Printable View
It's all a big cover up! The real mastermind is....Reverend Jerry Falwell!
http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/re...l_wrinkles.jpg
IT WAS GOD'S PLAN
http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/re...well_chins.jpg
I KNOW YOU'RE SCURRED
http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/re...ll_fingers.jpg
BUT DON'T BE SCURRED
http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/re...lwell_moon.jpg
GOD KEEPS YOU CLOSE TO HIS HEART
http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/re...well/tinky.jpg
TINKY WINKY IS STILL GAY
A purse & the upside down triangle thing above his head?
The gayest entity ever.
Gay gay gay.
Sal - Are you looking at me? Huh? Huh? Are you looking at me? Are you fucking looking at me?
http://www.jokaroo.com/extremevideos/plane_vs_wall.html
scroll down to see it
the plane evaporated on impact...... just like at the Pentagon
it is fun to be a conspiracy theorist. One does not have to think logically at all or spell pentagon for that matter.
did you get a chance to read the popular mechanics article?
sal the link you posted looks interesting alas I don't have the time to watch it :-\
enjoy this instead
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...q=jello+biafra
see, your wrong, AND FUCK THE SPELLING OF A PROPER NOUN, wtf does that have to do with logic flowQuote:
Originally Posted by Mad_Dog
there is no lack of logic, i am not claiming to know what happened, i am saying that the video released DOES NOT show a plane, and there are over 80 other videos that were confinscated and not released
the collapse of the WTC was in no way a direct result of impact and fire, the buildings were built to NOT LOOSE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY FROPM 2 PLANE CRASHES!!!
also, FIRE DOES NOT MAKE STEEL BUILDINGS COLLAPSE!!!
there is NO known occurance of a steel structure collapsing from fire, what does popular mechanics say about this?
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/control.html
Quote:
SIX POSSIBILITIES
This page is what I call “thinking out loud”. There are a limited number of possibilities for what did or did not happen at the Pentagon. It gets even narrower when you add an aircraft to the scenario. A plane, a missile, explosives and purposeful human deception are all possible considerations.
I believe understanding the pros and cons of each major possibility before diving into the evidence creates a framework for interpreting what we see. Somewhere in the descriptions below IS the truth of what happened. It doesn’t mean it was one or the other. A classic sign of misinformation is to have two separate but probable causes embedded into the same situation.
The sidebar contains background information on the various considerations. To fully understand the implications of flying a 757 for the first time, the one entitled "Amateur Pilot" is recommended.
PROS & CONS
1) Hani Hanjour Flew the Aircraft Per the Official Story.
This theory just says what we were told is what happened.
Pro: This means the official story was correct and our government didn’t lie to us.
Con:
a) The complex plot was never discovered.
b) Hani Hanjour was denied the rental of a Cessna 172 after evaluation by a certified flight instructor 3 ½ weeks prior to 9/11 because of poor flying skills.
b) How did 19 Arab hijackers get past security on four flights at three separate international airports with knives, box cutters, mace and bombs according to the 9/11 Commission report?
c) How was he able to navigate from the Ohio/Kentucky border and locate the Pentagon despite never having flown a 757-200?
d) Why were there no interceptor aircraft dispatched as he violated the most secure airspace in the United States?
e) Why did he pass the unprotected White House and the front of the Pentagon which would have caused catastrophic damage and where high-level officials had their offices?
f) How did he perform a 270 degree turn with a 7000 foot altitude drop with military precision and bring the aircraft under control to remain just off the lawn, yet place a 12 foot diameter fuselage between floors 1 and 2 of the Pentagon which is only 14 feet?
g) Why did he target the only section of the Pentagon that had just been reinforced with blast-resistant features and was the least populated area of the Pentagon?
h) Why did he select the only wedge of the Pentagon that had physical obstacles in the flight path and required a last second altitude change to level out in order to strike between floors? The other 4 sides of the building had no obstructions, no elevation change, were more populated and hadn't been renovated with blast-resistant features.
i) He would have needed extraordinary discipline, skill and concentration to maintain control of the aircraft at 506 feet per second to hit 5 lamp poles, a fence, a generator, two trailers and a tree while subtly adjusting altitude prior to striking the Pentagon.
j) Hani Hanjour's name did not appear on the official passenger manifest.
k) The FBI claims to have remains of all 5 hijackers. None of them have been positively identified as Hani Hanjour.
l) If this scenario is true then releasing the videos and physical evidence would be no problem.
2) Flight 77's Controls Were Remotely Overridden With No Hijackers Involved.
This idea assumes that Flight 77 was flying along and that the controls were remotely overridden. The technology for this does exist. The hijacker story would have been just a cover. It accounts for the missing crew, passengers and aircraft. If the crew had been somehow disabled then distress signals would not have been sent. It also accounts for no hijackers being positively identified by autopsies.
Pro: It simplifies the hijacking and piloting skill issues.
Con:
a) It creates a perpetrator(s) that needs to be identified.
b) It may require additional electronics or software installed on the aircraft.
c) A conscious pilot would most certainly have been shutting down flight systems while broadcasting distress signals and radio transmissions.
d) If this scenario is true then releasing the videos and physical evidence would be no problem.
3) Flight 77's Controls Were Remotely Overridden With Hijackers On Board.
This story implies that the aircraft was actually hijacked (maybe proposed as a drill) but the hijackers didn't know the true intent of the plot. It accounts for the missing crew and passengers.
Pro: If the pilots were removed from the cockpit then the hijackers wouldn't have known how to respond to flight control override and the mission would have been successful. It explains the precision of the attack path.
Con:
a) It creates a perpetrator(s) that needs to be identified.
b) It requires 19 people in possession of weapons to avoid detection on 4 separate flights at 3 different international airports.
c) It still leaves us with all of the piloting, navigation and maneuvering issues of an inexperienced pilot up to the override.
d) It may require additional electronics or software installed on the aircraft.
e) If this scenario is true then releasing the videos and physical evidence would be no problem.
4) Trained Suicide Pilot (not a hijacker).
This assumes that somebody was willing to take an aircraft and sacrifice their life to crash the plane.
Pro: This is simple and leaves one less witness.
Con:
a) This is highly unlikely.
b) It creates a perpetrator(s) that needs to be identified.
c) Since this aircraft would be unoccupied except for the pilot we are missing 58 people (I have subtracted the 5 hijackers).
d) This requires destroying a very expensive piece of equipment. If it was tail number N644AA then a cover-up involving American Airlines too.
e) If this scenario is true then releasing the videos and physical evidence would be no problem except for the lack of passengers and crew.
5) Total Remote Control.
This theory purports that an aircraft (probably a military asset - see C-32A sidebar) was configured per the Operation Northwoods scenario with a civil airlines paint configuration. Then it would have been "swapped" with the real Flight 77 in a known radar hole near the Ohio/Kentucky border. The plane that impacted the Pentagon would have been unoccupied from takeoff to impact. It also allows for the possibility that the aircraft was detonated prior to impact which fits witness reports in some cases.
Pro: This explains the extraordinary precision of the flight. It makes sense of the fact that whatever did hit the Pentagon suddenly appeared "out of nowhere" on radar at 9:10 a.m. with no radio contact and no transponder.
Con:
a) It creates a perpetrator(s) that needs to be identified.
b) Since this aircraft was unoccupied we are missing 58 people (I have subtracted the 5 hijackers).
c) This requires having a very expensive piece of equipment unaccounted for.
d) It implies that AA N644AA would have to be destroyed, hidden or have its identity changed (which is addressed in Operation Northwoods) that would involve American Airlines.
e) It would also involve Boeing since an aircraft would have to be acquired and destroyed without records.
f) It probably requires a fairly good sized ground crew to remain silent.
g) It would most likely require practice runs.
h) If this scenario is true then releasing the videos would be no problem. Physical evidence would be a problem since serial numbers and specific parts would vary.
6) No Aircraft at All.
This concept is based either totally on controlled pyrotechnics, a missile, or a combination of both. It does fit evidence at the Pentagon.
Pro: There is evidence for a shape charge being used to create the exit hole. The second frame of the DoD video shows the “aircraft” having a white vapor trail at ground level like a missile. The same frame shows a fireball that is more similar to explosives than a jet fuel explosion. Donald Rumsfeld made a statement about a missile hitting the Pentagon. This theory reconciles eyewitness reports of multiple explosions and accounts for some of the anomalous building and fire damage seen at the Pentagon. It significantly reduces the number of people involved to carry it out (Inside the building they would have had the cover of the renovation construction project going on). Two eyewitnesses reported smelling cordite, a by-product of explosives. It explains the lack of large 757 debris at the Pentagon. It explains why no intercept aircraft were dispatched because there would have been no plane for them to target. It makes sense of the government's adamant refusal to release any of the video or physical evidence they have possession of. See the "Explosives Only" sidebar for details.
Con:
a) It creates a perpetrator(s) that needs to be identified.
b) This requires sophisticated explosive experts and resources.
c) It implies faking all of the light poles and damage evidence preceding the building.
d) It discounts ALL eyewitness statements of an aircraft.
e) All aircraft parts would have to have been planted (which is described in Operation Northwoods).
f) Since no aircraft was involved we are missing 58 people (I have subtracted the 5 hijackers).
g) There were no direct eyewitness reports of a missile.
After looking at this list objectively the theory with the most cons is the official story. The theory with the most pros is the explosives theory. The planting of aircraft parts in that theory was addressed in Operation Northwoods. The faking of the damage preceding the Pentagon wall and reconciling the eyewitness accounts with no aircraft is difficult to explain. The "Eyewitness Page" does show some irreconcilable variations of what people claimed to see that would cast doubt on the veracity of at least some of those claims. The theory of the crew being disabled and the aircraft being flown remotely works perfectly with the available technology, accounts for the destruction of an aircraft and the missing crew and passengers. The theory most aligned with Operation Northwoods is the remote control aircraft swap theory. This possibility is backed up by there being a military 757-200 in the inventory.
The number one question asked by people in regards to any theory that involves the missing passengers and crew is, "What happened to the passengers and crew?" I don't have a good answer for that. The only thing I can say is that Operation Northwoods referred to an aircraft that, "would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases" that will later be taken to an "auxiliary field.....where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers". They go so far as to mention conducting, "funerals for mock-victims". So assuming they believed this would work in 1962 it seems possible they would consider it feasible in 2001. Flight 77 would have had nearly 3 out of 4 seats empty that day.
Remember, none of this would be in doubt if the government decided to prove the hijackers presence on the plane, explain the aircraft's disappearance/reappearance on radar, give us a solid explanation for why intercept aircraft were not dispatched until two minutes before Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon, release the videos the FBI is in possession of, take a media contingent to witness, record and verify aircraft debris, and positively identify the remains of the hijackers. All of the above would require a second independent verification in public view. That would make this website unnecessary.
What I find to be so funny....
People acting like they know exactly what a giant plane with a full tank of jet fuel will do when flown into a skyscraper, who hasn't seen that scenario played out? It's old news to me, we did it for fun back in the day O0
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/norad.htmlQuote:
On the day of 9/11 there were multiple air defense exercises and emergency drills being conducted with some of them having an eerie similarity to what actually happened. These drills took intercept aircraft out of their areas and even caused confusion for agencies switching from an "exercise" to a "real-world" scenario. Imagine being ordered to practice for hijackings and planes flying into buildings and then finding out that it was really happening. Nothing like it had ever happened before - what are the chances?
Once again we find precedent for this in Operation Northwoods. Part of the plot was to use air defense drills as a cover for the shootdown scenario they planned to emotionally outrage Americans in order to justify the invasion of Cuba. They had the aircraft armed so that when the exercise went "real-world" they could respond. They even wanted the innocent pilots to be the ones to discover the planted aircraft debris so that they "would have a true story as far as they knew". The following paragraph is a partial quote from that element of their plan with a link to a searchable version of the document to see the other details.
"Approximately 4 or 5 F-101 aircraft will be dispatched in trail from Homestead AFB, Florida, to the vicinity of Cuba. Their mission will be to reverse course and simulate fakir aircraft for an air defense exercise in southern Florida. These aircraft would conduct variations of these flights at frequent Intervals." Operation Northwoods
The rest of this page provides various quotes and information about the drills and their history. A paragraph with a bold name at the end of it means that you can find more details in the corresponding sidebar. They link to outside articles. To fully appreciate this topic in detail read the links at the bottom of this page.
"In what the government describes as a bizarre coincidence, one U.S. intelligence agency was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 [2001] in which an errant aircraft would crash into one of its buildings.....'It was just an incredible coincidence that this happened to involve an aircraft crashing into our facility,' Haubold said. 'As soon as the real world events began, we canceled the exercise'." National Reconnaissance Office
North American Aerospace Defense Command had just begun Operation Northern Vigilance. For this military operation, it deployed fighters to Alaska and Northern Canada to monitor a Russian air force exercise in the Russian Arctic and North Pacific Ocean, scheduled for September 10 to September 14. NORAD
"The September 11, 2001 attacks occurred during that year's Global Guardian and Vigilant Guardian joint exercises.....Lt. Col. Dawne Deskins, who said 'everybody' at NEADS first thought the attacks were part of Vigilant Guardian." U.S. Strategic Command
"The Federal Aviation Administration received repeated warnings in the months before Sept. 11, 2001, that al Qaeda hoped to attack airlines, according to a previously undisclosed report by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks.....The report detailed 52 such warnings to FAA leaders between April 1 and Sept. 10, 2001, about the terrorist organization and its leader, Osama bin Laden." FAA
What if I told you that a key player on the day of the 9/11 attacks and afterwards was on a committee that considered airliners used as weapons in 1972? What if I told you that person was Rudolph Giuliani? Would you believe me?
"Nearly three decades before the Sept. 11 attacks, a high-level government panel developed plans to protect the nation against terrorist acts ranging from radiological "dirty bombs" to airline missile attacks, according to declassified documents obtained by The Associated Press.......The group was formed in September 1972 by President Nixon after Palestinian commandos slaughtered 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympic Games.....The committee involved people as diverse as Henry Kissinger to a young Rudolph Giuliani, the once-secret documents show." Mayor Giuliani
"President Bush named Kissinger to lead the 10-member commission last month, dropping his longstanding opposition to an independent probe of the events leading up to the September 11 terrorist attacks." It was also probably just a coincidence that Henry Kissinger was asked by Bush to be the original head of the 9/11 Commission. Henry Kissinger
Way back in 1962 a plot that involved hijacking and "crashing airliners" was hatched by the Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to justify the U.S. invasion of a country. In 1972 the future Mayor of a city that would be attacked 19 years later by hijacked aircraft studied the possibility of airliners being used as weapons with the man to later be appointed the original head of the 9/11 Commission.
From 1991 through 2001 military drills with similarities to the 9/11 attacks were conducted including an airliner crash into the Pentagon. The FAA had been warned 52 times of the possibility of hijacking's in the 5 months preceding 9/11. On the morning of 9/11 drills were being played out that pulled our military intercepts away from responding and that were potentially so similar to the actual events that the military and the FAA were confused switching from the "exercise" to the "real-world".
Also that very same morning in a "bizarre coincidence" an intelligence agency was having an exercise of a plane crashing into a building in Washington D.C. just a few miles from where a plane, according to the official story, really did hit a building. The plane just happened to hit the only wall of the building that was just finishing being reinforced the very same week in case of a terrorist attack. The Captain of the flight that reportedly hit the building had actually worked in the exact offices that were destroyed where he had planned anti-terrorism strategies until 1996. Then 27 days later the U.S. President invaded a country, then another and is now posturing for yet another.
"Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to kill on that fateful morning, I would have done everything in my power to protect the American people." George Bush