commercial aircraft regulated by the FAA.
I believe in the case of Flight 77 there were no indictions of a hijack. There are online transacripts available of the radio traffic and at some point it simply ends. And no cell coversations that I recall.
In the case of those where it is claimed there was, why are they not available for open scrutiny? Anyone heard anything or seen anything of then Solicitor General Olsen, the husband of Barbara Olsen since then?
Cell phones transmit no signal that will interfere with an aircraft's navigation system. The reason you can not use a cell phone on an aircraft is that it will disrupt the cell network over a large area. There are new cell phones coming out that are ok to use on aircraft, but there were none available or in use in september 2001. Barbara Olsen is alleged to have used one of the inflight phones on the plane. Problem is, they require a credit card, and supposedly she did not have that with her.
Well, perhaps at that point much had been cleared away; but the first film and photos of the entry point look pretty darn small.
Tyme
Some of them are junk, and some are not. Point is, if they have it on film, why not release it?
Maybe, maybe not. depends on the camera, it's position to sunlight, camera angle in relation to the flightpath etc. Regardless; let's see it.
If the plane was going "500 mph", I am interested in a random panel of 10 year+ airline pilots with experience flying 757s, along with the flight school staff, air traffic controllers who witnessed the flight, used as witnesses in a cross-examination of government officials on their contention that Hani I-can't-fly-or-navigate Hanjour navigated a Boeing 757, handled it like a fighter jet, and came in on the deck at "500 mph" to hit the Pentagon at precisely the lower level. Ask a fighter pilot how tough it would be for an experienced pilot to bring in an F-16 or 18 at ground level at 500 mph to hit the Pentagon.
I do not see a Boeing 757 on the Pentagon film. Nothing remotely like it.
Some of them are junk, and some are not. Point is, if they have it on film, why not release it?
Maybe, maybe not. depends on the camera, it's position to sunlight, camera angle in relation to the flightpath etc. Regardless; let's see it.
If the plane was going "500 mph", I am interested in a random panel of 10 year+ airline pilots with experience flying 757s, along with the flight school staff, air traffic controllers who witnessed the flight, used as witnesses in a cross-examination of government officials on their contention that Hani I-can't-fly-or-navigate Hanjour navigated a Boeing 757, handled it like a fighter jet, and came in on the deck at "500 mph" to hit the Pentagon at precisely the lower level. Ask a fighter pilot how tough it would be for an experienced pilot to bring in an F-16 or 18 at ground level at 500 mph to hit the Pentagon.
I do not see a Boeing 757 on the Pentagon film. Nothing remotely like it.
Destructo6
New member
"You shot him right between the eyes!"
"Yes, but I was aiming at his foot."
You assume that Hani, a FAA licensed pilot, intended to guide the plane "to hit the Pentagon at precisely the lower level," rather than just hit the building.
Lak,
If you are intellectually honest with yourself, the very fact that you made this statement should be embarrassing.
The same surveillance cameras that, because they use a low framerate to conserve tape, turn a convenience store robber into someone who can apparently teleport a foot at a time across the floor, are going to provide a detailed frame-by-frame analysis of an object moving 400ish MPH? A car moving at 100mph could be across that field of view between frames without ever leaving photographic evidence of its passage.
Look, as someone who had the NTSB Reporter delivered to her desk at work for several years, and who has worked with various types of security cameras for almost two decades, I've found two of your claims to be completely specious based on my personal professional experience. This somewhat cramps my ability to lend veracity to the others.
If you are intellectually honest with yourself, the very fact that you made this statement should be embarrassing.
The same surveillance cameras that, because they use a low framerate to conserve tape, turn a convenience store robber into someone who can apparently teleport a foot at a time across the floor, are going to provide a detailed frame-by-frame analysis of an object moving 400ish MPH? A car moving at 100mph could be across that field of view between frames without ever leaving photographic evidence of its passage.
Look, as someone who had the NTSB Reporter delivered to her desk at work for several years, and who has worked with various types of security cameras for almost two decades, I've found two of your claims to be completely specious based on my personal professional experience. This somewhat cramps my ability to lend veracity to the others.
That's funny!
Well, not an F-16, but how about a B-52H at 400 feet altitude for several hours at a time, like I've done for a living? Barring an unfortunate lapse of situational awareness, or the occasional cell-phone tower/Washington Monument, flying something ungainly and heavy at low altitude is surprisingly easy. (Although 480,000 pounds of B-52H doesn't equal 250,000 pounds of 757-200) Then there's ground effect when your altitude is roughly 1/2 the wingspan of the aircraft...
Well, not an F-16, but how about a B-52H at 400 feet altitude for several hours at a time, like I've done for a living? Barring an unfortunate lapse of situational awareness, or the occasional cell-phone tower/Washington Monument, flying something ungainly and heavy at low altitude is surprisingly easy. (Although 480,000 pounds of B-52H doesn't equal 250,000 pounds of 757-200) Then there's ground effect when your altitude is roughly 1/2 the wingspan of the aircraft...
(EDIT: I guess 530 mph IS the official number, so that explains why he wants to discredit the 500 mph idea.)
It just seems that you want a conspiracy to be there so badly that you're willing to ignore the available evidence.
Again, there was nothing convincing in that flash animation. The people who claimed to see things other than a 757 were assumed to be not only honest, but correct. That's a big stretch, particularly when you don't ignore the fact that they all told different stories from each other. I don't see how we conclude that they must know that they didn't see a 757 when they claim that they saw various versions of a missile, a computer plane, and apparently, some sort of gunpowder bomb. Not credible.
The people who claimed that the plane hit the lawn and skidded across it are taken as proof that there should be marks--but since there aren't any marks, OTHER people must be lying. It can't be that those people are mistaken, of course. Not credible.
It is claimed that Hani Hanjour couldn't possibly have turned tight or flown fast, because he was a bad pilot. Bad pilots do that all the time whether they intend to or not, just as bad drivers perform seemingly impressive turns through no fault of their own. Not credible.
In short, you make a lot of assumptions that don't hold up, and when the facts in evidence don't fit your assumptions, you assume the facts are wrong. It's backwards.
It just seems that you want a conspiracy to be there so badly that you're willing to ignore the available evidence.
Again, there was nothing convincing in that flash animation. The people who claimed to see things other than a 757 were assumed to be not only honest, but correct. That's a big stretch, particularly when you don't ignore the fact that they all told different stories from each other. I don't see how we conclude that they must know that they didn't see a 757 when they claim that they saw various versions of a missile, a computer plane, and apparently, some sort of gunpowder bomb. Not credible.
The people who claimed that the plane hit the lawn and skidded across it are taken as proof that there should be marks--but since there aren't any marks, OTHER people must be lying. It can't be that those people are mistaken, of course. Not credible.
It is claimed that Hani Hanjour couldn't possibly have turned tight or flown fast, because he was a bad pilot. Bad pilots do that all the time whether they intend to or not, just as bad drivers perform seemingly impressive turns through no fault of their own. Not credible.
In short, you make a lot of assumptions that don't hold up, and when the facts in evidence don't fit your assumptions, you assume the facts are wrong. It's backwards.
Damn, being, the REAL mtn., militia type, tin foil hatted guy, I quit. I bough down to the perfect! 
Except, did you know that Ron Browns' daughter was with Clinton , the other night? Makes you wonder doesn't it? OK, maybe I just heard that, from a friend, that knew a friend, that knew, a cousin, of a friend, of Ron Brown's uncle. Looks like it was an attempted sexual killing to me! We need to protect our former leaders better!!!!!
Except, did you know that Ron Browns' daughter was with Clinton , the other night? Makes you wonder doesn't it? OK, maybe I just heard that, from a friend, that knew a friend, that knew, a cousin, of a friend, of Ron Brown's uncle. Looks like it was an attempted sexual killing to me! We need to protect our former leaders better!!!!!No 757 = the government is lying, it was a bomb.
Streak = it was a missile; the government is lying; it was a cruise missile launched by a carrier group off the coast.
757 = it was a bomb; the government photoshopped all released videos to cover it up.
Even if it were a conspiracy, babbling about it here is not going to accomplish anything. Go be an investigative journalist and prove it was a conspiracy rather than making paranoid accusations based on lack of released evidence.
For starters, file FOIA requests for the non-pentagon camera videos. I'm sure there are other cameras aside from the ones mentioned in the video that captured the 757's final moments, if in fact it was a 757. If you had thought about this soon after the attacks, you might have had a chance of getting video imagery that the feds hadn't thought to confiscate. Today, the only chance you have is probably a FOIA request for the video they did confiscate.
If the FOIA request is successful, no matter what the videos show, you could claim tampering.
Mike Irwin
Staff
(&$)(&*^ this. Not worth the mud wresting.
So your saying here that the AIRCRAFT struck the ground and left no mark.
In other words you are now conceding that it was indeed an aircraft but, that magic was involved. Either that or the pentagon employs a massively competent double omega secret corps of landscapers to for just this situation.
Rule number one for being a conspiracy theorist is that you have to pick ONE conspiracy and run with it. Simply waving your arms and saying that "nothing is as it seems" just makes you look like a fool.
- Status