The attack on the Pentagon

[gypsum]

CTS, could you please answer the questions that you have been asked? You seem to be ignoring people.

[catfish]

I followed CTS's advice and googled "twin towers collapse" and found this:
"The real damage in the World Trade Center resulted from the size of the fire. Each floor was about an acre, and the fire covered the whole floor within a few seconds." I found this at this link: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse2.html

But then on the same site I found this: "The descent: So Stanley and I went back to the stairs on the 81st floor, and we began down. The first five floors were difficult, because in certain areas dry wall had been blown off the wall and was lying propped up against the railing. We had to move it, shove it to the side. The sprinkler system had turned on and had started to do something, but it wasn't doing its job as it should, so there was water sloshing down the stairways. It was dark.

Now, the stairways didn't go straight down. There was one particular area around the 78th floor, I think, where you actually came to some strange twists. So we had to figure that out in the darkness, but we made some fortunate decisions. Around the 74th floor, I would say, we broke into what I call fresh air. The lights were on. It was normal conditions. There was not a problem breathing, and there was nobody there, not a soul, just Stanley and me. We were starting to have normal conversation. He was cut and bruised a bit, but he was fine conversing. I think he had his shirt off; he was just in his undershirt.

We continued on down. On the 68th floor, we met one man walking up. The man's name was Jose Marrero." This is a quote from Brian Clark, an executive vice president at Euro Brokers, a brokerage firm that had offices on the 84th floor of 2 World Trade Centeris, and is taken from this link here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/above.html
Bear in mind that the plane hit between the 78th and 81st floors I wonder how Brian could have survived. If you read the full article Brian only began his descent after at the very least, ten minutes, yet this fire spread over an acre in seconds. Thankyou CTS.

[catfish]

Also look here for a computer animation showing how the plane caused such devastation.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7236


But then wonder again how Brian could have got past this inferno.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/above.html

Please everyone read these links.

[catfish]

I'm sorry I won't comment on the Pentagon because I feel the "plane/no plane debate" detracts from the fact that it was an inside job.

[catfish]

Sorry I will comment to say this:

Revealing evidence pointing to an inside job is shown in Norman Mineta's testimony to the 9/11 Commision which was ommited from the final report. Here is an extract from that testimony were Lee Hamilton, Vice Chairman of the Commision is questioning Mineta:

Hamilton: I want to focus just a moment on the Presidential Operating Emergency Centre, you were there for a good part of the day, I think you were there with the vice president (Cheney). And we had that order given I think it was by the president, that authorized the shooting down of commercial aircraft* that were suspected to be controlled by terrorists. Where you there when that order was given?

Mineta: No I was not but I was made aware of it during the time that the airplane coming into the pentagon, there was a young man who'd come in and say to the vice president, the plane is fifty miles out, the plane is thirty miles out, and when it got down to, the plane is ten miles out, the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" and the vice president turned, whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?" Well at the time I didn't know what all that meant, and

Hamilton: The flight you're referring to is the?

Mineta: The flight that came into the Pentagon

Hamilton: The Pentagon yeah.

Mineta: And so I was not aware that that discussion had already taken place and, but in listening to the conversation between the young man and the vice president, then at the time I didn't really recognise the significance of that, and then later I heard of the fact that, the airplanes had been scrambled from Langley, to come up to DC, but those planes were still about ten minutes away, and so, then at the time, we heard about the airplane that went into Pensylvania, then I thought, "Oh my God, did we shoot it down?" And then we had to, with the vice president, go through the Pentagon to check that out.

Hamilton: Let me see if I understand, the plane that was headed toward the Pentagon, and was some miles away, there was an order to shoot that plane down?

Mineta: Well, I don't know that specifically, but I do know that the airplanes were scrambled from Langley, or from Norfolk, the Norfolk area so, but I didn't know about the order specifically, other than listening to that other conversation.

Hamilton: But there very clearly was an order to shoot commercial aircraft down?

Mineta: Subsequently I found that out.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Mineta

This entire testimony can be watched on video here:
http://www.911truthmovement.org/video/hamilton_win.wmv

Or read about here:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?sto ... 4164122860

[ConspiracyTheorySceptic]

Dear Ian

Thanks for directing me to the link:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911 ... dence.html

The person who collated all this information from the many photographs available on the internet has obviously spent hours of time on the research. The evidence he puts forward for the crash of an airliner into the Pentagon seems overwhelming, and supports what I said in my short article.

Here is another site I found only today, out of the many available, that gives a completely rational explanation for the collapse of the Twin Towers without having to postulate the use of explosives:

http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/

Some other questions:

1. Have the 9/11 conspiracy theorists estimated just how many Americans would have been involved in planning, training for, and carrying out all the various aspects of the 9/11 events. Surely, the figure must have run into 100s. Yet in more than 4 years since 9/11, not a single one has broken ranks to come forward either to make millions of dollars for their story or else to relieve the very bad conscience that some of them must have for killing 1000s of fellow Americans. To claim that they have all been silenced in some way is too trite to be credible.

2. Assuming the 9/11 conspiracy to be true, and that everything planned went off with well-timed and spectacular success, yet someone overlooked that it would have been wise not to have the George Bush live on television when the planes were slamming into the Twin Towers. The fact that he WAS live on television as the events unfolded, is, for me, reasonable proof that he was completely innocent of any foreknowledge of the events of the day.

Ian, I thank you for the measured response of your reply, unlike the near-abuse to which I have been subjected by some respondents - apparently for daring to question their cherished beliefs. I have been requested by several to remove myself from this site.

CTS

[kbo234]

I meant, that it was the nose of the aircraft that made contact with the wall of the Pentagon first, and that at the moment of first contact, the whole of its kinetic energy was focused at the point of contact. When one hammers a nail into some wood, the energy imparted by the hammer is focused at the tip of the nail. That is why it is easy to hammer nails into wood. That is why it was easy for the airliner to penetrate reinforced concrete.

Leaving aside the very complex series of processes and particular circumstances that will determine the nature of the interaction between plane and walls in the first few microseconds of impact.... The nail will only go into the wood if the nail is harder than the wood. The nose-cone of an airplane is thin and is not hard enough to pentrate a concrete wall. The nose-cone will collapse not the wall. any piercing of the wall could only be caused by dense and rigid steel parts within the central body of the aircraft or by the two large engines on the wings of the aircraft. These engines seem to have caused no damage whatever to the walls of the Pentagon. This is probably the strongest evidence (the most obvious at least) that an aircraft did not strike the building.

[catfish]

This is the link CTS posted http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/

And this is their explanation for how the towers fell:

Newspapers and TV newscasts reported that the twin towers had been designed to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707. The events of September 11th show that this was indeed the case. "However, the World Trade Center was never designed for the massive explosions nor the intense jet fuel fires that came next—a key design omission," stated Eduardo Kausel, another M.I.T. professor of civil and environmental engineering and panel member. The towers collapsed only after the kerosene fuel fire compromised the integrity of their structural tubes: One WTC lasted for 105 minutes, whereas Two WTC remained standing for 47 minutes. "It was designed for the type of fire you'd expect in an office building—paper, desks, drapes," McNamara said. The aviation fuel fires that broke out burned at a much hotter temperature than the typical contents of an office. "At about 800 degrees Fahrenheit structural steel starts to lose its strength; at 1,500 degrees F, all bets are off as steel members become significantly weakened," he explained.

So I would ask again, anyone, how did Brian get out?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/above.html

The plane/no-plane debate does not confirm or deny an inside job, see my post above
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewt ... =6483#6483

[Dstevo]

CTS

Doesn't it strike you as odd that Bush stayed in that classroom? The secret service around him knew America was under attack, if they didn't know that Bush wasn't a target their standard procedure says they should get him out of there and to a secure location ASAP. I mean, like you say he was live on TV, his location there for the world and his dog to know.

Now the PBS link you posted, i personally wouldn't use a site that promotes obvious over-statements of evidence such as this:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse2.html

Does that plane even resemble any of the planes that hit the towers? If that's their basis for a simple animation god knows what there basis is for their pie in the sky temperatures and pancake collapses.

And the biggest part about the Pentagon is exactly what Pikey says, we know they have the footage of whatever impacted, or at the very least footage of it approaching it's target, why not show this if it supports their version of events. An old saying which i feel is very apt, If you haven't got anything to hide, don't act as though you do.

[Jim]

In response to your questions:

The evidence he puts forward for the crash of an airliner into the Pentagon seems overwhelming, and supports what I said in my short article.

It seems that something flew through the air and hit the Pentagon but we have not seen definitive evidence that corroborates the story that it was a 757 - we only have mixed, conflicting eyewitness testimony, some unclear photographic images, dubious simulations and the word of the authorities that it was. We do know that the authorities have access to multiple, separate CCTV recordings of the impact areas around the Pentagon - they have only released a few frames from one source that show nothing of any real value. You can, however, see what appears to be a tail section of something flying up and over the top of the Pentagon - see attached image. IMHO all of the image mappings of aircraft onto those video frames seem to show whatever you want to see - Global Hawks, Cruise Missiles, 757s etc.

Q. Why have the authorities not quashed this conspiracy theory by releasing the rest of the available video footage?

Here is another site I found only today, out of the many available, that gives a completely rational explanation for the collapse of the Twin Towers without having to postulate the use of explosives

There is anecdotal video/audio evidence kindly provided by Larry Silverstein, the leaseholder of the WTC complex, that:

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

See and hear his admission here: http://infowars.com/Video/911/wtc7_pbs.WMV

"In the same program a cleanup worker referred to the demolition of WTC 6: "... we're getting ready to pull the building six.""
Source: http://www.rense.com/general47/pulled.htm

Observe the collapse of building 7 and witness a perfect controlled demolition in progress ...

Q. Buildings 6 & 7 were "pulled" - what about 1 & 2?

1. Have the 9/11 conspiracy theorists estimated just how many Americans would have been involved in planning, training for, and carrying out all the various aspects of the 9/11 events. Surely, the figure must have run into 100s. Yet in more than 4 years since 9/11, not a single one has broken ranks to come forward either to make millions of dollars for their story or else to relieve the very bad conscience that some of them must have for killing 1000s of fellow Americans. To claim that they have all been silenced in some way is too trite to be credible.

1. If you had knowingly played a part in such a heinous crime, would you openly admit your complicity to the American/global public? Would you be concerned about the repercussions of the public reaction and those who also took part? You would not make many friends. What about your family?

2. The secret services around the globe operate compartmentalised, "need to know" hierarchies that are deliberately designed to obfuscate overall planning strategies. There are compartments within compartments - it would have been very difficult to know if individual actions (further down the hierarchy) led to the events on 9/11. Those geometrically fewer people further up the pyramid would know geometrically more than those further down the hierarchy and thus it is the few that control the many - standard organisational practice.

3. It is known that FBI agents tried to warn the upper levels of the authority structure that there was the possibility of attack. They were blocked and subsequent investigations did not take place. I'll leave it to you research more on that one ... try this link: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0321-11.htm

2. Assuming the 9/11 conspiracy to be true, and that everything planned went off with well-timed and spectacular success, yet someone overlooked that it would have been wise not to have the George Bush live on television when the planes were slamming into the Twin Towers. The fact that he WAS live on television as the events unfolded, is, for me, reasonable proof that he was completely innocent of any foreknowledge of the events of the day.

If Bush was complicit then there was nothing for him to worry about i.e. there was no chance of his safety being compromised. He was also at a safe distance away from the unfolding events.

At this point I suggest that you watch Loose Change 2:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... ose+change

[ConspiracyTheorySceptic]

xmasdale wrote:
No no no! CTS's posts are on topic and not damaging to our reputation. We need people like him/her here to debate with. I have been criticised for saying that off-topic threads which promote hatred should be removed, but CTSs posts are not of this kind. Debating with her/him allows campaigners to sharpen up their arguments and learn how best to deal with the kind of arguments CTS presents. My thanks go to CTS for providing us with this opportunity.

Thankyou, xmasdale, for your courteous comments.

CTS

[Pikey]

CTS stated:-

I was not using precise language. By "concentrated at the nose of the aircraft". I meant, that it was the nose of the aircraft that made contact with the wall of the Pentagon first, and that at the moment of first contact, the whole of its kinetic energy was focused at the point of contact. When one hammers a nail into some wood, the energy imparted by the hammer is focused at the tip of the nail. That is why it is easy to hammer nails into wood. That is why it was easy for the airliner to penetrate reinforced concrete.

The nosecone of a Boeing 757 (Flight 77) is made of carbon steel. A Materials Scientist will tell you that carbon steel has a low strength/impact resistance threshold.

The official story of the Pentagon strike is that a Boeing 757 penetrated three reinforced concrete rings of the Pentagon. Do you really believe that CTS?

I suggest, as I have done previously, that you carry out some in depth research and critical analysis before you come back again on this thread
or alternatively give us some hard evidence to show that a 757 was responsible for the hit.

Peace & truth

[ConspiracyTheorySceptic]

kbo234 writes:

Leaving aside the very complex series of processes and particular circumstances that will determine the nature of the interaction between plane and walls in the first few microseconds of impact.... The nail will only go into the wood if the nail is harder than the wood. The nose-cone of an airplane is thin and is not hard enough to pentrate a concrete wall. The nose-cone will collapse not the wall. any piercing of the wall could only be caused by dense and rigid steel parts within the central body of the aircraft or by the two large engines on the wings of the aircraft. These engines seem to have caused no damage whatever to the walls of the Pentagon. This is probably the strongest evidence (the most obvious at least) that an aircraft did not strike the building.

I find it strange to hear from a physicist that the nail will only penetrate the wood if it is harder than the wood. Does kbo234 not know that a very fine jet of water expelled at a sufficiently high velocity is capable of cutting through steel? Has he not read, many times, of how dangerous debris in space orbit is to space craft, of how a flake of paint in orbit, travelling at high relative speed, could collide with a space craft and go right through it like a bullet? To cause penetration of a substance, hardness helps but what really matters is the energy.

Flight 77 certainly had the energy, and though the upper part of the nose might have crumpled on contact with the wall, the floor of the aircraft was made more strongly. Also, the mass of the fuselage would have been supplemented with the masses of engines, undercarriages, and wings as the wings folded along the fuselage as they came into contact with the walls of the Pentagon. [I read an account not long ago of a man whose job in Britain in WW2 was to visit and examine and make a report about every aircraft that crashed in the area for which he was responsible. He observed that every entry hole in the ground that he saw was invariably of smaller diameter than the wingspan of the aircraft!!!]

If you ask where are the marks on the walls to show where contact was made, well, you would have to look behind the 18 feet hole to find the damaged parts of the wall, carried there by the aircraft!!

[insidejob]

I'm sorry, but why are we contining with ConspiracyTheorySceptic's science fantasy.

"...Has he not read, many times, of how dangerous debris in space orbit is to space craft, of how a flake of paint in orbit, travelling at high relative speed, could collide with a space craft and go right through it like a bullet?.."

We're not talking about travelling to Mars at light speed or whatever, we're talking about an aircraft at cruising speed. CTS says that no debris was left because of the fire and because the plane smashed into reinforced concrete. He says the plane's energy meant the lightweight nose could punch a hole in reinforced concrete. But he then says debris is left when a plane crashes into the ground. Well, what happens to all that space-craft-like energy?

You can't have it both ways. You can't say that the concrete smashes the plane into little bits and gets burned to nothing by jet fuel. Then say the plane smashes through three separate Pentagon rings and then disintegrates and burns to nothing. This is science fantasy.

I'm inclined to be dismissive of CTS' views rather than take them seriously. We should engage in debate with criticis who are willing to seriously consider our points of view as well as those who can bring new facts or perspectives to challenge our view. Or who identify holes in our theories.

CTS came to our website ready to ridicule our views and has merely come up with a rehash of the official nonsense. His position is: "I'm no conspiracy nut. I believe in the official gobbledygook." There's a future for CTS in writing the next Star Trek film and I'm sure I'd go to see it. But to find out what happened on 911, I wouldn't go to Spok.

insidejob

[Andrew Johnson]

There are some on this board that know well how our intelligence services operate. If there is some group of people who are getting together and share a common aim which is against the agenda that the intelligence services want to further, then the intelligence services will try to subtley and not-so-subtely influence the group - often through tactics which will divide or simply "sap the energy" of the group they are engaging with and result in its break up or just that it will become ineffective.

We are given to wonder if anyonymous posters like CTS are just ordinary people who like an argument (and there's at least one of those - probably 2 - in my own family), or whether they are actually using the tactics outlined above (or some version of them). Due to the level of anonymity these boards allow people (which is good and perhaps necessary feature for some people to post here - though I have no problem with people knowing who I am and where I live), we cannot easily tell which category CTS falls into.

If it is the former, then we have tried to treat their views sensibly, though I myself like to indulge in a bit of "ragging", especially when it seems that the person I am "ragging" might have done the same. Some people here are more blunt - but hopefully we are all grown up enough to take insults and snide remarks in our stride when discussing matters of paramount importance.

If CTS falls into the latter category, then I would like to offer the person behind the handle these thoughts to consider. 9/11 represents a watershed moment in our history - a massive and brutal crime was committed in broad daylight in a major city - essentially by a group of greedy, self-interested people who had the money and power to mask their crime behind a veil of propaganda, spin and lies. Do the people working for the intelligence services really wish to align themselves with a group of people who would do this? Or do they wish to consider a different way of living - without secrecy, lies, greed and self-interest?

Perhaps they think that what they are doing will preserve our access to things like fossil fuels. Have they considered that these may not even be required? Several people here (including me) have given pointers to evidence which shows the reality of free energy sources. Sadly, people who work on these technologies have experienced a similar treatment to 9/11 Truthers - being ridiculed and harassed - possibly even murdered - even when they are respected scientists.

Many here may not agree with my line of thinking, but the way I see things is that 9/11 represents the last desperate clutch at maintaining the control mechanisms which we have been subjected to for at least the last 100 years - possible 1000's of years.

Now, things are different. We have free access to almost limitless information - we can freely communicate in great volume, across the globe, in seconds. The technology that has, in some instances, been used to instantiate the control mechanisms has now liberated us. Some of us have already found the truth. The game is already up. We are free. Come and join us in the new reality - the old one looks decidedly tarnished once you have.

[ConspiracyTheorySceptic]

JHR writes:
1. If you had knowingly played a part in such a heinous crime, would you openly admit your complicity to the American/global public? Would you be concerned about the repercussions of the public reaction and those who also took part? You would not make many friends. What about your family?


Dear JHR
1) No, if I had knowingly played a part in such a heinous crime, of course I would not publicly admit my complicity. However, if I could make clandestine contact with a newspaper, or publish a book , revealing all the details and the parts played by members of the US administration, I could make millions of dollars from my revelations.
2) If I had unknowingly, unwittingly, innocently, played a part in carrying out 9/11, maybe, by just carrying out orders or instructions at the time that seemed innocuous enough but that, in hindsight, could be seen as part of the larger plan, I could clandestinely - to protect my safety - approach the press with my revelations and again make a lot of money.
Once the story broke in the press it would be impossible to suppress it and frighten off the press from revealing more. Remember, just two reporters and one newspaper brought about the resignation of a President in the Watergate affair.

The fact that no one has has broken ranks to reveal their story is a powerful indication that 9/11 was not an inside job.

I will make a prediction: Not a single American will ever come forward to claim responsibility for the events of 9/11 (except for possibly Flight 93) - not in the next 5 years, or 10 years, or 20 years - not ever!!!

I think Flight 93 might have been shot down because NORAD might by then have got its act together and received authorisation at the highest level to shoot down the plane to prevent even greater loss of life elsewere.
I could actually believe that. It is a rational conclusion to draw. and it would explain why the US administration are refusing to release any material on 9/11 - because they are harbouring a terrible secret: they ordered Flight 93 to be shot down!!
They could be reasoning that if they release some, then they might be under great pressure to release much more, possibly blowing their terrible secret.


JHR writes:

If Bush was complicit then there was nothing for him to worry about i.e. there was no chance of his safety being compromised. He was also at a safe distance away from the unfolding events.

Dear JHR
You do seem to have missed the point of my comment about Bush being on television when the planes struck the Twin Towers .
With Bush live on television, people had the opportunity to study his reaction when given the news. Giving people that opportunity was surely giving a hostage to fortune and a totally avoidable pitfall assuming that 9/11 was an inside job. Careful planning would have ensured that George Bush was out of sight, maybe on his Texas ranch, on 9/11.

As it was, he was live on television on the morning of 9/11. Proof positive, to my mind, that Bush and his entourage had no foreknowledge of the events of the day.

[ConspiracyTheorySceptic]

inside job writes:

You can't have it both ways. You can't say that the concrete smashes the plane into little bits and gets burned to nothing by jet fuel. Then say the plane smashes through three separate Pentagon rings and then disintegrates and burns to nothing. This is science fantasy.

Really, Insidejob, science fantasy!!
But it is, sadly, an everyday event on the roads, when two vehicles collide on the road, both - BOTH - of them get badly damaged.
So nothing strange in both the aircraft and the wall of the Pentagon being damaged. You have to remember that the energy that had to be dissipated was enormous.

CTS

[Wokeman]

CTD says "As it was, he was live on television on the morning of 9/11. Proof positive, to my mind, that Bush and his entourage had no foreknowledge of the events of the day".



Therefore if had Bush "had no foreknowledge of the events of the day" is CTS suggesting that remaining in the class reading "My Pet Goat" would have been normal and acceptable behaviour for Bush to adopt in the circumstances. That is laughable.

[freddie]

Hello CTS,

Just a couple of points;

-What makes you think the people who 'carried out' the attack know anything about the chain of command above them? - Is this based on anything other than your speculation? - Another way to look at this is to ask; "looking back over history, what persentage of covert operations have had a member come forward and blab to the media/public?" I doubt very much if anyone could answer that question as how are we to know how many covert / wet ops are happening. My point is, for you to say that this lack of confession is a "powerful indication" that it was not an inside job is frankly laughable. You are assuming that the special military forces share the same view point / morals as you, perhaps they thought the whole thing went brilliantly, got the wars, got the oil, got saddam etc... Why come forward if they like the plan?

I am not going to speculate but it is useful to consider the private armies of the top US leadership. Do you know what US Navy Intel gets up to with their training? Wet-ops, dirty tricks etc... - NATO mercs? ... Many of these special forces have more than a court marshalling to keep you in line.

With Bush live on television, people had the opportunity to study his reaction when given the news. Giving people that opportunity was surely giving a hostage to fortune and a totally avoidable pitfall assuming that 9/11 was an inside job. Careful planning would have ensured that George Bush was out of sight, maybe on his Texas ranch, on 9/11.

As it was, he was live on television on the morning of 9/11. Proof positive, to my mind, that Bush and his entourage had no foreknowledge of the events of the day.

I think you are way off on this one, well not way off, but your logic is twisted. I agree that the photo op gave us all a chance to see him on the morning. Not just see him, but see him for over ten minutes! Do you not think that was strange? They left him there to read with kids while the country was under attack? .... Sorry, but this looks to me like the best possible place to put him on the morning of the attack.

If he was out of site, there would be a lot more suspicion. But this way, on TV surrounded by childrens' pictures, childrens' heads in the forground and childrens' voices as the audio - I don't think I could have picked a better place myself. It gives him a perfect alibi, which everyone can see. He gets to look stupid and confused for a bit (I personally believe he either didn't know the full plan or he didn't know the date) and most of all he is in a school surrounded by kids, what paints a better picture of innocence?

Not to mention, his statement (made twice!) that stated he saw the plane hit the first tower before he went into the classroom (impossible without prior knowledge) and the fact they didn't rush him out when he was a possible target. Oh yeh, and there's also the slight question of 'if he is the president, why wasn't he doing anything?' - And I don't want to hear 'he's a big dummy' because that is getting really old now and is a way to easy escape route.

Sorry for this being rushed but you appear to be very comfortable on some really shakey arguements - One thing to mention about the pentagon - how big are you saying the hole was? Surely this would have been one of your first bits to look into so could I just double check that your own research has come to the conclusion that it was an 18ft hole? This point (for me) tells a lot about how much you've looked into this stuff.

PS: I don't want you to go, not at all, but I would like you to be honest in the areas of the official story/ your own story that you believe to be shakey - not just defend everything as if we're talking complete rubbish. That way we don't waste our time arguing every little point, many of which cannot be proven eitherway.

My last question is all important - Do you think we should have a proper inquiry? - Do you think the commission report was sufficient? - Have you read it or are you just working on a platform of 'debunking' the easiest elements from various conspiracy videos?

Peace,
Fred

[ConspiracyTheorySceptic]

Pikey writes:

or alternatively give us some hard evidence to show that a 757 was responsible for the hit.

Sure, Pikey, why not click on this site:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911 ... dence.html

It supports everything I said in my short article.

It shows photographs of engines and undercarriage and other parts of the airliner found in the debris behind the entry hole in the Pentagon.

CTS

[brian]

From CTS -

"Dear JHR
1) No, if I had knowingly played a part in such a heinous crime, of course I would not publicly admit my complicity. However, if I could make clandestine contact with a newspaper, or publish a book , revealing all the details and the parts played by members of the US administration, I could make millions of dollars from my revelations."

From ConspiracyTheorySceptic to absolute fantasist in one easy lesson.

[ConspiracyTheorySceptic]

Freddie writes:

What makes you think the people who 'carried out' the attack know anything about the chain of command above them? - Is this based on anything other than your speculation?

Sure, Freddie, I am just speculating, but I would expect anyone working for an organisation to know something about that organisation, maybe a little, maybe a lot. And if that organisation were involved in the events of 9/11 in some way, then I would be expecting people working for that organisation to be questioning the organisation's role in the events, and examining any strange instructions or orders in the light of what had happened on 9/11.

These events were not clandestine. They were carried out in the broad light of day and publicity, unlike numerous covert operations in history about which there was no publicity at the time; eg Bletchley Park in WW2 and the breaking of the German military codes.
The events of 9/11 had maximum publicity, and the conspiracy theories have had considerable airing on the internet.
Anyone with inside knowledge could reveal what they know on the internet with complete anonymity.
But in over 4 years, there has not been a toot from anyone!!!
If 9/11 really was an inside job, don't you think that is strange?
CTS
_________________________________________________________________

[numeral]

inside job writes:

You can't have it both ways. You can't say that the concrete smashes the plane into little bits and gets burned to nothing by jet fuel. Then say the plane smashes through three separate Pentagon rings and then disintegrates and burns to nothing. This is science fantasy.

Really, Insidejob, science fantasy!!
But it is, sadly, an everyday event on the roads, when two vehicles collide on the road, both - BOTH - of them get badly damaged.
So nothing strange in both the aircraft and the wall of the Pentagon being damaged. You have to remember that the energy that had to be dissipated was enormous.

CTS

CTS, you are brilliant. One vehicle bores a hole through another and at the same time is vaporised. Conclusion: it was made of depleted Uranium.

Nothing strange about that.

BTW, do you have the figures on how many US soldiers have died from Gulf War Syndrome?

[numeral]

Those individuals (military and civilian) at or near target areas are most immediately affected by DU contamination, especially if they remain there for an extended time. During the 6 week 1991 Gulf war only 467 U.S. personnel were wounded and about 150 killed. Out of the 580,000 military personnel who served in that war, 325,000 were reported to be on permanent medical disability by the year 2000. It was also reported then the number was increasing by 43,000 each year. In fact, the annual increases were even greater, and by 2004 the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (the VA) reported over 518,000 Gulf-era veterans to be on medical disability. It also reported over 500,000 veterans were homeless. Studies were also done on veterans whose wives had normal babies before the war. It reported two-thirds of post-war births of those studied had severe birth defects, such as missing brains, eyes, legs and arms and blood diseases.

There are already scattered early reports of DU caused health problems from the current Iraq conflict (and probably Afghanistan) as well as an above normal rate of still active duty military and veteran suicide and family violence. As deployments in the current conflict are much longer than the short Gulf war and most serving go back for a second or even third tour of duty, it's easy to imagine a literal holocaust that will eventually devastate all military and other personnel who have or are now serving or will serve in Iraq and the region. And it likely will have a similar effect on the wives and husbands of veterans and their post-service offspring. Once again it must be emphasized. The U.S. government prior to 1991 had full knowledge of the devastating effects DU would cause and still used it, still does and still intends to keep using it. Beyond belief? You bet. If someone wrote this as a work of fiction or science fiction, no one would believe it, and probably no one would publish it.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... cleId=1754[/url]

[ConspiracyTheorySceptic]

Pikey wrote:

Of course the evidence of what actually happened at the Pentagon was all recorded by the authorities themselves (there are CCTV cameras all around the perimeter of the Pentagon) and also by the CCTV cameras of a filling station and hotel opposite, which had their videos immediately confiscated by the authorities.

So tell me CTS why the authorities will not put this evidence in the public domain. What have they got to hide? could be the truth?

The truth as they say CTS, conquers all!

Sorry, Pikey, for being slow to reply to your question.

I will try and answer it from the viewpoint of the US Government. But I insist I hold no brief for them. But it is the US Government that is withholding the information and I am going to try to see the problem with the eyes of the Government, to analyse the problem to see if the withholding of the documents is necessarily sinister. After all, the people on this site claim they are after the truth. I will assume from that that they are interested in objective truth and not just the truth as they would like it to be or as they currently think it is.

After the events of 9/11, the US Governement finds itself confronted with a growing and vociferous conspiracy theory lobby claiming that either the US Governemnt planned and carried out 9/11 for nefarious economic and political ends; or that they did not plan and carry it out but had foreknowledge of the attack and allowed it to happen because it suited their nefarious economic and political ends.

Of course, if the US Governement is guilty as charged, then it will want to withhold all documents and CCTV footage, and people would be right to question their decision and to suggest that it is an indication of guilt. And, of course, if that were true, I would be a fully paid-up member of the anti-George-Bush-Government lobby.

But, let us assume, just for the sake of debate, that 9/11 was really carried out by 19 suicidal Arab terrorists, and that the US Government was entirely innocent. Yet, despite that, there is a huge clamour from conspiracy theorists claiming that 9/11 was an inside job and demanding the release of documents and CCTV footage. Imagine, Pikey, it is your decision. Do you release the documents and the footage? You ponder your decision. Your lawyers advise you that, by entering into a debate with the conspiracy theorists, you give them credibility even though, your lawyers advise you, many of them are politically-motivated people pursuing their own anti-American or anti US Government agenda.

But imagine that you ignore your lawyers’ advice and you decide to release the CCTV footage, and it shows a large airliner slamming into the Pentagon and bursting into flames. Do you think the conspiracy theorists would be satisfied with the evidence? Some would, and they would put up their hands and say they were wrong. But what about the others? Some would claim that the footage was faked. Nothing would ever convince them, because a lot of conspiracy theorists are like that. Totally mistrustful of governments, of official versions. And so the debate would go on. Nothing would have been achieved.

Maybe, the US Government has got something serious to hide – a terrible secret. Maybe Flight 93 was shot down after authorisation was given at the highest level (Cheney? Bush?) to prevent more serious loss of life elsewhere. The few people in the know (politicians, fighter pilots, their commanding officers, air traffic controllers who witnessed the event on their radar screens) are sworn to secrecy. The US Government decides it will do everything necessary to prevent the secret ever being revealed and confirmed. Rather than risk the secret being revealed bit by bit, it decides the safest and best policy is to put a blanket ban on the release of any official information about 9/11 except for that revealed in public inquiries. They reason that, if they allow some scraps of information to be revealed, then this will set a precedent and the demand will grow to reveal even more. Applications could be made through the courts citing the precedent of material already revealed. Eventually, they might not be able to hold the requests at bay and they could find themselves legally obliged to reveal what really happened to Flight 93!!!


I am certain that the US Government is guilty of much malpractice and I have been very critical of much of its foreign policy, from Vietnam onward, but it just could be that the US Government was entirely innocent on 9/11, and that America really was attacked by Islamic fundamentalists on 9/11.

It is what I believe; and there are rational explanations for the collapse of the Twin Towers that do not postulate the use of explosives; and overwhelming evidence for the crash of a large airliner into the Pentagon. But, maybe, the US Government really does have something terrible to hide concerning Flight 93.

CTS

[numeral]

Flight 93? Oh, you mean the one that landed at Cleveland, Ohio.

[ian neal]

CTS The way to address your doubts about Flight 93 would of course be through an independent inquiry (as opposed to an inquiry by Bush's cronies)

I wonder what your defintion of a 'conspiracy theorist' is CTS. Do the numerous public figures listed on this site's front page fit your defintion? How about the 9/11 family campaigners the majority of whose questions were never answered?

It is not just stereo typed 'anti-american' 'conspiracy theorists' who challenge Bush's account of events

[Jim]

CTS,

In summary:

1. We have visual confirmation of aircraft hitting WTCs 1 & 2.
2. We don't have visual confirmation of an aircraft hitting the Pentagon.
3. We do not have any other investigative evidence proving that a 757 hit the Pentagon.

(1) Implies aircraft hit WTCs 1 & 2 and that aircraft travelling at high velocity can cut through certain building structures.

(2) Does not imply that an aircraft did not hit the Pentagon, it only implies that we don't know what hit the Pentagon.

(3) Would normally be able to help determine what did hit the Pentagon.

Given that we have no hard evidence provided by any formal enquiry or informal visual presentation as to what hit the Pentagon, we do not know to any degree of precision what did hit the Pentagon.

It should be the responsibility of the authorities to inform the people on the facts surrounding the events that took place by producing formal investigative evidence to confirm to a high degree of precision what did take place. President Bush verbally promised this during the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11th - there has been no formal investigation to-date. The way things stand it is the people that are attempting to determine what happened through their own investigative methods.

Under normal circumstances, if a criminal event takes place authorities endeavour to determine what the key facts (and supporting evidence) are surrounding the event and will present that evidence in order to determine what happened and what course of action is required. In the case of events surrounding 9/11 no formal investigation or presentation of the facts determined by such enquiry has taken place. In fact it seems that a great deal of evidence was removed from the WTC crime scene and effectively destroyed - a criminal act in itself.

The courses of action that have taken place as a reaction to the events surrounding 9/11 have no formal basis on which to justify those actions. We only have the word of the authorities, the non-specific 9/11 Commission Report (that merely echoes the government line) and no hard evidence to support their claims. So far, the word of authority has been proven to be inexact and deliberately contrived:

o No Iraqi WMDs (biological or otherwise)
o Anthrax (a biological WMD) sourced from a US military facility
o No Iraqi nuclear enrichment program - Colin Powell's little vial of Yellowcake Uranium
o Paper evidence of fact-cooking e.g. Dodgy Dossiers and memos
o Fake Al-Q'Aeda video-tapes
o No connection between Al-Q'Aeda and Iraq
o Lies about lack of prior knowledge - the intelligence community were well aware of impending attacks
... and plenty more ...

See here for a list of more lies and distortions: http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... le4882.htm

All the above are either down to 'bad intelligence', incompentence or people are being deliberately manipulated. We do have evidence that suggests that we were (and are) being deliberately lied to in order to further geo-political agendas e.g. Dodgy Dossiers and Downing Street memos, statements from the late Dr. David Kelly re. Iraqi WMD capabilities and some anecdotal e.g. the PNAC "Rebuilding Americas Defenses 2000" report. There is not one good reason to believe anything that we have and/or are being been told by the authorities wrt. to 9/11 related affairs (at least) because, so far, nothing they have said has any basis in truth i.e. truth based the facts as we now know them.

The acts of the authorities are IMHO criminal in that there is no legal ground on which Coalition governments stand wrt. the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. We have no real proof of anything that has been claimed to be factual by authority so we must look closely at the events surrounding 9/11, the authoritarian reactions to it, anecdotal evidence and historical information in order to determine what has happened.

The mass of anecdotal evidence e.g. Pentgon strike anomalies, admitted WTC 7 demolition (leading to understandable concerns about the collapses of WTCs 1 & 2 - possibilities backed up by plenty of evidence) only compound the overall picture of lies and manipulation.

9/11 provided the perfect vehicle to galvanise public support for the Coalition intervention in the Middle East and to put into action some of the strategies proposed in the PNAC report. Coincidence?

Also, regarding coming out of the closet - http://milwaukee.indymedia.org/en/2006/05/205461.shtml

Question: Why do people still believe what they have been and are being told by government?
Question: Why has there been no formal investigation into 9/11?
Question: Why are the Coalition forces in Iraq?

[Pikey]

At last CTS your finally playing ball! Thats a primary purpose of this website.

Not seen that website before, thanx for that.

IMO it does not offer any hard/compelling evidence to support the official version of events at the Pentagon.

In fact it raises more questions which a bona fide professional public inquiry would look into and resolve.

On the pictures which show the Pentagon lawn theres very little damage.
The fuel tank of the 757 would have been at least half full! Wheres the scorch marks on the lawn.

The photo inside the Pentagon ring which claims to show the landing gear strut of the 757! The strut is located on the wings adjacent the engines. Where is the debris of the engine and the tyres? According to those pictures they are on the outside yet the landing strut is on the inside.

Also the claim on the website is that the hole on the ouside wall accommodates and matches the fuselage dimensions. Surely if the landing gear strut which is on the wing which is on the inside would have made the hole larger!

Perhaps the wings folded in on impact but if they did the engines and tyres would also be on the inside!

No CTS that is not hard evidence, but those Pentagon and filling station videos certainly would be!

Peace & truth

[blackcat]

I think Flight 93 might have been shot down because NORAD might by then have got its act together and received authorisation at the highest level to shoot down the plane to prevent even greater loss of life elsewere.

Or maybe the evil-doers lost control of it and if it was left to land the pilots could have told of how the plane was taken over by remote-control for a while, giving damning evidence against the official version of hijackers on the other planes. So it had to be shot down, meaning WTC7 was not crashed in to by a plane, but since it had to be demolished anyway a BIG smoking gun is left. Its wonderfull what you can come up with when the government refuses to help us all out by having an enquiry.