• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Pentagon 911 Conspiracy?

You need to read the thread, not just one page, as such things have already been discussed there. All too often the Conspiracy threads become rehashes, so I'm trying to avoid that here.
 
Here is a repeat of the link for the many witnesses to the Pentagon being hit by an aircraft. It is part of a summary of the evidence for said event at the link below

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pent ... ncesummary

Yep the C-130 was there but not in the way the conspiracy guy has it. It was in the sky and asked to look for Flight 77

As below:

9.36 a.m.: Military Cargo Plane Asked to Identify Flight 77
A typical C-130. [Source: US Air Force Reserve Command]Reagan Airport flight control instructs a military C-130 (Golfer 06) that has just departed Andrews Air Force Base to intercept Flight 77 and identify it.

[New York Times, 10/16/2001; Guardian, 10/17/2001]

Remarkably, this C-130 is the same C-130 that is 17 miles from Flight 93 when it later crashes into the Pennsylvania countryside (see 10:08 a.m. September 11, 2001).

[Pittsburgh Channel, 9/15/2001; Star-Tribune (Minneapolis), 9/11/2002]

The pilot, Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien, claims he took off around 9:30 a.m., planning to return to Minnesota after dropping supplies off in the Caribbean. He later describes his close encounter: “When air traffic control asked me if we had him [Flight 77] in sight, I told him that was an understatement—by then, he had pretty much filled our windscreen. Then he made a pretty aggressive turn so he was moving right in front of us, a mile and a half, two miles away. I said we had him in sight, then the controller asked me what kind of plane it was. That caught us up, because normally they have all that information. The controller didn’t seem to know anything.” O’Brien reports that the plane is either a 757 or 767 and its silver fuselage means it is probably an American Airlines plane. “They told us to turn and follow that aircraft—in 20 plus years of flying, I’ve never been asked to do something like that.”

[Star-Tribune (Minneapolis), 9/11/2002]

The 9/11 Commission Reports that it is a C-130H and the pilot specifically identifies the hijacked plane as a 757. Seconds after impact, he reports, “Looks like that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon, sir.”

[9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004]

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/time ... _9/11=aa77

So we have a C-130 in the area but nothing like the conspiracy story
 
The footage I mentioned WRT C-130 was part of 'The Conspiracy Files: 9/11'. You can see the whole documentary here at YouTube.

The Pentagon is discussed about 18 minutes 35 seconds into the programme - the stuff about the C-130 starts 24 minutes and 36 seconds into the programme.
 
Of course, not everybody is happy with the official explanation for the presence of the C-130 above both the Pentagon, at the time of the attack and the crash of the Flight 93, around 30 minutes later, at Shanksville.

http://911exposed.org/ExplainC130.htm

Pentagon Tries to Explain the C-130

“To be called a liar and a part of a government conspiracy kind of affected me too, because it just scares you a little bit that there might be some kooky people out there that might want to do harm to you or your family because they feel you’re part of some government conspiracy”

— Steve O’Brien — MN Public Radio 5/31/04

Was the Pentagon truthful with us?

No. Only after they were starting to look like more of a liar than usual, did they back down and admit to the presence of the C-130 over the Pentagon. This was probably from the adamant insistence of eyewitnesses that wouldn’t succumb to the government debriefings. It took them over a month to announce the retraction on Oct 17, 2001. And of course, there was a good story to accompany the report. Lt. Col. Kenneth McClellan, a Pentagon spokesman, made the following statement:

A C-130 cargo plane had departed Andrews Air Force Base en route to Minnesota that morning and reported seeing an airliner heading into Washington at an unusual angle… Air-traffic control officials instructed the propeller-powered cargo plane ‘to let us know where it’s going,’ McClellan said. The C-130 pilot “followed the aircraft and reported it was heading into the Pentagon,” he said. “He saw it crash into the building. He saw the fireball.”199 [Emphasis added]

Was Steve O’Brien truthful with us?

After Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien, was exposed, he and the government attempted to downplay and spin the incident — they even made him one of their witnesses! The Pentagon’s story was that the C-130 cargo plane had been piloted by, Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien of the Minnesota Air National Guard. He and his crew just left Andrews Air Force Base (13 miles from the Pentagon), and were heading back to Minneapolis-St. Paul after moving military supplies around the Caribbean. Here are some excepts from his statement:

“When we took off [About 9:30 a.m.], we headed north and west … I noticed this airplane up and to the left of us, at 10 o’clock. He was descending to our altitude, four miles away or so. That’s awful close, so I was surprised he wasn’t calling out to us. … O’Brien reported that the plane was either a 757 or 767 and its silver fuselage meant it was probably an American Airlines jet. “They told us to turn and follow that aircraft … “The next thing I saw was the fireball. It was huge… Suddenly, I could see the outline of the Pentagon. It was horrible. I told Washington this thing has impacted the west side of the Pentagon. …I took the plane once through the plume of smoke and thought if this was a terrorist attack, it probably wasn’t a good idea to be flying through that plume. He flew west, not exactly sure where he was supposed to land.209

Are we to believe that after two (soon to be three) terrorist attacks spanning from an hour earlier, a Lt. Colonel wouldn’t have the foggiest idea what was going on? What about a flight briefing before a pilot takes off? What about the FAA grounding issued 5 minutes before his taking off? What about the warnings from the Dulles air traffic controllers? And, how was he flying in the middle of the historical FAA order? They were landing almost 5,000 aircraft on the North American continent. Isn’t it remarkable that only he didn’t know what was going on? Perhaps, the lie that he was to tell depended on showing he was ignorant. One of the elements of this belated tale, like Donald “Tim” Timmerman’s report, was to reinforce the still weak link between the Pentagon’s debris-less crash site and Flight 77.

But the mystery perseveres…

The journey continues to Pennsylvania!

Somewhere over western Pennsylvania, O’Brien looked down at a blackened, smoldering field. “I hoped it was just a tire fire or something, but when I checked with Cleveland center, he told me he’d just lost a guy off the scope…209

Imagine, his C-130 was at the location of two attacks — the Pentagon and Shanksville!

Did the “October surprise” lead to another surprise?

Yet, Steve O’Brien put it best, “…and there was another surprise –– the story turned up on the Internet as part of a conspiracy theory maintaining that no plane hit the Pentagon.” Yes, and there was very good reason for that, thanks to the unbelievable statements like his — which only were fabricated because the government was caught with its “pants pulled down”.

The reality was … eyewitnesses tracked his plane flying directly above a low-flying airliner and guiding it to the Pentagon. It was seen circling above the Pentagon before the airliner allegedly crashed into the Pentagon. Also at Shanksville, the C-130 was they’re circling before the shoot down occurred. So unless everyone else is a liar… And what he was really doing there can only be left up to the imagination…
Click to expand...

Does kind of beg the questions:

Why didn't the C-130 turn round and return to base, when all flights were grounded, as ordered, just 5 minutes after it took off?

Was it near, as witnesses have said, or far, as the pilot has claimed, from Flight 77, as it flew towards its target?

Why was a lumbering Naval cargo plane, apparently the only military aircraft in the air over the two sites, that day?
 
'eyewitnesses tracked his plane flying directly above a low-flying airliner and guiding it to the Pentagon'.

How did eyewitnesses actually know that the C-130 was indeed guiding the aircraft to the Pentagon?

Also - assuming the conspiracy is correct - what happened to the crew and passengers aboard the flight that 'they' say was actually one that hit the Pentagon?

And - why was a drone aircraft being used, let alone one being guided by another? Bit low-tech isn't it, in these days of laser designators and GPS-guided weapons? After all, if the conspirators didn't wan't to draw attention to themsevles, a laser designator or a GPS-guided drone would be much better surely?
 
Hanslune said:
Here is a repeat of the link for the many witnesses to the Pentagon being hit by an aircraft. It is part of a summary of the evidence for said event at the link below

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pent ... ncesummary
Click to expand...

Hercules lumbering over the Pentagon aside - because that one is wierd - who is Mark Roberts that I should regard him as a credible source?

Is he the streaker or the alumni? (done a quick google)
 
Thanks Jerry - I found your caveat;

Jerry_B said:
It all depends on how any given event is experienced by that witness and how much information they have to work from in order to draw any conclusions. If your evidence is dismissed, this could be because what you experienced may not provide enough evidence of an event in a way that's enough for a court to derive a set of conclusions.

In short, expert witnesses can still be wrong - especially if there are limits to any given event that they experience.
Click to expand...

How much did the Pentagon 9/11 witnesses experience? What did they really see?

How reliable are their memories?
 
Jerry B said: Also - assuming the conspiracy is correct - what happened to the crew and passengers aboard the flight that 'they' say was actually one that hit the Pentagon?
Click to expand...

That has always been one of my main questions in the Pentagon conspiracy.
We know that the flight took off and was in the air. If it didn't hit the Pentagon where is it and all the passengers? Are we to believe the conspirators dumped it and the people somewhere never to be found again?
Seems very hard to believe to me.
 
coldelephant said:
How much did the Pentagon 9/11 witnesses experience? What did they really see?

How reliable are their memories?
Click to expand...

I think a few of Hanslune's posts in this thread may provide you with answers WRT people saw/experienced.
 
As Jerry says, if you follow the links in the link I provided it will give you a great deal of detail on the various witnesses.

Who is Mark Roberts? He is a researcher of all things 911. I'm sure you can look up his background and then dismiss him as a government agent, LOL

You can email him at nyctours(at)gmail(dot)com

This is his (one) of his primary websites

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home

The biggest weakness in all the conspiracy theories about the Pentagon 911 is the inability to account for flight 77

A good question to ask is, why are the lamppost knocked down to fit the wing span of a 757 and what hit the mobile generator?

Hey here is another question, how does a propeller plane "shepard" a much faster jet?

The shut down of Americs's airtraffic was directed at civilian craft only not, as far as understand military flights. The C-130 had a mission to go to Minnesota I believe which is to the NW of Washington while flight 93 was approaching from the same direction. I believe all the C-130 pilot saw was the smoke plume two minutes after 93 augured in.
 
Did you get all of this information from the same website though?

Also, putting Mark Roberts as a researcher of all things 9/11 is ok, but then so many other people could be classed as the same and could also be emailed.

Remember - I am not saying that the conspiracy is true, but I can still find ways to argue with the official version even now.
 
coldelephant said:
Remember - I am not saying that the conspiracy is true, but I can still find ways to argue with the official version even now.
Click to expand...

But surely the main problem for the conspiracy theory WRT flight 77 is where all those passengers and crew went, if they didn't die that day? One may have quibbles with the details in the official version, but making a whole bunch of people 'disappear' is going to be a tough one to explain IMHO - let alone prove. Thus far, I don't think anyone has proven where those people went and what happened to them.

I'd also still like someone to explain how some witnesses allegedly could tell that the C-130 was guiding the airliner towards the Pentagon.
 
Hanslune said:
Hey here is another question, how does a propeller plane "shepard" a much faster jet?
Click to expand...

Let alone how it did so when the alleged control aircraft was circling.
 
Well exactly - these witnesses, what did they see and how reliable are they?

Some saw a Hercules circling did they?

With regard to making a large group of people disappear, not hard to take them from one place to another or even make it so they never got on the plane.

The hard part for a CT'ist to do is explain what happened after all of this.

Why have none come forward as whistleblowers?
 
Howdy Coldelephant

Anyone can question any part of anything from the past, as I posted before people can make an argument that Napoleon didn't exist. I can argue that WWI didn't happen - it was all made up. Once in Saudi Arabia I came across a group of extremely conservative Muslims who didn't believe there was space travel and one guy didn't think the new world actually existed (a Yahudi conspiracy).

"With regard to making a large group of people disappear, not hard to take them from one place to another or even make it so they never got on the plane"

Very difficult in this context

1. you have many witnesses to their getting on the plane and the plane taking off. A few passengers communicated with the ground. The pilot did a great deal. You have no witnesses of any kind of their ever being seen again. Some personal items were returned to their relatives.

2. Assume you did fake a group of people getting on a plane - you then have the threat of the "unknown connection" that is, someone in the vast conspiracy who has a connection with one of these people, relative, friend, ex-intimate. That is almost impossible to detail if you haven't done exhaustive checks on the people. You could do it but if you make a mistake and the guy who is suppose to off this innocent group discovers his high first love in the bunch?

3. Sit down and write out how many people it would take to "be in on the consipracy" to steal a jet full of people and kill them all - without anyone noticing.

4. Could it be done? Yes with enormous effort, a great deal of practice, training, extensive infrastructure but then it does lack one thing ... a motive.

Yep no whistleblowers, real conspiracies have personality conflicts and people dropping out and turning against it. No one so far from the thousands that had to be in on the 911.
 
Howdy diddly doo Haslune

Thang ee-iz, I do not think people witnessed people getting on a plane.

You see, between the plane and the airport terminal there is a tunnel that people walk through, and not always transparent tunnels.

Not all airports are rigged up so that people watch others getting on a plane.

As regards people communicating it was via mobile and radio - and even if it were on satillite video confrencing equipment, anything can happen with the magic of TV.

Sending personal items to families is not difficult to rig up either. They have a postal system in the US don't they?

Nope - the thing that trips up this conspiracy theory along with the 9/11 theory as a whole is the whistleblowers, well ok, the lack of them.

No whistleblowers out of the hundreds, if not thousands who could know something - so improbable don't you think?
 
If someone could rig up a hoax as enormously (and pointlessly) complex as that which Coldelephant is suggesting then why didn't they go on and hoax the WMD in Iraq?
 
IMO not that enormous or complex unless you make it that way - and not that many people need be involved now I come to think of it.

*sigh*

Oh - and they did do a WMD hoax, Bush and Blair with the 45 minute WMD - remember?

:lol:
 
Oh - and they did do a WMD hoax, Bush and Blair with the 45 minute WMD - remember?
Click to expand...

I think the point is why didn't they just pretend that WMD had been found, if they are so prone to elaborate hoaxes.

I saw Mark Thomas perform last night. He did a lengthy routine about the illiberal legislation that has been brought in in the wake of September 11 and was extremely critical of it. However, interestingly, at the end he said how sick he was of conspiracy nuts coming up to him after shows and alleging the collapse of the Twin Towers was down to Black Ops/Mossad/the Bilderbergs, etc etc.

I have not seen a shred of evidence which suggests that the 9/11 attacks, let alone the 7/7 bombings, were anything more than mass murder perpetrated by Islamofascist nutbars. Western governments have seized upon the terror threat to curtail the liberties of everyone else. It is, however, a logical fallacy to suggest that this means that those same governments perpetrated it.
 
Quake42 said:
Oh - and they did do a WMD hoax, Bush and Blair with the 45 minute WMD - remember?
Click to expand...

I think the point is why didn't they just pretend that WMD had been found, if they are so prone to elaborate hoaxes.

...
Click to expand...
Perhaps, because the International UN Weapons Inspection teams would have become involved and it would have been hard to control and guide the investigations and inquiry?
 
So they can plan, orchestrate and control an elaborate operation such as 9/11 (and keep it all watertight years after the fact) but can't steer or control UN weapons inspectors? Curious...
 
Jerry_B said:
So they can plan, orchestrate and control an elaborate operation such as 9/11 (and keep it all watertight years after the fact) but can't steer or control UN weapons inspectors? Curious...
Click to expand...
They did try.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2002/10/22/INSPECT_ed3__0.php
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/breakfast_with_frost/2287241.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2598853.stm
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=2174
http://socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=11566

Do you have difficulty telling the difference between apples and oranges?
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
Jerry_B said:
So they can plan, orchestrate and control an elaborate operation such as 9/11 (and keep it all watertight years after the fact) but can't steer or control UN weapons inspectors? Curious...
Click to expand...
They did try.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2002/10/22/INSPECT_ed3__0.php
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/breakfast_with_frost/2287241.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2598853.stm
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=2174
http://socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=11566

Do you have difficulty telling the difference between apples and oranges?
Click to expand...

These links relate to events before the war. Is there any reason why they could not have found them after the invasion was complete?
 
And the queston still remains (despite those links - which, IMHO don't address the point I was making) as to why whatever cabal which planned and orchestrated the amazing leakproof event that was 9/11 couldn't simply use their powers to control UN inspection teams. Couldn't they have just planted their people in such teams?

And, of course and has been pointed out, why didn't they then manufacture lots of evidence of WMD post-invasion? It's not as if Saddam could have said by that point 'Hey, wait a minute, those aren't mine'...
 
Jerry_B said:
And the queston still remains (despite those links - which, IMHO don't address the point I was making) as to why whatever cabal which planned and orchestrated the amazing leakproof event that was 9/11 couldn't simply use their powers to control UN inspection teams. Couldn't they have just planted their people in such teams?

And, of course and has been pointed out, why didn't they then manufacture lots of evidence of WMD post-invasion? It's not as if Saddam could have said by that point 'Hey, wait a minute, those aren't mine'...
Click to expand...
Perhaps, after setting up The Big Lie, everything else was anti-climax? Perhaps, they just didn't think it was important. There's plenty of people who still believe WMD's were actually found, anyway.

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/m-n/mariani/2004/mariani052804.htm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1349374/posts

For some, they are a movable feast;

http://www.2la.org/syria/iraq-wmd.php

Just like some still think that Al Quaida had links to Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051128/scheer1116

Some things are just bamboozling to some people and bamboozling has been the Bush Administration's business, since it's Inauguration.
 
They did not need to make fake WMD's or fake evidence.

What they did was say, hey! There are WMD's over there that our aggressive enemy Saddam is preparing to attack us with! And he can do it in 45 minutes!

Then they invaded.

Then they said, we're sure they're there! We'll find them!

Then they said, whoops, er, didn't find them! We did no wrong though! It was all ok, and we did not put a spin on the intelligence reports! Very sorry to hear about Dr Kelly by the way, shocking, wot?

It worked didn't it? Oh, and the House of Commons has voted against the Iraq Commission, or so I gather.

With regard to the inspection interference, the US has been accused in at least one of those articles as interfering with the inspection process the first time there was an inspection and that they would probably interfere with the next one (the one Hans Blix was off to).
 
Very interesting journalistic piece, subtitled into English, from Twee Vandaag on Dutch TV, 1 September 2006, giving an outsiders look at the events of 9/11. With a neat balance between the outlook of the Mainstream Press and Net Conspiracy Theorists.

Touches on the Twin Towers, the Pentagon and Shanksville.

http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=2507263054811686324

Ends with the director of one of the Netherlands' most reliable broadsheets saying the whole affair was just "too big", altogether, to do justice to and an expert on mass psychology saying much the same thing.

Well worth a watch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top