Pentagon 911 Conspiracy?

[Analogue Boy]

Re: Pentagon Pictures

The pictures that got released today showing the pentagon getting hit by the plane LINK

They say its the first time these pictures have been released as a moving clip, im sorry to dash their story, but those moving pictures have been on the net for a very long time.

The photos, taken by a surveillance camera, show the date of 12 September and the time of 1737, even though the crash took place the day before at 0937 local time.

Sweet Baby Jeezis. If anyone had posted a pro-conspirancy series of pics with a timecode deficit of over a day...well could you imagine the reaction?

 

[wombat103]

Re: Pentagon Pictures

Sweet Baby Jeezis. If anyone had posted a pro-conspirancy series of pics with a timecode deficit of over a day...well could you imagine the reaction?

apart from being "gob smacked" to the N'th degree,

who was responsible for sanctioning the release of these pics?

did they actually look at them?

 

[Heckler]

Re: Pentagon Pictures

The pictures that got released today showing the pentagon getting hit by the plane LINK

They say its the first time these pictures have been released as a moving clip, im sorry to dash their story, but those moving pictures have been on the net for a very long time.

Hmmm my thoughts exactly, I saw them on the news and was surprised that this was indeed the release of photos/film that had been so hotly sought?

 

[techybloke666]

I can't see why your getting so involved in these piccys, the've been around for years, and the date issue was documented way back. old news I,m afraid.
Jerry wrote

So therefore there's a conspiracy? This seems to be another 'I don't know what happened/I think there's a lack enough information for me, so there must be a conspiracy' type of argument.

No change in your style of debunking Jerry pick one line from the quote you can attack and ignore the fact that no one has been able or willing to identify what punched that hole.

M'Lord ask the witness to answer the question

At least Grid Bucko had a guess.

If you look at the report Jerry you will see that a concrete column is in front of that exit hole in a direct path from front to back.
The column is only slightly damaged, if a large object like an engine or wheel had made that hole how did it not demolish that support pillar ?

The point the chap was making was that any questions that have no easy answer do not even get the questions asked.

 

[Jerry_B]

No change in your style of debunking Jerry pick one line from the quote you can attack and ignore the fact that no one has been able or willing to identify what punched that hole.

My 'style' was to pick on the point that seemed to be the summary of the piece, which IMHO makes a flawed assumption. Just because you or him do not know what caused that hole, I don't think there should be any rush to claim that the 'truth' about this matter (if indeed there is any and the author simply hasn't read up enough) is somehow 'missing'. As I said, just because something isn't known, that doesn't automatically mean that there's either a cover-up or a conspiracy (or both). I was just pointing out the somewhat flawed approach by the author - for some reason you see that as debunking.

 

[peterbernard2O9]

I'm glad to see people here agree with me. That is not "new" footage, or newly released. In fact, "Loose Change," which the operatives in the other 9/11 thread enjoy swiftboating, showed this footage and pointed out that all the other footage of this event was seized by the government. If it still exists, we certainly haven't seen it. And this footage in question raises more questions than it answers.

When their attempts to "reveal" more "information" turn out to be more propaganda routines, they are TELLING YOU that they are LYING TO YOU. They are TELLING you that this is all psy-ops. And they are laughing at you, to your face.

 

[Heckler]

I'm glad to see people here agree with me. That is not "new" footage, or newly released. In fact, "Loose Change," which the operatives in the other 9/11 thread enjoy swiftboating, showed this footage and pointed out that all the other footage of this event was seized by the government. If it still exists, we certainly haven't seen it. And this footage in question raises more questions than it answers.

When their attempts to "reveal" more "information" turn out to be more propaganda routines, they are TELLING YOU that they are LYING TO YOU. They are TELLING you that this is all psy-ops. And they are laughing at you, to your face.

Or there isn't actually a conspiracy at all and they are indeed laughing at you?

As Jerry_B mentions above, the lack of evidence does not logically point to a conspiracy.

The only Psy-op taking place WRT 9/11 is the fanning of conspiracy flames in order to cover up for the fact that a group of people were sufficently enraged at Western foreign policy that they killed themselves (and several thousand others) to make a point.

 

[Dingo667]

I can't remember if I've seen this before but as I watched this "new" footage yesterday on the BBC, I was well disappointed. I kept looking out for a huge aeroplane but the one frame that actually has one on it seems to show a sort of chessna[? small aeroplane] type rather than a big one. Is this an old hat, if so where can I read about it?

 

[Jerry_B]

When their attempts to "reveal" more "information" turn out to be more propaganda routines, they are TELLING YOU that they are LYING TO YOU. They are TELLING you that this is all psy-ops. And they are laughing at you, to your face.

And so, of course, you actually have proof of this?

 

[techybloke666]

The only Psy-op taking place WRT 9/11 is the fanning of conspiracy flames in order to cover up for the fact that a group of people were sufficently enraged at Western foreign policy that they killed themselves (and several thousand others) to make a point.

I could swear profusly but

A group of people ?
19 Muslim arabs
Enrolled into american flight schools under the eye of the FBI that were gagged ( I have posted proof of thos elsewhere) to stop any of it
Get to do all there training and hijack 4 planes on a perfect cockup day for the Military and FAA.
And then from dead graves get to undermine the investigation into the event.

I like it !!!!
Make a great book and film

did anybody even bother to watch all this on the sceptics team ?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... %27s+gotta

Life really is a Gem at times

 

[techybloke666]

Jerry Wrote

And so, of course, you actually have proof of this?

Stop it mate please
my sides are hurting from all the laughing

Why do you accept the official Neocon bullshit as truth ?

Is it any more compelling than the CT's posts ?

The Nist report is flawed
Nist can't eve agree in their report of WTC7 with Fema and it is now outsourced.
The Fema report is complete dire shite
The 911 commision report does not mention dozens of important things
It should be called the ommision report.
The Pentagon report omits huge chunks and plenty of unanswered anomalies and does not back up its claims with verifiable facts.

and yet

you don't question any of these reports Jerry

So you must agree with them all 100%

If you come back and say you don't agree with them 100%

Then you are unhappy with the reports

If you are unhappy with the reports you have unanswered questions

If you have unanswered questions the truth is yet to be discovered IYHO

And lets be honest

If you are 100% happy why keep asking for proof ? you've already made your mind up.

 

[Quake42]

My main objection to the "it wasn't really a plane" argument is that there doesn't seem much doubt that the flight in question took off that morning with passengers on board it.

If this plane didn't hit the Pentagon, what happened to it? And what happened to the passengers?

 

[Jerry_B]

you don't question any of these reports Jerry
So you must agree with them all 100%
If you come back and say you don't agree with them 100%
Then you are unhappy with the reports
If you are unhappy with the reports you have unanswered questions
If you have unanswered questions the truth is yet to be discovered IYHO
And lets be honest
If you are 100% happy why keep asking for proof ? you've already made your mind up.

Rubbish. How many times do I have to say it? All I'm doing is questioning the conspiracies. It's not all as black and white as you seem to like it to be. This is a Conspiracy forum. I have my doubts about various conspiracy theories. Therefore I use this forum to question those theories. Simple really. For some reason you take that to be that I thus buy into the 'NeoCon bullshit' - obviously you've read nothing I've posted elsewhere - try the Iraq threads, for example I'm getting really fed with you painting anyone who opposes your line of thought as being some sort of NeoCon stooge. If you can't come up with a better argument then that, then don't bother.

BTW, I asked for proof WRT the statement that 'When their attempts to "reveal" more "information" turn out to be more propaganda routines, they are TELLING YOU that they are LYING TO YOU. They are TELLING you that this is all psy-ops. And they are laughing at you, to your face.'. Again, try and take the time to actually read my posts.

 

[wombat103]

My main objection to the "it wasn't really a plane" argument is that there doesn't seem much doubt that the flight in question took off that morning with passengers on board it.

If this plane didn't hit the Pentagon, what happened to it? And what happened to the passengers?

as has been said before,
its the simple questions that dont get answered.

can any one throw some light on this question?

 

[Heckler]

I could swear profusly but

A group of people ?
19 Muslim arabs
Enrolled into american flight schools under the eye of the FBI that were gagged ( I have posted proof of thos elsewhere) to stop any of it
Get to do all there training and hijack 4 planes on a perfect cockup day for the Military and FAA.
And then from dead graves get to undermine the investigation into the event.

I like it !!!!
Make a great book and film

And we come back again to the concept of the infallable government/secret service which is omnipresent and omnipotent and was able to sift through any number of bits of intelligence about possible terrorist attacks and seize on this one and stop it before the Muslims actually did anything criminal?

As I mentioned previously the CIA post the Cold War (OFF_TOPIC ALERT!) were desperately attempting to play catch up to an enemy they neither understood nor had any real concrete intel on. A confirmation of this was the way they had to ask MI6, after 9/11, to reintroduce them to Intel assets in Afghanistan that the CIA had originally cultivated and then dumped after Russia pulled out, in order to gain intel ahead of the invasion. (Good book about that here)

Now I do believe (IMHO) that much of the 'found' evidence of the 9/11 hijackers may well have been planted, but far from proving a conspiracy, I believe (that caveat again) that it was a desperate attempt to provide a paper trail back to known terrorists as an arse covering exercise. They were caught on the hop by this and to this day probably don't actually know the names of all the hijackers.

So is the 'official' version far fetched and worthy of your profuse profanity? Personally with the reservations I mentioned above I would say no, it seems a lot more likely than any of the alternative versions presented so far.

 

[Anonymous]

My main objection to the "it wasn't really a plane" argument is that there doesn't seem much doubt that the flight in question took off that morning with passengers on board it.

If this plane didn't hit the Pentagon, what happened to it? And what happened to the passengers?

as has been said before,
its the simple questions that dont get answered.

can any one throw some light on this question?

It is a good question with an obvious answer - it must have been a plane right?

Unless - unless it landed somewhere else.

The passengers? Was there ever any conclusive proof that there were any passengers?

Paperwork? Can be faked.

Recordings? Can be fabricated.

Black boxes? Do not count passengers, may record weight of plane in relation to other factors etc - but the black boxes are probably not going to be released to the associated press forensic teams under the freedom of information act(s).

 

[Anonymous]

And we come back again to the concept of the infallable government/secret service which is omnipresent and omnipotent and was able to sift through any number of bits of intelligence about possible terrorist attacks and seize on this one and stop it before the Muslims actually did anything criminal?

I was under the impression that the US GDP is around $11 Trillion and that they could afford to throw money around like there was no tomorrow on such things as the very best communications and defense and military equipment in the world.

Certainly Vladimir Putin seemed to have thought so recently when he rebuked Cheney.

Not only this - but since WWII the US like everybody else has had spies and covert ops everywhere.

Are they any good at their jobs?

Have they gotten worse or better after 40 or 50 years of practice, learning and evolution along with major leaps in the efficiency of communications technology that keeps shrinking in size but gets better and better?

What is the CIA for if it can't do its job? I often wonder about the MI6 or even the MI5 for that matter.

 

[Timble2]

It is a good question with an obvious answer - it must have been a plane right?

Unless - unless it landed somewhere else.

The passengers? Was there ever any conclusive proof that there were any passengers?

So the grieving relatives who turn up on TV fom time to time are all part of the conspiracy...?

The problem with this conspiracy angle is the number of people that would have to be involved to make it it work. As we know from history the more people invoved in a conspiracy the less likely it is to work.

What is the CIA for if it can't do its job? I often wonder about the MI6 or even the MI5 for that matter.

I assume you never read Spycatcher, there was a lot of fuss by the government at the time about revealing the secrets of the security services. The only thing it revealed was how bloody useless they were during the Cold War era.

 

[Quake42]

So the grieving relatives who turn up on TV fom time to time are all part of the conspiracy...?

The problem with this conspiracy angle is the number of people that would have to be involved to make it it work. As we know from history the more people invoved in a conspiracy the less likely it is to work.

Well, quite. I agree that there are some things about the September 11 attacks that don't quite add up and I am quite prepared to believe that elements in the US security services knew more about the threat than they let on. However I don't see the point in claiming that something which self-evidently happened - ie a large passenger plane crashing into a building - in fact did not.

 

[Heckler]

Have they gotten worse or better after 40 or 50 years of practice, learning and evolution along with major leaps in the efficiency of communications technology that keeps shrinking in size but gets better and better?
.

Well they've had a little longer than that to practice, Elizabeth I had Sir Francis Walsingham who set up arguably one of the first spy networks as we would understand it. We also had our own smaller scale Cold War against Russia in the form of the Great Game that ran from just after the Napeleonic wars through to around 1907 (and described so memorably in Kipling's book Kim). Though spying in general is described as the second oldest profession and gets (dis)honourable mention as far back as Sun Tzu's Art of War.

Anyhoo back to the thread at hand, your point is valid one about budgets for spying however it misunderstands the essential point of spying, which is not about hearing any conversation from space but rather recruiting a human being to tell you face to face what you need to know.

With 9/11 it appears that the CIA heard the right information, but arguably just didn't listen to it. This could be down to bad interpretation, information overload or the classic mistake of the dominant world nation since history began, underestimating the tactical skills of an enemy.

 

[Jerry_B]

It also seems that the various security, defence and intelligence networks weren't intereacting enough. This isn't all that surprising, given that for the most part they are in competition with each other for funding, etc..

 

[Anonymous]

So the grieving relatives who turn up on TV fom time to time are all part of the conspiracy...?

The problem with this conspiracy angle is the number of people that would have to be involved to make it it work. As we know from history the more people invoved in a conspiracy the less likely it is to work.

Well, quite. I agree that there are some things about the September 11 attacks that don't quite add up and I am quite prepared to believe that elements in the US security services knew more about the threat than they let on. However I don't see the point in claiming that something which self-evidently happened - ie a large passenger plane crashing into a building - in fact did not.

Seems ridiculous I know - but that concrete bollard sticks in my head.

Was it Techybloke666 that mentioned it?

A concrete bollard?

Was it there? If so, why was it still standing?

 

[Anonymous]

So the grieving relatives who turn up on TV fom time to time are all part of the conspiracy...?

.

How many extras did they have in Ben Hur? Did the number of extras break any records?

Do such things as actors and actresses exist?

Are there a lot of out of work actors and actresses looking for work?

Do they need to be told everything to play their part?

Yes I know - it was definately a plane crashed into the building, and there were passengers on the plane.

I know.

All I am saying is, some things you say are impossible are not actually.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

So the grieving relatives who turn up on TV fom time to time are all part of the conspiracy...?

.

How many extras did they have in Ben Hur? Did the number of extras break any records?

Do such things as actors and actresses exist?

Are there a lot of out of work actors and actresses looking for work?

Do they need to be told everything to play their part?

Yes I know - it was definately a plane crashed into the building, and there were passengers on the plane.

I know.

All I am saying is, some things you say are impossible are not actually.

Strangely enough, the Age of the Internet makes such a "Wag the Dog"scenario that much more difficult to bring off. Too easy to Google™ the friends and family background details.

Not impossible, but highly improbable.

 

[Heckler]

All I am saying is, some things you say are impossible are not actually.

It's not impossible that the planet is made of Battenburg and the Earth's crust is made of Marzipan, it's however highly, highly unlikely.

There was a conspirital article that revolved around the use of phones on planes as impossible then suggested that the phone calls were actually made by voice impersonators. Not impossible, just highly, highly unlikely.

If you have create a super intricate plot that involves a cast of thousands to support the idea of conspiracy, the chances are that the most likely explanation (that a plane actually was used) is the actual explanation.

 

[Jerry_B]

All I am saying is, some things you say are impossible are not actually.

But one has to ask 'What's more likely?' Some sort of hugely orchestrated event involving a cast of hundreds (if not more), all without any sort of security leak or paper trail - or something alot less exotic? The problem with the more exotic side of things is that is simply seems IMHO to be made out of thin air, working from the assumption that the powers that be have all sorts of nefarious powers, all of which have worked perfectly and in concert before, during and after 9/11. It also seems that to buy into such ideas seems to be a sort of shock - people simply can't acknowledge that a country as powerful as the US could be successfully attacked in such a way. Thus all sorts of convoluted plans have to exist in order to 'explain' what may have been a pretty simple effort that exploited loopholes in the US security system.

 

[Anonymous]

All I am saying is, some things you say are impossible are not actually.

It's not impossible that the planet is made of Battenburg and the Earth's crust is made of Marzipan, it's however highly, highly unlikely.

There was a conspirital article that revolved around the use of phones on planes as impossible then suggested that the phone calls were actually made by voice impersonators. Not impossible, just highly, highly unlikely.

If you have create a super intricate plot that involves a cast of thousands to support the idea of conspiracy, the chances are that the most likely explanation (that a plane actually was used) is the actual explanation.

I agree - and yet some aspects of some conspiracy theories are not actually that unlikely.

I agree that getting actors to pretend to be grieving relatives is not likely. Not difficult, but not likely.

I agree that getting actors to be part of a voice recording session, the tapes of which could easily be doctored by a child to sound like they were spoken through mobile phones, is unlikley. Not difficult by any means, but unlikely.

Thousands of people involved would not be necessary IMO, but very very unlikely in any case.

Seems to me that they just let the terrorists through that was all.

No need for anything complicated like Ben Hur.

 

[Analogue Boy]

All I am saying is, some things you say are impossible are not actually.

But one has to ask 'What's more likely?' Some sort of hugely orchestrated event involving a cast of hundreds (if not more), all without any sort of security leak or paper trail - or something alot less exotic? The problem with the more exotic side of things is that is simply seems IMHO to be made out of thin air, working from the assumption that the powers that be have all sorts of nefarious powers, all of which have worked perfectly and in concert before, during and after 9/11. It also seems that to buy into such ideas seems to be a sort of shock - people simply can't acknowledge that a country as powerful as the US could be successfully attacked in such a way. Thus all sorts of convoluted plans have to exist in order to 'explain' what may have been a pretty simple effort that exploited loopholes in the US security system.

If you're saying that this kind of thing leaves a trail, how come the 'best' intelligence services on the planet have failed to catch the culprit?
And how come they let Osama's family fly out of the US (in a no-fly zone)with only a cursory questioning?

 

[Jerry_B]

How come the 'best' intelligence services failed to stop the attack? How come they managed to get other things wrong (i.e. Iraqi WMD)? Again, the suggestion is that such services are infallible, all-knowing, all-seeing.

Which 'culprit' do you mean? OBL? And why should OBL's family have anything to do with it all - even if they did, if they were allowed to move on, why does that have to suggest something conspiratorial?

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

How come the 'best' intelligence services failed to stop the attack? How come they managed to get other things wrong (i.e. Iraqi WMD)? Again, the suggestion is that such services are infallible, all-knowing, all-seeing.

Which 'culprit' do you mean? OBL? And why should OBL's family have anything to do with it all - even if they did, if they were allowed to move on, why does that have to suggest something conspiratorial?

Such a disingenuous question still doesn't answer why the Bin Laden family appear to have been given preferential treatment after a major terrorist outrage, sanctioned at the very highest levels.

Beyond their close ties with the Bush family and the present US Administration, of course.