9/11 conspiracy theories

[Tomblands]

I'm on the conspiracy side of things here. The amount of evidence against the "Al'Quaida terrorists" is quite phenomenal when it is all gathered together. As Mario and JAS have already pointed out, the security camera coverage of the crash is ridiculously poor given the location. Also (and I remember this from the actual day) the Pentagon incident was initially reported as a truck bomb only never to be mentioned again.

 

Some of the stuff around the crash/shooting down Flight 93 interests me too. People on the groud reported an aircraft flying over the crash site shortly after impact, but this was reported as a "civilian aircraft" by the authorities claiming they asked it to fly over the site to report the damage...despite this being up to an hour after ALL flights were grounded.

 

And of course there was the little "slip of the tongue" by...Dick Cheney I think...a couple of years back when he mentioned the "plane that was shot down in Pennsylvania".

[JAStewart]

Again, I ask : if the US government wanted people to believe that a plane had flown into the Pentagon, why not just fly a plane into the Pentagon. Why make things harder for themselves by using a missile?

 

too difficult to set up, the Pentagon is not that tall and a jetliner is not easy to handle even with auto controled devices.

 

It could have missed it completely and that would have looked very bad for their situation.

[Ghostrider]

Again, I ask : if the US government wanted people to believe that a plane had flown into the Pentagon, why not just fly a plane into the Pentagon. Why make things harder for themselves by using a missile?

 

too difficult to set up, the Pentagon is not that tall and a jetliner is not easy to handle even with auto controled devices.

 

It could have missed it completely and that would have looked very bad for their situation.

 

How so? You fly a passenger jet in to the ground in as densely a populated place as D.C. you're going to cause a mess of people and property, wherever it impacts, and given the density of government properties in the vicinity, a high liklihood of hitting, or at least severely damaging one or more structures of some national importance.

 

In fact, who's to say that the Pentagon was ever the "planned" target? It seems to me that as the White House and the Capitol are both very close by, along with numerous monuments of national importance, military bases and civilian airports. Simply putting the plane in that airspace, and "aim for whatever you have best chance of hitting" would have been the safest philosophy, regardless of who was flying it.

[JAStewart]

In fact, who's to say that the Pentagon was ever the "planned" target?

 

Thats what the government says.

 

The 'plane' that was shot down over Pittsburg was aimed for the White House.

[Ghostrider]

In fact, who's to say that the Pentagon was ever the "planned" target?

 

Thats what the government says.

 

The 'plane' that was shot down over Pittsburg was aimed for the White House.

 

They don't have much choice but say it was the intended target, simply due to the fact it was what got hit. Given that those who knew/know what the intended target was, depending on what you choose to believe, either perished in the incident and took that information with them, or are as yet unidentified persons, the credibility of whom, or their information can neither be quantified or verified. Therefore assuming what did happen, was what was intended to happen, is really the only logical course to follow.

 

Likewise, the same rules apply to the Pennsylvania crash, given where it was, and where it appeared to be headed, the White House was a potential target, but the same lack of verifiable information of that intent applies to that that applies to the Pentagon one.

 

It is, I think, reasonable to describe the Pentagon, the White House, the Capitol and associated structures, also sundry military bases, airports, possibly power station(s) etc as all being 'a target', however to claim any one as 'the target' based on anything else than it was the one that got hit, is more than can be concluded from what anyone I've yet come across claims to know.

[HacksawDuggan]

too difficult to set up, the Pentagon is not that tall and a jetliner is not easy to handle even with auto controled devices.

 

It could have missed it completely and that would have looked very bad for their situation.

 

 

 

Nonsense.

[Evil Inky]

Again, I ask : if the US government wanted people to believe that a plane had flown into the Pentagon, why not just fly a plane into the Pentagon. Why make things harder for themselves by using a missile?

 

too difficult to set up, the Pentagon is not that tall and a jetliner is not easy to handle even with auto controled devices.

 

It could have missed it completely and that would have looked very bad for their situation.

 

It wouldn't have looked as nearly as bad as getting caught firing a cruise missile at their own military headquarters.

 

And if these people are so good at hoodwinking the public, why didn't they fake the discovery of WMD in Iraq, which would have been an order of magnitude easier than doing what you claim they did on the 11th of September ?

[McFly]

too difficult to set up, the Pentagon is not that tall and a jetliner is not easy to handle even with auto controled devices.

 

It could have missed it completely and that would have looked very bad for their situation.

 

A trained pilot could easily land a 767 on a building the size of the Pentagon. The threshold of your average runway is a much smaller target and they manage to hit them with reasonable regularity, thankfully

[JAStewart]

It wouldn't have looked as nearly as bad as getting caught firing a cruise missile at their own military headquarters.

 

The FBI just has to say "we can't release the tapes because the infringe the safety blah blah blah"

 

I find it hard to believe the missile theory too, but I find it equally difficult to believe the 757 theory.

[Ghostrider]

It wouldn't have looked as nearly as bad as getting caught firing a cruise missile at their own military headquarters.

 

The FBI just has to say "we can't release the tapes because the infringe the safety blah blah blah"

 

I find it hard to believe the missile theory too, but I find it equally difficult to believe the 757 theory.

 

So, if it wasn't a plane, and it wasn't a missile, what do you believe it most likely was?

[Muppet]

So, if it wasn't a plane, and it wasn't a missile, what do you believe it most likely was?

 

Maybe it was George Bush tinkering about with a hand grenade he found lying around and is too embarrassed to admit the truth, so he spun a yarn

[JAStewart]

It wouldn't have looked as nearly as bad as getting caught firing a cruise missile at their own military headquarters.

 

The FBI just has to say "we can't release the tapes because the infringe the safety blah blah blah"

 

I find it hard to believe the missile theory too, but I find it equally difficult to believe the 757 theory.

 

So, if it wasn't a plane, and it wasn't a missile, what do you believe it most likely was?

 

I am unsure, I know that I don't believe it was flight 77, but I believe that it could have been a drone plane, not a 757.

[JAStewart]

Maybe this explains something.

 

For those who say:

 

"Why would the government hijack a 3rd plane, Flight 77, but not crash it into the Pentagon when they took the trouble to hijack two other planes and crash them into the WTC?"

 

and

 

"Why would they want to crash a plane into their own defense headquarters?"

 

 

Here is why they didn't want to use a Boeing 757 to crash into the Pentagon:

 

 

ACCURACY!!!

 

 

What do you think would be the easiest part of the Pentagon to hit, the huge rooftop that looks like a giant "bull’s-eye" from the sky, or the side of the Pentagon that is only about seven stories tall? I’d say the roof.

 

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001/200109115k.jpg

 

But what if you had to hit the side of the building that is only 2x taller than a Boeing 757 and not only that, but a certain side and certain section of that side?

 

The government conspirators needed to hit the exact section of the Pentagon that was hit. A Boeing 757, even flown via remote control or computer guidance, would have been too risky for them to use because it is too big and cumbersome to chance its accuracy, especially having to fly what they wanted to hit there super fast so most witnesses on the ground wouldn't be able to see what exactly it was, and a plane that size could cause more damage than they wanted too. They needed to use something very accurate to hit the small side of their building, like a missile or UAV, that also wouldn't cause too much damage to the Pentagon.

 

Can you imaging them trusting a remote controlled 115 ton Boeing to perfectly hit that small section without overshooting high and flying over the low sitting Pentagon, or bouncing off the lawn sending it in who knows which direction? They had to use something much smaller and accurate and that's why it hit directly into the first floor and didn’t hit the lawn, why no mark was left on the 3rd story wall where a 757's tail should have hit, why there wasn't as much damage to the Pentagon as one would think a mostly fueled 757 would cause, and why this aircraft flew in such a fast and agile way that made experienced air traffic controllers monitoring it think it was a "military plane". I really doubt Hani Hanjour could fly like that when his flight instructor said he could not fly at all? and was refused to rent a Cessna the month before the attack.

 

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j234/0911site/pentagonhole.jpg

 

http://0911.site.voila.fr/pentagonxox5.jpg

 

 

 

The 'Lucky' Section

 

It should be self evident enough that the section of the Pentagon hit was hit on purpose. The section hit was the only section in the entire Pentagon that was being retrofitted and it was being retrofitted, of all things, to help bolster it against attack. What are the odds of that? And not only that, but it was hit almost in the middle of that renovated section in which they had just installed a new sprinkler system. Hitting this section lowered the number of potential victims because this section was not yet fully repopulated and a fire truck had just been pulled out from the firehouse that was coincidentally right next the section that was hit. Another coincidence is that side was the only lawn side that didn't have a parking lot or other things built next to it that would have made it much less accessible for the rescue crews to fight the fires and rescue the injured. Another factor that was in the Pentagon's favor was hitting their own building ensured the availability of military doctors, nurses, and first aid responders for all the injured.

 

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7508/1605/1600/renovated_section.jpg

 

So think about it, the "Arab terrorists" hit the worst section for them and the best section for the Pentagon.

 

 

 

Motive for Hitting the 'Lucky' Section

 

So what was so special for our military to take the added risk of hitting that specific section at their defense headquarters when hitting the WTC would surely be enough to cause a wave of world wide indignation for their master plan?

 

Check out what the head of the Pentagon announced less than 24hrs before his place of work got hit:

 

http://www.planet.nl/upload_mm/9/2/3/1964780771_1999996984_010403_337x253_rumsfeld.jpg

On Sept. 10, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld declared war. Not on foreign terrorists, "the adversary's closer to home. It's the Pentagon bureaucracy," he said.

 

Rumsfeld promised change but the next day – Sept. 11-- the world changed and in the rush to fund the war on terrorism, the war on waste seems to have been forgotten.

 

"According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions," Rumsfeld admitted.

 

$2.3 trillion — that's $8,000 for every man, woman and child in America. (CBS)

 

Now I don’t know about you, but if I had to announce a bureaucratic nightmare that I wanted to be buried as quickly as possible from the minds of the American people, what better time to announce it than the day before every American’s mind will be distracted by a most horrible event?

 

So now we know why Rumsfeld announced this outrageous news the day before the attacks, but they needed to do a little more than to just bury the story, they needed to bury the evidence and what better way to bury the evidence than to blow up the section that housed the paper trail and people trail who would be able to figure out where all that missing $2.3 trillion went:

 

- The impact area included both the Navy operations center and the office complex of the National Guard and Army Reserve. It was also the end of the fiscal year and important budget information was in the damaged area. (Arlington County After-Action Report)

 

 

- Most of those killed in the office, called Resource Services Washington, were civilian accountants, bookkeepers and budget analysts. They were at their desks when American Airlines Flight 77 struck. (South Coast Today)

 

Now think about it, less than 24hrs after Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld (who was on the safe side of the Pentagon when it was hit) announces his agency lost track of a mind-blowing $2.3 trillion dollars, the section that housed the people and paper trail that would know where all that money went was blown up in the most bizarre events in America's history. Again, the Pentagon benefitted from this section being hit.

 

What also adds to the interest is the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and Chief Financial Officer for the Department of Defense who is in charge of all the Pentagon's money was Dov S. Zakheim, who not only is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations as well as an ordained Orthodox Jewish rabbi and some say is a dual Israeli/American citizen, but who is also a member of the PNAC, along with Donald Rumsfeld, and was a contributing author of the PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" that essentially talked about needing a "new Pearl Harbor" to build up American's military might exactly one year before it happened.

 

http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Jun2001/010509-A-3569D-001_screen.jpg

 

Some of Zakheim's former jobs are interesting too. He was vice president of a defense contractor, System Planning Corp., which made remote control and flight termination products and was chief executive officer of SPC International Corp., a subsidiary specializing in political, military and economic consulting.

 

 

So that is why they hit that section of the Pentagon and why they didn't use a Boeing 757 to do it.

 

 

See also: Pentagon's Official Claim, Pentagon Crash Motives, Where The Pentagon Was Hit, and Rabbi Steals $2.3 Trillion!

[Evil Inky]

Maybe this explains something.

 

For those who say:

 

"Why would the government hijack a 3rd plane, Flight 77, but not crash it into the Pentagon when they took the trouble to hijack two other planes and crash them into the WTC?"

 

and

 

"Why would they want to crash a plane into their own defense headquarters?"

 

 

Here is why they didn't want to use a Boeing 757 to crash into the Pentagon:

 

 

ACCURACY!!!

 

 

Someone else has already made the observation that a runway threshold is a smaller target than the Pentagon.

[JAStewart]

Maybe this explains something.

 

For those who say:

 

"Why would the government hijack a 3rd plane, Flight 77, but not crash it into the Pentagon when they took the trouble to hijack two other planes and crash them into the WTC?"

 

and

 

"Why would they want to crash a plane into their own defense headquarters?"

 

 

Here is why they didn't want to use a Boeing 757 to crash into the Pentagon:

 

 

ACCURACY!!!

 

 

Someone else has already made the observation that a runway threshold is a smaller target than the Pentagon.

 

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7508/1605/1600/renovated_section.jpg - smaller than that?