Support NeoGAF

[MIMIC]

Now THIS is something that deserves massive scrutiny:

I'm sure you all have seen that shitty five-framed video from a Pentagon surveillance camera that is said to depict the impact, and subsequent explosion, of American Airlines Flight 77 as it slammed into the Pentagon (even though what appears to be the tail of the 757 in one of the frames is GROSSLY disproportionate to what a REAL 757 would look like relative to that yellow box post and to the Pentagon from the distance of the camera): See here

But read this about how the FBI, within minutes of the attack, seized a video that recorded the incident:

His gas station, open only to Department of Defense personnel, is the last structure between the Pentagon and the hillside that, hours later, would become a wailing knoll. "By the time I got outside all I could see was a giant cloud of smoke, first white then black, coming from the Pentagon," he said. "It was just a terrible, terrible thing to be so close to."

[...]

Velasquez says the gas station's security cameras are close enough to the Pentagon to have recorded the moment of impact. "I've never seen what the pictures looked like," he said. "The FBI was here within minutes and took the film."

National Geographic

Why won't they release the video? After all, it would have provided footage of the plane's impact and put a LOT of speculation to rest:

BTW, this is just one of the hundreds of anomalies and inconsistencies concerning the official line of 9/11.

 

[cubanb]

doesn't seem like much of a conspiracy to me

 

[Boogie]

Why won't they release the video? After all, it would have provided footage of the plane's impact and put a LOT of speculation to rest:

Yeah, because intelligence agencies are known to be accomodating to people's requests for full disclosure of information in order to put crackpot conspiracies to rest

 

[Dan]

Umm, what "speculation" is there that needs to be put to rest? Are people confused as to whether or not the Pentagon was actually hit?

 

[WHOAguitarninja]

Maybe...you know, they would prefer to have as little video as possible of a major building in our government being partially destroyed by terrorists.

 

[Loki]

I used to be heavily into conspiracy theories between the ages of 11-14 or so (mostly regarding extraterrestrials), but then that phase subsided. Recently, however, I've been starting to just type "conspiracy" into google once every several months or so and just randomly checking out the webpages listed. I've found some decent stuff (considering ) on 9/11 recently:


9/11 building collapse supposedly defies the laws of physics

NORAD complicity? Part 1

...and Part 2

Remote-controlled jets?



Not saying I believe all (or any) of this stuff, necessarily, but it's food for thought, and certainly raises an eyebrow imo taken together. It's too bad that "conspiratorial" takes on events such as these are often relegated to the fringes of society and the darkest recesses of the web; ideally, whether true or false, we'd be able to at least have all claims on all sides spoken to in public forums, particularly for an event as big as 9/11. If something is so obviously mistaken, as opponents of such theories would like to have people believe, then it shouldn't take much time or effort at all to debunk them; the thing is, these sorts of things never even make it into the public consciousness in the first place, for whatever reasons. Hold everything up to the light of public truth, I say, if only to allay the concerns of such fringe elements as would believe this stuff. Certainly, not every conspiracy theory on every subject deserves to be spoken to by officials, but for an event as unprecedented and world-changing as 9/11? I'd say it's warranted. Who knows...

 

[MIMIC]

Umm, what "speculation" is there that needs to be put to rest? Are people confused as to whether or not the Pentagon was actually hit?

It's a known fact that the Pentagon was hit.

With 'WHAT' is the question.

Maybe...you know, they would prefer to have as little video as possible of a major building in our government being partially destroyed by terrorists.

And what purpose would that serve?

 

[xsarien]

I used to be heavily into conspiracy theories between the ages of 11-14 or so (mostly regarding extraterrestrials), but then that phase subsided. Recently, however, I've been starting to just type "conspiracy" into google once every several months or so and just randomly checking out the webpages listed. I've found some decent stuff (considering ) on 9/11 recently:


9/11 building collapse supposedly defies the laws of physics

That first site is so completely, utterly ignorant of the facts that it just fails to be funny.

 

[Dilbert]

I'm STILL laughing at the Global Hawk page.

 

[Loki]

That first site is so completely, utterly ignorant of the facts that it just fails to be funny.

How so? I'm not claiming it's true-- I'd just like to hear all sides of an issue is all.


-jinx- : Why? For technical reasons that you'd be aware of given your background and employment, or for other reasons? Again, just curious.


I only posted those links because the topic was posted, and I had come across those sites about a week and a half ago while browsing, like I said. As I noted, I don't necessarily believe everything (or anything) in there; I lack the requisite technical knowledge to debunk the first link, so I just read it uncritically as a lay person. I'd be interested in hearing either of your takes on some of that stuff-- obviously a huge explanation/post isn't necessary, but I like to educate myself, and if either of you can do so on even a couple of points, feel free.

 

[xsarien]

How so? I'm not claiming it's true-- I'd just like to hear all sides of an issue is all.

I skimmed it, but he seems to completely gloss over the pretty logical reason why the towers collapsed, and why they collapsed in such a precise, almost "organized" manner.

To the naked eye, the WTC towers weren't that amazing by any stretch of the imagination. Two, very large rectangles. Woo, right? Well, they were actually a lot more complicated. The outside steel "lines" were actually instrumental to the buildings' stability. With the lack of any inner columns to help support the floors, damage to them was only able to distribute the new force so far before finally giving way to the heat-damaged floor supports, plus the weight of the offices and unfortunate people still inside.

It pancaked down, basically. The weight of one floor on to another on to another, etc.

At least that's the "Yeah, I was friends with some architecture students in college," explanation.

 

[MIMIC]

Can anybody explain this? (This was something I was about to post on another forum):

The most startling revelation in the video, IMO, is the ACKNOLEDGEMENT of Larry Silverstein, the lease owner of the World Trade Center, that he gave the order, in regards to WTC 7, to "pull it."

"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."
MP3 version of statement

 

[ghostface]

Maybe...you know, they would prefer to have as little video as possible of a major building in our government being partially destroyed by terrorists.

By that logic, why would they have released that fram-by-frame footage in the first place?

 

[MIMIC]

By that logic, why would they have released that fram-by-frame footage in the first place?

Well, I thought the very same thing, until today when I read the Washington Post:

"The Pentagon has not released any video or any photos from security cameras from the terrorist attack of Sept. 11," said Pentagon spokeswoman Cheryl Irwin.

WP

Unless there's an updated version of the story.

 

[ghostface]

So where's that footage from?

 

[MIMIC]

So where's that footage from?

It's from a Pentagon surveillance camera, but they say they never released it.

I'm gona see if I can find whether or not the Pentagon's position has changed since then.

 

[WHOAguitarninja]

And what purpose would that serve?

What purpose does it serve to parade around that one of your most important buildings was partially destroyed by terrorists due to lax security at airports? It shows weakness and an inability to defend your country. Does it change that it happened? No, but it's still not the sort of thing you care for the rest of the world to be able to watch over, and over, and over.

 

[Loki]

I skimmed it, but he seems to completely gloss over the pretty logical reason why the towers collapsed, and why they collapsed in such a precise, almost "organized" manner.

To the naked eye, the WTC towers weren't that amazing by any stretch of the imagination. Two, very large rectangles. Woo, right? Well, they were actually a lot more complicated. The outside steel "lines" were actually instrumental to the buildings' stability. With the lack of any inner columns to help support the floors, damage to them was only able to distribute the new force so far before finally giving way to the heat-damaged floor supports, plus the weight of the offices and unfortunate people still inside.

It pancaked down, basically. The weight of one floor on to another on to another, etc.

At least that's the "Yeah, I was friends with some architecture students in college," explanation.

Well, if it was as simple as that, I'd like to think I would've been smart enough to catch such a gaping logical hole. Thing is, the article states that there were indeed several internal stacks of steel columns supporting the structure from the base all the way up to the roof-- 4 "stacks" or groups of columns between which were interspersed elevator shafts etc., if I recall. It's in one of the diagrams on that page, I think. Also, the "pancake" effect is questioned in the article, as, supposedly, some remnants of the "stacks" of the floors should have been evident in the rubble. This is just from what I remember from the article. Like I said, I have ZERO architectural/engineering knowledge (and am thus looking to be enlightened), and there are likely other considerations such as elasticity of certain materials and stress points etc. that come into play, which someone such as -jinx- might be cognizant of.


You most likely missed the parts of the article which spoke to the "pancake" effect and the supportive columns because you only skimmed. Shame on you, xsarien, shame on you.

 

[xsarien]

You most likely missed the parts of the article which spoke to the "pancake" effect and the supportive columns because you only skimmed. Shame on you, xsarien, shame on you.

I think I'll trust the Discovery Channel over Random Guy on the Internet #413, thanks.

 

[darkiguana]

Didn't we have a thread months ago(may have been on the old board) that pretty much debunked the Pentagon/missile/Truck bomb theory??? It was complete with photos of plane parts and eyewitness quotes. Also, if a plane did not hit the building, then what happened to the people on the plane? Did they magically dissapear??!?! Are they hiding in a secure bunker somewhere?? That theory made absolutely no sense whatsoever.

darkiguana

 

[Loki]

I think I'll trust the Discovery Channel over Random Guy on the Internet #413, thanks.

Oh, I don't disagree that that would be a wise course of action. I was just saying that, if their "conspiracy theory" was incorrect, it would have to be wrong for reasons other than the one you just suggested, because-- whether they're right or wrong about it-- those contentions were, at the very least, addressed on that page.

 

[Thaedolus]

Can anybody explain this? (This was something I was about to post on another forum):

Uhh, I'm pretty sure he's talking about evacuating the fire fighters. What else would he be talking about?

"We've already lost so much life, let's just blow the whole damn things up!"

I don't think so

Oh, the "defies the laws of physics" defies the laws of logic. I like how average internet joe likes to contest structural engineering and, really, commonly known facts about how structural steel behaves during a fire

 

[ghostface]

Didn't we have a thread months ago(may have been on the old board) that pretty much debunked the Pentagon/missile/Truck bomb theory??? It was complete with photos of plane parts and eyewitness quotes. Also, if a plane did not hit the building, then what happened to the people on the plane? Did they magically dissapear??!?! Are they hiding in a secure bunker somewhere?? That theory made absolutely no sense whatsoever.

darkiguana

I would like to see those photos and quotes please.

I was looking for a link from the DoD about releasing the Pentagon footage, and ran across this about some of the abnormalities with both the NYC and Washington crashes.

http://newswithviews.com/NWVexclusive/exclusive34.htm

This site looks FAR from reliable though, so take it however you want.

 

[MIMIC]

What purpose does it serve to parade around that one of your most important buildings was partially destroyed by terrorists due to lax security at airports? It shows weakness and an inability to defend your country. Does it change that it happened? No, but it's still not the sort of thing you care for the rest of the world to be able to watch over, and over, and over.

That doesn't make any sense, AT ALL.

If it doesn't pose a risk to national security, it's supposed to be MADE PUBLIC. Why do you think there was a commission that investigated the events of 9/11? By your logic, the entire terrorist event should have been kept under wraps and made illegal to talk about on the news because "important buildings was partially destroyed by terrorists due to lax security at airports."

Didn't we have a thread months ago(may have been on the old board) that pretty much debunked the Pentagon/missile/Truck bomb theory??? It was complete with photos of plane parts and eyewitness quotes. Also, if a plane did not hit the building, then what happened to the people on the plane? Did they magically dissapear??!?! Are they hiding in a secure bunker somewhere?? That theory made absolutely no sense whatsoever.

darkiguana

Yeah, a totally unscathed, unsinged(sp?) piece of a plane that supposedly rammed into the Pentagon and exploded into a monstrous fireball at over 350 MPH.

I don't think so.

 

[ghostface]

Is that what he was talking about? Nevermind, then.

 

[Boogie]

That doesn't make any sense, AT ALL.

If it doesn't pose a risk to national security, it's supposed to be MADE PUBLIC. Why do you think there was a commission that investigated the events of 9/11? By your logic, the entire terrorist event should have been kept under wraps and made illegal to talk about on the news because "important buildings was partially destroyed by terrorists due to lax security at airports."

Yeah, a totally unscathed, unsinged(sp?) piece of a plane that supposedly rammed into the Pentagon and exploded into a monstrous fireball at over 350 MPH.

I don't think so.

It hardly looks "unscathed"

 

[MIMIC]

I would like to see those photos and quotes please.

I was looking for a link from the DoD about releasing the Pentagon footage, and ran across this about some of the abnormalities with both the NYC and Washington crashes.

http://newswithviews.com/NWVexclusive/exclusive34.htm

This site looks FAR from reliable though, so take it however you want.

I saw that video yesterday (got it off bittorrent).

It's a pretty damning piece of work.

 

[Thaedolus]

What about that piece looks unscathed to you? It looks like a twisted piece of shrapnel to me. Are you trying to say because it was blown away from plane, it must've caught fire? That every single piece of the plane must've caught fire to be considered a part of the wreck?

And what happened to all the people that died on these planes? Did the government go around knocking off a few hundred people? I'm pretty sure I heard reports of their charred remains still strapped in their seats...

 

[MIMIC]

It hardly looks "unscathed"

When I say "unscathed," I pretty much mean it doesn't look like it was at ALL involved in an explosion.

 

[Loki]

Oh, the "defies the laws of physics" defies the laws of logic. I like how average internet joe likes to contest structural engineering and, really, commonly known facts about how structural steel behaves during a fire

Like I said, I'm not personally "contesting" anything-- I admittedly don't know jack about engineering or architecture. If you're privy to such knowledge, then please share-- I was only looking to educate myself by my questions, nothing more. I didn't mean to suggest that I believe such a theory, but I do enjoy discussion, even if it's seemingly trivial as seen through more learned eyes.


They seemed to speak to the factors of internal heat dissipation and melting/elasticity/structural load points as regards steel, and also provided links and information/studies showing that fires burning much hotter than a mere kerosene-derivative fire can have not structurally affected steel in the manner described by the official explanations. Now, whether the information they provided is accurate or not, I'm not qualified to judge (and it most likely isn't); my point is that there seemed to be, upon cursory examination (I didn't sit there and think about this, just read it once), no gaping logical holes in what they were stating, which would indicate that, if they're incorrect, the reasons why they are mistaken lie outside of common knowledge and in the realm of engineering etc. And this is why I asked others to feel free to enlighten me.

 

[Thaedolus]

It's a shredded, twisted piece of metal! What should it look like? Completely blackened? I think not.

 

[MIMIC]

What about that piece looks unscathed to you? It looks like a twisted piece of shrapnel to me. Are you trying to say because it was blown away from plane, it must've caught fire? That every single piece of the plane must've caught fire to be considered a part of the wreck?

Well, the part that "caught fire" has yet to be found. The fuselage either entirely mysteriously disentigrated, or was left totally unburned.

No in-betweens. Why is that?

And what happened to all the people that died on these planes? Did the government go around knocking off a few hundred people? I'm pretty sure I heard reports of their charred remains still strapped in their seats...

I never heard those reports.

 

[MIMIC]

It's a shredded, twisted piece of metal! What should it look like? Completely blackened? I think not.

How bout blackened AT ALL?

Here's a close-up: (link's not working)

 

[Miguel]

Don't you have a new song to learn?

 

[MIMIC]

Don't you have a new song to learn?

Yeah, it goes: "Wow, people on the Internet keep up with my life more than I do."

 

[Thaedolus]

In response to Loki:

I know, I wasn't taking a shot at you or anything. The guy seems to take some fuzzy logic approach that, to cause a structural collapse, the steel must be completely melted. This isn't true at all. He also says that since the color of the smoke was dark as the towers burned (paraphrasing here) it must've been a smoldering or low-temperature fire. This is also not true. I don't know if you've ever thrown straight petrol gas on a fire before, but once it explodes, it turns into an almost black, sooty smoke. It also burns very hot.

I'm not sure what the exact temperature of the WTC fires, but I am sure it was hot enough to warm the steel to a point of enough decreased structural stability that it wouldn't be enough to hold the weight of all the floors above it. How am I sure? The buildings freakin collapsed because of it.

When steel is heated it doesn't necessarily melt, but it will become more malleable. Knowing this, steel beams in high rise buildings are routinely coated with insulation to keep them from heating up during an average office fire. However, the insulation in the WTC was blown away in the initial explosion, along with a lot of the concrete support. It's pretty amazing the buildings were still standing after that, and really had they been hit much lower than Tower 2 had they probably wouldn't have withstood the initial impacts. There's also another factor in that since some of the floors were blown away, the Towers were more susceptible to structural failure from twisting motion caused by the constant winds they were subjected too.

So when you have the decreased support from the concrete and several floors being blown away, combined with a fire that is raising the temperature of what's left of the steel structure (weakening its ability to hold form) you have a recipe for disaster. Of course Tower 2 fell before Tower 1 because it was hit lower, and the damaged area had to hold more weight as it was being heated.

MIMIC: As far as the Pentagon debris is concerned, go look up some pictures from other plane crashes. You'll find quite a few uncharred remains of planes that explode. The fact that it has no visible charring on what side we can see doesn't do anything to refute the fact that a fucking plane hijacked by a bunch of fanatics rammed into the Pentagon/

 

[ghostface]

Mimic your avatar is fucking me up, and I'm not even high!

 

[MIMIC]

In response to Loki:

MIMIC: As far as the Pentagon debris is concerned, go look up some pictures from other plane crashes. You'll find quite a few uncharred remains of planes that explode. The fact that it has no visible charring on what side we can see doesn't do anything to refute the fact that a fucking plane hijacked by a bunch of fanatics rammed into the Pentagon/

So where are the charred pieces?

And by the way....since the plane allegedly struck the ground before impact, why did the grass remain uncharred as well?

 

[Thaedolus]

So where are the charred pieces?

And by the way....since the plane allegedly struck the ground before impact, why did the grass remain uncharred as well?

Probably closer to that big firey burning area?

And I don't know exactly where the plane struck or what angle it struck at so I can't really answer that question, it could have been that it was coming in at an angle and the moment of the crash took it into the building before it exploded. But I don't know enough about where or how it crashed, it wasn't covered as closely as the WTC crashes because less people died.

And assuming that this was all a big conspiracy, why did the Govt. go shoot down another civillian jetliner?

 

[MIMIC]

Probably closer to that big firey burning area?

Well, that would be assuming, right?

And assuming that this was all a big conspiracy, why did the Govt. go shoot down another civillian jetliner?

I didn't say they shot a plane down.

(EDIT: not trying to flee the scene, but I have to go to bed now...work in the morning.)

 

[border]

So where are the charred pieces?

Probably in other pictures, and buried in the rubble.

This "Why isn't every single piece of the plane charred?" line is probably the weakest "evidence" yet.....is it that hard to believe that an explosion coming from inside the plane could rip off a piece of steel and not char the side of the shard that was on the OUTSIDE of the plane?

 

[MIMIC]

Before I go:

Probably in other pictures, and buried in the rubble.

I have yet to see these pictures after scouring the Internet for them.

This "Why isn't every single piece of the plane charred?" line is probably the weakest "evidence" yet.....is it that hard to believe that an explosion coming from inside the plane could rip off a piece of steel and not char the side of the shard that was on the OUTSIDE of the plane?

EDIT: I may have been mistaken about the charring of the inside of the plane.

Nevertheless, I gotta go.

 

[calder]

Uh, it's accepted the plane hit the ground shortly before hitting the building, and it hit at least a few light standards on the way so couldn't this miracle "non-charred" piece have broken off well before the explosion?

And even if it hadn't, that's just a really goofy thing to use as evidence. Think of how when bombs are exploded it's not uncommon *at all* for totally intact and unburned pieces of the bomb to land well away from the blast.

That's just about the dumbest bit of 'conspiracy' evidence around. Using a piece of wreckage like that and then saying it should have burnt or charred (says who? find one non-insane expert on the subject who says that in an explosion of that sort all the pieces should be charred) is really, really reaching.

 

[border]

I have yet to see these pictures after scouring the Internet for them.

I can't find any pictures of the jet's wheels. Maybe it didn't have any wheels? *DUN DUN DUN*

I can't find any pictures of the chairs that supposedly lined the inside of this "plane". Maybe it didn't have any chairs! *DUN DUN DUN* Maybe it wasn't a plane at all, but rather a high-velocity helicopter whose occupants sat on large bean bags!

 

[Loki]

In response to Loki:

I know, I wasn't taking a shot at you or anything. The guy seems to take some fuzzy logic approach that, to cause a structural collapse, the steel must be completely melted. This isn't true at all. He also says that since the color of the smoke was dark as the towers burned (paraphrasing here) it must've been a smoldering or low-temperature fire. This is also not true. I don't know if you've ever thrown straight petrol gas on a fire before, but once it explodes, it turns into an almost black, sooty smoke. It also burns very hot.

I'm not sure what the exact temperature of the WTC fires, but I am sure it was hot enough to warm the steel to a point of enough decreased structural stability that it wouldn't be enough to hold the weight of all the floors above it. How am I sure? The buildings freakin collapsed because of it.

When steel is heated it doesn't necessarily melt, but it will become more malleable. Knowing this, steel beams in high rise buildings are routinely coated with insulation to keep them from heating up during an average office fire. However, the insulation in the WTC was blown away in the initial explosion, along with a lot of the concrete support. It's pretty amazing the buildings were still standing after that, and really had they been hit much lower than Tower 2 had they probably wouldn't have withstood the initial impacts. There's also another factor in that since some of the floors were blown away, the Towers were more susceptible to structural failure from twisting motion caused by the constant winds they were subjected too.

So when you have the decreased support from the concrete and several floors being blown away, combined with a fire that is raising the temperature of what's left of the steel structure (weakening its ability to hold form) you have a recipe for disaster. Of course Tower 2 fell before Tower 1 because it was hit lower, and the damaged area had to hold more weight as it was being heated.

MIMIC: As far as the Pentagon debris is concerned, go look up some pictures from other plane crashes. You'll find quite a few uncharred remains of planes that explode. The fact that it has no visible charring on what side we can see doesn't do anything to refute the fact that a fucking plane hijacked by a bunch of fanatics rammed into the Pentagon/

Well, though they spoke to some of these points, the issue of the increased pliancy of the steel due to the higher temps was one which was addressed only very briefly, towards the bottom of the page (see "question 2"). This very well could have, along with some of the other factors you noted, accounted for the drastic results we witnessed that day. The insulation being stripped away by the initial explosion is another thing they don't adequately address, though to what extent that occurred is a matter for debate I would imagine, seeing as how it would have to be simulated by a computer due to the entire structure collapsing (i.e., no physical evidence).


Still, thanks for taking the time.

 

[MIMIC]

Uh, it's accepted the plane hit the ground shortly before hitting the building, and it hit at least a few light standards on the way so couldn't this miracle "non-charred" piece have broken off well before the explosion?

If the plane hit the ground before impacting the building, why is there not one single trace of this on the lawn of the Pentagon?

And even if it hadn't, that's just a really goofy thing to use as evidence. Think of how when bombs are exploded it's not uncommon *at all* for totally intact and unburned pieces of the bomb to land well away from the blast.

So is it at all common for some charred pieces to be left over?

That's just about the dumbest bit of 'conspiracy' evidence around. Using a piece of wreckage like that and then saying it should have burnt or charred (says who? find one non-insane expert on the subject who says that in an explosion of that sort all the pieces should be charred) is really, really reaching.

I ask again, where are some of the CHARRED pieces...unless the plane can explode and it all can magically be unburned.

I can't find any pictures of the jet's wheels. Maybe it didn't have any wheels? *DUN DUN DUN*

I can't find any pictures of the chairs that supposedly lined the inside of this "plane". Maybe it didn't have any chairs! *DUN DUN DUN* Maybe it wasn't a plane at all, but rather a high-velocity helicopter whose occupants sat on large bean bags!

Obfuscation, maybe?

And can someone explain why the FBI immediately confiscated ALL footage of the incident?

 

[pnjtony]

I'm not claiming anything here, but I would like to point out things noticed.

I clearly remember watching the whole thing unfold as many of you here did as well and for about an hour or so it was being reported that a truck bomb it was nailed the Pentagon. As soon as they said a 747 crashed into it i thought to myself. "How could a fucking jet be mistaken for a truck bomb?" Then i saw a picture of the building it it barelysinged the second ring (of 5). I remember wondering why I couldn't see the plane. Then I thought why didn't it go all the way through like planes usually do? Why didn't it look like the crash site in lockerbie?

It was the same plane afterall.

After about an hour or so I forgot all aboout the Pentagon untill the next day when I realized they rarely talked about the Pentagon site and focused all thier energy on WTC

On the whole remote controlled plane thing. I don't believe the theory that the FBI controlled the planes into the buildings, but was talking to a northwest pilot at work and asked him if it was hard to handle such a large aircraft as opposed to a fighter jet and he said that they're ALL remote controlled planes. Airliners that is. Pilots manually take off and land but the jet can be programmed with coordinates and do the entire trip by itself and in Europe most of the pilots don't even land the planes due to fog. The jet's can do that too. He said that most likely the jet's that hit the WTC were programmed with those coordinates cause amatuers could never have hit that presise of a target much less twice in a row.

So my question is more about how they were able to program those coordinates and how they got the 3 axis coordinates. Maybe it's publicly available, but it seems unlikely

 

[cybamerc]

Obviously conspiracy theories should be taken with a grain of salt but clearly something is not quite right about the Pentagon attack. Look for pages about the attack on Google but ignore the crazy talk and just look at the pictures. It doesn't add up.

 

[Doth Togo]

I've heard from people in the Pentagon that are involved with the Air Force that the passenger jet over Pennsylvania was NOT brought down by the passengers overthrowing the terrorists.

It was shot down by Air Force jets. The whole ruse about the heroes was meant to cover up the public relations nightmare that the government shot down a civilian airliner.

 

[mrmyth]

I've heard from people in the Pentagon that are involved with the Air Force that the passenger jet over Pennsylvania was NOT brought down by the passengers overthrowing the terrorists.

It was shot down by Air Force jets. The whole ruse about the heroes was meant to cover up the public relations nightmare that the government shot down a civilian airliner.

Then why did the govt admit that the passengers never made it to the cockpit? They made a bid for it, but the terrorists held and ultimately put the plane down rather than lose it. Its even documented in the flight recorder how the terrorists tilted, rocked, and rolled the plane trying to shake the passengers away from the cockpit door.