Interesting, ANOK....but the site itself very plainly asks a question, then provides it's own unproven theory as the definitive answer. Frankly, it does seem a bit of a leap from "what are they doing?" to "obviously, they're planting evidence". Those pictures could indeed be nothing more than "suits" running around trying to discern wth happened - or is such a possibility too outlandish?

CatHerder you've made a mistake no frech website touched the photograph there is a video that shows the explotion and it clearly shows it turning in all those different colors, (White/Black) You'll notice that the Date on the inpact tape says Sept 12, 2001, I'll even post more info, like how within 5 minutes of the crashes the F.B.I. went and grabed multiple Video tapes from the little market across from the Pentagon and the Hotels that had cameras that caught the REAL Plane, or Missle or Global Hawk, what ever it realy was that hit the Pentagon, till yhis day the Feds have NEVER returned those tapes, you wanna know why? Cus it would contradict the Bogus story the Gov told us about some 19 highjakers taking over planes and slamming them into buildings. also the question I wanna ask is what was the Metals used in the extierior on the WTC, and what was the outside walls of the Pentagon made of ? [edit on 2-7-2005 by SiberianTiger]

I could easily see someone that was in shock running around picking up pieces of airplane wreckage because they didn't know what else to do. Your life was just turned upside down, who knows how many friends and coworkers are dead.... You don't want to stand around doing nothing, you don't want to get in the way of the professionals and other people that are helping, and there were a lot of them, so you do the only thing you can think of to help. You pick up wreckage and put it in a central spot. My father took me to a housing area when we were in New Hampsire, after an FB-111 crashed. There was police tape all around the main wreckage but there was wreckage outside there that people were running around picking up so that they could take it home and say that they had parts of the plane. You don't know what's important in a plane crash, so you would want to pick it up and put it somewhere so that no one else picks it up and keeps it as a souvenier.

And once again SiberianTiger knows everything. They came out and ADMITTED they touched up the picture. Why would they admit it if they didn't? The outside of the Pentagon was reinforced concrete that had been beefed up to withstand a car bomb parked near it. That was stated many times in this thread if you had bothered to read any of it. [edit on 2-7-2005 by Zaphod58]

Actually Catherder, you are close on the numbers, but they weren't all F-16s. There were 7 bases (I think) that had alert fighters armed and ready to launch that morning. They were a mix of F-16s and F-15s. Sorry, just had to nitpick a little bit. [edit on 2-7-2005 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by SiberianTiger CatHerder you've made a mistake no frech website touched the photograph there is a video that shows the explotion and it clearly shows it turning in all those different colors, (White/Black) You'll notice that the Date says Sept 12, 2001, I'll even post more info, like how within 5 minutes of the crashes the F.B.I. went and grabed 4 Video tapes from the little market across from the Pentagon and the Hotels that had cameras that caught the REAL Plane-Missle Global Hawk that hit the Pentagon, till yhis day the Feds have NEVER returned those tapes, you wanna know why Cus it would contradict the Bogus staory the Gov told us about some 19 highjakers takeing over planes.

Yes, EXACTLY. * The "video" with the September 12 timestamp is the altered one. * The video without the Sept 12 timestamp is the original one. I made no mistake there when I said his single frame was from the altered video set. The only real mistake in all this is that there are so many websites out there that manufacture "evidence" to prove whatever point it is they desire, and then many many people pick up on this stuff and run with it as though it were gospel. People here have gone so far as to accuse me of being a disinformation artist, and to claim I work for the US government or George Bush. Even though that is quite laughable, it just goes to show how emotionally involved the conspiracy theorist faction is when it comes to 9.11. I haven't manufactured anything; I've simply taken hundreds of accounts and images and sorted through what was real and what was made up. It's pretty easy to spot the frauds when you find the same photo from another 3 or 4 sources that has not been altered. The rest of what you refer to is entirely another discussion.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 Actually Catherder, you are close on the numbers, but they weren't all F-16s. There were 7 bases (I think) that had alert fighters armed and ready to launch that morning. They were a mix of F-16s and F-15s. Sorry, just had to nitpick a little bit. [edit on 2-7-2005 by Zaphod58]

That's cool, I'm sure there might even be a couple F-18's in there. I know Canada primarily has F/A-18-A/C's in the air. But I'm also sure that 9 out of 10 people weren't even aware that they had just over a dozen aircraft "defending" the USA domestically.

Oh I KNOW that most people didn't. The first time I said something about how few fighters were defending us, they stared at me like I was crazy, and said "You're kidding right?" I blame a lot of the disinformation out there on writers that think they know a lot about something and don't. Then you end up with a lot of people quoting them as an "expert" and pointing to their "evidence" as fact when they're wrong to start with.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 Oh I KNOW that most people didn't. The first time I said something about how few fighters were defending us, they stared at me like I was crazy, and said "You're kidding right?" I blame a lot of the disinformation out there on writers that think they know a lot about something and don't. Then you end up with a lot of people quoting them as an "expert" and pointing to their "evidence" as fact when they're wrong to start with.

Yeah when you have only one "1st world" country to your border, and that country is so intricately allied with you to the point of basing it's (miniscule) military purchases on what roles it would play within your naval fleets -- and your other neighbor to the south poses absolutely no military threat -- and then to your west and east there are immense bodies of water that no fighter craft can cross without the use of a carrier or mid-air refueling.... you can really begin to see why the US didn't have a whole lot of air defense in place. That's what the Pacific and Atlantic fleets are/were for. They would stop any attack before it even got out of international waters. I mean, who ever heard of a commercial airliner being used as a weapon? It never happened before, and it hasn't happened since.

You have voted CatHerder for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Originally posted by Souljah

Originally posted by HowardRoark NORAD’s focus was to defend the country against an attack from outside the continental U.S., not from within.

One of NORAD's jobs is to make civilan aircraft flighs safe and secure - and when it comes to any kind of hijack, NORAD has to respond quickly and efficently - if they dont, people die. NORAD is not just built to intercept Russian ICBM's.

Baloney and you know it! Here, directly from their website for gosh sake... "Deter, Detect, Defend." That is the motto of the men and women who serve in the North American Aerospace Defense Command. Since 1958, Canadians and Americans have been partners in protecting the airspace of Alaska, Canada and the contiguous 48 United States. The mission has evolved over the years. Until the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, NORAD's focus was almost exclusively fixed on threats coming toward the Canadian and American borders, not terrorism in our domestic airspace. Because of that day, NORAD's focus has increased to include domestic airspace. NORAD's mission is truly global. Prior to Sept. 11, NORAD was a word that was associated predominately with the Cold War. The eyes and ears of NORAD were focused on aerospace threats that may come from sources far away from the shores of Canada and the United States. Today, the highly skilled men and women of NORAD use ground-based radar, airborne radar, satellites, fighter aircraft, proven command structures and intelligence capabilities to enforce control of the skies over the United States and Canada. This website is dedicated to the men and women of the Armed Forces in Canada and the United States who have given their lives to maintain the freedom we enjoy in North America. In their names we will continue to "Deter, Detect and Defend."

BTW, Souljah, Were you able to follow my explanation on how the claim that Flight 77 penetrated “3 concrete block buildings” is totally B.S? Or do you still think that that is a valid claim?

Sorry Mate, I dont belive any of your "explanations". A passenger airplane could not penetrate three reinforced concrete steel blocks - not with his nose, not with his wheels, not with his engines, not with his wings, not with his structure, not with his blackboxes. I think Your theory and the official story is complete and utter BS! [edit on 13-6-2005 by HowardRoark]

3 blocks you say... Here we go again, another guy spouting falsehoods because that's what supports his idea of what happened. The bottom 2 floors of the outer 3 rings of the Pentagon are not 3 "separate buildings" with six sets of reinforced walls. They are, in fact, one common building with an outer wall (that's the one that's reinforced to withstand bomb blasts) and an inner one made of concrete lathe and 2 layers of brick. The plane went through one strong wall, and then smashed through interior gyprock and simple partitioning, bounced into and off of support pillars, until some of it (not much of it, just the nose gear and some bulkheads and of course some office materials) punched through the wall of the 3rd ring. The black boxes were recovered almost at the outer wall, perhaps a couple yards inside (makes sense, they are located in the tail of the aircraft and would have had the least amount of inertia by the time the tail section hit what was left of the impact zone). It was a firefighter, a local DC private citizen that located them; they were sitting amongst the wreckage of what was "part of the cabin floor and one of the pilots seats" (Brian Moravitz, Carlton Burkhammer). Perhaps one of the ATS reporters could contact either of these firefighters, they work at Fairfax County Fire and Rescue, Station 14, in Virginia, and get a nice little interview from them regarding their actions and what they saw on that day and the days following. Although I'm also quite sure this would do little to convince the conspiracy camp of anything other than "it must have been planted airplane parts!!" Then again, what is preventing YOU from contacting any of these people to ask them yourself? I mean even the cab driver who saw the plane and had his windshield smashed by the falling lamppost the plane sheered off has his telephone number clearly painted on his door... But wait, that wouldn't help your conspiracy theory. That's right, facts do not belong here, only theories and conjecture! [edit on 2-7-2005 by CatHerder]

I did this with the 767 at the WTC too, so here goes. The basic empty weight of a 757 is 127, 520 pounds. That's just the airplane and engines. I don't know how much fuel they were carrying, but it's capable of carrying 11, 489 gallons. With a full load of fuel it's capable of flying 3, 900 nautical miles. So figure it was probably carrying 9,000 gallons. Yes, that's an estimate as I've never heard what the fuel load was for that flight. But, we'll go with that figure. Now, the military version of Jet A-1, which is the fuel used by airlines in the US, is JP-8. The ONLY difference between Jet A-1 and JP-8 is that JP-8 has a deicing additive in it. JP-8 is approximately 6.8 pounds to the gallon. With 9, 000 gallons, you have 61, 200 pounds of fuel. So without adding passengers/crew/cargo, you have a weight of 188, 720 pounds. Now if I remember my physics properly, the smaller an area the higher the force. The nose of a 757 is about 8 feet across. The entire fuselage is only 13 feet around. Now, do you really think that ANY stucture would be able to withstand 188, 720+ pounds travelling at 514 mph. Even a blast reinforced concrete structure would withstand that for less than a second, before it just plowed right through it. The effect on the airplane would be devastating. You would have lots of tiny little pieces floating around.

The wings of an airplane are the "softest" part. The support for the wing is spread out, where the fuselage is a cylinder, which can withstand the impact better. The engines wouldn't have left a big hole, because when they hit the building, the wing would have collapsed, or just shattered. The wing of an airplane is hollow and not very reinforced, except at the wing root, where it attaches to the fuselage, and the engine mount where the engines attach. Their two purposes are lift, which they don't have to be strong for, lift is generated by the SHAPE of the wing, and to carry most of the fuel for the plane. They are basically hollow aluminum tubes that carry fuel. When they impact an object such as the ground for example they tend to blow apart. Have you ever seen a picture of a plane that nosedives into the ground? There is only an impact circle from the fuselage hitting. You hever see a cartoonlike impact of the outline of the entire plane. The ENGINES have a lot of energy, but the WINGS can't support that energy transfer. The weakest part of the plane is the wing. The fuselage has a lot of structural reinforcing so that it can carry passengers without the floor collapsing and cargo. Because of the shape of the fuselage, the engergy transfer is a lot more from the fuselage. Along the wings it's too spread out to leave a hole. There ARE pictures of some damage caused by the wings, but they didn't leave a hole like the fuselage did. The fuselage of a 757 is only like 13 feet across. How big a hole do you think it's going to leave? How did you arrive at 350mph? The black box recorded at 514mph, and other people have done the math from pictures and things and shown that the speed was right around 500mph as well. There was a picture that I saw that DID show some damage from the wing impact, just not the big hole that you seem to think it would make. The wing is the least structurally reinforced object on a plane, and would NOT withstand the impact of a solid reinforced concrete wall such as at the Pentagon. So you think that a solid concret wall could withstand that much impact force, even if it WAS 350mph? I've seen pics of a MUCH thicker concrete section hit by a smaller airplane at higher speed that had a huge chunk missing out of it. This was the stuff they were testing to make nuclear power plant walls out of.

I don't get it... Isn't everybody clear of that it was taken over and then "driven" to Pentagon...?

Can you imagine driving down the freeway, looking over and seeing the 757 driving next to you?