Pentagon Conspiracy?

[LAK]

Destructo6,

According to the flight school staff and their pilots Hanjour was incapable of adequately piloting a Cessna single engine, or navigation. He took a test in which he took three hours to answer a 20 minute navigation question - and still got the answer wrong. He was refused the rental of a plane on similar grounds.

Hanjour was "licensed" - and the FAA is pretty quiet about how he got it - in view of the statements by the flight school staff and pilots. Hanjour was so "bad" they even filed an FAA report suspecting his credentials were phoney.

Tamara,

Intellectually dishonest? I have worked with all kinds of cameras for a similar time frame - some very good, bad and inbetween. They do not all use the same frame speed, and some do much better than others. To try an generalize that all security cameras would produce an unuseable image is simply not true. And I would expect that the cameras used in and around the Pentagon are as good as the ones I recall in the military 25 years ago. The Pentagon camera (or at least what was released) did do a pretty good job of showing several frames of an explosion - but still nothing resembling a 757.

Gewehr98,

That 757 is alleged to practically have been skimming fence tops - that is way below half wingspan. At 500+ mph?

Don,

Beg your pardon, but it is not a matter of what "I want", it is about many things being peddled as fact in the face of glaring contradictions and lack of openly available evidence. There is also a distinct aversion for an objective investigation as opposed to that farce known as the "independent" 9/11 Commission.

tyme,

Fat chance. We still haven't seen the surveillance videos of McVeigh getting out of the Ryder truck with that middle eas... uh ... I mean, on his own

C_Yeager

It's in the witness statements - maybe you should read them before writing tripe directed at me personally. We use the term aircraft; or plane, 757, airliner so that the subject matter is clear.

-----------------

Aside: I thought this amusing from an ABC report .....

"The plane was between 12 and 14 miles away, says O'Brien, "and it was just a countdown. Ten miles west. Nine miles west … Our supervisor picked up our line to the White House and started relaying to them the information, [that] we have an unidentified very fast-moving aircraft inbound toward your vicinity, 8 miles west."

Vice President Cheney was rushed to a special basement bunker. White House staff members were told to run away from the building

"Run away from the building"?? Kind of reminds me of a movie .... Dr. Strangelove

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/2020/2020_011024_atc_feature.html

 

[Mike Irwin]

"That 757 is alleged to practically have been skimming fence tops - that is way below half wingspan. At 500+ mph?"

Go to the area in question and view the landscape yourself. Then you'll get an idea as to how high the plane actually had to be to avoid the man-made topography

 

[Fred Hansen]

Quartus once admonished me by saying "Fred, you're trying to put Humpty back together again. Again." He said it while I was arguing many of these same points with our friend LAK on this classic thread .

Since then I have found - to what can only be described as my eternal delight - that the Ignore feature works like a champ when it comes to my good friend LAK. Although I must say that seeing an occasional excerpt from him (quoted in another post) is a treat.

 

[C_Yeager]

It's in the witness statements - maybe you should read them before writing tripe directed at me personally. We use the term aircraft; or plane, 757, airliner so that the subject matter is clear.

I see that you managed to answer the post without actually addressing the issue in any way shape or form. You should run for office.

 

[Quartus]

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.

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by simple stupidity.

Whethern's First Law of Non=Paranoia.


Lak, it's not surprising that it would raise questions. But there's a difference between "raising questions" and providing evidence of conspiracy. People who work in security are paranoid, especially if they work for the gummit. They are professional overreacters. Good or bad, that's the way it is. The minute anything touched the Pentagon, ESPECIALLY under the circumstances of 9-11, that paranoia could be expected to be in overdrive. Would you really expect anything different? THe minute that aircraft breached the perimiter of the Pentagon grounds, it stopped being a normal plane, subject to the normal rules of crash investigation. That would be true if it were a drunk pilot who thought he was landing at Dulles, let alone a terrorist attack. It' s just not reasonable to expect this crash investigation to have been handled in the ususal manner.

Whether that means anything special to you or me is irrelevant. Whether that SHOULD mean anything to the FBI, NTSB, etc., is also irrelevant.

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?

It's not a question of whether I agree with it or not (I don't), but that is the way it is right now, and that fact is not evidence of any consipiracy. It's just The Way It Is.

Right or wrong.

 

[PBIR]

This conspiracy theory is absurd beyond belief. What a waste of time.

 

[cool hand luke 22:36]

LAK:

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.

Please provide some links detailing the "eyewitness testimony" describing the plane as "coming in at "ground level" This directly contradicts the eyewitness testimony broadcast on the local news, and the reconstructed flight path obtained from the onboard flight data recorder, AFAIR.

I think you will find that an NTSB investigation is required by Federal law in all instances of commercial aircraft regulated by the FAA.

True, an investigation is indeed required by law, and in fact an investigation was conducted by the NTSB in the case of AA 77. You earlier referred to the lack of the type of reconstruction of the aircraft as was done in the case of the TWA flight 800 that went down off of N.Y.C. You used this as "evidence" of a conspiracy. I was pointing out that that type of reconstruction is rare and not required in the case of AA 77.

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.

You're right about no hijack warning being given, either by voice transmission or manually actuated signal. However, the plane's transponder was shut off, which alerted controllers, who very quickly alerted the Secret Service and USAF.

As for the use of cell phones, there were numerous cell calls made by victims on the plane, noteably by Barbara Olsen, wife of the Soliciter General, and by other victims onboard to 9/11 operators, and to the victims families.

The Black boxes were recovered, unfortunately the cockpit voice recorder failed.

Bottom line: there'd be no reason for NTSB to rent a hanger, put up the scaffolding, and hang pieces of the aircraft off of it to reconstruct it. The cause of the crash was obvious from the other available evidence.

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?

Over the past 3 years Ted Olsen has been on t.v. very frequently disscusing 9/11 and the murder of his wife.

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.

No. Given the relatively low altitude and short duration of the calls, it's very likely that the victims on AA 77 would sucessfully make cell calls. Cell phone calls from aircraft at any altitude don't "disrupt" the cell network over a large area anymore than the would if they were used in visual range of several nodes simulatneously, as they frequently are.

http://www.mobile-review.com/articles/2002/plane-en.shtml
http://wirelessreview.com/ar/wireless_final_contact

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.

How does use of an onboard AirPhone as opposed to a private cell phone prove your grand conspiracy?

And again, cell nodes have systems which discriminate between mobile device I.D.'s. The use of a cell phone from an elevated position is not, under any circumstances, going to "disrupt" the cellular network as you claim.

Well, perhaps at that point much had been cleared away; but the first film and photos of the entry point look pretty darn small.

Arlington F&R was still dousing the fire the next morning, no significant amount of debris was "cleared away" the afternoon of 9/11. The Aircraft also tore through all 5 rings of the pentagon, that means 10 walls of steel reinforced concrete, the outer one being 2 FEET thick, and recently reinforced to withstand a truck bomb.

 

[Quartus]

Cell phones on aircraft, myths and rumors...

Okay, time for some Expert Testimony. I've been in the cell phone biz for more than 20 years now, from way back when they were CAR phones. Some of you may not remember those ancient days.

Currently I'm a senior engineer with a telecom consulting firm, and we do work for all of the cellular operators (Cingular, Verizon, Sprint, etc. etc.) and the vendors. (Lucent, Nortel, Motorola, etc. etc.) I've led projects across the U.S. and in China. My credentials are strong enough to get me admitted as an expert witness in a murder case. (I worked for the defense. The scumbag was convicted after 20 minutes of deliberation. What does that say for my expertise? )

That said, allow me to dissect some of the statements about cell phones, with no thought of insulting those who made them. This is just in the interests of setting the record straight.

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.

There are too many variables there to accept this as a blanket statement. Under some conditions this is true, under others it is not. Ordinary cell phones can certainly make calls from aircraft under some conditions, and sometimes not. Sometimes it will be possible to begin a call and not be able to carry it on for more than a few seconds. A jet aircraft traveling at full speed is likely to move the phone faster than the cellular network can hand the call off from cell to cell, so the call will drop. What speed is too fast will vary from one technology to another, and the conditions under which a cell phoen call can be placed vary as well.

All that to say, "It depends...."

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.

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.

BOTH are true.

While there is no direct proof that cellphones will interefere with an aircraft's avionics, that WAS the initial reason for the ban. Since then there has been enough anecdotal evidence of such interference to keep the ban in place.

It is also true that cellphone use on aircraft causes problems for the ground based cellular networks, and that is very easy to prove. If the cellular industry has its way, cellphones will never be used on aircraft. (See exception below.) This is for sound engineering reasons having nothing to with trying to sell airtime on the current airphone service.

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.

True. These basically have a cell site on board, which keeps the phone's transmit power so low it won't interfere with the aircraft or ground systems. The link to the ground is actually a satellite link.

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.

Don't know about her credit card status, though it seems odd that someone would fly without one. But I think any of us who have flown know the airphones do require a credit card.

And it is the airphones that were used to make the famous 911 calls on the Philly flight. Much has been made of the fact that Todd Beamer called 911 on his cellphone. Not true. In their ususal sloppy fashion, the press reported that, but it was actually an Airphone call.

You think the press reports badly on gun issues because of bias, and that's true. Let me tell you though, a lot of it is just ignorance and laziness. I see it all the time where technology is involved.


Okay, enough facts! Back to the opinions!

 

[Quartus]

How does use of an onboard AirPhone as opposed to a private cell phone prove your grand conspiracy?

Easy, Luke. It was just a comment. It wasn't presented as proof of anything.


Both of the articles linked have numerous factual errors.

 

[Vibe]

All of this is interesting theory - but it's only just that theory - and not a very good one either. My brother in law was IN the Pentagon at the time - close enough to the crash site to get some fairly sevier burns while he was hauling other wounded out. Give it up guys - it WAS a large passenger jet that impacted the building.

 

[Dead]

Are the trying to say that plains did not hit World Trade or the Pent??

Well I know for a fact that plains did hit both WT Towers, I saw it from my office window that morning.

 

[Destructo6]

According to the flight school staff and their pilots Hanjour was incapable of adequately piloting a Cessna single engine, or navigation. He took a test in which he took three hours to answer a 20 minute navigation question - and still got the answer wrong. He was refused the rental of a plane on similar grounds.

"According to a conspiracy website who claimed the flight school staff said..." should be the way this begins. The FAA certified him as a commercial pilot, end of story.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"Are the trying to say that plains..."

What about the fancies? Did the fancies hit too?

 

[Quartus]

Hey! No discrimination here, Irwin! What about the "moderately elaborates"??

 

[LAK]

Destructo6

"According to a conspiracy website who claimed the flight school staff said..." should be the way this begins. The FAA certified him as a commercial pilot, end of story.

Actually, according to many mainstream articles and reports.

Pssssssst ... but it's like 260 particular documents in the National Archives concerning some of the Bush family fortune you have to look for them. Maybe you can do this yourself

 

[LAK]

Mike_Irwin

Go to the area in question and view the landscape yourself. Then you'll get an idea as to how high the plane actually had to be to avoid the man-made topography

Actually, there are many aerial photos of the Pentagon, and it's surrounding area and topography. But it is the bulk of the published witness statements that contend that the plane, or whatever it was, came in at ground level.

Not me.

 

[LAK]

Cool Hand Luke,

There are numerous eye witness statements to the effect that the plane, or whatever it was, came in at ground level. Some say it struck the ground first, and others that it struck some of the objects on the ground like the power generator unit. Use your mouse, keyboard and google. I did.

They are all over the net; including mainstream articles and press reports.

Arlington F&R was still dousing the fire the next morning, no significant amount of debris was "cleared away" the afternoon of 9/11. The Aircraft also tore through all 5 rings of the pentagon, that means 10 walls of steel reinforced concrete, the outer one being 2 FEET thick, and recently reinforced to withstand a truck bomb.

At some point some of the facing structure collapsed, and it was cleared in stages. But if you examine the photographs while the fire was burning, and immediately after it was put out, the actual impact entry hole was quite small. Not that this in itself would have been inconsistant with a large aircraft - as the wings would not likely to have breeched the outer structure.

As you bring up, the fact that it (whatever it was, plane or otherwise) penetrated alot of steel reinforced concrete; including interior supporting columns also of steel reinforced concrete.

This is interesting. There have been tests in the past (yes, they are on the web! In addition to some printed works) of aircraft vs hardened structures. The aircraft invariably are the losers.

 

[LAK]

Fred Hansen

Since then I have found - to what can only be described as my eternal delight - that the Ignore feature works like a champ when it comes to my good friend LAK. Although I must say that seeing an occasional excerpt from him (quoted in another post) is a treat.

Poor Fred. You are like the proverbial child; who having shoved his finger in the flame of a candle, screams and shouts with pain. Then, promptly does it all over again. And again.

 

[LAK]

C_Yeager

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.

No, I am not conceding it was an aircraft. I am not convinced it was a Boeing 757. And I am even less convinced that, if it was a 757, Hani Luke Skywalker Hanjour was the pilot.

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.

I have never claimed to know (or stated who), by name, organization or state, was behind the attacks against the WTC and Pentagon. I have simply pointed out what I do not believe and why.

Don't you remember what the TI (or DI depending on what branch you were in) said about assuming?

 

[Marko Kloos]

The Reynolds Wrap quota has been met for the rest of the year, I think.