Debunking the 9/11 Myth's

dirty · May 17, 2006

9/11: Debunking The Myths
PM examines the evidence and consults the experts to refute the most persistent conspiracy theories of September 11.

Published in the March, 2005 issue.

<SCRIPT language=javascript1.2>var cid=1227842;var partnerID=77386;</SCRIPT><SCRIPT language=javascript1.2 src="http://www.clickability.com/g/g/button/button.js"></SCRIPT><SCRIPT language=JavaScript> window.onerror=function(){clickURL=document.location.href;return true;} if(!self.clickURL) clickURL=parent.location.href; </SCRIPT><SCRIPT language=javascript1.2>var _hb=1; initBtn(1,1,1,1,0,0,'ff0000','ff0000');initSponsor(0,'right',' ','000000',' ',' ',' ');initAlt(1,1,1,1);eval(sponFunc);drawBtn('H',1);</SCRIPT><NOBR>

</NOBR> 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
<FORM name=dropdown2><SELECT onchange=goto_article_dropdown(this.form); size=3 name=pulldown> <OPTION value=#>Select another article in this group</OPTION> <OPTION value=http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1281286.html>Airborne Armor</OPTION> <OPTION value=http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1281471.html>America's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Plane: May 2002 Cover Story</OPTION> <OPTION value=http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1281436.html>America's First-Strike Nuclear Weapons: Oct. 2002 Cover Story</OPTION> <OPTION value=http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1281361.html>America's Secret Commandos</OPTION> <OPTION value=http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1281396.html>Army's New Ride</OPTION> <OPTION value=http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1281296.html>B-1B Bomber</OPTION> <OPTION value=http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1281301.html>B-2 Stealth Bomber</OPTION> <OPTION value=http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1281491.html>Beyond Superpower: September 2003 Cover Story</OPTION> <OPTION value=http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1281331.html>F-15E</OPTION> <OPTION value=http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1281336.html>F16 Fighting Falcon</OPTION> <OPTION value=http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1281341.html>Fail Safe '88</OPTION> <OPTION value=http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1281346.html>Heroes On The Home Front</OPTION> <OPTION value=http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1281351.html>Killer Chopper</OPTION> <OPTION value=http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1281561.html>Los Alamos National Laboratory Muon-Sensing Nuke Detector</OPTION> <OPTION value=http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1281531.html>Military Joint Mobile Offshore Base: April 2003 PM Cover Story</OPTION> <OPTION value=http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1281366.html>Navy Seals</OPTION> <OPTION value=http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1281291.html>Navy?s Newest Destroyer</OPTION> <OPTION value=http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1281356.html>Nimitz-class Aircraft Carriers</OPTION> <OPTION value=http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1281321.html>Nuclear Arsenal</OPTION> <OPTION value=http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1281386.html>Our German Allies In The War On Terrorism</OPTION> <OPTION value=http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1281316.html>Paying For Terror</OPTION> <OPTION value="">Popular Mechanics - Science News - War On Terrorism</OPTION> <OPTION value=http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1281156.html>Run Silent, Run Deep: We Test Drive The USS Seawolf SSN21</OPTION> <OPTION value=http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1281181.html>The Night Stalkers?Secret U.S. Special Ops Commando Pilots</OPTION> <OPTION value=http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1281176.html>The U.S. Army's New OICW Wonder Weapon</OPTION> <OPTION value=http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1281556.html>The U.S. Coast Guard Re-Equips For Nuclear Attack</OPTION> <OPTION value=http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1281461.html>U.S. Air Force Special Ops Little-Known Commando Unit</OPTION> <OPTION value=http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1281496.html>U.S. Navy Littoral Stealth Combat Ships: November 2003 Cover Story</OPTION> <OPTION value=http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1281466.html>U.S. Navy Seabees At 60</OPTION> <OPTION value=http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1281391.html>USS Bulkeley</OPTION> <OPTION value=http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1281416.html>We Spend A Week With The Airborne Rangers</OPTION> <OPTION value=http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/law_enforcement/1280916.html>Weapons Of Mass Destruction Are Easy To Build, Easy To Hide</OPTION> <OPTION value=http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1281566.html>Weapons Of The Insurgents: March 2004 Cover Story</OPTION> <OPTION value=http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1281576.html>Weapons Of The Special Forces: Sept. 2004 Cover Story</OPTION></SELECT> </FORM>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=470 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD align=left>

FALSE WITNESS: Conspiracy theorists claim this photo "proves" the 9/11 attacks were a U.S. military operation. PHOTOGRAPH BY ROB HOWARD
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
For background on this investigative feature, please click here.
FROM THE MOMENT the first airplane crashed into the World Trade Center on the morning of September 11, 2001, the world has asked one simple and compelling question: How could it happen?
Three and a half years later, not everyone is convinced we know the truth. Go to Google.com, type in the search phrase "World Trade Center conspiracy" and you'll get links to an estimated 628,000 Web sites. More than 3000 books on 9/11 have been published; many of them reject the official consensus that hijackers associated with Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda flew passenger planes into U.S. landmarks.
Healthy skepticism, it seems, has curdled into paranoia. Wild conspiracy tales are peddled daily on the Internet, talk radio and in other media. Blurry photos, quotes taken out of context and sketchy eyewitness accounts have inspired a slew of elaborate theories: The Pentagon was struck by a missile; the World Trade Center was razed by demolition-style bombs; Flight 93 was shot down by a mysterious white jet. As outlandish as these claims may sound, they are increasingly accepted abroad and among extremists here in the United States.
To investigate 16 of the most prevalent claims made by conspiracy theorists, POPULAR MECHANICS assembled a team of nine researchers and reporters who, together with PM editors, consulted more than 70 professionals in fields that form the core content of this magazine, including aviation, engineering and the military.
In the end, we were able to debunk each of these assertions with hard evidence and a healthy dose of common sense. We learned that a few theories are based on something as innocent as a reporting error on that chaotic day. Others are the byproducts of cynical imaginations that aim to inject suspicion and animosity into public debate. Only by confronting such poisonous claims with irrefutable facts can we understand what really happened on a day that is forever seared into world history.--THE EDITORS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next

dirty · May 17, 2006

REFUTING THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY THEORIES
I believe the articles below thoroughly refute the various 9/11 conspiracy theories. One of these conspiracy theories says President Bush and other top government officials deliberately ignored intelligence information that pointed to impending terrorist attacks by Al Qaeda. Another theory says Al Qaeda had nothing to do with the attacks, that they were carried out by the U.S. military at the behest of the oil industry and the military industrial complex, and that the Pentagon was struck by a cruise missile (and not by a Boeing passenger jet). Which is it going to be? Yet another theory holds that terrorists did indeed fly planes into the World Trade Center but that the Pentagon was struck by a cruise missile that was fired by our own military in order to intimidate Congress! Wouldn't the military have fired the missile at the Congressional Office Building or at the Capital Building if they wanted to intimidate Congress? Why would anyone have thought that firing a missile at the Pentagon would intimidate Congress? And what about the fact that the remains of the passengers on Flight 77 were recovered from the wreckage at the Pentagon? What about the fact that both of Flight 77's black boxes were recovered from the wreckage? What about the fact that numerous witnesses specified that they saw a jetliner approach and/or hit the Pentagon? What about the fact that photos from that day show plane debris near the hole that the jetliner tore into the Pentagon? What about the fact that witnesses saw plane debris in the wreckage? The articles below present evidence that Al Qaeda was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, and they take a critical look at the theory that the Pentagon was not struck by Flight 77.
Answers to Questions Posed by Conspiracy Theorists About the 9/11 Attack on the Pentagon
An Engineer and a Physicist Refute the Theory that a Missile Hit the Pentagon on 9/11
New Simulation Shows 9/11 Plane Crash with Scientific Detail. Scientific animated simulation showing that a Boeing 757 could indeed have done the damage that was done to the Pentagon.
September 11 Pentagon Attack Simulations Using LS-Dyna. Another scientific computer simulation of the Crash of Flight 77 into the Pentagon, with additional scientific commentary showing that the "official" version of the Pentagon attack is entirely plausible
No Airliner Crash at the Pentagon?
USA Today Site on 9/11 Pentagon Attack (Very Good Graphics and Text Explaining the Damage and the Crash)
Refutation of the Theory that A Missile Struck the Pentagon on 9/11
Al Qaeda Admits It Was Behind the 9/11 Attacks
Debunking the Bunk About 9/11
Oil Conspiracy Redux
What the President Knew and When He Knew It
Why the WTC Towers Collapsed So "Quickly"
Dissecting Disinformation: The "No Boeing 757" Theory
9/11 Denial
Dissonance About the 9/11 Attacks
French Buy Into 9/11 Conspiracy
Detainees Reveal Bin Laden's Reaction to 9/11 Attacks
Egyptians Knew of Planned 9/11 Attacks
One Member of Buffalo Al Qaeda Sleeper Cell Knew About 9/11 Plan
CIA Director George Tenet on the Terrorist Activities that Preceded the 9/11 Attacks
Cynthia McKinney's Insanity and Hypocrisy
When 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Go Bad
What DIDN'T Really Happen
The 9/11 X-Files
9/11 Chronology
How the Left Caused the 9/11 Attacks

dirty · May 17, 2006

<TABLE id=table147 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>Conspiracy</B> </TD><TD align=right>Last Updated: May 17th, 2006 - 10:36:56</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><HR SIZE=1>
<TABLE id=table148 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>9-11 Conspiracy Fact & Fiction
by William F. Jasper
May 2, 2005
</TD><TD vAlign=top align=right>Email this article
Printer friendly page
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]An abundance of sensational and irrational conjecture about the September 11 terrorist attacks is being used to discredit any consideration of conspiracy in general. [UPDATE, May 23, 2005. Here are selected articles from The New American's archives challenging the ?official? position on 9/11: ?Did We Know What Was Coming?? in the March 11, 2002 issue of TNA; ?Foreknowledge and Failure? in our June 17, 2002 issue; ?Experts Challenge the 9/11 Report,? in our October 4, 2004 issue; and ?Agents Challenge 9/11 Commission? in our October 18, 2004 issue.][/FONT]
"The truth is out there." So went the tagline of the popular TV sci-fi series, The X-Files. Sometimes it can seem that the truth is way "out there," as one tries to sift through the confusion of conflicting statements of government officials, mainstream media organizations, alternative media outlets, witnesses, experts, and so-called experts.
This is certainly the case regarding the terrorist events of September 11, 2001. Of the four coordinated events ? the two attacks on the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York, the attack on the Pentagon, and the crash in rural Pennsylvania ? almost every significant official finding presented as fact has been subjected to challenge by a host of critics. The government has invited (even incited, it can be argued) suspicion by refusing to release evidence even to congressional committees and continuing the pattern of secrecy and coverup that we have seen in past administrations concerning such events as the 1991 Ruby Ridge shootout, the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, and the 1996 downing of TWA Flight 800.
However, many of those disputing the official version of the 9/11 attacks have chosen, oddly enough, to challenge some of the government's most solid evidence and to do so with flimsy evidence of their own, often accompanied with sensational, irrational conjecture. Some of the most popularly disseminated 9/11 scenarios assert, for instance, that the Pentagon and the Twin Towers were not hit by the hijacked commercial airliners, but by missiles and/or military planes.
A mushrooming array of books, videos, and Internet websites devoted to 9/11 presents an ever-multiplying and ever more wild assortment of theories and scenarios concerning virtually every aspect of the attacks. Some of them have gotten almost into the X-Files realm, proposing explanations so outlandish that one might expect to find out that the 9/11 terror attacks were really launched by aliens from outer space. In fact, as we will point out, at least one 9/11 conspiracy theorist argues that some influential human beings directing world events are actually extra-terrestrial shape-shifters.

<TABLE id=table149 cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=0 width=350 align=left border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>

</TD></TR><TR><TD>Despite overwhelming evidence from eyewitnesses, photos, independent experts, and government officials that the Pentagon (above) was hit by American Airlines Flight 77 on September 11, 2001, a chorus of critics insist that it was instead hit by a missile. [Source: Navy News Stand]</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>All of this, of course, is being used to discredit as a "conspiracy theory wacko" anyone who challenges any part of the government's official line on the September 11 attacks, as well as anyone who questions the government's incremental police-state response to 9/11 in the name of "homeland security."
Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 discredits itself by mixing legitimate criticisms of the Bush administration with typical left-wing rants. Moore, an unabashed radical leftist, poisons the political well and makes it easier for the internationalists in the Republican Party to dismiss all principled opposition to the Bush administration's destructive policies as "Bush-bashing" or "Democrat propaganda." Likewise, many of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists are self-discrediting, either because of the absurd nature of their claims or the oddball manner of their presentations ? or both. However, they invariably manage to sprinkle their rants with references to the new world order, the United Nations, world government, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Illuminati, etc. Hence, those of us who responsibly expose and oppose the one-world agenda of the Bush administration (as we did also with the Clinton administration, without fear or favor) are more easily marginalized as extremists and "conspiracy nuts."
It is not our purpose in this article to review, analyze, and refute all, or even most, of the bogus 9/11 theories and rumors circulating out there. Our objective is to expose a few of the hoaxes, in the interest of helping all Americans become more "streetwise" about the dangers and pitfalls of uncritically accepting stories from the "alternative media," as well as from the establishment media and official government sources.
The Pentagon Attack
Although each of the four terrorist incidents involving aircraft on September 11 is being subjected to vociferous challenges, the official version of the Pentagon attack has been the main target of the critics. The catalyst for most of the Pentagon-attack sleuths can be traced back to the incendiary propaganda of French author and radical socialist Thierry Meyssan, president of the virulently anti-American and pro-Communist French think tank Reseau Voltaire. In his best-selling book, L'Effroyable Imposture (The Frightening Deception), Meyssan launched the claim that American Airlines Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. It has been translated into English and is sold in the U.S. as 9/11: The Big Lie. Meyssan has followed up with a second book, Pentagate.
Many of the organizations and websites "investigating" the 9/11 attacks promote and/or sell the Meyssan books. Dave vonKleist, narrator and producer of the video 911 In Plane Site, one of the most popular "expos鳢 of the September 11 events, explains in his video that it was Meyssan's 9/11 website, "Hunt the Boeing," that got him started investigating the matter.
Mr. vonKleist strangely refers repeatedly to Meyssan's books and website as information "released by the French," as though it were released by the French government or the French people collectively. In reality, Meyssan represents only a small fringe on the far left of French politics, and his 9/11 materials have been denounced as disinformation and hucksterism by political and media representatives spanning the spectrum of French political thought, including many of those who strongly oppose U.S. policies in response to the 9/11 terror attacks.
According to vonKleist, when he first saw "Hunt the Boeing," he had only "one goal in mind: to prove the French wrong." However, as he looked into Meyssan's evidence, he says, he became convinced that "the French" were right after all.
Although critics of the official version of the attack on the Pentagon disagree with the government's version on numerous points, perhaps the main ones, which we will examine here, concern allegations that: the hole in the Pentagon is too small to have been made by a Boeing 757; there is too little aircraft debris for a 757 crash; and flying a 757 into the Pentagon is virtually an impossible feat, especially for an inexperienced pilot like one of the hijackers.
"The impact holes are too small." vonKleist parrots Meyssan's false claim that the plane's entry "hole" in the exterior wall of the Pentagon was only 16 feet in diameter. His In Plane Site web page disingenuously presents a smoke-obscured photo which supposedly verifies this point, claiming: "Upon examining these photographs, one can clearly see a hole, which is only 16 feet in diameter. This begs the question: 'How can a Boeing 757 which is over 44 feet in height and 124 feet in width simply disappear without a trace into a hole that is only 16 feet in diameter? Also, why is there no external damage to the Pentagon where the wings and the tail section would have impacted with the outer wall?'" Like Meyssan, the vonKleist video 911 In Plane Site advances the theory that a missile is the most probable cause of the Pentagon damage.
But what are the facts? The Pentagon is a five-story, five-sided building complex comprised of five concentric rings, running from an interior Ring A to an exterior Ring E. The photo and video evidence support the conclusions of the 2003 Pentagon Building Performance Report produced by the American Society of Civil Engineers that American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior fa硤e at the ground floor, creating a hole in Ring E approximately 90 feet wide. That's 90 feet ? not 16 feet.
A multitude of eyewitnesses saw the 757 swooping down toward the Pentagon, and many actually saw it hit. Dennis Behreandt, in his August 23, 2004 article for The New American, quoted some of these witnesses, so we won't repeat them here. However, an important expert witness whom we will mention in this regard is Allyn Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers, who arrived at the scene shortly after the blast. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building," he says. "I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them."
Some have discounted Kilsheimer's testimony because as a contractor for the Defense Department he is considered a "tainted" witness. However, it's difficult to discount on similar grounds Brig. Gen. Benton K. Partin, USAF (retired), an expert witness who has proven his independence and willingness to challenge coverups in the past. One of the world's leading missile and military explosives experts, Gen. Partin was director of the U.S. Air Force Armaments Technology Laboratory, where he designed and tested many types of missiles, warheads, and ordnance against various building structures and armor.
Partin did not personally witness the crash, but he lives near the Pentagon, is very familiar with the building's structure, and began studying the evidence immediately after the event. Does he see any problems with the official Flight 77 crash scenario? "No, not at all," he told The New American. "I've seen the videos claiming that it was a missile, not a 757, that hit the Pentagon," he says, angrily dismissing the claim in scatological terms.

<TABLE id=table149 cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=0 width=350 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>

</TD></TR><TR><TD>Flight 77 on impact: Explosives expert Gen. Benton K. Partin says the brilliant white flash seen in the photo above is vaporized, burning aluminum from the Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon. [Source: Associated Press]</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>"When you slam an aluminum aircraft at high velocity into a concrete structure, it's going to do exactly what we saw happen at the Pentagon on 9/11," Partin said. "If you look at a frontal mass cross-section of the plane, you see a cylinder of aluminum skin with stringers. When it impacts with the exterior [Pentagon] wall at 700-800 feet per second, much of the kinetic energy of the plane converts to thermal energy, and much of the aluminum converts to vapor, burning to aluminum oxide. That's why on the still photos from Pentagon surveillance camera, you first see the frame with that brilliant white luminescent flash just before the frame of the orange fireball, the jet fuel burning. The aluminum cylinder ? the plane fuselage ? is acting like a shaped charge penetrating a steel plate. It keeps penetrating until it is consumed. The Boeing 757 is over 150 feet long, so it's going to penetrate quite a ways before it's spent. The wings have a much lower mass cross-section and are loaded with fuel besides, so there is little left of them except small bits and pieces."
"Where's the wreckage?" One of the arguments that appears on the surface to have some merit, is the argument of negative proof: the stunning absence of crash debris. On his "Hunt the Boeing" web page, Meyssan shows a photo of the smoking Pentagon with a long expanse of lawn in the foreground evincing very little wreckage. The accompanying caption asks: "Can you find debris of a Boeing 757-200 in this photograph?" Meyssan's imitators have used a number of variations on this theme, presenting photos and video segments and demanding to know where the 757 wreckage is. Some websites feature a news clip of CNN correspondent Jamie McIntyre standing outside the burning, smoking Pentagon on 9/11 shortly after the crash, telling viewers: "There's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon."

<TABLE id=table149 cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=0 width=350 align=left border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>

</TD></TR><TR><TD>Path of destruction: A graphic from a report by the American Society of Civil Engineers shows the columns that were damaged and destroyed in the Pentagon and where the remains of the passengers and Pentagon employees were found in the first story of the building. [Source: American Society of Civil Engineers]</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>VonKleist says that photographs "raise the question as to WHAT hit the Pentagon and what really happened that morning." He goes on to say:
Many of those who reject this line of inquiry respond with the question: "If the 757 didn't hit the Pentagon, then where did it go?" Answer: "I don't know!" The question should be: "If a 757 hit the Pentagon, then where is it?"
As Gen. Partin points out, most of the plane penetrated into the Pentagon, burning and shredding as it went. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers study, the plane cut a diagonal swath 230 feet into the first floor, penetrating Rings E, D, and C. "Under these circumstances, you're just not going to end up with much airplane debris ? inside or outside [the building]," says Partin.
Also, while 9/11 skeptics cite the relatively small amount of wreckage as proof that Flight 77 couldn't have hit the Pentagon, many of them ignore what was found at the crash site: Flight 77's "black boxes" and passenger remains. Others claim that the black boxes and remains have been faked. VonKleist acknowledges in his video 911 In Plane Site that "there are those who ? ask the question, 'Well, if the plane didn't hit the Pentagon, where did it go?'" But he says, "I don't know where it went. For all I know, it could be sitting in 200 feet of water in the Atlantic Ocean."

<TABLE id=table149 cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=0 width=350 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>

</TD></TR><TR><TD>Flight 77 debris: Since Flight 77 penetrated into the Pentagon, there was not much debris outside of the building. However, the American Airlines wreckage in the photo above is additional proof that the plane, not a missile, hit the building. [Source: Navy News Stand]</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>"The attack required impossible piloting." Some prominent 9/11 skeptics claim that the flight path of the jet that hit the Pentagon would have been humanly impossible in a 757, while others admit it might be possible for an expert pilot, but not for hijacker Hani Hanjour, the inexperienced pilot believed to have commandeered Flight 77.
In Painful Questions: An Analysis of the September 11th Attack, Eric Hufschmid says: "I would say it is absurd to believe an inexperienced pilot could fly such a plane a few millimeters above the ground. The flight path of this plane is enough to convince me that no human was in control of it. I think only a computer is capable of flying an airplane in such a tricky manner. If terrorists flew the plane, they would qualify as the World's Greatest Pilots since they did tricks with a commercial aircraft that I doubt the best Air Force pilots could do."
Ralph Omholt's "skydrifter" website claims: "No pilot will claim to be able to hit such a spot as the Pentagon base ? under any conditions ? in a 757 doing 300 knots. As to the clearly alleged amateur pilots: IMPOSSIBLE!"
"Impossible"? "No pilot will claim...?" Well, we did not have any difficulty finding pilots who disagreed. Ronald D. Bull, a retired United Airlines pilot, in Jupiter, Florida, told The New American, "It's not that difficult, and certainly not impossible," noting that it's much easier to crash intentionally into a target than to make a controlled landing. "If you're doing a suicide run, like these guys were doing, you'd just keep the nose down and push like the devil," says Capt. Bull, who flew 727s, 747s, 757s, and 767s for many years, internationally and domestically, including into the Washington, D.C., airports.

<TABLE id=table149 cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=0 width=350 align=left border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>

</TD></TR><TR><TD>Lamp posts taken out by Flight 77 were too far apart to have been done by a missile or a fighter jet, say witnesses and experts, including General Benton K. Partin. [Source: Library of Congress]</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>George Williams of Waxhaw, North Carolina, piloted 707s, 727s, DC-10s, and 747s for Northwest Airlines for 38 years. "I don't see any merit to those arguments whatsoever," Capt. Williams told us. "The Pentagon is a pretty big target and I'd say hitting it was a fairly easy thing to do."
According to 9/11 "investigator" Dick Eastman, whose wild theories are posted on the American Patriot Friends Network and many other Internet sites, Flight 77 was part of an elaborate deception in which a remote-controlled F-16 "killer jet" actually hit the Pentagon, while the 757 swooped over the Pentagon and landed at Reagan National Airport! "With its engines off," says Eastman, Flight 77 silently "coasted" in to the airport and blended in with other air traffic. "There would be few people to see Flight 77 come through, and those who did would doubtless assume that it was yet another routine flight over Reagan National," he claims.
"That's so far-fetched it's beyond ludicrous," says Capt. Williams. "I've flown into Reagan [National Airport] hundreds of times and you can't just sneak in and 'blend in' without air traffic controllers knowing about it and without other pilots and witnesses noticing."
Besides, as Capt. Ron Bull points out, the Eastman scenario would require piloting skills far beyond what it would take to hit the Pentagon. "I've flown into Reagan National many times and my first trip in a 757 was no picnic," he says. "I had to really work at it, and that was after 25 years of experience flying big jets. Any scenario that has the 757 [Flight 77] taking a flight path over the Pentagon and landing at National unobserved is proposing something that is far more difficult ? and far more difficult to believe ? than flying the plane into the Pentagon. It's just not credible."
General Partin, an Air Force Command Pilot, sums up the case for Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon: "The alternative explanations just get crazier and crazier. In addition to the physical evidence and the photographic evidence supporting the official story, there are literally hundreds of eyewitnesses ? including many people I know personally ? who saw the 757. Besides that, there are the light poles that were knocked down ? which I saw personally and which are in the photographic record ? that can't be accounted for by a missile or small jet wingspan. Then you have the Flight 77 victim remains and the black boxes. If you reject all of that, then you have to come up with an alternative explanation for what happened to Flight 77. I've seen the alternative explanations and they're absurd!"
But despite all the evidence to the contrary, let's suppose for a moment that Flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon. Why hijack the plane and then crash it into the Atlantic Ocean, or fly it into Reagan National Airport, or do whatever else was done with it to make it "disappear"? Why hijack the plane to make it appear that it was used against a target and then not use it against any target? Why plant the black boxes and human remains at the Pentagon site? Wouldn't it make more sense, and be much simpler, to actually use the plane against the Pentagon?
World Trade Center Attacks

<TABLE id=table149 cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=0 width=350 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>

</TD></TR><TR><TD>Military plane? Some theorists claim that military planes, not commercial airliners, hit the WTC, based on a witness who didn?t see any windows on the plane that hit the South Tower. The above photo shows the windows from Flight 175?s wreckage. [Source: FEMA]</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>As with the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon, the attacks on the Twin Towers in New York City have spawned a tremendous urban legend industry.
"It's the Flash, Stupid!" In the video 911 In Plane Site, Dave vonKleist claims to have found the smoking gun: a bright flash that can be seen in a slow-motion viewing of video footage at the very moment that the noses of the jetliners crashed into the buildings, or a split-second before impact. In his website essay, "It's the Flash, Stupid!," vonKleist asks, "What caused the flash?" He answers: "There are four possibilities that come to mind: a) a reflection; b) sparks from the fuselage striking the building; c) static discharge; d) some type of incendiary (bomb or missile)." VonKleist quickly disposes of a, b, and c and settles on a missile as the only logical explanation.
General Partin says vonKleist omits the most obvious explanation. "It's very simple," he told The New American, "When the noses of the aircraft hit the buildings, you have a bright aluminum flash, the same as we saw at the Pentagon. That's obvious to anyone familiar with physics, chemistry, and what happens when aluminum hits a structure at a high rate of speed." And the proof of that analysis, the general points out, is in vonKleist's own video. "If you watch just a few frames after the nose flash, you'll see two smaller aluminum flashes as each engine strikes the building. That's all it is."
There's another major problem with the "missile flash." According to vonKleist, the missiles were fired from a pod on the belly of each of the jumbo jets. But, if that is the case, where is the flash from the ignition of the missile; why is there no missile exhaust flare seen on the video? Where is that flash?
The "missile pod." This brings us to the "pod" that vonKleist and others claim is visible in a photograph and in video footage of the underside of the fuselage of United Airlines Flight 175 just before it strikes the South Tower of the World Trade Center. The 9/11 conspiracy theorists assert that this "pod" shows that the plane carried either a bomb or a missile. Popular Mechanics asked Dr. Ronald Greeley, director of the Space Photography Laboratory at Arizona State University, to examine the photo in question. Prof. Greeley concluded that the "pod" was merely the play of light on the fairing that houses the Boeing's landing gear. Gen. Benton Partin agreed with Professor Greeley. "There's no 'pod' there," Partin told The New American. "It's a smear from a high-speed target and a low-speed camera. At the instant of impact the film exposure at the nose approaches zero. Without the bright aluminum flash the nose impact wouldn't even be seen."
Demolition charges. "The planes did not bring those towers down; bombs did. So why use planes? It seems they were a diversionary tactic ? a grand spectacle." So writes Randy Lavello in an article on www.prisonplanet.com, one of the Internet sites of shortwave radio broadcaster and video producer Alex Jones.
"The World Trade Center was not destroyed by terrorists. It was a controlled demolition, an inside job!" says "Geronimo Jones" in an article on the Internet site letsroll911.org.
"The fact that the towers fell this quickly (essentially at the rate of free-fall) is conclusive evidence that they were deliberately demolished," he claims.
This is also a major theme of the vonKleist video, 911 In Plane Site, which, like a number of other video productions, attempts to liken the World Trade Center collapses to the 1995 attack on Oklahoma City's Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. Some of these 9/11 productions even cite Gen. Partin as an authority to back their theories about the Twin Towers. General Partin exposed the evidence that the OKC blast included internal demolition charges, in addition to the Ryder truck bomb.
But Partin says the OKC and WTC incidents are completely different. The Murrah building was only nine stories tall and made of heavy steel-reinforced concrete. And, since the Ryder truck was outside the building, the damage it caused was primarily from the shock wave of pressurized air. The Twin Towers, on the other hand, were 110 stories tall, supported by steel columns, and the planes ? which served as missiles ? dumped large quantities of high-energy, hot fuel.
"The claims that the explosions and fires would not have generated enough heat to cause the building to collapse are nonsense," Partin told THE NEW AMERICAN. "Steel doesn't have to 'melt' as some of these people claim. The yield strength of steel drops very dramatically under heat, and the impact of the airliners would have severely impacted the support columns. When they could no longer support the upper stories and the top started coming down, the dynamic loading caused a very rapid collapse, or 'pancaking,' that would have very nearly approached free-fall rate. No demolition charges were needed to accomplish this."
Edward Peik, vice president of Alpine Environmental, Inc. of Chelmsford, Mass., agrees. Peik, a civil engineer, with 40 years of engineering experience in government and industry, grew up in New York City and is familiar with the structure of the Twin Towers. "I was at home watching all of this unfold on TV" on 9/11, he told The New American. "My first reaction was, 'My God, they've got to get everybody out of there right away, because it's going to come down fast!' I called my son Ron, who is also an engineer. We were both beside ourselves because we knew that they wouldn't stay up very long. As soon as fire hits steel, it loses strength fast and those towers had relatively lightweight steel beams spanning large distances. The building was supported by the steel outer walls. When the upper part of the building started coming down, the floors below could not support the weight crashing down on them. It was a vertical domino effect."
The opinions of Partin, Peik, and several other structural experts we consulted agree with the official consensus that the WTC towers collapsed as a result of the severe damage caused by the planes and the ensuing fires, not as a result of controlled demolition. General Partin says that he was contacted by vonKleist, who wanted him to support his position, which Partin was not willing to do.
A Profusion of Confusion and Delusion

<TABLE id=table149 cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=0 width=350 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>

</TD></TR><TR><TD>In plain fright: Dave vonKleist, in his 911 In Plane Site video, insists that photos show a missile pod on the belly of a plane that hit the WTC and a light flash from a missile explosion. Experts and laymen who have viewed the video disagree with vonKleist. [Source: 911 In Plane Site]</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>The cover story of the March 2005 issue of Popular Mechanics is entitled, "Debunking 9/11 Lies: Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Hard Facts." The magazine assembled an impressive lineup of more than 300 experts to examine 16 claims made by 9/11 conspiracy theorists. We think that Popular Mechanics did a credible job regarding the Pentagon attack and the alleged missile pods, but we have not investigated all of the 16 conspiracy theories they dismiss.
We certainly do not agree with Popular Mechanics' rabid editorializing against "conspiracy theory." In the space of a few paragraphs, the magazine's editors use the words "conspiracy," "conspiracy theory," and "conspiracy theorists" over and over again, to harshly ridicule the idea of conspiracy. However, the 9/11 "conspiracy theorists" have made it easy for Popular Mechanics and others to relegate all talk of conspiracy to the loony category. The Popular Mechanics broadside proves our point that we must be careful with facts. It proves that the propagation of bad information about conspiracy can be, and will be, used to dismiss the notion of conspiracy in general.
"Healthy skepticism, it seems, has curdled into paranoia," says Popular Mechanics. "Wild conspiracy tales are peddled daily on the Internet, talk radio and in other media." Unfortunately, that is true. David vonKleist, for instance, features on his In Plane Site website a glowing endorsement from David Icke, the New Age guru who peddles fantastic conspiracy theories claiming that George W. Bush and other world leaders are actually reptilian shape-shifters from another galaxy. Some of the other 9/11 "authorities" are only slightly less lurid.

<TABLE id=table149 cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=0 width=350 align=left border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>

</TD></TR><TR><TD>Distract and discredit: Wild speculation distracts Americans from real issues of coverup and complicity in the 9/11 attacks and discredits all mention of conspiracy. [Source: Navy News Stand]</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>Recently, a colleague told me a tragic story about his sister-in-law, who had succeeded in getting her spouse to attend church occasionally with her (though not as a member of that church), only to have a prominent, visiting church leader spout off from the pulpit as gospel some of the discredited 9/11 conspiracy theories discussed above. The spouse was so incensed by the obvious falsity and ridiculousness of the cleric's statements that he vowed never to attend the church again, or to believe anything anyone connected with the church says. This is not the only example we could cite illustrating why it is so important to be sure of one's facts, as well as one's sources.
It is very difficult to reestablish believability once we have discredited ourselves by promoting information that turns out to be misinformation ? or even worse, intentional disinformation. But what is even more tragic is that every time we err in this regard we not only affect our own personal credibility, but the credibility of all of our colleagues in the freedom fight who have labored long and hard to overcome the smears and ridicule of our opponents.
Opinion polls repeatedly have shown that most Americans view the major media as biased and untrustworthy. Similarly, polls show that Americans tend to be suspicious of government. This is healthy skepticism, based on experience and common sense: we have learned firsthand that government officials and the media frequently lie. However, this same skepticism must also be applied to alternative information sources, whether they be talk radio, the Internet, newsletters, magazines, or word of mouth.
One of our first guidelines should be based on the old adage, "Consider the source." What is the track record of the source? Have they been reliable in the past? Do they have a well-earned reputation for truth and getting the facts straight? Or have they been known to sensationalize, censor, ignore, color, crop, or even falsify the facts to advance a hidden agenda?
This publication's agenda is expressed on the front cover of every issue: "That freedom shall not perish." And we recognize that freedom is not possible without a rigorous, continuous search for, and absolute fidelity to, the truth. We are committed to that purpose, and we think it is a worthy goal to which all Americans constantly should recommit themselves.

<HR>

Distorting Similes

In "Getting the Facts Straight" (The New American August 23, 2004), Dennis Behreandt notes that although Thierry Meyssan "asserts that the Pentagon was hit by a missile and not an airplane, he does not cite even a single witness claiming to have seen a missile. His only 'evidence' for the missile theory are descriptive similes used by witnesses who attested to seeing a plane but who compared the plane to a missile. For instance, he quotes USA Today reporter Joel Sucherman, who saw the plane as it raced toward its target. According to Sucherman, 'whoever was flying the plane made no attempt to change direction. It was coming in at a high rate of speed, but not at a steep angle ? almost like a heat-seeking missile was locked on its target and staying dead on course.'" Likewise, Meyssan played fast and loose with the testimony of other witnesses who spoke metaphorically. Behreandt logically concluded: "Either Meyssan does not understand the use of metaphor in English, or he is being disingenuous."
The same can be said for many of Meyssan's imitators, who repeat his misuse of witness testimony. The same problem has reappeared in the case of the World Trade Center collapse. Witness testimony referring to the way the buildings came down like a controlled demolition have been presented

dirty · May 17, 2006

From Science and Technology

From Science and Technology

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=474 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=titleArticle vAlign=top align=left colSpan=2>Fahrenheit 2777 </TD></TR><TR><TD class=home colSpan=2>9/11 has generated the mother of all conspiracy theories </TD></TR><TR><TD class=home colSpan=2>By Michael Shermer </TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=2>

</TD></TR><TR><TD class=home colSpan=2></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE cellPadding=0 width=474 border=0 cellpacing="0"><TBODY><TR><TD class=home><TABLE cellPadding=0 width=205 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>

</TD><TD class=home align=right>

</TD></TR><TR><TD>

</TD><TD class=captionText align=left> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Noted French left-wing activist Thierry Meyssan's 9/11 conspiracy book, L'Effroyable Imposture, became a best-seller in 2002. But I never imagined such an "appalling deception" would ever find a voice in America. At a recent public lecture I was buttonholed by a Michael Moore?wannabe filmmaker who breathlessly explained that 9/11 was orchestrated by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the Central Intelligence Agency as part of their plan for global domination and a New World Order. That goal was to be financed by G.O.D. (Gold, Oil, Drugs) and launched by a Pearl Harbor?like attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, thereby providing the justification for war. The evidence was there in the details, he explained, handing me a faux dollar bill (with "9-11" replacing the "1," a picture of Bush supplanting that of Washington) chockablock with Web sites. In fact, if you type "World Trade Center" and "conspiracy" into Google, you'll get more than 250,000 hits. From these sites, you will discover that some people think the Pentagon was hit by a missile; that U.S. Air Force jets were ordered to "stand down" and not intercept Flights 11 and 175, the ones that struck the twin towers; that the towers themselves were razed by demolition explosives timed to go off soon after the impact of the planes; that a mysterious white jet shot down Flight 93 over Pennsylvania; and that New York Jews were ordered to stay home that day (Zionists and other pro-Israeli factions, of course, were involved). Books also abound, including Inside Job, by Jim Marrs; The New Pearl Harbor, by David Ray Griffin; and 9/11: The Great Illusion, by George Humphrey. The single best debunking of this conspiratorial codswallop is in the March issue of Popular Mechanics, which provides an exhaustive point-by-point analysis of the most prevalent claims.
</TD></TR><TR><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=440 align=center border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=blackFixed align=middle>

</TD></TR><TR><TD class=regTextGrey align=middle>ADVERTISEMENT (article continues below)</TD></TR><TR><TD align=middle><SCRIPT language=JavaScript>  </SCRIPT><SCRIPT language=JavaScript1.1 src="http://oas-central.realmedia.com/RealMedia/ads/adstream_jx.cgi/111.sciam.com/sa006/13/1070356655@Middle,Top,x01,Right1,x09!Middle"></SCRIPT><IFRAME marginWidth=0 marginHeight=0 src="http://view.atdmt.com/GBL/iview/scntcent0020000042gbl/direct/01?click=" frameBorder=0 width=300 scrolling=no height=250 allowTransparency topmargin="0" leftmargin="0"><script language="JavaScript" type="text/javascript">document.write('

');</script><noscript>

</noscript></IFRAME></TD></TR><TR><TD class=blackFixed align=middle>

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD class=home>The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (as well as creationism, Holocaust denial and the various crank theories of physics). All the "evidence" for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy. Such notions are easily refuted by noting that scientific theories are not built on single facts alone but on a convergence of evidence assembled from multiple lines of inquiry.
</TD></TR><TR><TD class=home><HR noShade SIZE=1>No melted steel, no collapsed towers. <HR noShade SIZE=1>
For example, according to www.911research.wtc7.net, steel melts at a temperature of 2,777 degrees Fahrenheit, but jet fuel burns at only 1,517 degrees F. No melted steel, no collapsed towers. "The planes did not bring those towers down; bombs did," says www.abovetopsecret.com. Wrong. In an article in the Journal of the Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society and in subsequent interviews, Thomas Eagar, an engineering professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, explains why: steel loses 50 percent of its strength at 1,200 degrees F; 90,000 liters of jet fuel ignited other combustible materials such as rugs, curtains, furniture and paper, which continued burning after the jet fuel was exhausted, raising temperatures above 1,400 degrees F and spreading the inferno throughout each building. Temperature differentials of hundreds of degrees across single steel horizontal trusses caused them to sag--straining and then breaking the angle clips that held the beams to the vertical columns. Once one truss failed, others followed. When one floor collapsed onto the next floor below, that floor subsequently gave way, creating a pancaking effect that triggered each 500,000-ton structure to crumble. Conspiricists argue that the buildings should have fallen over on their sides, but with 95 percent of each building consisting of air, they could only have collapsed straight down. All the 9/11 conspiracy claims are this easily refuted. On the Pentagon "missile strike," for example, I queried the would-be filmmaker about what happened to Flight 77, which disappeared at the same time. "The plane was destroyed, and the passengers were murdered by Bush operatives," he solemnly revealed. "Do you mean to tell me that not one of the thousands of conspirators needed to pull all this off," I retorted, "is a whistle-blower who would go on TV or write a tell-all book?" My rejoinder was met with the same grim response I get from UFOlogists when I ask them for concrete evidence: Men in Black silence witnesses, and dead men tell no tales.
</TD></TR><TR><TD><HR noShade SIZE=1></TD></TR><TR><TD class=home>Michael Shermer is publisher of Skeptic (www.skeptic.com). His latest book is Science Friction. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

dirty · May 17, 2006

This is a site you need to Check out

Lawrence this one if for you

Joe · May 17, 2006

FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

Held the wreckage in his hands??? A jumbo jet? Ok, so where is it now? and where are the bodies or body parts? They never made it to the Coroner's office... or at least that is what the Coroner said before...

Roving Engine
CLAIM: One of Flight 93's engines was found "at a considerable distance from the crash site," according to Lyle Szupinka, a state police officer on the scene who was quoted in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Offering no evidence, a posting on Rense.com claimed: "The main body of the engine ... was found miles away from the main wreckage site with damage comparable to that which a heat-seeking missile would do to an airliner."

FACT: Experts on the scene tell PM that a fan from one of the engines was recovered in a catchment basin, downhill from the crash site. Jeff Reinbold, the National Park Service representative responsible for the Flight 93 National Memorial, confirms the direction and distance from the crash site to the basin: just over 300 yards south, which means the fan landed in the direction the jet was traveling. "It's not unusual for an engine to move or tumble across the ground," says Michael K. Hynes, an airline accident expert who investigated the crash of TWA Flight 800 out of New York City in 1996. "When you have very high velocities, 500 mph or more," Hynes says, "you are talking about 700 to 800 ft. per second. For something to hit the ground with that kind of energy, it would only take a few seconds to bounce up and travel 300 yards." Numerous crash analysts contacted by PM concur.

So where is the engine? or any other pieces of wreckage?

"FACT: Wallace Miller, Somerset County coroner, tells PM no body parts were found in Indian Lake. Human remains were confined to a 70-acre area directly surrounding the crash site."

This is the same guy who stated that there were no bodies at the crash site... something is amiss...

dirty · May 17, 2006

Joe... I am just throwing the other side out there.... I am sure More will come out.... the Government has said they needed to keep shit under wraps because of the Massoui Trial..... and If they don't appeal we will probably see what we all want to know come out

But hell the way the left is.... they will say Bush paid Massouii's attorneys to appeal to keep shit covered up:hung

Joe · May 17, 2006

"'How can a Boeing 757 which is over 44 feet in height..."

Did you see the video of the hit on the Pentagon?

Does that plane look like it is 44 feet tall?

The Pentagon is a 5 story building, at approximately 15 feet per story that would be 75 feet.

Doc Mercer · May 17, 2006

There are and were folks that believed also that Oswald was the Lone Gunman in Dallas ....

Lets get real as the film clip released yesterday was laughable at best if this is the best this govt

Doc Mercer · May 17, 2006

Crossing the Rubicon
Simplifying the case against Dick Cheney

by
Michael Kane

January 18, 2005 (FTW) - [SIZE=+2]I[/SIZE]n an argument of over 600 pages and 1,000 footnotes, Crossing the Rubicon makes the case for official complicity within the U.S. government and names Dick Cheney as the prime suspect in the crimes of 9/11. Since the publication of this book (to which I had the privilege of contributing a chapter), many people have asked to hear the case against Cheney argued "short & sweet."
I will make it as short as possible, but it can never be sweet.
There are 3 major points made within this book that are crucial to proving Cheney's guilt. I shall first list them and then go on to prove each point as laid out in Crossing the Rubicon.

Means - Dick Cheney and the Secret Service: Dick Cheney was running a completely separate chain of Command & Control via the Secret Service, assuring the paralysis of Air Force response on 9/11. The Secret Service has the technology to see the same radar screens the FAA sees in real time. They also have the legal authority and technological capability to take supreme command in cases of national emergency. Dick Cheney was the acting Commander in Chief on 9/11. (Click here for a summary of these points)
Motive - Peak Oil: At some point between 2000 and 2007, world oil production reaches its peak; from that point on, every barrel of oil is going to be harder to find, more expensive to recover, and more valuable to those who recover and control it. Dick Cheney was well aware of the coming Peak Oil crisis at least as early as 1999, and 9/11 provided the pretext for the series of energy wars that Cheney stated, "will not end in our lifetime." (Click here for a summary of these points)
Opportunity - 9/11 War Games: The Air Force was running multiple war games on the morning of 9/11 simulating hijackings over the continental United States that included (at least) one "live-fly" exercise as well as simulations that placed "false blips" on FAA radar screens. These war games eerily mirrored the real events of 9/11 to the point of the Air Force running drills involving hijacked aircraft as the 9/11 plot actually unfolded. The war games & terror drills played a critical role in ensuring no Air Force fighter jocks - who had trained their entire lives for this moment - would be able to prevent the attacks from succeeding. These exercises were under Dick Cheney's management. (Click here for a summary of these points)

Here is the supporting documentation as laid out in Crossing the Rubicon, making a legal case against Dick Cheney for the crimes of 9/11.
? MEANS: Dick Cheney and the Secret Service
As the 9/11 plot unfolded, it has been reported that Secret Service whisked Dick Cheney into an underground presidential bunker at 9:03. 1 This establishes that the Secret Service was in the loop giving orders by at least 9:03, and almost certainly much earlier, as we will show.
Former counter-terrorism advisor Richard Clarke writes in Against All Enemies: "Secret Service had a system that allowed them to see what FAA's radar was seeing." The Kean Commission (also known as the 9/11 Commission) would have us believe that the chain of command on 9/11 was a complex web, but in reality the Secret Service had the authority to communicate presidential and vice presidential orders directly to fighter pilots in the air. 2
In Air War Over America, a book commissioned by the Air Force documenting the morning of 9/11, it is stated that the FAA contacted Otis Air Force base informing them Flight 11 was headed to Manhattan and had lost its identification signal by 8:30. 3 This indicates Secret Service was in the loop by the same time, or shortly thereafter, since they are able to see FAA radar screens in real time and FAA is reaching out to the military. There is no question that by 8:45 at the absolute latest, likely much earlier, Secret Service is in the decision-making loop. They were most likely in the loop after 8:15 when flight 11 turned its transponder off.

National Special Security Event
It is the Secret Service who has the legal mandate to take supreme command in case of a scheduled major event - or an unplanned major emergency - on American soil; these are designated "National Special Security Events." The Atlanta Olympic Games and the Republican & Democratic National Conventions are notable examples of NSSE's. In preparation, the Secret Service runs training initiatives of simulated attacks and field exercises for such events. 4

The Secret Service works with state and local authorities as well as the military to coordinate security efforts; it has the best communication system of any agency in the country; and its personnel are always present with both the President and Vice President - making it the perfect agency to take supreme command in case of a major emergency on American soil. 5

When 9/11 occurred, the legal framework was in place to allow the Secret Service to take supreme command over any and all American agencies, including the Air Force. 6
Richard Clarke writes in Against All Enemies: "I was amazed at the speed of the decisions coming from Cheney and, through him, from Bush." 7 This is to be expected. Everything was in place for the Commander in Chief to be calling all the shots as the 9/11 plot unfolded, but Bush was in an elementary school reading about goats with Secret Service agents right beside him.
Bush's Secret Service detail was in real-time communication not only with the FAA, but also the PEOC (Presidential Emergency Operations Center), into which Dick Cheney had reportedly been whisked by the Secret Service. While Bush continued his elementary school photo-op after being told, "America is under attack," Ari Fleischer - according to the Washington Times, 10/7/02 - caught the president's eye and held up a handwritten sign that said "DON'T SAY ANYTHING YET." 8 Bush was intentionally being kept out of the decision-making loop during the critical moments of 9/11. The Vice President has no place in the official military chain of command.9
Thus far we have established that:

Secret Service was the supreme command on 9/11.
Bush was not in the role of Commander in Chief at critical times on 9/11.
The acting Commander in Chief as the 9/11 plot unfolded was Dick Cheney.

? MOTIVE: Peak Oil
By definition, world hydrocarbon (oil and gas) production peaks when half the planet's reserves have been used up. After that point, every barrel of oil will be harder to find, more expensive to obtain, and more valuable to whoever controls it. Many of the world's foremost experts place that peak between 2000 and 2007.
We live in a global economic system based on endless growth, and that growth is only possible with endless hydrocarbons to burn. Demand for oil and gas is increasing at staggering rates; after peak, there will be demand that simply cannot be met, and energy prices will rise inexorably.
The resulting economic catastrophe may see oil hit $100 per barrel before the end of this decade. Oil not only keeps us warm and moves our cars, it is used to make all plastics and is, together with natural gas, the most important ingredient keeping modern agriculture afloat. It is a little known fact that for every 1 calorie of food energy produced, 10 calories of hydrocarbons are consumed. 10
We eat oil.
Without cheap oil, billions of people will freeze or starve and unfortunately, there is no combination of renewable energy sources that can replace oil and gas consumption without massive conservation efforts that are nowhere in sight.
Cheney knew about this.
There are no national plans for conservation in America. As Dick Cheney has stated, "The American way of life is not negotiable." Over-consumption is as American as apple pie. Many industry experts have been speaking to the reality of Peak Oil for some time. One of those experts - perhaps the most prominent in the world - was in Dick Cheney's National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPDG).
Just four days after Dick Cheney became Vice President he convened the NEPDG. 11 Among the experts whose opinion Cheney paid for (with taxpayer dollars) was Matthew Simmons, one of the most respected energy investment bankers in the world. Simmons has been speaking out about Peak Oil for years, and there is no question that the urgent story of Peak Oil is what he told Cheney's NEPDG.
The content of the NEPDG documentation has been illegally withheld from the American public with a rubber stamp of approval from the Supreme Court. FTW has always contended that the deepest, darkest secrets of 9/11 are in those documents. That's why they've been guarded so tightly.
Cheney knew about Peak Oil in 1999 as CEO of Halliburton, long before was Vice President. A speech he gave at the London Institute of Petroleum demonstrates this clearly. 12
As stated in Crossing the Rubicon, "By way of confirmation, people in and close to the oil industry are reporting that increased drilling is not resulting as yet in significantly increased supply." 13
A crisis of this magnitude required a crisis plan, something the Neo-Liberals didn't have. The Neo-Conservatives, including Dick Cheney, had such a plan: manufacture a crisis - one that had long been imagined as necessary by elite planners inside the national security state 14- and use it to maintain permanent war to steal the world's last remaining hydrocarbons and temporarily stave off the Peak Oil crisis.
? OPPORTUNITY: 9/11 War Games - a perfect "match"
On May 8, 2001 - four months prior to 9/11 - the president placed Dick Cheney in charge of "[A]ll federal programs dealing with weapons of mass destruction consequence management within the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Justice, and Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other federal agencies?" This included all "training and planning" which needed to be "seamlessly integrated, harmonious and comprehensive" in order to "maximize effectiveness." This mandate created the Office of National Preparedness in FEMA, overseen by Dick Cheney. 15
Dick Cheney was placed directly in charge of managing the seamless integration of all training exercises throughout the entire federal government and all military agencies. On 9/11 Cheney oversaw multiple war games and terror drills, including several exercises of NORAD, the Air Force agency whose mandate is to "watch the sky."
The evening before September 11th, 2001, the National Security Agency intercepted a communication between Khalid Shaikh Muhammad and the alleged ringleader of the 9/11 attacks, Mohammed Atta. The communication stated, "The match is about to begin."
Were they "matching" their activities to the war games? Was the attack a rigged "match" between the defenders on one side, and the attackers with their accomplices on the other?
The Whitehouse was so infuriated when this communication leaked from the Senate Intelligence Committee that they threatened Senators with polygraphs and office searches for disclosing classified information. This leak struck a nerve within the Whitehouse.
We know multiple Air Force war games were running on the morning of 9/11, as documented extensively in the mainstream press. 16 What Crossing the Rubicon has documented conclusively is that there was a live-fly drill taking place on 9/11 titled Vigilant Warrior. Richard Clarke disclosed the name of this drill on page 4 of his book, but it was Major Don Arias of NORAD who confirmed the definition of the title "Warrior" to Mike Ruppert via email.
Warrior = JCS/HQ NORAD sponsored FTX, or field training exercise (live-fly). 17
That means that the Vigilant Warrior drill conducted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff involved at least one real commercial aircraft in the skies, intended to simulate exactly the kind of airliner hijack emergency presented on 9/11. Coincidence?
This was further supported by an April 18 2004 USA Today article titled, "NORAD had drills of jets as weapons." The report cited NORAD officials who confirmed live-fly drills were conducted using hijacked airliners originating from the continental United States used as weapons crashing into targets including the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The specific drill USA Today referred to was "planned in July [2001] and conducted later" - likely on 9/11 itself. 18
Remember, on 9/11 the Bush administration claimed it had "no idea" aircraft would be used as weapons. Then why were they drilling such scenarios before and during 9/11? The Whitehouse dodged this by saying it wasn't aware of these drills but that is a transparent lie. The drills took place in the Whitehouse! 19
Secret Service runs simulated attack field exercises - exactly what Vigilant Warrior was. This Joint Chiefs of Staff drill was likely being run through Secret Service lines of communication by a central command under Cheney's control. 20
Additional war games on 9/11 included Northern Vigilance, an exercise that pulled Air Force fighters from the east coast of the United States up into Canada and Alaska simulating an attack out of Russia. All of those fighters were rendered useless as the 9/11 plot unfolded - too far away to respond.
One of the components of this drill included "false blips" (radar injects simulating aircraft in flight) placed on FAA radar screens. 21 At one point FAA head Jane Garvey said they suspected up to 11 hijackings on 9/11. Was she saying they couldn't determine which were real, which were simulated, and which were live-fly military exercises?
Regardless, all of this rendered Air Force response on 9/11 useless.
In Air War Over America it is documented that General Arnold of NORAD didn't pull out of the war game titled Vigilant Guardian until reports of flight 93 being hijacked were coming in. That was at 9:16, a total of 54 minutes after it was known that flight 11 was a hijacking. 22 What took so long? Were there still "false blips" on FAA radar screens at this time?
There were likely false blips on screen even after 9:16. The Kean Commission's report introduced "phantom flight-11" as being reported by the FAA at 9:25 on 9/11. The FAA reported flight 11 was heading to Washington D.C. at that time when in fact it had already struck the World Trade Center. The Kean Commission's report stated they were "unable to locate the source of the mistaken FAA information." 23
"Phantom flight-11" was a false blip, but since the war games are classified, specific information on "false blips" and other details can't be reported.
Now imagine being an air traffic controller with both real planes and "false blips" simulating hijackings on your screens when suddenly there are real, multiple, hijackings. Where do you send the few Air Force fighters that you have? You can't guess wrong, you don't have enough assets for that. The FAA doesn't even make that decision, the military does. The Kean Commission managed to scapegoat the FAA in their report, but the Air Force itself confirmed the FAA did its job properly on 9/11 in Air War Over America. 24
There were more 9/11 war games including Northern Guardian, Northern Denial (recently confirmed by an Assistant Editor at Harper's magazine) and an unnamed National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) drill for a plane crashing into NRO headquarters at precisely the time of an actual crash in New York.
Another coincidence?
War games, terror drills and exercises are run by the military quite frequently. In this case, they mirrored the real attacks of 9/11 with such shocking congruence as to be beyond the realm of coincidence.
This is made clear when we consider the warnings that had flooded U.S. Intelligence prior to 9/11, indicating that terrorists were planning to hijack aircraft and crash them into American targets on the ground during the week of September 9th, 2001. 25 With that type of information, who in their right mind would then schedule war games that would leave New York and Washington D.C. completely undefended?

We've already shown that the man in charge of managing all such programs was Dick Cheney. Among the central decision-makers for the scheduling of so many simultaneous exercises would be Dick Cheney and Ralph Eberhart, head of NORAD.
It certainly was a perfect "match."
The Maestro
The most important revelation made about the 9/11 war games comes again from Major Don Arias of NORAD. With multiple war games running, there had to be someone coordinating them.
"Yes, there is an exercise maestro," said Don Arias in a phone interview. 26
So who was the maestro?
Mike Ruppert called every relevant military and government office looking for an answer to this question and received no response. At the final 9/11 Commission hearing on June 17, 2004, I asked General Ralph Eberhart - the man in charge of NORAD on 9/11 - who was in charge of coordinating the war games that day. His only response was, "No comment." None of the commissioners, including Chairman Kean, could answer this question. 27
FTW's research has concluded the maestro was either Dick Cheney, Ralph "Ed" Eberhart, or both. Whoever the maestro was, he was certainly under Cheney's management as per the May 2001 presidential mandate.
Additionally, Tripod II was a bio-terror exercise being set-up on the west side of lower Manhattan, reportedly scheduled to begin the next day. This exercise was being coordinated with FEMA and the Department of Justice - two of the agencies placed directly under Cheney's control in May of 2001 by presidential mandate.
Another coincidence?
There is no question that Cheney would be responsible for managing this exercise. The Tripod II drill became the command & control emergency response center on 9/11. The command center in WTC 7 was reportedly evacuated by 9:30 on 9/11, but Tripod II provided a new command center organized just as the original was. 28 How convenient.
The Air Force war games ensured the air attack would be successful, and Tripod II assured Cheney would have control of the response to the crisis of his making. Matching the war games with hijackings - or hijacking the war games - was the opportunity for Cheney to help ensure the 9/11 attacks would be successful, justifying what he calls, "The war that will not end in our lifetimes." The "war on terror" is actually a war for the world's last remaining hydrocarbon reserves. This energy war is a response to a coming energy crisis that Cheney was well aware of at least as early as 1999.

Conclusion
Crossing the Rubicon demonstrates much more than is presented here. The book goes into the failures of the 9/11 Commission, 9/11 insider trading, the curtailing of civil liberties, coming economic crisis, biological warfare, the real history of the Osama bin Laden, and many other issues critical to an understanding of today's historical reality.
Crossing the Rubicon also looks into the evolution of PROMIS software, a well-documented artificial intelligence and datamining program whose current descendants played an integral role in the crimes of 9/11. As Dick Cheney was running a separate chain of command via the Secret Service, he also had the capability to intervene in the functions of the FAA through an evolution of PROMIS software developed and sold by Ptech, Inc. - a company funded by Saudi terrorist financier Yassin Al Qadi. Al Qadi claims he met Dick Cheney in Jeddah before he was Vice President, a claim Cheney hasn't publicly refuted. FTW will soon be releasing an in-depth report on Ptech and its role in the crimes of 9/11.
What we have placed in front of you here is the legal case against Dick Cheney and other persons of interest within the U.S. government. Such evidence should constitute the foundation for articles of impeachment and criminal prosecution against George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and their accomplices.
 </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="alt2">

</td> <td class="alt1" align="right">

</td> </tr> </tbody></table>  <table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="1"> <tbody><tr> <td class="thead">doc mercer
</td> </tr> <tr><td class="vbmenu_option">View Public Profile
</td></tr>  <tr><td class="vbmenu_option">Find More Posts by doc mercer
</td></tr> <tr><td class="vbmenu_option">Add doc mercer to Your Buddy List
</td></tr> </tbody></table>
  <table id="post232982" class="tborder" align="center" border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr> <td class="thead" style="font-weight: normal;" id="currentPost">

05-17-06, 10:17 PM  </td> <td class="thead" style="font-weight: normal;" align="right"> #50 </td> </tr> <tr valign="top"> <td class="alt2" width="175"> doc mercer <script type="text/javascript"> vbmenu_register("postmenu_232982", true); </script>
EOG Addicted

Join Date: Apr 04, 2006
Posts: 894
Rep Power: 2

</td> <td class="alt1" id="td_post_232982">

<hr style="color: rgb(43, 41, 94);" size="1">   n an interview Oct. 12, 2001 with Lyric Wallwork Winik from Parade Magazine, Donald Rumsfeld let it "slip" that a missle hit the Pentaon. The Department of Defense OFFICIAL website still has it up for reference (that is hard to believe). www.defenselink.mil

Q: This is a question that's been asked by many Americans, but especially by the widows of September 11th. How were we so asleep at the switch? How did a war targeting civilians arrive on our homeland with seemingly no warning?
Rumsfeld: There were lots of warnings. The intelligence information that we get, it sometimes runs into the hundreds of alerts or pieces of intelligence a week. One looks at the worldwide, it's thousands. And the task is to sort through it and see what you can find. And as you find things, the law enforcement officials who have the responsibility to deal with that type of thing -- the FBI at the federal level, and although it is not, it's an investigative service as opposed to a police force, it's not a federal police force, as you know. But the state and local law enforcement officials have the responsibility for dealing with those kinds of issues.
They [find a lot] and any number of terrorist efforts have been dissuaded, deterred or stopped by good intelligence gathering and good preventive work. It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it's physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them.

Very interesting! An American Airlines flight - I thought it was 2 American flights and United flights that were "hijacked" on 9/11. And we all know that back in December while visiting the troops, Rummy admitted to Flight 93 being shot down.
CNN.com

DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: And to change that way of living, would strike at the very essence of our country.
And I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon, the people who cut off peoples' heads on television to intimidate, to frighten -- indeed the word "terrorized" is just that. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be.

Here is something else:
www.defenselink.mil

The secretary was in his office, really not that far away from the side of the building that got hit by the plane. He and another person immediately ran down the hallway and went outside and helped some of the people, some of the casualties getting off the stretchers, etc. When he came back in the building about half an hour later, he was the first one that told us he was quite sure it was a plane. Based on the wreckage and based on the thousands and thousands of pieces of metal. He was the one that told us, the staff that was in the room. So he was really the first one who told us that it was most likely a plane.

Rumsfeld's office was on the OPPOSITE side of the building as the "crash." Rumsfeld went to "help" survivors for about 1/2 hour and when he returned Rummy was "quite sure it was a plane" thanks for that eye-witness report Rummy. But WHY did Rummy not know about danger to Washington?
www.guardian.co.uk

The American military air defence command was told by the federal aviation administration that a hijacked commercial airliner was heading towards Washington 12 minutes before it hit. But during that crucial time the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, and his top aides remained unaware of any imminent danger.
....snip
But while officials knew of the attacks in New York, few imagined that the Pentagon itself could be a target. Following the second attack, John Jester, chief of the defence protective service, which guards the Pentagon, raised the building's state of alert just one level, from normal to alpha, which demanded no more than spot-inspections of vehicles and increased police patrols.

Are they REALLY that dumb or do they expect the American public to buy this? The government is covering up the events of 9/11, that is a fact not a conspiracy theory
</td></tr></tbody></table>

Doc Mercer · May 17, 2006

Check out this

shockwave video file of a clip from CNN coverage on the morning of 9/11. CNN reporter Jamie McIntyre says he inspected the Pentagon site and it is obvious no plane crashed there.

Clip archived by TheWebFairy.com; from a DVD available on MaeBrussel.com. Transcript by Total911.info:

JAMIE MCINTYRE: From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.

The only site, is the actual side of the building that's crashed in. And as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse.

Even though if you look at the pictures of the Pentagon you see that the floors have all collapsed, that didn't happenm immediately. It wasn't until almost about 45 minutes later that the structure was weakened enough that all of the floors collapsed.

Jimmy Hoffa · May 17, 2006

How about the story spread by the Islamists that all the Jews were told not to report to work at the World Trade Center that day.

Gimme a break...

We were attacked by camel jockeys wearing diapers on their heads held on by fan belts.

Doc Mercer · May 17, 2006

We were attacked ....

and Bush / Cheney were involved in 9-11

dirty · May 18, 2006

As Usual..... yiou show ypur ignoranceeeee

The Devil · May 18, 2006

Doc,

Can you tell me when they started to plan this??? Can you tell me what they had to gain???? Can you tell me why they killed a friend of mine in the Trade Center??? You seem to know it all....so tell me how they did it and why....

Doc, tell me in your own words...not some cut and paste article...

Doc Mercer · May 18, 2006

Bush had plans on invading Iraq a long way before 9-11 ...

Known as UNOCAL and the stiff job by the Taliban on the pipeline deal that cost Bush and company millions

Hussein threatend to open his own Oil Burse in 2000 and Iran has their own opening up within the next 2 months and notice the same rhetoric

Get real ... they fingered who to go after immediately and Cheney was running NORAD on 9-11 ... where the hell were our fighter jets??? Go do your homework and if you truly had a friend die than start demanding answers instead of bullshit:

Sorry your friend died and I will tell you the same thing Britt Hume said:

Brit Hume, a conservative news anchor on the right-wing Fox News Channel, continued his staunch support for the Republican Party when he told critics of President Bush--including families of American soldiers killed in his Iraq war--to "just get over it", on the 28 March 2004 edition of Fox News Sunday.

dirty · May 18, 2006

Britt Hume is not Right wing or Republican :+clueless

Watch him and you will see:+clueless

Doc Mercer · May 18, 2006

What drugs are you on, Dirty???

Hume plays tennis with a man named Bush and sky dived with a man named
Bush on his bday

Watch his "commentaries" .... Hume is a right wing hack and works for FOX

FOX only hires those "loyal" to the Nazi agenda

dirty · May 18, 2006

Doc who you hang out with has nothing to do with it..... in reality Bush and Clinton are good Friends.... (Now watch you deny this :+wink-2+ )

I hang out with Many Lefties and that does not change any of our beliefs.... that is how distorted you are.

I mean come on..... Your hatred for Bush and Fox is unbelievable..... Greta Van Uglystrum is as Liberal as they get as her Husband works for the Demovratic party, Alan Colmes is a Socialist, Britt Hume is not a Conservative in any way, and Shepard Smith is right down the Middle. the only right wingers on there are Hannity and O'Reilly

and if the country is going to the left like you say then why is Conservative Talk radio Ratings not plummeting like the left is..... I know you will say the are.... since you are copy and paste King post the last quarters Aritron Ratings for Talk shows..... OH.... You probably can't find them since No Left wing shows had any Gain whatsoever and they will not post the Truth to their listener's that can't find the Truth for themselves.

Your Idea of finding the Truth is google and Communist rhetoric..... keep on Dreaming Commie boy...... we will see you back pedaling like a MOFO come September and come back with More conspiracies :hung

KTBKRUSHER · May 18, 2006

come on guys...i mean we see what is really going on...
hell doc is quoting michael kane...
that should say it all.

dirty · May 18, 2006

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

Doc Mercer · May 18, 2006

KTB ... ahhh, another day @ EOG and another day where posters gather friends to see what dumbass commentaries he will post

KTBKRUSHER · May 18, 2006

that is true doc..but it is us come to look at your moronic spewings.

Doc Mercer · May 19, 2006

Really??? I am asking for ANSWERS from the govt and if you want to be a SHEEP and keep your head buried up your ass regarding this event ... go right ahead

How do explain this "trick"??

The gas tanks were 90ft apart,so there should be 2 explosions 90ft from each other, not one central explosion which we see

This chap was an amazing pilot ... UNGODLY TALENT to pull off this "stunt" .... WHAT A TALENT!!!

Radar shows Flight 77 did a down-ward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes." -CBS

"Hani Hanjour, 29, is believed to have been the pilot of Flight 77." -BBC (09/28/01)

"...during the second week of August, they found he had trouble controlling and landing the single-engine Cessna 172. Even though Hanjour showed a federal pilot's license ... chief flight instructor...declined to rent him a plane..." -Newsday

Is it really believable that Hani Hanjour could have flown a 100 ton Boeing 757 like a jetfighter ace on 9/11 when one month early he was unable to rent a single-engine Cessna 172 because he had trouble controlling and landing during a flight test?

<table id="post2882956" class="tborder" align="center" border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td class="alt1" id="td_post_2882956"> All the video shows is a fireball - consistent with a missile. Witness smelled cordite - not jet fuel.

Do some research - you'll see that no plane parts were found, No bodies, no luggage, nothing related to a plane - and a Billion more anomolies to the official story.

A bit of metal debris claimed to be from the airliner fuselage is visible in photos by passers-by. The debris is mangled, hard to identify, and there is precious little there, so some have termed it suspicious. Others have claimed photos of a turbine in the wreckage are not actually parts of a Boeing 757.

Videos of the Pentagon attack were taken by security cameras at the Sheraton Hotel and a gas station, both of which had a clear sight-line to the side of the Pentagon that was hit. These tapes were confiscated by the FBI within minutes of the attack. According to one news report, Sheraton employees watched the hotel video repeatedly before the FBI arrived and took it. Why doesn't the government release these videos?

* How can a Boeing 757-200 weighing nearly 100 tons and traveling at a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour only have damaged the outside of the Pentagon?

* How can a plane 44.7 feet high, over 155 feet long, with a wingspan of almost 125 feet and a cockpit almost 12 feet high, crash into just the ground floor of this building?

* What happened to the wings of the aircraft? Why isn't there any wing damage?

* I have never seen an aircraft accident where the aircraft evaporated upon impact, water, land or buildings. ----- NEVER ..... NEVER

 </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="alt2">
</td> <td class="alt1" align="right">  </td></tr></tbody></table>

dirty · May 19, 2006

"Hani Hanjour, 29, is believed to have been the pilot of Flight 77." -BBC (09/28/01)

you keep disproving you own posts doc.... Said he was believed to be flying.... not that he was...

and all those idiotic questions are answered in this article

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

Shortbus · May 19, 2006

You can't use snopes to defend your stance. Seriously!

I'm not saying you are wrong by any means, just saying you can't expect to be taken seriously using snopes.com

If you don't at least question what happened at the pentagon that day, and everywhere else for that matter, then I worry about you. I respect your loyalty, it's a great quality that many people are lacking.

I'm a bush supporter, though it's becoming more and more difficult. I am VERY conservative. I made a donation to numbersusa today, which I could not afford (not relevant to the discussion, but to my conservativism).

I still cannot deny that there are some serious holes in the explanations of what happened that day.

Mainly, I have to ask why the hell they don't just release the damn videos of the pentagon if they'll clear the air and prove that it was indeed a 757.

Seriously, what would they have to lose by showing a freaking video?

Instead, we get enough video to NOT allow us to know the truth.

Even the clip they released, had they released a few frames from before the ones they did, it would be enough evidence to expose the truth.

Ask yourself why they just show enough to NOT show what really happened? Regardless of what happened and who is right, if they wanted the truth out, it could be out in two seconds.

So why then, why won't they show it?

That is why I question what happened.

dirty · May 19, 2006

They have stated many times it has been because of evidence in the Massoui Trial. And Now that it is over you will see more and more released... And until the juge releases the evidence (which he doesn't have to do as thier is probably going to be an appeal) then it can't be released

And why can't I use snopes when all these conspiracy theorists that everyone is jumping on the bandwagon of have no Credible sources. Just don't get it.

Shortbus · May 19, 2006

well, you CAN use it, but you can't use it and then rip them for their agenda riddled sources--not that snopes has an agenda--it's just that snopes isn't exactly an authority on the subject.

KTBKRUSHER · May 19, 2006

new standard reply...........

DOC IS A MORON

dirty · May 19, 2006

shortbus said:
well, you CAN use it, but you can't use it and then rip them for their agenda riddled sources--not that snopes has an agenda--it's just that snopes isn't exactly an authority on the subject.

Well I have posted from Popular Mechanics who hired independant engineers and others who are qualified to debunk this.... Very credible.. Snopes has Independant sources as well.... that is why they are there to Debunk Myth's that idiot's create and scams

Doc Mercer · May 19, 2006

KTB ...

we all pray you kid did not inherit your lack of brain power

KTBKRUSHER · May 20, 2006

fk u doc, dont ever talk about my son...
your a fking idiot...i dont talk about ur family ..if you have one..
dont talk about mine or its going to get very personal you fk

dirty · May 20, 2006

Doc.... Keep kids and shit out of it please....

Thanks

Doc Mercer · May 20, 2006

KTB

You are a typical Right Wing suckass who believes all words spoken by King
George

Bush makes Nixon look tame and it is folks like yourself who cant think for themselves and see what the hell is going on that are laughable

Keep sucking up them fumes

Debunking the 9/11 Myth's

EOG Master

EOG Master

EOG Master

EOG Master

EOG Master

2

EOG Master

2

EOG Master

EOG Master

EOG Master

1

EOG Master

EOG Master

EOG Master

EOG Master

EOG Master

EOG Master

EOG Master

2

EOG Master

EOG Master

2

EOG Master

EOG Master

1

EOG Master

1

2

EOG Master

EOG Master

2

EOG Master

EOG Master