Wikipedia compiles most of the reasons there are conspiracy theories and ? on 911

If anyone ever wondered why there are so many of us that do not think the official story of 911 does not add up they should read this.

en.wikipedia.org...

According to the final report of the 9-11 Commission, on 11 September 2001, nineteen al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four planes in the Eastern United States. They crashed two planes into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, one into the headquarters of the U.S. Department of Defense at the Pentagon in Arlington County, Virginia, and a fourth into a field in Pennsylvania after passengers attempted to regain control of the plane. Doubting the official explanation, a number of conspiracy theories have emerged concerning the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Originally posted by goose
If anyone ever wondered why there are so many of us that do not think the official story of 911 does not add up they should read this.

en.wikipedia.org...

The hole in the outer wall of the Pentagon is said to be too small to have been created by a Boeing 757.

Many consider photographic evidence of plane wreckage lying on the grounds of the Pentagon to be ambiguous and unconvincing due to the lack of burnt metal and human remains, or any of the passenger's luggage, seating, chunky articles that you would expect to find; that are absent. There is no photo evidence of 757 plane wreckage, at all. No photos of passenger jet wreckage of any kind. There is however photographs of very small engine parts, identifiable as those of a Global Hawk military aircraft.

Yeah this is real good unbiased reporting if I have ever seen it. For the first time in my life I actually considered hitting the edit button on Wikipedia. I wonder what their proof of these claims are, is there any proof, or just speculation?

[edit on 10/25/2005 by defcon5]

Well since they are referring to the photographic evidence taken at the scene I am assuming that the photographs would be the evidence itself. Many of the photograph were taken by the FEMA a government agency, and it clearly shows the engine belonging to a small aircraft. Then there is the video that shows the small plane hitting the ground just seconds before it crashes in to the pentagon.

Originally posted by goose
Well since they are referring to the photographic evidence taken at the scene I am assuming that the photographs would be the evidence itself. Many of the photograph were taken by the FEMA a government agency, and it clearly shows the engine belonging to a small aircraft. Then there is the video that shows the small plane hitting the ground just seconds before it crashes in to the pentagon.

Funny, because if you read other articles and even Catherder's thread on here which is also in the main site content, then CH proves that it is from an airliner of the correct type, it is infact from the APU.

What is seen in this photo is most likely the APU (Aux Power Unit) used in a 757 that is equipped with Rolls-Royce RB211 engines. The APU (Honeywell GTCP331-200) is located in the tail section of the aircraft (that's what the large vent that looks like a 3rd jet engine is) as edvidenced on this technical rescue reference aid from Boeing. Boeing 757 reference website. These small turbine engines are quite common on modern turbine & turbofan passenger aircraft, and are used to furnish ground auxillary power while the main engines are shut down during ground operations. An online training aid lets you Play around with the controls on a 757/767 instrument pannel.

There have been some people who claim that a Global Hawk was what hit the Pentagon. Here is what John W. Brown, spokesman for Rolls Royce (Indianapolis), had to say about the part in the photo above �It is not a part from any Rolls Royce engine that I�m familiar with, and certainly not the AE 3007H made here in Indy.� (Of course it wouldn't be anything he's familiar with, it's a powerplant made by Honeywell.)
www.abovetopsecret.com...

There was a thread here on ATS a couple days ago about how Wikipedia gas admitted it has serious accuracy issues due to the nature of it's construct. I would not take it as the definitive answer for anything anymore.

Also if it was a government conspiracy, why the hell would the government provide people with evidence of what they had done anyway?

And lastly, I would love to see this smoking gun video of a small plane hitting the Pentagon, I am amazed that it hasn't made the rounds yet, not once have I seen it! Incredible...

[edit on 25-10-2005 by AgentSmith]

I can see that this issue is never going to end, and with sites like Wikipedia taken as gospel truth by many that do not realize that ANY wackjob can post ANYTHING on it, there will now be a new generation of people believing this nonsense. There will be a bunch of new posters on the 757 thread, and it will go to 375 pages. With that in mind I have to question the benefit of having a site like Wikipedia at all.

I am well aware what wikipedia is and do not take it as gospel, but this is is a well done condensed compilation of the issues concerning why many people see the official story as a lie. And if you bothered looking at the site you would see it clearly gives a warning en.wikipedia.org...
The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed.

For AgentSmith, the video is on about any website that deals with 911 including CNN's. One of the things I find interesting is that the government denied its existance and actually confiscated all of the security tapes of any nearby busiess that might have caught the impact. Those security tapes have not been released to the media, why? As to the photographs no one is saying that every part of the government was aware of what was going on. Here is the video broken down into pics 911research.wtc7.net...
And this one has the video archives.cnn.com...
.

Too bad the link to Wiki doesn´t work in China...

Wikipedia Blocked in China