It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by walman
Originally posted by GoldenFleece
I guess you haven't looked very hard. There's actually very little if any evidence that Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon.
Here's the U.S. government's 1962 "Operation Northwoods" false-flag terrorism plan.
The passengers on Flight 77 probably ended up in a similar situation:
So you're telling me that it happened because of a combination of lack of remaining physical evidence, and because a plan that was proposed in the 60's "probably" happened in '01? Are you kidding me?
Also, why say "very little...evidence"? If there is even a shred of real evidence then it proves the story. You seem to only be saying that your far-out theory must be true because the official story cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Originally posted by GoldenFleece
The official story can't be proven PERIOD -- from the CNN reporter who stated that there was "no evidence of Flight 77 having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon", to the "hijacker pilot" Hani Hanjour who couldn't fly a Cessna, to the impossibly small entry hole in the Pentagon, to the lack of identifiable 757 parts and passenger bodies inside and outside the Pentagon, to the total implausibility of a passenger jet that both disintegrated and whose aluminum nose cone punched through six 2-feet thick Pentagon walls built of concrete, brick and limestone, blowing out a perfectly round 12-foot exit hole in the 'C' ring outer wall
Originally posted by rush969
reply to post by GoldenFleece
Think people, THINK !!!
On the other hand, people keep referring to “Operation Northwoods.” May I remind everyone the following:
1.- This “operation” was an idea. It was not carried out. The person who came up with it got fired.
2.- Not even in that “operation” were American citizens to be killed.
U.S. Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba
Book: U.S. Military Drafted Plans to Terrorize U.S. Cities to Provoke War With Cuba
By David Ruppe
N E W Y O R K, May 1, 2001
In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.
Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Operation Northwoods, or Northwoods, was a false-flag conspiracy plan, proposed within the United States government in 1962. The plan called for CIA or other operatives to commit apparent acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Castro-led Cuba. One plan was to "develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington".
This operation is especially notable in that it included plans for hijackings and bombings followed by the use of phony evidence that would blame the terrorist acts on a foreign government, namely Cuba.
The plan states,
"The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere."
Operation Northwoods was drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and signed by then-Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer, and sent to the Secretary of Defense.
posted by walman
(3) Perhaps since Hani Hanjour was such a terrible pilot, the plane hit at an angle that caused one of the engines to ricochet off the ground and hit the building, while the other went right through the building and created that hole? A 757 can travel at around 600MPH, and those engines weight around 10K lbs each. Where do they officially state that it was the nose of the plane that made the hole and not the engine?
(1) What's to say that the CNN reporter misspoke, or spoke too quickly before considering all of the evidence? Does the CNN reporter still believe that there is no evidence of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon?
(3) Perhaps since Hani Hanjour was such a terrible pilot, the plane hit at an angle that caused one of the engines to ricochet off the ground and hit the building, while the other went right through the building and created that hole?
Hani Hanjour: 9/11 Pilot Extraordinaire
From the ridiculous to the sublime...
Federal Aviation Administration records show [Hanjour] obtained a commercial pilot's license in April 1999, but how and where he did so remains a lingering question that FAA officials refuse to discuss. His limited flying abilities do afford an insight into one feature of the attacks: The conspiracy apparently did not include a surplus of skilled pilots. [Cape Cod Times]
[Flight Academy] Staff members characterized Mr. Hanjour as polite, meek and very quiet. But most of all, the former employee said, they considered him a very bad pilot. "I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon," the former employee said. "He could not fly at all." [New York Times]
At Freeway Airport in Bowie, Md., 20 miles west of Washington, flight instructor Sheri Baxter instantly recognized the name of alleged hijacker Hani Hanjour when the FBI released a list of 19 suspects in the four hijackings. Hanjour, the only suspect on Flight 77 the FBI listed as a pilot, had come to the airport one month earlier seeking to rent a small plane.
However, when Baxter and fellow instructor Ben Conner took the slender, soft-spoken Hanjour on three test runs during the second week of August, they found he had trouble controlling and landing the single-engine Cessna 172. Even though Hanjour showed a federal pilot's license and a log book cataloging 600 hours of flying experience, chief flight instructor Marcel Bernard declined to rent him a plane without more lessons.
In the spring of 2000, Hanjour had asked to enroll in the CRM Airline Training Center in Scottsdale, Ariz., for advanced training, said the center's attorney, Gerald Chilton Jr. Hanjour had attended the school for three months in late 1996 and again in December 1997 but never finished coursework for a license to fly a single-engine aircraft, Chilton said.
When Hanjour reapplied to the center last year, "We declined to provide training to him because we didn't think he was a good enough student when he was there in 1996 and 1997" Chilton said. [Newsday]
"This guy could not solo a Cessna 150 ... and what I mean by solo is a pilot's first time out without anyone in the cockpit with him. It's the most simple, the most fundamental flying exercise one can engage in..."
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Actually, the better question would be to ask Fleecey why he refuses to look at the whole transcript of what the reporter was saying. The reporter in question has NEVER said that Flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon and has on many occasions stated that people like Fleece are not accurately portraying what he said that day.
Judy Woodruff: Outside the Pentagon, CNN's military affairs correspondent Jamie McIntyre.
And, Jamie, you got very close to where that plane went down.
JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Judy.
A short -- a while ago I walked right up next to the building, firefighters were still trying to put the blaze. The fire, by the way, is still burning in some parts of the Pentagon. And I took a look at the huge gaping hole that's in the side of the Pentagon in an area of the Pentagon that has been recently renovated, part of a multibillion dollar renovation program here at the Pentagon. I could see parts of the airplane that crashed into the building, very small pieces of the plane on the heliport outside the building. The biggest piece I saw was about three feet long, it was silver and had been painted green and red, but I could not see any identifying markings on the plane. I also saw a large piece of shattered glass. It appeared to be a cockpit windshield or other window from the plane.
When this plane hit the Pentagon this morning, according to the Pentagon spokesman, Craig Quigley, the defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, incredibly is described as having run out of his office and down to actually help some of the victims onto stretchers until he was ushered into the National Military Command Center, the secure Nerve Center or War Room deep inside the Pentagon, where he remains at this time.
Pentagon officials say he will stay for the time being. That is a place where all of U.S. intelligence comes in and he has complete command with his commanders around the world.
At the same time, the Pentagon has dispatched several warships out of port Norfolk, including the U.S. -- the carriers, USS George Washington and USS Kennedy. The sensible reason for that, the movement of those ships and their escort ships, is to move them from more vulnerable positions. But the Navy says they'll also head some of the aircraft carriers up toward New York with the idea that they may be able to render some kind of assistance there, given the magnitude of the tragedy there.
Back here, the fight goes on to put out the fire inside the Pentagon. The heat from that blaze was described as absolutely intense, and the number of casualties here has still not been released. Dozens of people were taken away in ambulances, and the Pentagon is still not releasing any figures on deaths. But clearly, people who had offices in that, what is now a huge gaping hole in the side of the Pentagon, clearly, there was some people killed in this tragedy -- Judy.
WOODRUFF: Jamie, Aaron was talking earlier -- or one of our correspondence was talking earlier -- I think -- actually, it was Bob Franken -- with an eyewitness who said it appeared that that Boeing 757, the American jet, American Airline jet, landed short of the Pentagon.
Can you give us any better idea of how much of the plane actually impacted the building?
MCINTYRE: You know, it might have appeared that way, but from my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. The only site is the actual site of the building that's crashed in, and as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you can pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around, which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse.
Now, even though if you look at the pictures of the Pentagon you see that the floors have all collapsed; that didn't happen immediately. It wasn't until almost about 45 minutes later that the structure was weakened enough that all of the floors collapsed.
Originally posted by SPreston
The poor befuddled fanatics just have no idea what their next pile of cow manure cause of the Exit Hole will be. Maybe back to the 1st or hang on desperately to the 4th; or maybe just try that good old MAGIC word.
Originally posted by lycopersicum
reply to post by pteridine
you are 100% sure there is no way in the world they could not have recoverd dna from bodies from the wreckage from the ocean??
they have done that on many crashes before flight 800 rings a bell
you think 100% not possible to have planted DNA ??
***Flight 800 has a much better chance of being a consipracy of silence than any 911 event. Recovering DNA from the bodies of flight 800 was possible and many of the bodies were reasonably whole and identifiable.
It may be possible to fly an airplane out to sea, shoot it down, and recover the bodies that are recoverable but why go through such a contortion when there is no reason to do so.
there is for 100% sure that there is no way that a huge load of hydrocarbon fuel couldnt have been placed there??
***You would need a tanker truck's worth. Unless you find a tanker truck on the exterior wall in photos of the impact, no.
im just saying anything is possible true or false ??
***"Anything is possible" is overworked. Many things are possible, but many of those may not be very probable. Why go to the trouble of all the tortuous machinations proposed to get the same results as the obvious? Ask the CTer's why they need such. Think about it, Lyco, they kill all the passengers elsewhere and then bring the burnt bodies to the Pentagon, SECRETLY. They have the plane miss and land somewhere else while a second plane/missile strikes the Pentagon. So they plant wreckage SECRETLY. Do you realize how ludicrous all of this is?
do you work on the inside with 100% factual insider information?
***Of course not. If I did, I'd never admit it anyway.
[edit on 31-1-2009 by lycopersicum]
Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by lycopersicum
DNA of the passengers was recovered from the Pentagon, so shoot downs over the ocean don't fit. Pieces of airplane too big to plant [engines] were also recovered. What is proposed is contrived and complicated and would have required a huge conspiracy consisting of hundreds of people.
The impact fireball and immediate fire was from 1000-3000 gallons of liquid hydrocarbons. No missile in the inventory can carry that much fuel. The easiest plan would be to use an aircraft as a cruise missile, which is consistent with the evidence. There would be no big conspiracy required of the many people who responded and recovered evidence.
The only CT that could fit with the evidence would be that the terrorists were allowed to complete their missions while the security people watched. This was true to some extent but, in my opinion, more out of missed communications and intel turf wars and not malice.
Many of those calling for a new investigation do not dispute the physical evidence and conclusions as to cause of WTC collapse and Pentagon strike, but that the investigations did not include a detailed examination of the many screw-ups and bureaucratic maneuverings that allowed the events to occur. Nobody was punished for incompetence. Nobody answered for covering up ignored reports. If the public was to pay for another investigation, I believe that is probably what they would be willing to pay for.
I believe that the true disinformation agents are the CT's that are focusing on the physical missile strikes/thermate/demolition/two planes/flyovers/hologram stuff that has no supporting evidence. Some of it is so ludicrous as to be amusing. They lead people along a never ending path that they will never allow to be resolved. Some CT's are gullible believers, some are profiteers, and a very few may be intentionally diverting attention from the actual conspiracy.
This is the conspiracy of silence and cover-up of the high ranking officials who were playing oneupsmanship games while the terrorists attacked.