Is this what really happened?

[Mr.Vicchio]

Hey Osborne, Question for ya.

If the "establishment" has this kinda power, and went through so much work to make it happen, why is it they refuse to take out the people that are espousing the "truth"?

I mean, isn't the risk of being discovered too great NOT TOO?


Also, as for the pentagon, do the "establishment" include the workers that cleaned up the Pentagon? I mean, you would think at least ONE of them might say something if there were no wreckage in the building.

You theory holds water till you prick with reality.

[Osborn F Enready]

Vic said: If the "establishment" has this kinda power, and went through so much work to make it happen, why is it they refuse to take out the people that are espousing the "truth"?

I mean, isn't the risk of being discovered too great NOT TOO?


I say: Golly gee Vic, how many 1 hour infomercials do you see about how not to pay taxes? None. How many infomercials do you see about how to get the government to pay for your inadequacies? Tons.

The major media WILL NOT, address certain issues, period. Occasionally someone like public television, or C-Span will give coverage to the major events or people in the spotlight, but rarely does the major media do anything anti-establishment, since they are a part of it, remember? How can the story break out if no major media covers it, since that is the cop out answer of any politician, or network exec...(if we are not addressing it, it doesn't need addressing.)

The beauty and simplicity of the plan is so sickening because it preys on the biggest human shortcomings we have yet charted. We find it hard to grasp things of this size and complexity, especially when it is against the norm, or status quo accepted explanations. They know only the most dilligent would investigate, and those less inclined would be fence walkers on truly accepting so far outside the "maunfactured" norm they produce.

Think about it... The serious players who are espousing truths, are discredited or ignored completely by all media sources. Abu Grahib could not be ignored, because unlike most other incidents, it was spread throughout the internet before the establishment could stop it, and the media had no choice, but to try to manage damage control, and appear inquisitive. People who know too much personal information, or people with material evidence are usually dealt with quick and at the same time discredited in the major media stemming the public outcry, were there any.

So yes and no to your question, they silence the most damaging, but cannot silence all the public who is aware but not in possesion of proof.


Vic said: Also, as for the pentagon, do the "establishment" include the workers that cleaned up the Pentagon? I mean, you would think at least ONE of them might say something if there were no wreckage in the building.


Vic, what I am saying is that anyone who serves or served in the military knows what the word "compartmentalization" means. In this sense, it is a form of damage control for the establishment. By making all Federal Employees serve under a similar stovepipe authority design as the military, they have adequate compartmentalization to quell the majority of naysayers. The people who need to know things do, and those who they say don't, don't. If I remember correctly you serve in the military correct? What was your feelings on the Oliver North scandal, and how Bush Sr. and Reagan were involved with changing both our, and Columbia National Foreign Policies AND Constitutions without the will of the people of either nation as well as no imminent threat to constitute a national emergency? Was Oliver North a victim, hung out to burn by the administrative/military complex instead of his higher counterparts?

I am sure the people who cleaned up saw things, and most were FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, so they too would be part of the compartmentalized system, and stove-pipe authority. They turned in what they found to those who they were supposed to, in the thought that "they" (the establishment) were looking out for the countries "best intrest".


It is you Vic, that needs a prick of reality.

[Compugasm]

Originally posted by Nono, ..it is, precisely, designed to break away before endangering the rest of the airframe.

That's amazing. I'm sure they didn't think of it building the first plane, but amazing they can actually do that kind of stuff.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Uhm...

Question for Osborne, several actually.

1. There were hundereds of rescue, fire and clean up crews at the pentagon. Are they all in the "know"? After all, wouldn't it be kinda hard to fire a missle into the pentagon and then have all those peopel in there to deal with the after math not notice the missing plane wreackage in the building?

2. Why fly 3 other airliners, 2 into the WTC and one crashing in Penns. only to fake a crash at the pentagon and use a missile instead? Isn't that just a bit convaluted?

3. Ever hear of inertia?

[Osborn F Enready]

Vic said: 1. There were hundereds of rescue, fire and clean up crews at the pentagon. Are they all in the "know"? After all, wouldn't it be kinda hard to fire a missle into the pentagon and then have all those peopel in there to deal with the after math not notice the missing plane wreackage in the building?

I say: For one thing, I didn't specify a missile, though many said that from FIRST PERSON reports. Those people that are there to clean up, are there to do just that, clean up. They are not reporters, and if they were, they would be part of the establishment except for the few proud independent medias reps. People like you are speaking of, have a very small operating knowledge of specifics other than what their immediate duty is. Is it their job to report, petition and investigate where the people they report to leave off? I am not saying it couldn't happen, just that it is not a high probability, especially concerning the scope of the overall "supposed" incidents facts, and the fact it hit a high security installation, which instills its own level of both implied, and sworn secrecy. Do you walk off of military installations and tell people about the secret things going on?!?

Vic said: 2. Why fly 3 other airliners, 2 into the WTC and one crashing in Penns. only to fake a crash at the pentagon and use a missile instead? Isn't that just a bit convaluted?

I say: Well, to start off, you are putting words in my mouth. I never specified the other flights had anything to do with what hit the pentagon, other than the fact that it was part of the same event.
For instance, the pentagon was hit in the sector that had been under construction for over 19 months, and was just completed. Any chance it could have been the new records department, or possibly an area where material was stored they needed to "get rid of"? For all we know, the WTC planes could have been targeted simply for the combination it would have on the public, and the millions of dollars that were in the various safes in the buildings. For instance, isn't it strange that they found several pieces of "rare, fragile" artwork, yet they have reported turning up no safes, or any of the large amounts of money that were supposedly "incinerated" in the fire from the planes fuel? Where was that inferno of flame at the Pentagon, and why so much less damage?

I never said the answer was obvious, I just said it is MORE than possible, and easily understood how it could be done, and manipulated to aid the current administrations goals and agenda.

The only thing convuluted is having your mind closed to any option other than the one you cling to first, because you have not the energy or imagination to entertain other possibilities.

Why are the 911 NY victims, upset and still pursuing investigations into the facts, and the administration? Coincidence? Bush haters maybe?

Vic said: 3. Ever hear of inertia?

I say: Yes, actually. Ever hear of impossibilities? The pentagon is a hardened structure, and made with several precautions to protect the people, and information within. A non-armored plane, of that design, is highly unlikely to not only penetrate, but penetrate with such clean holes that far into the pentagon. It is as simple as looking at the difference between a hollow point and FMJ round penetrating a not only solid, but several solid objects. Dude, unless you have a degree in physics, stick to what you know.
They are trying to make us swallow the near unbelievable WTC collapse, and now you want to attempt to explain how a flimsy shelled passenger plane penetrates a multi-layer armored target..... LOL

Keep 'em coming, I like shooting down your "common sense".

[Mr.Vicchio]

You didn't shoot anything down.

You twisted reality into your own warped view:

For one thing, I didn't specify a missile, though many said that from FIRST PERSON reports. Those people that are there to clean up, are there to do just that, clean up. They are not reporters, and if they were, they would be part of the establishment except for the few proud independent medias reps. People like you are speaking of, have a very small operating knowledge of specifics other than what their immediate duty is. Is it their job to report, petition and investigate where the people they report to leave off? I am not saying it couldn't happen, just that it is not a high probability, especially concerning the scope of the overall "supposed" incidents facts, and the fact it hit a high security installation, which instills its own level of both implied, and sworn secrecy. Do you walk off of military installations and tell people about the secret things going on?!?

First off, lets start with the obvious, you have NO clue what you are talking about, just pulling s@$# out of your a@# to sound intelligent. Now that we have THAT cleared up, you did not answer the question.

You answer went into a lot of speculation, but not much else. I asked how they would hide the fact there was NO wreckage inside the pentagon from the first responders, from the clean up crews...

The fire department responds to fires. There was a fire.

Police respond to emergencies. I would say a plane hitting a building is an emergency.

EMT respond to save lives. I would say there were lives to be saved.

All those people showed up at the Pentagon. Tehy were there right off the bat. They would have noticed no wreckage.

You went on about reporters and the like, I didn't ask about reporters, I asked about CLEAN UP CREWS, FIRE FIGHTERS, EMT and POLICE.

For instance, the pentagon was hit in the sector that had been under construction for over 19 months, and was just completed. Any chance it could have been the new records department, or possibly an area where material was stored they needed to "get rid of"? For all we know, the WTC planes could have been targeted simply for the combination it would have on the public, and the millions of dollars that were in the various safes in the buildings. For instance, isn't it strange that they found several pieces of "rare, fragile" artwork, yet they have reported turning up no safes, or any of the large amounts of money that were supposedly "incinerated" in the fire from the planes fuel? Where was that inferno of flame at the Pentagon, and why so much less damage?

You didn't answer the question, you just made specualtive comments. Where were the flames? Called the plane, and everything else burned intside the pentagon. Its a large building. BTW There wasn't much in that section because they were still moving INTO that section.

You make the suggestion that they staged this to get rid of evidence... Why not just shred it? Aweful lot of effort and risk to get rid of "evidence" A typical ploy of such Conspericay Theories is to make ominious sounding charges about secrets that need getting rid of to justify the incident.

Yes, actually. Ever hear of impossibilities? The pentagon is a hardened structure, and made with several precautions to protect the people, and information within. A non-armored plane, of that design, is highly unlikely to not only penetrate, but penetrate with such clean holes that far into the pentagon. It is as simple as looking at the difference between a hollow point and FMJ round penetrating a not only solid, but several solid objects. Dude, unless you have a degree in physics, stick to what you know. They are trying to make us swallow the near unbelievable WTC collapse, and now you want to attempt to explain how a flimsy shelled passenger plane penetrates a multi-layer armored target..... LOL

Armored? Its reinforced concrete. And its not that hard to understand. How much does a 757 weigh hmm?

Model 757-200 Technical Specs: Span: 124 ft. 10 in. Length: 155 ft. 3 in. MTOW: 220,000 to 255,000 lb. Accommodation: 186 to 231 passengers Maximum speed: 590 mph at 27,000 ft. Cruising speed: 520 mph at 34,000 ft. Range: 3,200 mi. Engine: (2) Rolls-Royce RB211-535E4, 40,100 lb. thrust (2) Pratt & Whitney PW2037, 38,200 lb. thrust (2) Pratt & Whitney PW2040, 41,700 lb. thrust http://www.photovault.com/Link/Technology/.../Boeing757.html

220,000lbs. Thats 110 TONS. Now 110 TONS flying at 350 knts equals:

1783.1010500248003 Joules.

http://javascript.internet.com/calculators...tic-energy.html

1 foot-pound = 1.356 joules
1 erg = 10-7 joules

http://www.kbapps.com/webdesign/calculators/power.html

That equals 400.8570639 pound-force.

http://www.onlineconversion.com/force.htm

Now maybe my math is off but 400 pound force is pretty significant, more then enough to put a hole into the pentagon.

[giuliano]

it's not force but stress or pressure you need to consider, calculated by dividing the force by the area of impact (not really, cos it would be variable..)

also that calculation assumes a "rigid impact", the aluminium plane will squash up (crumple) and not transmit the full force of its weight.

[Osborn F Enready]

Mr V, reread my posts, and look again at yours. Who is speculating? You can't even reply without your pent up anger at my "disbelief" of the fabricated norm. Do you feel obligated to "MAKE ME" believe? Do you free think?

Giuliano just pointed out the fact that I was trying to explain with a FMJ and a hollow-point round. A 757 is a hollow aluminum airframe, not meant to withstand head on impacts like for instance a car. I am not saying it would NOT penetrate, just that it would not penetrate THAT WAY, or THAT FAR, IN THAT MANNER.

Your entire thread of posts here so far is speculation and media tripe, where are your reputable sources you neglect to mention, anyway?

Good post Giuliano.

[Nono]

Originally posted by Osborn F Enready Isn't it strange that they found several pieces of "rare, fragile" artwork, yet they have reported turning up no safes, or any of the large amounts of money that were supposedly "incinerated" in the fire from the planes fuel?

I'm keeping an open mind on all this. Just some remarks/questions.

There are frequently strange and ironic things that survive catastrophic events. That's almost normal. I heard about that money a few months after 911 and simply thought "Well, it's an ill wind that blows no one any good." The disappearance is odd but -- given human greed -- not necessarily sinister.

Where was that inferno of flame at the Pentagon, and why so much less damage?

It looks to me from photos I've seen (indeed, saw them on the original "spot-the-757" site -- réseauvoltaire -- launched years ago by a couple of French conspiracists) that the thing may actually have impacted on the lawn in front of the Pentagon. Again, ain't no expert, but it seems to me that this would have allowed much of the fuel to ignite and burn outside the building, and thus dissipate the resulting heat into the atmosphere.
Whereas in the WTC a lot of the fuel appears to have been propelled into the structure itself, where the heat produced as a result went to work on the inside.


Another thing: You see the broader Establishment behind this rather than just the Bushista faction. But Rumsfeld must have been in the know. Kind of foolhardy to be present in the Pentagon when something highly explosive is about to be flown into it. I sure wouldn't bet my life on the exact precision of their targeting. Isn't that a strange circumstance? Rummy could surely have found an easy pretext for being out of the office that morning.


Again, assuming an inside job, the success of its planning and execution contrasts sharply with the Iraq shambles. Securing control of that huge pool of petroleum under Iraq must surely be in the broader interests of the Establishment, not just of oilmen like Boy George and Cheney. Don't you think the people who brought us 911 would have ensured that the occupation wasn't carried out in such an amateurish fashion? After all, there were all sorts of people in the Pentagon and the State Department planning for it. But their plans were ignored by the politicos. Doesn't that sound a bit out of tune?


Another question I have is how those who see a US-based conspiracy behind 911 view the assassination of Ahmed Massoud. If you believe that al Qaeda pulled off both, it all makes perfect sense: decapitating the anti-Taliban resistance in the very same week they act to draw the US into the deadly Afghan trap. But it doesn't make much sense (to me) if the US were behind Massoud's murder. So was it just a coincidence?

[Mr.Vicchio]

Simple comparison Question for all of you "it wasn't a plane" people.

Watch video of the WTC hits. What happened to the planes hitting a "soft" building? The disentigrated.

What do you think would happen to a plane hitting the Pentagon?

'Nuff said.

[Sonart]

Eyewitness accounts

Omar Campo, a Salvadorean, was cutting the grass on the other side of the road when the plane flew over his head.

"It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane," Mr Campo said. "I was cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact. The whole ground shook and the whole area was full of fire. I could never imagine I would see anything like that here."

Afework Hagos, a computer programmer, was on his way to work but stuck in a traffic jam near the Pentagon when the plane flew over. "There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. Everybody was running away in different directions. It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts on the way in."

A pilot who saw the impact, Tim Timmerman, said it had been an American Airways 757. "It added power on its way in," he said. "The nose hit, and the wings came forward and it went up in a fireball."

[Compugasm]

Hmm, so the nose hit, and the wings came forward. It didn't belly land, interesting.

[Kyran]

I have to say this conspiracy theory garbage is the most unobjective left-biased piece of crap I've ever seen.

I watched the video five times, and not once did the author make the attempt to display any facts contrary to his opinion.

http://www.rense.com/general31/CONFIRM.htm



No plane huh? Then where did this come from?

Being open-minded means you are open to Facts, not open to ideas that are 100% disproven by them.

[giuliano]

looks like a giant discarded chip packet

[Sonart]

That's gotta be it! An alien food cannister, discarded after they casually flew down disqiused as an airliner, phasered the Pentagon, dropped off their litter while they were near the ground, then sauntered off to Langley to pick up their payment from the CIA. Diabolical!

[giuliano]

holy potatoes i think you've got it batman!

[Compugasm]

Look, right there... a small "H"... Haliburton? Ah HA!

[Osborn F Enready]

If you notice, and actually watched the video a few times, they didn't specify anthing hitting the pentagon. They hinted at:

A: A military aircraft
B: A small commuter jet, twin engine
C: A missile

If your going to put words in my mouth, at least use the right ones.

[Sonart]

How can we put words in your mouth when you've got rocks in your head?

There were EYE-WITNESSES!!!!

[OberonDOtherseid]

What concerns me when I am asked what I think is the comeback laced with nary a trace of consideration for what I think, because the question is not honest.