Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

I read the post you linked to and don't see any insights worth commenting on. There is no definite theory proposed, just a statement that he could think of more possibilities. Everyone can make that statement.

Everyone also thinks inside a box, Tezza. The only question is the size and shape.

I am surprised that someone of your ability hasn't yet been able to form even a working hypothesis of the Pentagon strike. Do you have a working hypothesis?

Originally posted by pteridine
I am surprised that someone of your ability hasn't yet been able to form even a working hypothesis of the Pentagon strike. Do you have a working hypothesis?

Fortunately we don't need a hypothesis, Donald Rumsfeld took care of that for us when he used the word missile, at that point hypothesis becomes moot IMO. Look at these two pictures...

Originally posted by pteridine
I am surprised that someone of your ability hasn't yet been able to form even a working hypothesis of the Pentagon strike. Do you have a working hypothesis?

I'm surprised that you think I should have a working hypothesis.

When I know that I have not seen all of the evidence, how do you expect me to form any hypothesis?

When there has been clear contradicting evidence about the Pentagon strike given by politicians, I know that something has been covered up.

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by A Fortiori

 

No, the Pentagon was always a target. Bin Laden wanted to strike the White House but Atta was concerned that it would be too difficult to hit and recommended the Capitol as a backup.

Boone,

I'm a gut feeling kinda gal, and you strike me as a "nicer" (as opposed to "meaner") so please understand that what I am about to say is not intended as offense to you, though it may hurt your feelings. I apologize in advance.

The evidence you presented would, in fact, make your point if true as to the reason. I just, personally now, think it is a load of condensed owl doodie.

The video tapes of "Osama bin Ladin" are some of the least credible bits of evidence to me. In my personal opinion, and I would not call anyone any names like some people for believing in them, but...in my personal opinion "bin Ladin" seems to age then regress, then gain facial weight even in the nose, then suddenly appears botoxed... The very first post-9-11 bin Ladin picture may have been the first indicator to me that something smelled rotten in Denmark. If that was Osama bin Ladin then he needs to work on the Home Shopping Channel in the beauty department because that dude had some kinda special anti-aging cream that made him look years younger. Had to be an anti-aging cream because how could someone living in caves have that good of plastic surgery.

As to targets, Atta understood Bib Ladin’s interest in striking the White House. Atta said he thought this target was too difficult, but had tasked Hamzi and Hanjour to evaluate its feasibility and was awaiting their answer. Atta said that those two operatives had rented small aircraft and flown reconnaissance flights near the Pentagon.

*raises eyebrow*

Binalshibh reminded Atta that Bin Ladin wanted to target the White House. Atta again cautioned that this would be difficult. When Binalshibh persisted, Atta agreed to include the White House but suggested they keep the Capitol as an alternate target in case the White House proved too difficult.

Okay, say this is true. It still doesn't make sense that they would choose two high profile targets, civilian targets in the city which would have effectively destroyed the morale of the entire nation as terrorism is want to do, and suddenly decide to choose a military target because it is easier to hit? They weren't exactly the best terrorists then because the point is to hit civilian targets, to make civilians afraid to go places, to stop commerce.

Still, they stake out the Pentagon. All around it is highway and parking lot. Hit anywhere on the Mall and you've destroyed our history. The Lincoln Memorial, the Washington Monument, the Jefferson Memorial...any of these would have been ten times as horrifying because they are irreplaceable--not to mention flooded with school children.

Lucky us, huh, that they manage to hit buildings in New York that would have had to undergo asbestos renovation or be condemned, and even more "lucky us" is a blow to the section of the Pentagon already under renovation rather than say the White House, the Capital Building, the or Mall.

I'd say we are all pretty darn lucky.

Lucky that the two towers with their size didn't have any derivation in heat or location that would have the buildings collapse in any manner other than pancake. Imagine had they fallen to one side. It was as if God Himself was looking out after us and made sure that they fell perfectly to the ground.

Lucky that they hit a section of the Pentagon that was finance and accounting, leaving us our command and control, our Joint Chiefs and other high ranking military personnel.

Lucky us that they trusted each other's piloting skills so much that they avoided the tallest and most important building in the Nation's Capital and continued "on course" to the Pentagon. Can you imagine if they worried that maybe flight 93 wouldn't hit their target and decided to plow into the Capital, as well? *whistles between teeth* That would have been truly terrible. It's a good thing they didn't think to double up on the Capital building since it is the heart and symbol of America and everything.

I shudder to think of what would've happened if United 93 had made it to DC. The Pentagon attack had everyone's attention and there were a lot of cameras rolling by that time. Can you imagine watching all of the replays of a 757 plowing into the Capitol dome or the White House, similar to what happened in New York?

Yes, that would have been devastating.

Originally posted by tezzajw
I'm surprised that you think I should have a working hypothesis.

When I know that I have not seen all of the evidence, how do you expect me to form any hypothesis?

When there has been clear contradicting evidence about the Pentagon strike given by politicians, I know that something has been covered up.

A working hypothesis does not need all the evidence and is based on the evidence at hand. That is why it is called a working hypothesis. When more evidence becomes available, it is reevaluated and changed, if necessary, to allow for the new evidence.

As to waiting to see all of the evidence; that may be fruitless. Can you name an event where "all the evidence" is available?

Politicians provide clear contradictions at a moment's notice. It is in their job descriptions to do so while angling for a bit of the spotlight.

Based on what you have seen so far, what do you think is the most likely Pentagon scenario?

reply to post by twitchy

What Rummy said immediately after the attack was what he, or an advisor, thought at the time. It was a missile; it was just a missile with passengers in it from AA.
Your photos comparing the moments of impact show two distinctly different fireballs. The better comparison would be immediately after these events. HE does not burn after detonation and the jet fuel burned for hours. The plane was larger and more destructive than any non-nuclear missile in the inventory.

reply to post by A Fortiori


You made the comment, "It's a good thing they didn't think to double up on the Capital building since it is the heart and symbol of America and everything." Why would they do that? Their organization was paramilitary and each would execute orders as received. They had no way of knowing how much time they had over DC before they would be attacked. They likely had primary and secondary targets. All of the pilots on these boards say that the White House is difficult to see from the air. The Pentagon isn't. If you miss acquiring the primary target then you would go for your secondary target without waiting around to get shot down. Putting two into the Capitol wasn't in the plans.

[edit on 9/20/2009 by pteridine]

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by jthomas
You can provide no reason whatsoever why anyone should think the passengers' bodies did not exist. You can provide no reason to claim that the passenger bodies were not located and identified. None. Zero. Nada.

"no reason anyone...should think...passenger bodies were not located..."

= Negative Proof

Nope. Repeating your fallacious reasoning will never make it come true no matter how much you are in denial, Jezus.

Why do I have to ask you the same questions over and over?

Because you refuse to support your claim.

What would be proof that something did not happen?

What would be proof for your claim? I'm still waiting. Why do you refuse to support your own claim?

You claimed, "so far you cannot explain why there were no passengers bodies at the crash scene."

Just when are you going to show us how you know there were no passenger bodies at the crash scene?

Quit playing your nonsensical games, Lillydale. Either support your claim or admit that you have no such knowledge and withdraw your claim.




[edit on 20-9-2009 by jthomas]

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by jthomas
You can provide no reason whatsoever why anyone should think the passengers' bodies did not exist. You can provide no reason to claim that the passenger bodies were not located and identified. None. Zero. Nada.

"no reason anyone...should think...passenger bodies were not located..."

= Negative Proof

Nope. Repeating your fallacious reasoning will never make it come true no matter how much you are in denial, Jezus.

This isn't debatable...

You repeatedly use negative proof at your proof...

You're still confused, Jezus.

Lilydale stated clearly: "so far you cannot explain why there were no passengers bodies at the crash scene."

That is a direct claim. Lillydale stated that there were no passenger bodies at the Pentagon. Got that?

How does Lillydale know there were no passenger bodies at the Pentagon? She can't answer the question about her own claim.

There is no issue of "negative proof" involved here. Got that, finally? All Lillydale has to do is show us how she knows that NO passenger bodies were found at the crash scene.

Originally posted by A Fortiori

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by jthomas
But Lillydale claims she does.

Huh??????

Yup. You claimed "no passenger bodies were found at the Pentagon." And you refuse to support your claim.

Too bad you're not intellectually honest enough to admit it. But no 9/11 Denier is.

Are you a troll? I ask this in all seriousness.

How does one prove that something that does not exist, does not exist? It simply does not exist.

Are you serious?

What part of Lillydale's direct claim that "there were no passengers bodies at the crash scene" confuses you?

Pay attention. How does Lillydale know "there were no passengers bodies at the crash scene?"

How many times do I have to repeat the question before she or any of you demonstrates how she knows and what she knows???

Quit the silly evasions. She can support her claim or withdraw it. And to date, she refuses.

reply to post by pteridine


I have "three" working hypothesis for you.

Hypothesis Numero Uno: Islamic Fundamentalists Acted Alone

A bunch of America haters, that hate our freedoms, hate our lavish, gadget filled, McMansioned lives and decide to teach the great Satan a lesson by saving their coinage for years, pooling it together since, oh, the seventies because surely they weren't funded by our OPEC friends--those nice fellows that smile and shake our hands and charge us outrageous fees for oil, but they are our friends! They let us invade Kuwait for them and save the oil rich Kuwaitis from the evil Iraqis that used to be our friends.

So these lads are saving all of their coin for years, playing nice with the US to get special forces style training and acting so docile and appreciative that our own "intelligence" agencies worry not the least that we are training super killers. Since we are also supplying the Taliban, friends of theirs, against the Northern warlords they keep getting free weapons and supplies. They still hate us, mind you, because even though we are helping their friends the Taliban, the Kuwaitis, the Jordanians, the Sauds, the Egyptians, etc. we are not helping the Palestinian people.

So while they are handing out food, supplies, training, etc to the Palestinians in Israel, the ones they are doing all of this for and planning an attack on the Knesset and other points of interest in Israel--wait! They didn't do that. Skip to the next paragraph.

Deciding somehow that America treats the Palestinian people worse than the Israelis they plan a coordinated attack the likes of which they have never accomplished before.

So in racist America a bunch of brown-skinned Muslims with accents attend flight school and tell the instructor that they don't care about learning to land. Lucky for them they happen upon the most politically correct, left-leaning instructor in the world who thinks nothing of this and teaches them to fly jets.

They have an intrinsic knowledge of the weak areas in the DMV and are able to load up with fake IDs, purchase tickets, cross the border, do all this pre-flight amazingly clever stuff, board a plane, create makeshift box cutters in the bathroom, and then begin their amazing trek up the thin aisle of the plane slashing people without being stopped by any member of the crew, enter the unlocked cockpit, kill the pilots, and fly planes into their pre-planned targets in such a manner that they also create the perfect collapse of gigantic structures without those structures falling to one side, and without our military being able to get planes up in the air in time to shoot them down!

Perfection! Brilliance! What genius! What luck!

It is really interesting that they are able to pull this off in an area like the US where we already have a preconceived prejudice that Muslims are terrorists thanks to the propaganda of the First Iraq war, look nothing and sound nothing like the majority of the country's inhabitants, and they are not able to pull off anything remotely close to this in Israel where they would look like pretty much everyone else, could hijack or even take freely jet airliner from Syria or Iraq and fly it into the Knesset without any air traffic controller from the departure nations informing Israel.

But I guess that's how the cards play out in my first hypothesis. Luck, intelligence, and skill. Those dudes were just too darn slick for us!




[edit on 20-9-2009 by A Fortiori]

reply to post by pteridine


Hypothesis Two: Fahrenheit 9-11, aka "Our Government Is Run By Patriotic But Thoroughly Inept Turds"

Same as the original hypothesis only in this scenario we have advanced warning that this might happen, but we choose to shelve the information because we don't believe that they could actually accomplish something like this. After all, we're friends with the Saudis!

So the United States basically bungles every opportunity to protect its citizens, realizes this and begins a cover-up to make it look as though that memo hadn't run across their desk warning them that Bin Laden was about to strike the US. They also use the events to promote the CFR agenda in the Middle East, the hysteria and anti-Muslim fervor making it possible to wage war with the support of our citizens.

reply to post by A Fortiori


Post removed. I need hypothesis three to properly respond.

[edit on 9/20/2009 by pteridine]

reply to post by pteridine


Hypothesis Three: The US Government Was Filled With Malignant Tumors Masquerading As Human Beings

For the purpose of acquiring wealth and consolidation of power, and with a dab of justification that they will someday create the perfect balance with a New World Order, a group of individuals decide to kick off a series of events that would change the world.

Two buildings filled to the brim with asbestos were selected for destruction as the cost to renovate would make them irrelevant blocks of concrete and steel in a few years anyway. Not wanting to kill that many people to achieve this new, wonderful world, "they" pick a time of day where the number of people inside the building would be minimal--they're not monsters, after all. Just "ends justifies means" type of people.

Another target must be hit so as to show a loss to their own.

Another building undergoing renovation...aha! The Pentagon! Close enough to the Capital without actually damaging any structures of importance or killing off people who are needed to advance this glorious new agenda.

The section targeted would have few or no people inside. Perfect!

The goal of all "ends justifies the means" plans is to have the least amount of collateral damage so you can sleep at night. Therefore, rather than have the buildings topple in the event that the planes do damage the buildings irreparably, explosives were planted to "blow" the buildings--oh! And the other pesky building in the process.

Insurance is taken out on the buildings, because why not have someone make money off of it. That wouldn't be wrong or anything. Rich people are needed to take care of the poor people in the New World Order.

It would be nice, they think, if a Mayor with very little scruples when it comes to the women in his life is brave and bold enough to enter one of the buildings close to the action. Blowing the building when he leaves would be a nice touch as it creates heroes and the little people need heroes.

They also decide to tell all of their friends to drop stock in the airlines and buy defense stock so that people's livelihoods are not destroyed. Poor people need rich people so why not allow some people to keep their money.

Everything is for the greater good and while they had to allow some people to die it is for the good of the world.

Somewhere on this thread is a link showing that only 20 floors of one tower had asbestos problems. Of course, the idiot lawyers who run the agencies responsible want to have the asbestos "remediated." This generally means thrashing about and actually increasing airborne concentrations of asbestos instead of encapsulating it in-place. I don't think losing the buildings was more expedient than paying off the same inspection agency who approved the plans in the first place.

The location of the Pentagon strike has been brought up before. If another part of the Pentagon had been struck, would rationalization after the fact have provided "evidence" of selective targeting? Had Rummy been whacked, what would the theorists have said then?

There is no evidence for CD.


[edit on 9/20/2009 by pteridine]

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by A Fortiori

 

You made the comment, "It's a good thing they didn't think to double up on the Capital building since it is the heart and symbol of America and everything." Why would they do that? Their organization was paramilitary and each would execute orders as received. They had no way of knowing how much time they had over DC before they would be attacked. They likely had primary and secondary targets. All of the pilots on these boards say that the White House is difficult to see from the air. The Pentagon isn't. If you miss acquiring the primary target then you would go for your secondary target without waiting around to get shot down. Putting two into the Capitol wasn't in the plans.

[edit on 9/20/2009 by pteridine]

Why would the Pentagon be the secondary target? It is a military target. If you had to hit something in DC to inspire fear and terror then why not hit the Mall, the Lincoln Memorial, the Washington Monument, the Jefferson Memorial and take out some school children while you're at it?

reply to post by A Fortiori


Why, indeed? Apparently they didn't ask you for targeting information when they decided to show DoD that they were not immune from attack either. Don't let your own reasoning cloud the issues.

reply to post by A Fortiori


A Fortior, I like your Option B.

However, in a reply to my post, you wrote this:

Also you mentioned Columbia Pike. The Pike runs fairly close to parallel to the river, the path they flew is perpendicular.

I currently live here. I'm not talking about the geography here out of my posterior. Anyone with "Google Map" capability will see the error there. It's not a big deal, EXCEPT it kinda-sorta is, because it is these kinds of small 'mistakes' that grow and fester into larger ones, and cloud the issue.


This confused me too:

According to the 9-11 transcripts they were supposedly terrible pilots. If you're not Maverick, then why hit the Pentagon with the Capital building is in full range?

Please re-read my post.

DC really has no 'skyline', per se. The Capitol Building is easily spotted, at the end of the Mall. The WH has the Ellipse, and of course the Washington Monument nearby, but still, from an altitude of even a few thousand feet, the WH is extremely tiny in comparison. The Pentagon is quite large. Low profile, yes, but a familiarity with the river, the bridges, the proximity to national Airport --- and of course Columbia Pike (accurately, Virginia State Route 244).

Look at DC's skyline. From a non-pilot's point of view it appears as thought it would be difficult not to hit the Capital building on that path and yet they still managed to hit the Pentagon.

From your POV what do you think? Pentagon easier hit than the Capital?

To summarize, not "easier". The Capitol Dome stands out of course, especially from the ground view....BUT, not nearly as easily as the WTC Towers did. Take a look in "Google", street view, just go down Pennsylvania Avenue a bit (say a mile or so....look from 13th Street). Compare relative sizes.
_____________________________________________________________

edit to respond to another post:

Originally posted by A Fortiori

If you had to hit something in DC to inspire fear and terror then why not hit the Mall, the Lincoln Memorial, the Washington Monument, the Jefferson Memorial...

The Mall is a big, open expanse of grass. Lincoln, and Jefferson Memorials are small. The Washington Monument? Capitol is FAR better 'blow' to America than any of those.....

....and take out some school children while you're at it?

I'm sorry, but that's just vile.

You DO realize there was a group of elementary school children onboard American Airlines 77, do you not???


[edit on 20 September 2009 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by Reheat


Sorry, Reheat, I have already mentioned that I started out as a 'FLAP', right?

*(Military guys, and some civilians who've had occasion to work with the ex-military pilots know what the acronym means)* That's how I know it, from years working alongside ex-mil at the airline. I didn't take their use of the term personally, since anyone who flew with me knew I had the necessary skills, just didn't train in the Military...not that there's anything wrong with that.....

What is the source for this garbage? Perhaps there is confusion regarding the term "combat ready" (not armed) versus on NORAD Alert (always armed)

Thanks, again, for clearing up terminology. I may have inadvertently contributed to the plethora of false premises out there, regarding the effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of NORAD 'Alert' fighters on the morning of September 11 in countering the threats posed by AA 77 and UA 93.

Again, from an ANG or USAF pilot's standpoint, at that time, just how difficult would it have been to intercept the two B757s, with transponders in STBY? ARTCC lost them, and they covered many different sectors, and between facilities, it would be hard for AT C to track the primary targets.

Sure, an F-16 has more sophisticated avionics, but still has to get a vector to the area where the bogey is suspected of being, right?

A lot of airpace to search, with no idea of altitude or position and ground track.

reply to post by pteridine


My argument stands regardless of how "little" asbestos some on another thread linked to. The fact was that they would have had several hundred million dollars in repairs coming very very soon to those buildings.

By Mcleod, Douglas
Publication: Business Insurance
Date: Monday, May 14 2001

NEWARK-Asbestos abatement costs are not covered by an all-risks property policy unless an actual asbestos release or an imminent release leaves a property useless or uninhabitable, a federal judge has ruled.

U.S. District Judge John W. Bissell earlier this month threw out the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey's final claims in a longstanding suit against dozens of insurers over coverage of more than $600 million in asbestos abatement costs at the World Trade Center, New York's three major airports and other Port Authority properties.

And the owner received more in insurance than they were valued at.